@o_o@programming.dev asked “why are folks so anti-capitalist?” not long ago. It got quite a few comments. But I noticed a trend: a lot of people there didn’t agree on the definition of “capitalism”.

And the lack of common definition was hobbling the entire discussion. So I wanted to ask a precursor question. One that needs to be asked before anybody can even start talking about whether capitalism is helpful or good or necessary.

Main Question

  • What is capitalism?
  • Since your answer above likely included the word “capital”, what is capital?
  • And either,
    • A) How does capitalism empower people to own what they produce? or, (if you believe the opposite,)
    • B) How does capitalism strip people of their control over what they produce?

Bonus Questions (mix and match or take them all or ignore them altogether)

  1. Say you are an individual who sells something you create. Are you a capitalist?
  2. If you are the above person, can you exist in both capitalist society and one in which private property has been abolished?
  3. Say you create and sell some product regularly (as above), but have more orders than you can fulfill alone. Is there any way to expand your operation and meet demand without using capitalist methods (such as hiring wage workers or selling your recipes / process to local franchisees for a cut of their proceeds, etc)?
  4. Is the distinction between a worker cooperative and a more traditional business important? Why is the distinction important?
  • w2qw@aussie.zoneEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    I made sure to say more difficult not just difficult. Building an oil rig is inherently difficult because you need many different types of labor with many different skill sets. As a practical matter it’s often easy for one organization to pay for this labor upfront but theoretically they could cooperate to build an oil rig and share in the returns.

    If you were going to mention the rights to extract oil then that’s a whole other probldm.

    • OwenEverbinde@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Let’s say:

      • my bank account reads, “100 thousand”
      • it costs me $5 million to build an oil rig
      • your bank account reads, “$12 million”
      • it costs you to $10 million to build an oil rig
        • and there’s a reason: through corruption, backroom deals, and frivolous regulations, I have managed to raise your cost, but not mine

      You can still build one. I still can’t – in any reasonable way – poach whichever oil rig workers you choose to underpay. And this is true despite the fact that it’s technically easier for me to build an oil rig. The only advantage you need to be above consequences for inefficient practices… is for your opponents to be too poor to afford startup costs.

      No uneven playing field is necessary.

      theoretically they could cooperate to build an oil rig and share in the returns.

      United States tax dollars, in the form of DARPA grants, paid for the development of the internet. So there is precedent for extremely expensive operations to be successfully carried out under democratic control.

      Also, since oil deposits are a natural resource, one could argue government ought to be involved in their collection.