OwenEverbinde

Okay, I absolutely love this response. All the way down.

And no, you didn't need to read o_o's thread. My personal summary of it is that people who defined capitalism as, "anything that allows individuals control over the fruits of their labor" and people who defined capitalism as, "the alienation of workers from the fruits of their labor" were talking right past each other, not really understanding that the points they were making only supported their argument if you assumed their definitions were correct.

For reference, there’s an author named Charles Eisenstein who in his book “Sacred Economics” advocates for taking steps that he intends to move us (the world, I guess) eventually to a gift-based economy without money or barter. And he calls it capitalism. With a straight face. Now, I don’t know if deep down in his heart he believes it actually qualifies as capitalism or if he’s calling it capitalism because he feels like his aims are more likely to be well received by pro-capitalists if he calls it “capitalism.”

That is amusing. And yeah. That sounds very pragmatic. Or ignorant. Hard to tell which. But Eisenstein sounds like an interesting character. And like you said, if one needs to call their ideal system "capitalism" to get it implemented, then there's no real crime.

• the profit motive
• quid pro quo
• private property
• the institution of employment

Solid. I like these components.

As to your third question, let me take exception with the question itself. I don’t believe “control over what you produce” is necesssarily a good thing per se. I believe in having something roughly like ownership rights over what one uses. But if one produce a surplus, I don’t believe they should be able to deprive others in need of said surplus.

That fascinates me. I have always heard the struggle phrased essentially as, "you control your proceeds" vs "someone else controls your proceeds." I didn't realize people were advocating philosophies that bowed to the idea that "needs" should take priority over personal possessions. I'll have to think about that one for a while.

1. I… don’t know or care? “Capitalist” can mean someone who supports the institution of capitalism. Or it can mean something like an owner of a company that employs people. I think plenty of people participate in capitalism (by selling things they make, by accepting an employment position, etc) out of necessity while disapproving of the system as a whole. Hell, I’m one of them. I’m not sure I understand why you ask.

This answer is wonderful. Again, I like that you acknowledge that the definitions are so varied that they aren't even useful anymore.

The main reason I asked? It was a leading question: my goal was that people's answers would highlight the differences between their definitions. Because, if people could understand why their definitions were fundamentally different, maybe they could understand why they were talking past each other?

I'm not sure if the effort will succeed. But I really liked and appreciated this answer.

🤣 🤣

Look, I promise: I was just annoyed at people talking past each other on the question @[email protected] asked. And I just wanted to ask the question in a way that might address the problems that o_o's question ran into.

At what price -- to drill and construct an oil rig for example -- would you consider it so prohibitively expensive that "somewhere else" has a hard time existing?

A million dollars? Five million dollars?

Consider that the median bank balance in America is $5,300. That is to say, half of all Americans have less than $5,300 in the bank.

What startup cost makes it difficult for others to compete?

The problem is just that people with more capital can coerce and rig the system against people with less capital. Therefore someone who already has capital gets more capital increase from a task than someone with less capital would get for the same task in many situations.

First of all, I love this description of the problem. I agree that this is the problem with a lot of societies. Foster Farms can wield their enormous capital and connections to underpay chicken farmers (and frankly, underpay them to a point where it might as well be considered theft). And that wielding of wealth is a huge problem.

But would you be open to the idea that -- to anti-capitalists, such as myself -- the moment your store of wealth is used to coerce people with less wealth and earn more from that coerced person's production of goods than the coerced person earns for themselves, that is the moment a system becomes capitalism? Whereas, before that point, it is simply a "market economy."

Would you be willing to entertain such a definition?

Sure. To me, ~~capitalism is any system that supports ownership of any property -- oil rigs, land, factories, assembly lines, burger machines, copyrights and patents, mines, farms, etc -- that is used to collect the products of another person's labor. (For example, when the oil rig worker is payed a wage, but the oil rig owner owns the oil that was pumped, that's capitalism.)~~

EDIT: Wolfhound pointed out that my definition ought to specify who is allowed to to control this property. And that's true.

Capitalism is any system that permits all people (or non-person entities) with sufficient wealth to own property -- oil rigs, land, factories, assembly lines, burger machines, copyrights and patents, mines, farms, etc -- that is used to collect the products of another person's labor. (For example, when the oil rig worker is payed a wage, but the oil rig owner or oil rig corporation owns the oil that was pumped, that's capitalism.)

The property used in the above manner is called capital, or private property. The person using it is called a capitalist.

As for whether it is conducive to workers controlling what they produce, my answer is that -- by definition -- capitalism allows someone else to control what workers produce. It does not guarantee a worker any power over what they produce, and in the majority of cases (where a worker must pay rent, health insurance, food, etc and cannot afford to start their own business or buy their own equipment) it actually pressures workers into situations where they do not control what they produce.

You probably won't see this, but I hope you will amend your definition of capitalism:

Capitalism is defined as a set of rules/regulations that allows people to own ~~the~~ capital ~~that they produce.~~

You know this, right? We all know a trust fund baby is perfectly capable of using the wealth they were born into to buy a factory, mine, apartment complex, or shares in all of the above. (Hence profiting off of value they did NOT produce.) We all know capitalism does not distinguish in any way whatsoever between this form of capital ownership and the self-made variety.

"Capital they produce" and "capital they acquire / inherit / use stolen money to purchase" can both be wielded the exact same way. That's the point of capitalism.

And this is only half of why, "that they produce" doesn't work in this definition. The other half is that it contradicts the definition of "capital."

Capital is literally "any form of property that can be used to collect the value of other people's labor." That is the opposite of "ownership over the things you produce."

The exact opposite.

To "own the capital you produce" one must personally build the means of production. Otherwise, the owner is owning the capital someone else produced.

And you'll find the vast, vast, vast majority of almost every form of capital (patents, copyrights, factories, burger machines, server computers, office buildings, mines, mine equipment, oil rigs, oil tankers, power plants, land, the list goes on) does not belong to the people who turned the screws, drew up the plans, welded the seams, mined the materials, performed the research, wrote the movie script, poured the cement, or otherwise PRODUCED the capital.

It belongs instead to the people who funded it. The people who, under capitalism, own it.

Anti-capitalists are not against people owning what they produce. In fact, in America, there is a distinctly anti-capitalist business model that thrives in numerous cities called a "cooperative" (co-op for short) that is owned by either (a) customers, or (b) workers. And a worker co-op is literally workers "owning what they produce", but is considered market socialism by anyone who cares about using words correctly.

I would love if co-ops replaced corporations. Any anti-capitalist would. Even Maoists would tell you, "a society full of co-ops would be wonderful. The only reason I don't find that sufficient is because capitalists would use violence to crush co-ops just as they have used violence to crush governments that didn't favor US corporations."

All anti-capitalists want people to be able to own what they produce. The system that robs people of their control over what they produce is exactly what anti-capitalists have been struggling to overthrow.

(Aside: many anti-capitalists support a "corporate death sentence" where any company that commits a crime causing more damage than it can afford to repair can have its assets seized and turned into a cooperative and given to its workers. This allows a company deemed "too big to fail, because too many workers would lose their jobs" to be kept running and keep its workers employed while also punishing the people whose decisions caused the damage. The investors would lose their shares, and the CEO elected by the investors would lose their job and their shares. Everyone else would be fine.)

Main point: I think before asking,

why do so many people dislike capitalism?

You need to first ask,

how do people define capitalism, and is it possible for the thing I like (people owning what they produce) to be protected in an anti-capitalist organization or system?

Well, anyone right of Richard Spencer these days is typically called, "Communist", "liberal", "globalist", "leftist", "BLM terrorist", "Antifa", and "far left extremist" interchangeably by the side that's been working very hard to make sure words don't mean anything anymore.

But to leftists, the distinction is still important: leftists believe in Marx's idea of a class struggle. Most other Democrats, on the other hand, don't even know what that is.

The class struggle goes like this: what's good for the miner will never be good for the mine owner. What's good for the line cook will never be good for the restaurant owner. What's good for the actor will never be good for the studio executive. And so on and so forth.

The reason these two sides are inherently at odds is because every penny paid to workers is a penny NOT made in profit. And likewise every penny made in profit is a penny NOT paid to workers. If workers score by stealing points from bosses, and bosses score by stealing points from workers, then workers and bosses are on different teams.

Bernie makes allusions to this notion constantly by heavily using the phrase "working class". Plus his proposals are pretty anti-capitalist (cancelling student loan debt, Medicare for all). So leftists flocked to his banner, elated.

What do you think of the IBEW praising Biden in the wake of their June 2023 victories surrounding sick leave?

“Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”

Do you think Russo (the IBEW's railroad director) was being dishonest with this quote? Do you think he was playing politics and that Biden was no help at all?

All you have to do is convince them the old town leaders are communists.

Well, if long COVID eventually manages to drag Senator Inhofe into hell, you can be assured he'll bring a snowball with him.

That's a good point. They think all people are bad people on leashes.

Though, while it may not refute their beliefs, it certainly makes an argument in favor of not allowing them to enact legislation.

Exactly. Every ocean is just a cloud being held down by gravity.

In these metaphors though, gravity (or the leash Kanda mentioned) would need to be: philosophy, trial and error, oxytocin, endorphins, historical knowledge, the ability to accrue knowledge in the first place, empathy, self interest, reproductive drive, natural selection, and more.

Remove all of the forces that make humans kind to each other... and you wouldn't have humans anymore. Just like removing gravity would eliminate both oceans AND clouds.