this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
127 points (91.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43898 readers
1315 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
127
What is the definition of capitalism? Is it compatible with people owning the things they produce? (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

@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?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TootSweet@latte.isnot.coffee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So, first off, let me say that if it'll help us move toward something better than we have now, even if in my head I call it anarcho-communism, I'll happily call it "capitalism."

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."

One can IMO go too far with that. Case in point: ecofascism. But I digress.

On to the definition of capitalism. At least in my head, capitalism is characterized by:

  • The profit motive. The incentive to amass. (Typically money, but a barter-based system could well be the same in every way that matters.)
  • Quid pro quo. The whole system is based on it.
  • Private property. A particular set of rules for who has ownership rights over what.
  • The institution of employment.

My answer didn't include the word "capital", so I'll skip that second question.

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.

I think capitalism coerces people into producing surplus for others to sell for a profit that the producer (employee) doesn't get a fair share in if that goes more to the spirit of your question.

Bonus questions:

  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.
  2. If I'm the person who sells things I make? Again, anticapitalists participate in capitalism because capitalism doesn't give them a choice. Does that answer your question?
  3. The word "sell" here has some baggage I don't like. I'm not for a system in which anybody "sells" anything. But to answer how one might expand an operation that produces things, worker cooperatives are probably the most obvious answer.
  4. Anyway, worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers. Corporations are owned by shareholders and run by boards of directors. Worker cooperatives don't have incentives and power to fuck their workers over. They do have incentive and power to take care of their workers.

Maybe I should have read the first thread you referenced before answering these. Maybe it would have given more context. But hopefully this response gives you what you were looking for.

[–] OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] TootSweet@latte.isnot.coffee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn't realize people were advocating philosophies that bowed to the idea that "needs" should take priority over personal possessions.

Yeah, I tend to work Maslow's work into my take on political systems. Maybe I should call myself an anarcho-Maslowist or something. Heh.

I do really think that society is best that best fulfills people's needs. And by "needs," I mean something very like the way Maslow used the term. I'm not sure what higher purpose one could give for a society than the fulfillment of needs, really.

(Mind you, I do know that there have been other psychologists who have built on Maslow's work as well as some with different models of needs. I don't necessarily mean to exclude those other definitions of needs. I don't think it would serve us well to be dogmatic about one person's take. But even if Maslow can be improved on, I do think the broad strokes of his take are on to something.)

To be fair, just about any purpose a society might have can be shoehorned into the language of "needs" and that paradigm may be better for some things than others.

Also, of course, more basic needs are more important. If you're trying to improve things and you have one option that will address society's unfulfilled need for basic sustinence and another option that will improve society's access to aesthetic fulfillment, let's fill people's bellies first and put up murals later.

Now, I do largely believe in "usership," but the idea can definitely go too far. If in the revolution, Ted takes possession of a mansion and uses it daily for a private indoor jogging track, that's fine with me so long as others are not deprived of some sufficiently basic need. Under a strict usership system, one could say that Ted uses all of that mansion daily and that there is no "surplus" of space there. And, again if others are not deprived, I have no issue with it. But if homelessness exists in that area, Ted's claim to that mansion for his comparatively frivolous use of the structure is superceded by other people's right to not have to live in a tent under a bridge.

But this is all mostly my own take. I don't think I've seen anyone else take quite the same stance on things. But then, I haven't really read that much anarchist theory either. Just Conquest of Bread and /r/Anarchism, pretty much. (Oh, and some random guy on a first person shooter I used to play a lot that was my introduction to anarchism.)

Edit: Oh! Also, there is the whole "to each according to need" thing. Maybe Marx would've been a fan of Maslow's ideas. Who knows.