this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2216 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Capitalism naturally ends up in this position. That's why it's so hard to "fix" -- to those at the top, nothing is wrong.

[–] Qualanqui@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, capitalism is economic perpetual motion, you can't have exponential growth in a finite system.

I might be wrong, but I think you mean infinite growth in a finite system.

You can have exponential growth in a finite system can't you? As exponential is just that it gets faster and faster compared to linearly increasing variables.

I guess at some point growth has to stop being exponential in a finite system, but the same can be argued for linear growth I think.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not regulated properly, that's the problem

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But those regulations are constantly labeled as "anticapitalist" -- because they are.

Why is it so wrong to poke at the inner workings of capitalism? Why must it be infallible?

[–] Robaque@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Regulation and reform isn't anti-capitalist though.

"Real" anti-capitalism lies in the realisation that this system cannot be reformed, the status quo must be dismantled if we ever want to move past it and truly work towards values of freedom and equality.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment. What's going on though, with unchecked companies and laughable fines, ruins the whole thing. In its current state, capitalism will be our undoing, but with proper laws, regulations and oversight, it could work.

The problem is, corps have grown too powerful already and can blackmail governments. It's like other models that could work in theory, but never benefit the people in the end. Communism tends to lead to tyranny, for example.

People are just really shit at designing and running big societies.

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment.

That's commerce. Commerce predates capitalism, by a lot.

Capitalism also involves other things that go beyond basic commerce, such as systems of property law to incorporate quasi-sovereignty to capital ownership. That's more or less where we get the default model of businesses as de facto dictatorships ruled by the owner, vs. being democracies organized by stakeholders or participants. It's a big, deep subject that's unfortunately talked about in reductionist terms a lot. It's probably not helpful that a lot of early (and recent) scholarship on capitalism seems to frame itself as revelation of the nature of capital and markets, as if capital and markets are natural forces and not man-made things.

This last bit- treating capital and economics as if they were laws of nature (instead of being contrived by men)- does a lot of work to obfuscate fundamental systems of power, which in turn helps keep that power unaccountable. One major source of tension between capitalism and socialism has to do with whether the sovereignty of ownership ought to be democratized or subject to democratic accountabilities.

Some examples of being subject to democratic authority is basic labor protections, the 40 hour work week, safety regulations- if the voters impose on employers the requirement that employers provide a safe working environment, it's a counterweight to the general notion that owning the business makes one king of everything in that sphere- that is, it subordinates capital to the authority of the polity in which it operates.