@[email protected] 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?
  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know I am doing your homework here

    The reason I am posting this anyway is that I hope you’ll learn something from it. Please read it and try to understand it.

    The first thing to say here is that capitalism/communism is not a binary thing at all, even though many people (especially from the US) seem to believe.

    Instead, there is a whole spectrum between pure capitalism and pure communism. In fact, there has never been any large-scale real-world implementation of either pure capitalism or pure communism.

    But let’s start with definitions.

    Pure capitalism

    In a pure capitalistic system, the state basically doesn’t exist. This is often called anarchocapitalism, because for pure capitalism to exist, you also need an absence of government => anarchism.

    In such a system there is no regulation, no taxes, none of the basic services are provided by a government. Instead, money is king. In pure capitalism money doesn’t equal power, it is the only power. There is only a completely free market as the only mechanism that is supposed to balance anything out.

    Pure communism

    In a pure communist system, there is no private sector and even no private property. The whole power lies solely with the state, money has no meaning. For the state to be able to really govern everything that a capitalist system does with money, it pretty much needs full control over everything.

    Why can pure capitalism not work?

    In a pure capitalist system, if you have more money, you have more power, which makes it easier to gain more money, and with more money comes more power and so on. Without any regulation the free market is unstable and tends towards monopolies. Basically, once you gain an advantage over your competitors, you can use your money to suppress or buy out your competitors until there are none left. If anyone tries to enter your market segment, you just buy them out or e.g. buy their suppliers. (Google Standard Oil for a good example.)

    So for the free market to work, you need to have regulation.

    The other side here is that in a completely free market, employers have ample options to exploit their employees. Until they band together, strike/revolt/start a revolution, and make sure that the free market isn’t as free any more, meaning that they get treated fairly and get a bigger share.

    Why does pure communism not work?

    Well, even the Sowjet Union wasn’t a pure communistic system. There is some level of personal property that people need to have as an incentive to work. If it doesn’t matter what you do at work and you always get the same reward, no matter whether you even show up for work, then your system will also fall apart.

    What exists between capitalism and communism?

    There’s a massive spectrum in between. There are countries that are quite capitalist, like the US. Here you have a mostly capitalist system, but basic services are still provided by the state.

    There is social market economy, like many European countries are using. Here you have state-owned companies in all important sectors, that have to compete with private companies. More than just the basic needs are covered by the state.

    And then you have something like the UDSSR, which is mostly communist, but you are still allowed to have some private property.

    Back to your questions: Since your answer above likely included the word “capital”, what is capital?

    Capital is any kind of property belonging to persons, that can be used to influence the behaviour of others by trading. Money, companies, stocks, real estate, basically anything that can be sold. Depending on the specific system, even humans.

    How does capitalism empower people to own what they produce? Or, how does capitalism strip people of their control over what they produce?

    The question really misses the point. If you have the capital, it the product will belong to you. If you don’t, it won’t.

    Say you are an individual who sells something you create. Are you a capitalist?

    Again, misses the point. If you are a slave who produces something and then has the task to sell it for your master, you definitely aren’t a capitalist.

    If you are the master, who doesn’t produce and doesn’t sell, but earn from the work of others, then you are a capitalist.

    If you are the above person, can you exist in both capitalist society and one in which private property has been abolished?

    False dichotomy. Neither a pure capitalst nor a pure communist society exists.

    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)?

    Again, false dichotomy. Cooperation also exists in a communist-oriented (or even a theoretical pure communist) system.

    And actually, even in a capitalist-oriented system you don’t have to use any of these methods. You can just cooperate with others on a same level. E.g. I build X to sell. I could ask someone to join and that person could run their own business side-by-side doing the same thing. We wouldn’t need to have a business partnership at all. Both independently build and sell. Of course, that would mean that I’d have no control over the other guy and I don’t earn money from their work. But there’s no law telling me I have to.

    Is the distinction between a worker cooperative and a more traditional business important? Why is the distinction important?

    Yes, google it yourself.___

    • arvere@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think your misundertand the concept of private property and communism. Which could be skewing your opinion on the matter

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In pure communism, there is no private or personal property.

        But there has never been any purely communist society of significant size or duration, specifically for this issue. There have been a few short-lived small-scale experiments, like e.g. the “United Order” the Church of Jesus Christ tried to implement in the 1830s among it’s members, but even with this being a voluntary thing among a religiously motivated group it didn’t even last a year.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have to agree with @[email protected], you aren’t working with an accurate definition of communism. You said pure communism revolves around the state which is explicitly false. Pure communism is, by definition, moneyless, classless, and stateless. Historically, there have been state-socialists who believe that sort of system can provide a viable alternative to grassroots revolution in transitioning from a capitalist to a communist society. However, pure communism is anarchic, there is no state. Cooperation is spontaneous.

          Additionally, it does not preclude personal property: items an individual keeps for personal use, e.g. your house, your car, your TV. What it does preclude is private property: items an individual keeps to charge others for their use, e.g. a rental property, a taxi, a movie theater.

          Respectfully, you might want to brush up on your communist theory.

          • Square Singer@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I might have simplified, but the points remain exactly the same.

            If the system (Question, who is the system?) precludes (Question, who precludes?) from renting property (Question, who determines what what renting is?), there needs to be a system in place that needs to enforce all that.

            Otherwise you aren’t talking about communism, you are talking about anarchism. Anarchism has no inherent link to communism, so if communism is supposed to exist at all, it needs a government. There is no way around it.

            If we go by your distinction between personal and private property, what is to stop anyone from renting out their personal property? If I have the coolest movie projector in the community, what is stopping me from charging for access in an anarchist society? If I have more, I can make more and then I’m a capitalist again.

            But explaining one impossible construct (pure communism) with another impossible construct (anarchism) doesn’t make the first one more probable.

            Anarchism is inherently a non-stable system. You have natural power imbalances and anarchism has no mechanisms to balance them out. An anarchist society where no democratic processes are used leads directly to mafia-like organisations taking control.

            Anarchism is based on the idea that a power vacuum is sustainable.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Anarchism has no inherent link to communism

              Where did you get that idea? Anarchism is explicitly a left-wing political ideology that emerged from general socialist thought. The two are intimately linked in their development, and heavily influenced one another with the “purest” form of either by their own principles independently culminating in anarcho-communism. You can debate the viability of this system all you like, but the definition of the term is what it is.

              It is defined as implicitly free of hierarchies, including the state. If you want to talk about a system with a state, you’re no longer taking about communism. We can talk about pragmatic incarnations of socialist policy, we can talk about the conditions necessary to foster a communist society, we can talk about the consequences of either. But if the subject is the definition of communism, none of that is relevant.

              If we go by your distinction between personal and private property, what is to stop anyone from renting out their personal property?

              A lack of money for one. The existence of other cool projectors, if you didn’t build the cool projector by yourself, that can be communally held. If you built it yourself, and decide to hoarde it yourself, presumably other members of the community would hesitate to share their cool stuff with you. Patents and IP are private property, so anyone with skill in projector-making can try to copy it.

              If you recognize the benefit of sharing your cool stuff in exchange for others sharing their cool stuff with you, everyone gets to use lots of cool stuff. If you hoarde the cool stuff you personally invented, no one will let you use the cool stuff they personally invented, and you’ll only get to use the cool things you personally invented.

                • arvere@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I believe they might have the etymology in common - probably because the word anarchism became sort of a synonym for any type of “chaos”, but anarchism as a political movement is widely known as an extreme left-winged ideology! Which is explicitly against all forms of institution, specially corporations

                  • Square Singer@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Anarchocapitalism is the direct result of anarchism if you put any little bit of realistic thought into that matter.

                    You always have an imbalance of power between people. There’s always someone who is stronger, more intelligent, more charismatic and/or who has more stuff. Because people aren’t exact replicas of each other.

                    Communist anarchism thinks that everyone is going to play nice, and even those with more power will just yield that and be nice.

                    Anarchocapitalism is the more realistic view on the same situation: Whoever has a bit more power will use that power to gain an advantage. That advantage will increase that person’s power and that person will come to dominate the society, and will eventually take the role of the government.

                    This situation is essentially the mafia in any society where the government leaves enough of a power vacuum that somebody else can snatch some power.

                    I recommend reading up on real-world anarchism experiments, e.g. Kowloon Walled City, which directly turned into an anarchocapitalist nightmare town, or Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, Denmark, which basically reinvented democracy but still calls it Anarchism.

                    Christiania is actually a really fun story. It starts with the government giving up on some military barracks. Squatters moved in to form an anarchist society. So they get together, everyone starts making their home there. But then there are things that need to be organized together, so they make up small councils that they call Områdemøde. These councils discuss local issues and decide who to send to the higher level council, the Fællesmøde, which decides stuff for all of Christiania. It’s of course not democracy here, and the people who are sent to the Fællesmøde to represent the different Områdemøde, they are of course not elected politicians.

                    Residents have to pay money that goes into a pot to finance upkeep of community resources and areas. These payments are mandatory, but of course they are not taxes.

                    When 10 residents died in 1979 from overdoses, the Fællesmøde started to decide hard rules for the community. One such rule was that hard drugs were not allowed to be sold, owned or consumed in Christiania. Of course, these rules weren’t laws, just mandatory rules. To enforce these rules, some strong men were enlisted to patrol Christiania, and remove offenders from the commune. They’d call Copenhagen’s police to the entrance of Christiania and hand those offenders over to be dealt with by the official police. Of course, these strong men weren’t Christiania’s police.

                    In the 80s, the Bullshit Motorcycle Club basically invaded Christiania and made a center of their drug operation. Residents of Christiania, the police and the Hells Angels united to get rid of the Bulllshitters and since then biker jackets are banned in Christiania. Again, not to be confused with a law, this is just a mandatory rule.

                    TLDR:

                    This anarchist community is a straight-up democracy with councils, representative democracy, laws, taxes and an informal police force.

                    Anarchism, by definition, cannot exist. It either turns into democracy if people work together, or into a dictatorship if someone manages to play the masses.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve also heard of vegan milk.

                  As others have pointed out, it’s an oxymoronic misnomer used by right-wing “libertarian” neo-feudalists. The hierarchy inherent to capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with anarchism.

                  • Square Singer@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Same as anarchism is inherently incompatible with humans.

                    Over the last few thousand years there hasn’t been a single documented case where an anarchist society stayed anarchist if more than a handful of people participated for more than a handful of weeks.

                    And yes, extremists on all sides of the spectrum dream of a world where no government tells them what to do. That’s not unique to communists.

                    But regardless, it’s a fever dream, and discussing it as if it was a real thing is a lot like saying that midi-clorians are fundamentally incompatible with Jedis and lightsabers.