• @Hanabie
    link
    English
    310 months ago

    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.

    • @Croquette
      link
      English
      1410 months ago

      Capitalism isn’t trading good for/with currency though. Socialist and Communist societies would still use currency as it is a lot easier than bartering everything. And in Socialists society, you can still have lending and investments.

      Capitalism is the means of production and trade owned by private entities (be it a person or a corporation) to make profits.

      You are right though, inevitably, capitalism leads to consolidation and monopolies which we see today.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        This “barter” economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It’s a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.

        In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.

        The proper term you are looking for is “gift economy” and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.

        It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          310 months ago

          TIL that during the 16th to 19th centuries the aristocrats benefited from a “gift economy” because no one who ever says this knows what Mercantilism was.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            110 months ago

            Where did I mention the 16th or 19th centuries? And mercantilism was 100% not a barter economy. It was a form of market economy controlled by the state… so I’m pretty sure it’s you who misunderstands what mercantilism is.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              010 months ago

              Mercantilism was purely extractive, and thus completely immoral, I agree. However, trade does predate capitalism because capitalism was not a nominal economic system at the time and mercantilist countries traded with one another.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                010 months ago

                Trade is not barter. And if it involved coinage or it isn’t barter. It’s a form of market economy.

                Market Economy ≠ Barter

        • @Croquette
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are only how the means of production/trade is owned. Wage labor can still exist.

          In capitalism, the means of production and trade are owned by private entities. Worker trade their labour for a set wage. All the profit goes to the owner/shareholder.

          In socialism, the worker owns the means of production and trade. If a coop is more profitable than the next one, the worker of the first coop get more money. The profits are distributed amongst the workers that produced the goods. The workers own the coop/company.

          In communism, the state owns the mean of production. The profits of the coop/company goes back to the state and are then redistributed in the society.

          Socialism can still have investment, but the returns necessarily be money. A certain good is needed. The worker pool their money to build a factory and make a successful product. The workers then get a return on their investment (they make more money than they initially had).

            • @Croquette
              link
              English
              110 months ago

              What are you babling on about? Production can be an artisan making one spoon a year or a factory making a million pcb a month.

              In the end, the way that output is managed defines the economic system.

      • @Hanabie
        link
        English
        -510 months ago

        Trading with currency is the basis for capitalism. Capitalism is lending/investing. When you don’t have any actual wares at hand, but currency, virtual value, you trade for higher future virtual value.

        • @Croquette
          link
          English
          410 months ago

          You could barter cows and still be in a capitalistic society. It just wouldn’t be

          Currency is just a way to simplify a transaction. I have a cow thatis valued at 100$. I get 100$ that I then spend on whatever. I don’t need to trade a cow for a 100 eggs, then keep 10 eggs and trade for butters.

          Lending isn’t inherently capitalistic. I can lend a 100$ to my friend to start a business and he gives me back a 100$ after a time, no interest.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -110 months ago

            Communism is when the government steals your cows and gives you back the milk as rations.

            Capitalism is when you have somebody milk the cow for you and then you sell the milk and get rich and everyone calls you Mr Milkman the Millionaire.

            As you can see capitalism is a much preferable system.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          Colonial America enters the chat

          let me bootstrap our national bank by using slaves a collateral.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      7 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      I don’t think you understand how concentrated power causes society to serve the few over the many.

      As long as the disparity in wealth (power) grows, more people are incentivized to serve fewer. It’s why we see the government controlled by the wealthy. It will always be this way (and get worse) so long as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.

      This is by design.