Hi all,

I’m seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I’m wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I’m pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn’t the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I’m happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

  • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then it’s not a non-capitalist economy.

    Capital can be privately owned including by individuals. For example, an individual could own a factory and rent it out to a worker coop.

    Your example is literally capitalism. You use your capital and extract surplus value from the worker coop in the form of “rent”.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The anti-capitalist tradition I am speaking from is descended from Proudhon and other classical laborists not Marx. I reject the labor theory of value.

      The difference from capitalism is that legal system recognizes the employer-employee contract as invalid, and thus all businesses are required to be worker coops. I am fine with calling it capitalism if necessary, but many defenders of capitalism would not consider it to be so

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Marginal productivity theory is a better analysis. I don’t approve of the ideological way economists present it though.

          There is a need for a labor theory to recognize flaws in capitalism, but the labor theory that is needed is one of property (LTP) not of value after all capitalism is a property system. LTV is insufficiently decisive in its critique. At best, it says that workers are underpaid. LTP, on the other hand, demonstrates that workers legally own 0% of what they produce