People frequently conflate capitalism with enterprise, not seeing the distinctions.
Comment on Why do companies always need to grow?
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks agoA farmer selling their produce is not necessarily a capitalist. A farmer toiling on their own field sells the fruit of their own labor, so to speak. One step up are what Marx calls “Little Masters”: They own and work their means of production, but sometimes have employees such as farmhands or apprentices (Think companies where the owner still works in the workshop). Actual capitalists are detached from the production process: They no longer work, but simply own the so-called means of production and exploit others by buying their labor force for less than their produced result is worth.
porksnort@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
porcoesphino@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.
A capitalist sounds like a label you’re trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it’s important to include that concept.
By my reading you’re taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
All companies work that way, or they risk to fail. The maximization of profit stems from the need to stay competitive. If your competitor can produce the same amount of goods for a lower price, you won’t be able to sell yours for a cost-covering price and therefore go bankrupt. Instead, you then have to find a way to be more efficient by investing in your business. To be able to invest, you have to have created profit. Once you have done that, your competitor has to do the same and the cycle starts anew. That’s the idea of modern capitalism.
By my reading you’re taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.
I am not sure what you mean by that. I tried to show that just because someone sells something, they are not necessarily a capitalist.
porcoesphino@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
The question says capitalism (not so loaded term) your answer said capitalist (more loaded term and you’ve taken time to use the loaded part of the term).
That said, I accidentally replied to a question in lemmy.ml so the person asking the question is probably more aligned with your way of thinking and explaining than I am. Sorry about that
einkorn@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Well, to me that sounds a little like you prefer the term swimming over being called a swimmer.
hansolo@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
If you want to nitpick, I never said farmer. Also, farmers have inputs, so your comparison is wholly removed from reality.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
What does a farmer having inputs have to do with my argument being removed from reality?
hansolo@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
- Because you’re leaning on Marx for definitions, who was famously out of touch with reality as well, 2) because ALL small business owners need inputs, and labor of only one of them, so inventing the vendor as now a farmer to attempt a workaround is disingenuous, 3) you also had made the tomato vendor into a farmer in hopes of having a point that fits into a poorly crafted 19th century framework, and don’t know enough about how farms anywhere on earth to realize how blatantly wrong you are, 4) your definition of capitalist is factually incorrect, 5) read my edited comment above, which I edited while you wrote this, 6) a farmer is no different, functionally in a minimalist sense, from a person making jam as a cottage industry, who buys fruit and processes it at home, making a farmer’s field not magic but simply a location where work is done, 7) I said tomato seller, which is someone that spends their labor time buying tomatoes from farms as a risk and selling them in the market. They own means of logistics, which for anyone not stuck in 1862, would consider essentially a means of production as well, as it takes an input and renders is viable to trade for a medium of exchange. Does a fisherman owning a boat mean she owns the means of production when it’s fish spawning grounds that make fish? It’s a stupid argument to cling to one you’ve already written your first PoliSci paper about it and get it.
Look, everything is connected, and there is no terminal point of anything from which anarcho-socialist magic can magically arise and flow down to make some post-consumption utopia. It’s a circle with no beginning and no end. You can’t force economic change to change human behavior, and Marx’s ideas have famously failed hard. Over and over. Spectacularly.
You’re taking about a 30 generation cultural change that you won’t ever see.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
It would certainly help a lot if you could tone down your condescending attitude a little.
I fail to see where anything you write is an actual argument against my distinction between different forms of working with the means to produce something. Yes, I’ve misread your vendor as a farmer, but that’s not a reason to go ad hominem.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Bro what?
1) Because you’re leaning on Marx for definitions, who was famously out of touch with reality as well,
Are we just supposed to believe what you’re saying? Because I have easy counter-argument. You’re out of touch with what Marx wrote and if say-so if enough proof then this statement is proven and you’re wrong. Now, unless you can actually prove this statement we can argue this point.
2) because ALL small business owners need inputs, and labor is only one of them, so inventing the vendor as now a farmer to attempt a workaround is disingenuous,
This literally does not change the original argument. Do you think farmers do not need an input? What disqualifies a farmer from being a small business owner?
3) you also had made the tomato vendor into a farmer in hopes of having a point that fits into a poorly crafted 19th century framework, and don’t know enough about how farms anywhere on earth to realize how blatantly wrong you are,
Do you think they didn’t have food vendors in the 19th century? Do you think a tomato vendor is a 20th or 21st century concept that invalidates this supposed 19th century argument?
4) your definition of capitalist is factually incorrect,
I guess this is another “we just have to believe you” points. Just because you don’t understand Marx’s definition of capitalism doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
5) read my edited comment above, which I edited while you wrote this,
Why is this even a point?
6) a farmer is no different, functionally in a minimalist sense, from a person making jam as a cottage industry, who buys fruit and processes it at home, making a farmer’s field not magic but simply a location where work is done,
I’m not 100% sure what you’re even trying to say here but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, Marx would agree with you here.
7) I said tomato seller, which is someone that spends their labor time buying tomatoes from farms as a risk and selling them in the market. They own means of logistics, which for anyone not stuck in 1862, would consider essentially a means of production as well, as it takes an input and renders is viable to trade for a medium of exchange. Does a fisherman owning a boat mean she owns the means of production when it’s fish spawning grounds that make fish? It’s a stupid argument to cling to one you’ve already written your first PoliSci paper about it and get it.
I guess you also don’t believe logistics existed before 1863. Also your logistics argument doesn’t contradict Marx. And a fisherman owning a fishing boat would mean they own the means of production because the boat is A TOOL to catch fish. The fish don’t magically jump into the fishermans hands. They need to be caught, which requires labor and to ease that labor tools are used. Fish existing doesn’t make a fisherman a fisherman, otherwise I’d be a lumberjack simply because there’s a forest near my home.
I suggest you actually try to understand Marx before you start mindlessly criticizing something.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
If we are going by the original definition of the word, it is. The farmer here is growing produce to sell it in exchange for money; they are not sharing it with their community, bartering with it, growing it to eat themselves, or giving it to their liege lord.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I’m not sure why people always insist if money is involved that it’s capitalism. Money is an abstract form of trade. No one is suggesting that trade will cease to exists in a world without capitalism.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
It’s not about money, it’s about private ownership of capital. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Well, if you assume the farmer excludes others from using the means of production i.e. the fields, then yes you can argue that they are acting as capitalist. But you have to make the distinction between private and personal ownership: Private ownership of the land and personal ownership of the produce. The former is what communists reject. The latter is fine in their books.