1175
Shocking (slrpnk.net)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Capitalism != free market.

Under a free market, a painter buys paint, an easel and some canvas at prices set by supply and demand, and then paints and sells portraits again at a price set by supply and demand.

Under capitalism, an artist wants to start a painting business, so he goes to a rich person or group of rich people and says "If you give me some money to start my painting business, I will give you a share in ownership of the business and its profits." with this so-called capital, the artist rents or buys a building and supplies and operates the business to effectively pay back that loan. The working class make a living and the rich get richer for having been rich.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Under a free market, a painter buys paint, an easel and some canvas at prices set by supply and demand, and then paints and sells portraits again at a price set by supply and demand.

    That's capitalism, my dude:

    • Private ownership of the means of production: the worker owns the paint, easel and canvas
    • Used for obtaining a profit: the worker uses the capital to transform inputs (the blank canvas) to outputs (painted canvas) which they sell at a markup to generate profit.

    What you're describing as capitalism is also capitalism, but it adds unnecessary steps. Capitalism isn't about selling shares in companies, although that can happen under capitalism (it also happens under mercantilism). It's not about loans (but of course they can happen under capitalism, just like under any other economic system).

    Your misunderstanding of capitalism is why people hate capitalism. They think it's about the rich getting richer. But capitalism is merely about private ownership of the means of production, and selling the results using that capital for a profit. That's it.

    In the middle ages you could buy art supplies and do art, but if you wanted to sell your art, you needed to be in the right guild. For example, if you lived in London you couldn't sell playing cards unless you were a member of the Worshipful Company of Makers of Playing Cards. And, whether or not you made a profit wasn't a matter for the free market, rates were determined by the guild. The guild determined who could own the means of production for the arts they controlled, and the guild determined prices.

    Similarly, under communism, there was no private ownership of the means of production, so there was no selling things for profit after making them. Everything belonged to the state. Until the 1960s in the USSR there was an exception for small production cooperatives owned by groups of artists. But, those were liquidated and transferred to the state because they really weren't in line with communism.

    If you want to be able to sell things on the free market, and to buy and own the tools you use to make those things, then you want capitalism. If you don't want wealth concentration, then you still want capitalism, you just want it to be regulated in the way that the early thinkers like Adam Smith thought capitalism should be regulated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You know...

    A phrase I often hear associated with communism, especially the kind of people who aren't communists but want to be, particularly the "revolutionaries" who do all the work of turning a state communist before being killed and replaced by a psychotic despot, is "the workers shall own the means of production."

    Of course, most or all of the people are the "workers" so it's "the people shall own the means of production."

    Of course, collectively, the people are the "public" so it's "the public shall own the means of production."

    Of course, anything pubic is controlled by the "government", so it's "the government shall own the means of production."

    Of course, the government is made up of the "elites", so it's "the elites shall own the means of production."

    It strikes me that an artist privately owning his tools and materials independently of any others is closer to "the workers owning the means of production" than anything anyone calling themselves communist have ever accomplished.

    I think the existence of the elites and their psychopathy is the actual problem, and that between the two systems, capitalism or the free market economy or whatever you want to call it hands literally all of society to the elites slower than "communism" does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It strikes me that an artist privately owning his tools and materials independently of any others is closer to "the workers owning the means of production" than anything anyone calling themselves communist have ever accomplished.

    Except when that artist buys the supplies on the free market for themselves and then for that artist to own them as private property.

    The communist way is for the artist to join an artist collective, and for their art supplies to be supplied (free of charge of course) by whoever it is that makes art supplies. That artist might use some of the communal supply of art equipment that the artist collective collectively has access to. If the collective doesn't have whatever art supplies the artist wants, they'd have to make a request to whoever produces art supplies to produce something for them, which might arrive in a few months, assuming the request was approved.

    between the two systems, capitalism or the free market economy or whatever you want to call it hands literally all of society to the elites slower than "communism" does.

    IMO that's the key distinction. It seems like communism assumes people are fundamentally altruistic, and doesn't really have mechanisms to channel people's selfish drives. As a result, it gets corrupted much more quickly. Capitalism might suck a lot more in its ideal form than communism in its ideal form. But, it seems to do a better job of channelling people's greedy and selfish interests, so it's more resilient to the elites taking over completely. Communism is great in theory, but just doesn't seem compatible with the realities of humanity. Capitalism in theory is somewhat unpleasant, but at least it kind-of works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent