I'd be willing to bet you have a different definition of "capitalism" compared to socialists. For most people, capitalism is just trade, markets, commerce, etc. None of that is incompatible with socialism (broadly speaking). When socialists talk about capitalism, they're referring, specifically, to private ownership of capital. It's not the buying and selling, it's that ownership of companies is separate from labor.

We don't owe technological development to capitalists, we owe it to engineers, scientists, and researchers. We owe art to artists, performance to performers. Socialists want those people to be the primary beneficiaries of their own work, not someone who may or may not even work at a company, but whose wealth means they can profit off of other people's labor by virtue of owning the property those people need to do their jobs.

And you've probably been bothered by enshittification in one form or another. Some product or service you like has probably gotten worse over time. That's not a decision made by the people who take pride in their creation, or the laborers who want long-term security. It comes from the capitalist class that doesn't really give a shit about any of that, they just want quarterly profits, long-term survival be damned. That's capitalism, as the meme was getting at.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The thing is, that separation of capital owner and worker that you’re referring to is the arrangement people come to when given the freedom to choose their arrangements.

To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.

Turns out, many people would rather have a steady job than be in business for themselves. I’ve done both, and I see the merits of both. Right now, I choose to work for a huge corporation. As long as I show up I get paid. That’s working well for me.

What you’re referring to as the laborers getting the benefit of their labor is something that’s already permissible in a free market, and it happens a lot. I was a freelance software developer for many years. I also had a business building and selling easels. And cookies. And smoothies, on a subscription model. You read that right: smoothie subscriptions.

So while it may seem that my definition based on free markets, and your definition based on the separation of ownership and labor, are different definitions, I see them as the same thing.

Or maybe, to be precise, free markets lead to capital accumulation and when capital accumulates beyond an individual’s ability to work it themselves and they hire someone else to work it, capitalism begins. So maybe free markets lead to capitalism by your definition, as a state of wealth distribution and a set of working relationships.

The real key point is that this set of relationships you call capitalism, is the natural result of people being free to do as they see fit.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.

If you think a system where the means of production are owned by a class of people and another class of people must sell their labor power in order to survive (the definition of capitalism according to Marx) is full of consensual economic relationships I worry about your definition of consent.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The means of production are not entirely owned by a seperate class nor is the barrier to entry for many industries so high that it is entirely impossible for the average joe to enter.

Sure some industries are nigh impossible to get into, like pharmaceuticals for example, there are much bigger industries that have lower barriers like machine shops (which are really medium entry but you can scale them), and manufacturing via 3d print hubs.

Not to mention aoftware development which is a fucking wonder when it comes to potential money vs barrier to entry.

Certain construction contractors and engineering consulting firms can be opened up with fairly low barrier to entry.

I'm sleepy so my replies may not seem very coherent so tell me if you don't understand what im saying

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Look up how much debt the average US citizen is in and tell me what low barrier to entry industries they can break into