this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
417 points (76.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43747 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] jerrimu@lemmy.world 136 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism is just a continuation of the feudal system. Great for owners / gentry, bad for serfs /workers. Labor creates all value, and should be rewarded as such.

[โ€“] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that capitalism is great* for owners and bad* for workers, but it is definitely not feudalism. Marx literally wrote that feudalism and capitalism are different modes of production.

[โ€“] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're different modes of production, however the bourgeoisie intentionally transitioned to capitalism so they could maintain their power. It got a little watered down and theoretically allowed for economic mobility, but that was a sacrifice they were ok with

[โ€“] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Feudal lords and the bourgeoisie have nothing to do with each other and are, in fact, historical enemies. Hierarchies existing doesn't make all hierarchies the same.

[โ€“] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

They didn't transition immediately, and yes there was significant opposition to capitalism during the fuedal era. Just like there was significant opposition to fuedalism from absolute monarchy, and to absolute monarchy from anarcho-primitivism. However, monarchies eventually saw that their options were either changing modes of production or lose power all-together.

[โ€“] jerrimu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

For the working class its not that big of a difference, bosses are bosses.

[โ€“] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A more morally forceful way to say this is labor is de facto responsible for all production. In other words, labor is responsible for creating the whole product, which has value. By the usual moral norm, legal responsibility should match de facto responsibility. The workers should legally get what they produce