Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Can't speak for others; I'm anticorporate but not anticapitalist.
Can you tell me where's the difference in terms system that they used? Of course the audience and the power scales are different. I cannot see the difference with the system from both side used tho. What is your opinion?
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment.
No, the question is for you.
That's why I'm asking can you tell me the difference? I forgot to quote that words.
So, in a capitalist system, capital is considered a valid input to the production process worthy of a share of the revenue. I can give someone who wants to make geegaws $500 to start their geegaw business and the revenue from selling those geegaws will be split among paying for raw materials and workspace, labor to make and sell the geegaws, and those like me that invested capital. Under some other systems, only labor is rewarded (raw goods being the result of labor, of course).
Under a corporate system, people can band together to form a company that becomes its own entity. The corporate entity owns the raw goods, the tools, the workspace, assumes the liability, collects the revenue. The revenue is split among paying for raw goods and labor, the continuation of the corporation, and profit. Profit can be disposed of in multiple ways; in a capitalist system it's usually split among those that contributed capital. That's not something I have a problem with.
One problem is these meta-entities, which are not aligned with human interests, self-perpetuating and even expanding with the non-cost share of the revenue. They are all too often parasitic, and mankind's primary predator.
My other problem is the liability issue. If a corporation is responsible for an atrocity, it may be at most bankrupted and dissolved. But the humans who actually made the decisions leading to those atrocities are shielded from legal repurcussions by the artificial entity they created.