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!

  • jerry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      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