4 ms·
You describe a general oligarchy. The point is that capital is not defined as the property of the capitalists. There are virtually no pure "capitalists" in the
by bayesian_horse 7y ago
You describe a general oligarchy.
The point is that capital is not defined as the property of the capitalists. There are virtually no pure "capitalists" in the sense that they only own capital and do no work around that capital.
In developed countries there aren't even that many pure workers, because most workers own insurance policies, some "means of production" or even equity in a company or two.
The problems which are often called "capitalism" are in my opinion more about a power disequilibrium causing exploitation, especially using capital as power to take capital away from poorer people or distributing the value gain in a way that is perceived as inequitable.
- littlestymaar 7y agoCapitalism is indeed a form of oligarchy, I don't think this is a controversial view. Oligarchies can be justified by different reasons: religion, lineage, etc. In the case of Capitalism, it's an oligarchy legitimated by the “merit” of the dominant, who were somehow chosen in the great market competition.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoThe point is that any form of oligarchy means redistribution of wealth from the powerless to the powerful. And capitalism is not about "merit" but about possession. Lots of "Capitalists" (by which I mean people who derive most of their income from capital investments rather than labor) have inherited much or most of their wealth. Merit is not a requirement. Enough property to exert power and therefore redistribute wealth however is.
- littlestymaar 7y ago“Merit” isn't a real thing, but it's the mythical value that's used as a moral justification of the current state of societies. Like virtue, honor or faith in other kind of oligarchies.