3 ms·

> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. That's not quite complete. To have capitalism, you a

by esarbe 3y ago

> Says who? The only "requirement of capitalism" is that individuals are allowed to have ownership rights. That's not quite complete. To have capitalism, you also need labor to leverage capital. Capitalism requires the ability to extract money from the labor of other people. If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. That's not correct. If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. If "worker-owned" actually means government owned, however, then you're correct. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Sounds like that would be market socialism actually, not capitalism, as workers work the means of production.
- esarbe 3y ago
  > If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. No. We had "exchange of goods on an open market" long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
legitster 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Again, says who? Depending on your definition of capitalism, corporate charters pre-date capitalism! Corporate charters were rights granted by governments to pursue economic activity. What we define as the introduction of "capitalism" was the granting of individuals without nobility the rights to corporate charters. Today, a corporation is still a government defined-entitity for the purpose of generating economic activity.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  The first corporations were Benedictine monasteries that needed to own property independent of any individual member. As you say, it had nothing to do with capitalism. And non-capitalist corporations are still very much a thing. Labor unions are usually corporations.
malermeister 3y ago
That's actually basically how the economy of Yugoslavia worked, worker's self-management [0] being the key term. You had worker-owned coops competing on the market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management
goatlover 3y ago
What about private farms and home businesses?
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
  They cannot exist in isolation, so it's not much use to pretend that they can. We could discuss feudalism, but that wouldn't be much use either.
- esarbe 3y ago
  I think private farms and home business existed before we had what we call "capitalism". Capitalism only arises in the 18th century as a distinct market model. We had private property and market economies long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

by esarbe 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 3y ago

> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. That's not correct. If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. If "worker-owned" actually means government owned, however, then you're correct. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Sounds like that would be market socialism actually, not capitalism, as workers work the means of production.
esarbe 3y ago
> If every company was worker owned as long as the goods and services produced are traded on the open market as an exchange of value, that would still be capitalism. No. We had "exchange of goods on an open market" long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

legitster 3y ago

> If every company was worker owned, you could still have a market economy and private property, but it wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Again, says who? Depending on your definition of capitalism, corporate charters pre-date capitalism! Corporate charters were rights granted by governments to pursue economic activity. What we define as the introduction of "capitalism" was the granting of individuals without nobility the rights to corporate charters. Today, a corporation is still a government defined-entitity for the purpose of generating economic activity.

pyuser583 3y ago
The first corporations were Benedictine monasteries that needed to own property independent of any individual member. As you say, it had nothing to do with capitalism. And non-capitalist corporations are still very much a thing. Labor unions are usually corporations.

malermeister 3y ago

That's actually basically how the economy of Yugoslavia worked, worker's self-management [0] being the key term. You had worker-owned coops competing on the market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

goatlover 3y ago

What about private farms and home businesses?

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
They cannot exist in isolation, so it's not much use to pretend that they can. We could discuss feudalism, but that wouldn't be much use either.
esarbe 3y ago
I think private farms and home business existed before we had what we call "capitalism". Capitalism only arises in the 18th century as a distinct market model. We had private property and market economies long before we had capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism