• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    That’s a simplification

    Mercantilism had private ownership of production

    Capitalism is pay based on hours worked (only way to get rich is to work more hours than someone else)

    • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      (only way to get rich is to work more hours than someone else)

      In our current system, this is not how you get rich, AT ALL.
      Billionaires aren’t people who worked 3 jobs and lived with roommates until they made it. They’re not even in the same class as these people.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yeah, capitalism was drawn up to prevent that

        Turns out that people with money/power will influence laws to their own benefit

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t understand your point. The most important feature of capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Capitalism isn’t “hustle, fuck bitches get money” or whatever. Money and wage labor goes back to the founding of civilization. It isn’t a new invention.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        So did private ownership

        That wasn’t what Capitalism was about

        In the wealth of nations Smith talks great lengths about the labourer being king of the market not the landowners and that with advancement in technology costs should go down except land owners prevent that

        The whole system is supposed to favour the labourer compared to Mercantilism where the rich got richer because they owned the production

        It also praised the American colonies for open immigration saying they could double their population faster than anyone in Europe and that would double their economy

        • Haagel@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think one of the main problems with Smith’s conception of capitalism is that he didn’t account for how huge and pervasive and intrusive advertising would become. He naively assumed that the best product would dominate the market when actually people will buy whatever is thrust in front of the their eyes a thousand times a day.

          And of course corporate lobbying wasn’t such an issue in his time.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            We have term limits for governments but not for corporations

            Their ability to last indefinitely allows them more control than anyone thought possible

            And no matter what system you choose; they will act in self interest that will allow them to expand/erode the system to benefit themselves

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, the problem with Smith’s capitalism is that he’s constantly misrepresented

            He was descriptive, not prescriptive. He was not an advocate of capitalism, he was explaining it - and if you read the wealth of nations and your takeaway was “Lassie Faire capitalism is a good idea”, reread it

            • Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I appreciate your critique but I’ve got to be honest and say that I’m not going to spend any more time in my life trying to justify late stage capitalism. It will eventually be replaced and pass into history like every other economic system, if it doesn’t kill us first. 💣

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                My point is that Adam Smith wasn’t really an advocate of capitalism, he explained it and made a strong case for the necessity of regulation

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              And we know now that his analysis on the outcome of capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism exists for the private property holders to extract as much wealth and power as possible from their privileged position. That unrelenting pursuit of profit has led to even worse inequality, and is collapsing entire ecosystems. It’s a disaster of an economic system full of contradictions. Those contradictions are now causing capitalism to collapse in on itself.

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                So you realize that the problems with capitalism are what it set out to prevent

                That doesn’t make the core of capitalism the opposite

                That means it’s not true capitalism

                The problem is greed that will exist in any system because people with power will degrade/morph any system to be self serving

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You really should read Wealth of Nations

        We don’t live in a capitalist society, it’s important to note because the “dream of capitalism” is impossible to achieve

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            So you know capitalism paints that landowners are bad and the labourer as essentially

            Claims the labourer should be the one that gets the money

            Claims money should be given out based of effort

            But you think giving money out based on effort is a bad definition for it

            That’s right?