You earn a billion selling wonderbras and buy one of these - OK.
You build one of this on corruption money while ruling the richest country with the poorest people - not OK.
You build one of this on corruption money while ruling the richest country with the poorest people - not OK.
> You build one of this on corruption money while ruling the richest country with the poorest people - not OK.
They are two forms of capitalist exploitation.
Your framing excuses the ‘business‘ kind, but the underlying exploitative mechanics are really no different.
Most global north firms benefit from labor in corporate-bribed and IMF-drained regimes in the global south. Global south citizens are basically locked up in their countries, to be ruthlessly exploited by global north capitalist firms. The capitalist class wins, the working class loses.
So if that’s the case, is it that different?
Still it's a far cry from running an oil state and killing adversaries.
Because Amerika doesn’t do exactly that, right?
but if you sold someone something that he genuinely wanted to buy something you legally own for the price the buyer could compare to alternatives etc
there is nothing wrong or unfair about it no matter how much you profit from such a deal
I understand your confusion. The capitalist class push a different narrative, a narrative which makes others’ exploitation, as well as our own, seem normal - as well as portraying capitalist production as the only viable system of production.
If you’re genuinely interested in exploring this from a systemic perspective, I can recommend Zak Cope’s ‘The Wealth of Some Nations’, as well as Vijay Prashad’s recent book ‘Washington Bullets‘, or anything written by him really.
As for how? I am not a communist but I am anti-capitalist because it’s clear to me capitalism is not going to solve the environmental crisis it created.
I think there’s definitely potential for harmful growth + short term thinking in socialist countries as well, especially when you factor in international competition.
But I think it could only be better than what we’re doing now.
Imo the biggest differentiator between a more capitalist society and a more democratic socialist society is who has power. In the US, it’s people and corporations with lots of money. And guess what! People and corporations with lots of money are incentivized to accelerate climate disaster if it means boosting their short term wealth.
In (ideal — I know it’s not going to work out 100% this way) democratic socialism, everyone has equal power. This will necessarily lead to a less exploitative relationship to our planet.
You can see an example of capitalist vs demsoc power dynamics in the green new deal. A majority of registered voters across parties support the GND [1]. So in a demsoc society with the same level of support, the GND would be made into law. But there’s a slim chance it’ll come to fruition in the US. Why? Because the people in power have a vested interest in not losing money, and any worthwhile GND is going to cost the rich a _lot_ of money.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-ma...
For instance, we have less of that precious Iowan topsoil than we did 100 years ago, but our yields are higher than ever. No endless growth required, but it has made us all better off.
However, I think short term monetary efficiency and long term sustainability are not always going to align.
Is it possible there’s an alternative where we aren’t beholden to the whims of a heavily manipulated market to solve our problems? Where we can address an issue head on instead of waiting until the fix is more efficient than the problem?