Hacker News Reader

> So profiteering off government contracts is nothing more than the extraction of wealth

I would agree with this statement. However I wouldn't call this capitalism. It doesn't seem like "free-market" anything when the government is footing the bill. There's an enormous amount of cronyism... was the work actually bid out, and evaluated fairly? Is the work even something that actually needs to be done, or is it more of a make-work project, or a spend-to-justify-our-budget project? Were small, non-connected firms allowed to bid, or was it an add-on to a pre-existing engagement? Private companies, especially large ones, are guilty of the same but government usually tops the list for wasteful and inefficient spending.

So yes, it is indeed profiteering, and these huge consulting firms have perfected it. But it's only because the government keeps rewarding them over and over, so who can blame them for scooping it up? But this is not capitalism.

It is capitalism because it is bad. Even though it directly contradicts what every single "pro capitalism" thinker ever said, enormous state investments into massive, but useless systems are absolutely capitalist praxis.

> It doesn't seem like "free-market" anything ...

First, "free market" itself is a myth. Second, that's a tenet of libertarianism or neoliberalism. In reality, "free markets" is a stalking horse for deregulation and privatization, which is wealth extraction from the government to the wealthy. Like I said, capitalism has nothing to do with markets. It's merely how capital is created and accumulated.

You talk about cronyism and the process and have skipped right passed the most important question: why is this even being outsourced in the first place? Why is public transit privatized (eg the UK)? It's needless wealth transfer under the guise of "efficiency". European democracies are starting to discover they're on the same path of the USA: starving national healthcare and then using those "failures" are reasons to privatize it. Reportedly, with Brexit, the US administration wanted the NHS to be privatized as part of any favorable trade deal with the UK. Think about that.

Now we see a cost-of-living crisis because of restricted supply and institutional buyers buying up the supply. Mortgages are massively bigger than even a generation ago. The cost of college education is out-of-control, as is healthcare. Debt is being built into every facet of your existence to extract as much wealth as possible from you and to keep you a compliant worker.

Trad Marxism is absolutely hilarious. Nowadays a significant portion of the population own the means of production, e.g. laptops, but somehow capitalism is going as strong as ever.

Also quite funny to see people going on about "class consciousness" when almost everybody in the first world is living a life of luxury unimaginable one hundred fifty years ago.

Class consciousness ends at the border.

I'm confused by the analogy. Let's use the iconic steel mill from the industrial revolution. Even if you gave me the machines, I still need the feed stock, electricity, and a bunch of fellow-workers (Carnegie said his workers were the most important part of his business). Sure, now most folks like us can buy a laptop and an internet connection, most business ventures need a bunch of folks working together to make a company. We love to glorify the solo-prenuer, but that's pretty rare.

>Sure, now most folks like us can buy a laptop and an internet connection,

Making you the owner of the means of production. Trad Marxist theory sees that as one important goal in abolishing capitalism, but somehow capitalism remains just as strong. Curious...

That you need others to work as well is true of all production, it is obviously true under marxism as well and marx certainly did not argue against it.

You think you can compete with Facebook using your laptop? No, the "means of production" are server farms.

> Capitalism is simply the economic system for the extraction of wealth from the poor to the wealthy where once it was from the poor to the monarch and the artistocratic class (ie feudalism). That's it. Someone will be tempted to pipe up with something about "free markets". Markets are commerce. They happen in every economic system.

Capitalism is buyer, seller, marketplace, and sufficient regulation to prevent sellers from buying the marketplace.

Materialism, not captialism, leads to the class distinctions that the Marxists fetish (as they boost themselves into aristocracy while shrilly claiming to give a French frigate's fo'c's'le about the workers).

The proper remedy for the excesses of capitalism is ensuring competition in the marketplace, to stabilize the system.

No:

> The meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism

And I'm encouraging a revisitation of that definition, for the reason set forth above.