Teen Vogue decided to get someone in to explain capitalism to the peeps. The result being something written by a teen – one going through that angry period – or possibly the Tooting Popular Front. Without, sadly, the humour. Sorry, really, this is dire:
Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which a country’s trade, industry, and profits are controlled by private companies, instead of by the people whose time and labor powers those companies.
No, not at all. Capitalism is defined as capital for an organisation coming from outside the organisation. That’s how we get capitalists, those who provide the capital. And if they’re going to start off so wrong it’s only going to get worse, isn’t it?
The origins of capitalism are complicated, and stretch back to the 16th century, when the British systems of power largely collapsed after the Black Death, which was a deadly plague that killed off up to 60% of Europe’s entire population. A newly formed class of merchants began trade with foreign countries, and this newfound demand for exports hurt local economies and began to dictate overall production and pricing of goods. It also led to the spread of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism.
Well, if we’re going to take Lenin on Imperialism as a useful guide then it really is getting worse, isn’t it? Some will even have noted that non-capitalist societies managed to trade. Even that the Soviet Union was notably colonialist and imperialist.
Individual capitalists are typically wealthy people who have a large amount of capital (money or other financial assets) invested in business, and who benefit from the system of capitalism by making increased profits and thereby adding to their wealth.
Not really, we peeps out here are the major capitalists these days. Through our pensions and insurance policies.
A capitalist nation is dominated by the free market, which is an economic system in which both prices and production are dictated by corporations and private companies in competition with one another, and places a heavy focus on private property, economic growth, freedom of choice, and limited government intervention.
Nope, you can be capitalist and not market, a mix best thought of as fascism. You can be socialist and market, as Tito tried in Yugoslavia. And as John Lewis manages every single day.
They’re spouting drivel that is.
When asked to consider capitalism’s negative impact on the environment
None of them have ever considered the impact of Soviet socialism on the environment then.
Marx also emphasized the system’s capacity to dehumanize workers, writing that capitalist methods of productivity “mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil.”
That’s the division and specialisaton of labour which even Adam Smith worried about.
And then there’s the biggie:
The essential anti-capitalist argument is that “the hallmark of capitalism is poverty in the midst of plenty.” They say the immense suffering and violence that has been forced upon the laboring classes, the ruthless emphasis on profits over people, the proliferation of wage slavery — in which people have no choice but to sell their labor, which we see in every industry from fast food to corporate office work — and the social alienation.
Which is why the labouring classes in capitalist economies are richer than they are in non-capitalist economies.
In a capitalist country, the focus is on profits over anything else; in a socialist country, the public is seen to be more important, and social welfare is a major priority. The United States, the U.K., and Germany are examples of modern capitalist countries. In contrast, China, India, and Cuba are examples of modern socialistic, non-capitalist countries, as was the former Soviet Union.
Haven’t they even thought about where the workers are rich?
Sheesh, even Wolfie would be ashamed of this level of analysis.