I'm with J Lou. Even Marx considered capital a valid input to the production process. He just thought it was being misused.

He believed the workers should control capital democratically. He believed our current treatment of capital (what capital entitles a person to do under our current system) was destroying people's lives and hope and autonomy.

But Marx and Engels actually dedicated several paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto to explaining why capital should not be destroyed during the overthrow of the bourgeoisie -- indicating that they did believe capital to be valuable.

I see a lot of comments saying workers are not allowed to own what they produce. That their employer takes it from them. I feel this is flawed and possibly comes from a place of frustration.

That's not frustration. The viewpoint you are describing (that workers are not allowed to own what they produce) actually comes from a different definition of "capital" and "capitalism" than the one you are using. And that difference in definitions is why I created this post. And I appreciate your answer. It lets me highlight the differences in definitions and the consequences of those differences. Because in the case of capitalism, the difference in definitions are actually more important than any difference in values or priorities.

You noted that people are saying "workers aren't allowed to own what they produce in capitalism." But those people are not referring to capitalism as you have defined it.

Capital

Capital is a combination of property and money. Property being the things you own, with money being a measure of potential property you don’t yet own.

I'm sorry, but no one who disagrees with you thinks that the ability to accrue property and money deprive workers of control over what they produce. Not even Marx and Engels. Not even Mao or Stalin. Certainly, property and money can we wielded in such a way that they become capital. But until then, property and money are merely wealth.

The definition used by people like Marx and Engels -- or by the entire field of economics -- is: capital is property that allows or speeds up the production of goods. A mine. An oil rig. A McDonalds burger conveyor-belt-oven-thingy. A 3D printer. In other words, the word "capital" is about the function of the property. Not its value. A painting can cost $1,000,000 and still not become capital. Because no one will ever operate that painting to cook burgers. Or to mine ores.

Capitalism

Now "the ability to own commodity-producing property" is still not quite sufficient for a system to become "capitalism." In fact, Marx and Engels didn't want any capital to be destroyed at all in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Because even under the definition of "capital" that communists still to this day believe in, the existence of capital and ownership of it are still not inherently a source of coercion.

There's another crucial piece to the puzzle that leads to people complaining about the whole system:

In capitalism as a system, some form of employment contract always allows the owner of capital to own everything produced using that capital.

For example, the oil rig owner -- according to employment contracts -- owns all of the oil produced using the oil rig. But not only did the owner not need to work the rig to extract the oil: the owner also did not need to weld the seams or turn the screws to build the oil rig. All the owner needs is official ownership of the oil rig and a system that acknowledges their right to everything the oil rig produces, (regardless of who needed to input their labor to turn the oil rig into anything other than a metal sculpture in the ocean.) and with those two things, they are entitled to all of the proceeds of the rig.

Now, hopefully, you can see that, provided a worker has entered into such a contract, "workers are not allowed to own what they produce" is not a statement born from frustration: it's just true by definition. It's not saying "the worker is NEVER allowed to own anything they ever create in this society." It's saying: "within the relationship laid out by the employment contract, the worker who operates capital is not entitled to the direct consequences of their labor."

Now, whether the worker benefits from this arrangement is another picture, but in accepting an employment contract, the worker is entering into a dynamic where they do not own the outcome of their own labor.

Bonus Question #4

Which is why bonus question #4 (the difference between a workers' cooperative and a company that uses these employment contracts) is extremely important to understanding the consequences of the difference between these definitions. You even touched on its importance in your earlier replies, saying yourself:

If that worker is employed by a sprocket making company; they still make sprockets, but that’s not what they produce. They produce labor. Which they’ve chosen to sell to the sprocket company for money and/or other benefits

(Aside: what you're describing here is literally Marx's theory of alienation.) But more importantly,

I'm assuming the sprocket company "produces" sprockets by your definition of "produce." Well, in a workers' co-op, the workers vote in the decisions of the company. They elect the CEO (if there is one) and the managers. They take shares of the profits. They are the company. And if the workers are the company, and the company produces sprockets, then the workers are once again -- just like if they were self-employed, but with the benefits of efficiency and networking that come from being part of an organization -- producing sprockets. They are no longer (as Marx would say) alienated from the results of their labor.

In other words, the co-op is a form of self-employment according to the definitions you appear to be using. Which makes the distinction between cooperatives and other kinds of companies... massive.

The people saying, "capitalism strips workers of the results of their labor" love workers' co-ops. Love them. Despite you probably defining the workers' cooperative as "another example of capitalism", not even avowed Marxists would in any circumstance suggest that the worker co-op "disallows workers from owning what they produce." In fact, they strongly believe the opposite. To them (and to Marx himself) the worker cooperative operates under an entire opposing paradigm to the worker contract. And to them, it is therefore a rival philosophy to capitalism.

You don't have to accept their definitions. You don't need to believe Marxist definitions are correct. You can believe co-ops are capitalist all you want.

But please: try to understand that when people criticize "capitalism," they are (I 100% guarantee) referring to something far more narrow and far more specific than what you call capitalism.

Ah... good point. My description did nothing to distinguish capitalism from feudalism. There is necessity for some mention of who is allowed ownership of this form of property. (Or what is allowed ownership as is often the case.)

As for the word private though: I wanted to avoid more terms I would need to define that might obscure my definition. Also I'm not even sure what distinguishes private ownership from other kinds of ownership. Or what makes a private entity.

But thanks for the input. At some point I'll edit my definition.

Wait! @Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com isn't wrong. Also, I think we are miscommunicating with pro-capitalists.

Granted, we both know capitalist propaganda labels basically everything positive about human interactions "capitalism" and then scaremongers about how "the left wants to take THIS away from you!" And that is the main source of our problems communicating with pro-capitalists.

But some responsibility (maybe 20% of the responsibility?) lies with the fact that we choose to label "capital" the problem instead of... you know... the fact that our laws and customs favor a zero-sum employment contract between capital owners and workers where there can be only one winner?

Of course the owner of more capital is always on the better side of this contract, (which is why we identified capital as the problem in the first place.) But labeling the problem "capital" makes it look like we don't see any value to capital. Which isn't true. Marx and Engels dedicated several paragraphs of their manifesto to explaining why the means of production should not be damaged, because the existence of capital leads to abundance, and the means of production is valuable. They didn't want the means destroyed: they simply wanted it democratically owned by workers' cooperatives and state socialism.

The problem is employment contracts that are part of how our society treats the individual, private ownership of capital. Not the idea that capital is a valuable contribution to the production process and deserves reward.

At what price -- to drill and construct an oil rig for example -- would you consider it so prohibitively expensive that "somewhere else" has a hard time existing?

A million dollars? Five million dollars?

Consider that the median bank balance in America is $5,300. That is to say, half of all Americans have less than $5,300 in the bank.

What startup cost makes it difficult for others to compete?

You probably won't see this, but I hope you will amend your definition of capitalism:

Capitalism is defined as a set of rules/regulations that allows people to own ~~the~~ capital ~~that they produce.~~

You know this, right? We all know a trust fund baby is perfectly capable of using the wealth they were born into to buy a factory, mine, apartment complex, or shares in all of the above. (Hence profiting off of value they did NOT produce.) We all know capitalism does not distinguish in any way whatsoever between this form of capital ownership and the self-made variety.

"Capital they produce" and "capital they acquire / inherit / use stolen money to purchase" can both be wielded the exact same way. That's the point of capitalism.

And this is only half of why, "that they produce" doesn't work in this definition. The other half is that it contradicts the definition of "capital."

Capital is literally "any form of property that can be used to collect the value of other people's labor." That is the opposite of "ownership over the things you produce."

The exact opposite.

To "own the capital you produce" one must personally build the means of production. Otherwise, the owner is owning the capital someone else produced.

And you'll find the vast, vast, vast majority of almost every form of capital (patents, copyrights, factories, burger machines, server computers, office buildings, mines, mine equipment, oil rigs, oil tankers, power plants, land, the list goes on) does not belong to the people who turned the screws, drew up the plans, welded the seams, mined the materials, performed the research, wrote the movie script, poured the cement, or otherwise PRODUCED the capital.

It belongs instead to the people who funded it. The people who, under capitalism, own it.

Anti-capitalists are not against people owning what they produce. In fact, in America, there is a distinctly anti-capitalist business model that thrives in numerous cities called a "cooperative" (co-op for short) that is owned by either (a) customers, or (b) workers. And a worker co-op is literally workers "owning what they produce", but is considered market socialism by anyone who cares about using words correctly.

I would love if co-ops replaced corporations. Any anti-capitalist would. Even Maoists would tell you, "a society full of co-ops would be wonderful. The only reason I don't find that sufficient is because capitalists would use violence to crush co-ops just as they have used violence to crush governments that didn't favor US corporations."

All anti-capitalists want people to be able to own what they produce. The system that robs people of their control over what they produce is exactly what anti-capitalists have been struggling to overthrow.

(Aside: many anti-capitalists support a "corporate death sentence" where any company that commits a crime causing more damage than it can afford to repair can have its assets seized and turned into a cooperative and given to its workers. This allows a company deemed "too big to fail, because too many workers would lose their jobs" to be kept running and keep its workers employed while also punishing the people whose decisions caused the damage. The investors would lose their shares, and the CEO elected by the investors would lose their job and their shares. Everyone else would be fine.)

Main point: I think before asking,

why do so many people dislike capitalism?

You need to first ask,

how do people define capitalism, and is it possible for the thing I like (people owning what they produce) to be protected in an anti-capitalist organization or system?

Yeah, in modern American schools, the students are the product and billionaires are the customers.

Carmex lip balm as well.

Short version? Mix and match the following:

• Pro Xi Jinping
• Pro Joseph Stalin
• Pro Mao
• Pro use of tanks against civilians as in Tiananmen Square in 1989 or Hungary in 1956.
• Pro Vladimir Putin

Basically a tankie is any apologists for government violence against civilians -- usually by claiming something like, "those weren't real civilians. That was a color revolution. The government of [authoritarian regime] responded with no more than the necessary amount of force. Western propaganda is making it look more violent than it was in reality."

From Wikipedia

The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

I'm a little lost myself, so take this with a grain of salt, but....

kbin has more complete microblogging integration. I don't understand what it looks like or feels like, but here on Lemmy, I believe you can only post URLs-to and screenshots-of Mastodon posts. Not the posts themselves.

The ActivityPub protocol underneath Mastodon and Lemmy technically supports that kind of interoperability. That's why Mastodon users can comment on Lemmy posts and on Lemmy comments. But Lemmy has not yet adopted that feature. As far as I know.

kbin has.

As far as I can tell by reading the Redditor's guide to how Kbin works (your what/how-to guide) over on reddit, it appears that microblogging posts can be made from within kbin.

Which makes kbin a combination twitter/reddit. And it makes Lemmy a "reddit, but twitter users can find our posts and comment on them using their Twitter account in such a way so that they're visible even to us Lemmy users, and boost our comments and posts to their followers."

I think I can speak for all of my fellow MX Fluxbox users when I say:

Those people are the worst!

My one hope is that police departments (being bureaucratic organizations) might be so slow to update to the latest camera-disabling hardware / software they they may turn out consistently one step behind.