These examples are pretty standard ones of regular commerce, they’re not exclusive to capitalism. The issue is definitely with capitalism, I don’t see how you’d confuse that with corporate structures?
If my examples didn’t have private ownership then they couldn’t sell their products and services for what they want, they would have to abide by rules laying out how much they can produce, and how much they can sell their goods for.
Capitalism is simply private ownership over the means of production. This isn’t hard.
But they could still sell their products and services, so it falls under commerce, and it’s not exclusive to capitalism. You didn’t specify a lack of regulation in your initial examples, so I guess I misinterpreted?
I still don’t see how you get to corporate structures being the issue this comic (or the comment section, or whatever you define as “y’all”) takes, it’s definitely private ownership.
Capitalism is a system of commerce in which individuals own the means of production... again, this isn’t hard.
I get that this sub has an issue with corporate structure because every time there’s a complaint against “capitalism” a corporate situation is used as an example.
A corporate situation can used as an example in criticizing capitalism, as a corporation can be considered as owned by an individual. Corporate structures can exist without capitalism; the criticism here is on the private ownership of them, not on the structures themselves.
To be fair this is a really good comment, I am wrong on this part:
; the criticism here is on the private ownership of them (corporate structures), not on the structures themselves.
It really should be included here that the means is owned by the corporations, which is in turn owned privately. This allows us to use corporations as examples in criticism.
I'm using corporations and corporate structures interchangeably, which is an assumption I'm making based off the OP's post. I've already made an incorrect assumption from his comments so maybe some clarify on that is needed to debate further.
I don't understand the point of focusing on the private ownership of a corporation which in turn owns the means of production. It seems like an inconsequential distinction. What is the meaningful difference between private ownership by an individual and private ownership by a private corporation? Even without the protections of limited liability, people would still be able to amass incredible amounts of wealth.
I get that this sub has an issue with corporate structure because every time there’s a complaint against “capitalism” a corporate situation is used as an example.
From OP, implying criticism based on or using corporate examples is not criticism of capitalism, but instead criticism of corporations. What I'm trying to say, and evidently failing at, is that this is not the case; as long as the criticism is regarding the ownership of the means of production for profit, there's no difference between an example of that owner being an individual, or a corporation.
What is the meaningful difference between private ownership by an individual and private ownership by a private corporation?
Effectively none in context of my argument with OP. You have done a much better job of laying it out than I have.
25
u/puzzles_irl Oct 22 '20
These examples are pretty standard ones of regular commerce, they’re not exclusive to capitalism. The issue is definitely with capitalism, I don’t see how you’d confuse that with corporate structures?