• Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Wherever there is a need there is potential for exploitation by greed. Of course capitalists without a leash are going to wreak havoc on everything.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Capitalism by definition is about exploiting labor and extracting wealth. Commerce is the ethical application of purchasing goods and services.

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why do you say commerce is specifically ethical? I’ve always considered it more neutral and up to implementation.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ethical as in it’s goods and services for currency. Ethical in that no one is being exploited actively. Commerce requires legislation.

          • Tak@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            So the act of commerce is ethical but the source of the commerce might not be? I feel like I’m being really obtuse here and I apologize but goods and services could be stolen or forced and rarely is legislation enough. But I can totally see two unknowing people engaging in trade at their free will for items they don’t know are stolen.

            I feel so pessimistic about the world at times that I find materialism and ethics just don’t mix.

            • maynarkh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Commerce deals with the distribution of value, production with the creation of it. So let’s say there is a widget factory. If one person “owns” it and thousands work to make widgets, their production is stolen through ownership, which causes deeper issues beyond the obvious as well.

              Commerce doesn’t cause problems as it’s just resolving a situation of swapping the widgets you made for carrots. Barring some market-twisting forces like the stock market for example, a simple free market where you’re happy with the amount of carrots you get for the amount of widgets you get is fine.

              The evil of capitalism is not that you can trade. The evil of capitalism is that you go to work, and receive a fraction of the product of your work while someone else who does not work at all receives a lot of it.

              Technically the current capitalist western system would be socialist, if employment without ownership would be outlawed, and coops were the enforced norm.

          • Tak@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think you’re making a discussion into a spit fight for the sake of feeling better about yourself. I ask because I want to understand and for no other reason.

            • Urist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I think the ethical part may have to do with the following from Wikipedia on commerce:

              The diversity in the distribution of natural resources, differences of human needs and wants, and division of labour along with comparative advantage are the principal factors that give rise to commercial exchanges.

              I do not see how the commercial part is necessary for the distribution of goods though and recognize it as the main culprit in making such a system unethical. I.e., supplying needs is good and necessary, however a commercial platform is not.