Comment on Why do companies always need to grow?
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks agoIf we are going by the original definition of the word, it is. The farmer here is growing produce to sell it in exchange for money; they are not sharing it with their community, bartering with it, growing it to eat themselves, or giving it to their liege lord.
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I’m not sure why people always insist if money is involved that it’s capitalism. Money is an abstract form of trade. No one is suggesting that trade will cease to exists in a world without capitalism.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
It’s not about money, it’s about private ownership of capital. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism
einkorn@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Well, if you assume the farmer excludes others from using the means of production i.e. the fields, then yes you can argue that they are acting as capitalist. But you have to make the distinction between private and personal ownership: Private ownership of the land and personal ownership of the produce. The former is what communists reject. The latter is fine in their books.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Well, I’d say that the definition of capitalism changes depending on if you’re talking about capitalism as opposed to feudalism (original/historical definition) vs capitalism as opposed to communism (modern definition).
IncogCyberSpaceUser@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
What resources would you recommend to someone wanting to learn about this?