|
|
|
|
|
by hypewatch
2178 days ago
|
|
I’d argue that free markets are a requirement of the definition of capitalism, but like the term “communism” the definition has become squishy. I agree that your definition inevitably leads to income inequality. Either way, I think we agree on the nature of these problems. |
|
The definition relies on the assumption the distribution of capital is sufficiently unequal for workers to need/want to work for capitalists to earn wages and the market sufficiently free for it to be possible for capitalists to hire workers to generate returns. But both the Marxist arguments that capital must inevitably become so concentrated that capitalists won't need to pay workers above subsistence levels [until it leads to revolutions] and the free market economist argument that competition will resolve this [and pesky social democrats will ruin it] are firmly in the 'squishy' parts of the definition.
('Communism', which had competing definitions before Marx started writing about it, has always been a bit squishy...)