[9rx]

> Since capitalism is about profit (capital)

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production.

There is nothing about the private ownership of the means of production that inherently leads to the situation described earlier. You could end up in the exact same place if the means of production was community owned.

What leads us there is intellectual property laws, which create artificial monopolies. Go on, just try and copy that shitty product that only lasts 35 days, but modify it slightly to last longer to the glee of the customers, and see how long you last before lawyers are breathing down your neck...

[goatlover]

Problem with that is wealthy capitalists lobby politicians to pass or rescind laws favoring their industries. They also figured out how to manipulate consumer demand on mass scale with modern advertising. Just look at how the fossil fuel industry has behaved despite their own research showing in the 70s that climate change was going to become a serious problem in the next century.

Or they use their influence to pass tax cuts primarily for the super wealthy that increase the wealth gap and erode existing social safety nets as we see with the "Big Beautiful Bill".

It's never just about the classic definition anymore than communism is, because there are always humans looking to look the cheat the system.

[9rx]

> Problem with that is wealthy capitalists lobby politicians to pass or rescind laws favoring their industries.

Do you mean interventionists, or, at least, opportunists? Welcoming politicians passing or rescinding laws that favor their industries is not in tune with capitalism, and therefore the people are not reasonably considered capitalists.

The USA is not really a capitalist state, if that is what you have in mind. It integrates some ideas from capitalism, to be fair, but also brings in a wealth of its own ideas. If you are desperate you could call it partially capitalist, I suppose, but even better is to leave capitalism behind and pick a word that encompasses what it really is. But, I know, when one falls in love...

> It's never just about the classic definition anymore than communism is

Communism, in the non-classical sense, has come to mean rule by the Communist Party. If you are implying that capitalism has come to mean rule by the Republican Party (and Democratic Party; there isn't enough difference to need to differentiate), I think that is quite fair. I would agree with you!

Which brings us back to IP laws being the problem. They are a legislative invention, not some kind of capitalistic principle. One that the Republicans and Democrats could fix, but choose not to. No doubt that is what the earlier comment was actually talking about — but poor choice of words given the overloadedness.

Which, again, stems from low quality content. In the olden days of HN, commenters were much more careful (pedantic, even) with what they had to say. Now commenters are just posting comments of little value and preying on emotions by using words that they know tug on heartstrings.

[panarky]

> Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production

That's part of the definition but not the whole definition.

Other parts of of the definition include:

Capitalism is about free markets.

Capitalism is about competition.

Capitalism is about converting the commons to private ownership.

Capitalism is about the more wealthy and powerful exploiting those with less wealth and power.

Capitalism is about mystifying how the system works so it's hard for people to imagine that it could work any other way.

[9rx]

> Capitalism is about free markets. [...] Capitalism is about competition.

Okay, sure. But IP laws prevent all that. As before, IP laws are antithetical to capitalism — and the source of breakdown witnessed earlier.