Only 9 percent of Americans younger than 30 have a “very positive” view of capitalism, according to a new CBS/YouGov poll.
That shows a stark generation between Generation Z and older generations.
The data arrives amid a surge in democratic socialist victories across the U.S. — and not just in progressive corners of the country. Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon (D) on Tuesday beat out the more moderate Alex Vindman (D) in the Democratic Senate primary in Florida, a state known for its sunshine, not socialism.
HOW is this Possible! ALL we did is Tell kids that Healthcare is Socialism, Housing is Socialism, Education is Socialism, Good jobs are Socialism and Freedom is Socialism!
-EVERY Politician in America!
All it took was a completely destroyed future, no access to wealth and a climate crisis that threatens to kill everyone and all large firms of life. That’s the power of propaganda, right there.
I’m fine with well-regulated, yea sufficiently-regulated, capitalism. But I really don’t care what you call it.
There should be some profit motive or I think it falls apart. But first and foremost, it has to be fair. We shouldn’t have billionaires. I don’t care if we have millionaires. But not one fucking stupidly-fucking-rich person until the social safety nets take care of every last one of us.
And the oligarchs built their wealth on the backs of the rest of us, and on the public services that WE fucking pay for. They need to pay their FAIR share, which is a fuck ton more than they are.
So beyond that? Details that people smarter than me can work out.
Am I anti-capitalism? Meh. I care less for what we call it than what it does and how it treats people.
Well regulated capitalism is socialism. The more you think about it and dig at it, the more you realize that what you want actually just is straight up socialism and explicitly not capitalism.
The capital in capitalism is the power to the money, a positive feedback loop. And that socialism is all the stuff that people actually like. It gets into ownership and copyright and what is ownable, but all of that is very important to consider when making or thinking about worldviews.
Somebody more awake than me can put out names and concepts. The world is a weird place and it can change in an instant. I wish I could live forever and see where it goes and ride that ride.
But line must go up. At all costs.
But that’s the thing that’s most frstrating of all: Line still go up with fuckign social safety nets. (cussing at the fascists and oligarchs, not you). heh
One flaw in capitalism that I often think about is its inevitable that the ones who hold the most valuable resource writes the rules of capitalism. Even when well regulated, even if we get rid of lobbying, even if we get reverse Citizens United, whoever holds the most desirable thing holds influence, and influence is destined to become corrupted in a system that divides people into winners and losers via competition.
I think economies at a bare minimum should be optional to engage with for luxuries only and that we as a species should learn to value more meaningful things other than pretty metals and hollow social praise from strangers.
Honestly I think capitalism was born of the mental immaturity of our species. It sounds great if you don’t know much about the world, but the more you do the less capitalism makes sense.
Honestly I think capitalism was born of the mental immaturity of our species.
Nobody invented capitalism, it just developed from people buying and selling stuff. Specialization meant people didn’t produce all of the things they needed themselves. So people had to trade. From there systems developed.
And it’s generally a good thing that people can choose for themselves what they value and buy the things they want. What’s important to you, won’t be important to me. There won’t be a world where we all want the same things unless you make it so everyone in the world thought exactly the same way. And that doesn’t sound like a better world to me.
You are reading this on an electronic device. Do you need that device, or is it a luxury? In the Soviet Union they decided only party leaders needed telephones, so only the party leaders had them. Seems convenient logic whenever those with power need things everyone else doesn’t, but you can understand the logic. Why would someone working in a factory need to own a telephone?
It’s better to have people have the choice about what they want to buy and have a system that’s simply producing the things people want to buy. But that means some people will buy luxury items. But how do you even determine what is a luxury item? Is a telephone a luxury item? If people can buy what they want and items people want to buy are being produced and the price of those items is determined by the value of the resources used to make those products, no one needs to worry about what is a luxury and what isn’t.
Yes that means some people will get wealthy. How about just taxing the wealthy people?
Ultimately every system ends up with inequality. Somehow it needs to be determined what people need and what are luxuries they don’t need. People in power will always decide they need to have more than everyone else. Best you can do is have an educated population that has the ability to remove people from power when they abuse it. But even then, people will be stupid and get scammed. But that will happen in any system.
Sure, but I think that’s a little bit like saying that democracy is the worst form of government - except all the others.
Rip out capitalism completely, and what do you get? You start over with everyone substinance farming. How do you get people interested in making things if not the promise of profit?
Also, I don’t believe anything is destined, personally. It’s all choice, and sure, natural human nature, but we can work against those things.
People WANT to make things and profit has nothing to do with that desire. In our grind culture we often can’t help but think how we could turn a profit from our hobbies but that’s a perversion driven by capitalism. People make art, clothes, food, games, movies, music, we innovate with ways to save time or make something easier or more accessible, we solve problems in creative ways, and we do it all without a profit motive. Making things isn’t a problem capitalism solves - it extracts value, it drives greed, it demands growth.
So clearly I take issue with the question of how to get people to make things. I don’t have an easy answer for how we motivate people to do garbage collection or brain surgery without money but I also think we could figure it out if we had any amount of time where we weren’t consumed by trying to make more of it.
Why wouldn’t we at least want democracy in the workplace?
I’m partial to a Cooperative Economy, a form of stateless market socialism, in conjunction with something like the Economy for the Common Good as an alternative to GDP, a measure for economic growth, and can be used for the purpose of determining tax brackets and providing subsidies for example. Implementing the right incentives to make the transition could begin to provide a significant break from capitalism.
Also can we just get rid of publicly traded stocks as well. That shit makes Capitalism explicitly worse and I’m like 90 percent sure it actively would corrupt any system it’s present in at this point.
If you want to sell stocks for mining expeditions for example then fine, but the company should be dissolved afterwards or otherwise take the total financial damages for failure.
Right, stocks mean that instead of a company benefiting the employees or clients, it has to solely prioritize this third party who is completely detached from the business at all. No good can come from that.
Kind of feels like I’m beating off a dead horse when I talk about cooperatives, but multi stakeholder models can solve a lot of the issues with publicly traded stocks. Namely the perverse incentive to appease shareholders over workers or consumers. At least give workers majority stake, so they can install their own board of directors instead of all the voting power unfairly given to the sociopaths with the most money.
I’m all for getting rid of it completely though.
You can still have privately traded stocks just not publicly traded. I believe WinCo does that.
The problem with the unregulated capitalism we’re seeing globally, is intergenerational wealth. In very short, it’s inheritance.
If everyone were to build themselves up from nothing, we’d have a pretty strong merit based system.
But when rich fucks can hand millions upon millions to their off spring, so no matter their ability to understand the world will live comfortably. Then everything breaks apart.
Ultimately will unregulated capitalism always see wealth/profits drift towards the already wealthy families. Where as resetting wealth every generation, would make dynasties way less likely to exist.
Why would we want a “strong merit based” system? Congrats, you won the genetic lottery and are healthy with attentive parents! Your life has more value than others!
I don’t disagree, but it’s the building of massive wealth that I find problematic in addition. But I agree that inherited wealth is a massive problem as well.
Right, but capitalism is exploitative by its very nature. Profit is evidence of underpaying labor. There is a massive difference between something like a small business where the owner is working to provide the products/services themselves vs somebody buying a factory/plant/farm/whatever and paying others to do the work for them while they collect millions merely for owning the means of production. Is it possible for a small, single owner/worker/operator business to profit? Yes. The business profits by paying the owner less than their labor was worth, but it’s ultimately identical to paying the full value and then them choosing to invest their money back into the business. But you’d be braindead to do that because of how taxes on businesses work compared to income tax.
To be clear, it’s not that it’s called capitalism that’s what is pissing people off. It’s that people are going deep into debt to get degrees that they were promised were tickets to making enough money to live comfortably in a house that they could own, and instead everybody is so broke that simple purchases now require financing while working 2-3 jobs. Everything is getting worse and more expensive and it’s because of the economic expectation of infinite growth in a real world with finite resources. Speculative value is falsely inflating the value of an increasingly fundamental cornerstone of the US economy, and therefore a significant chunk of the global economy. AI as a tool can be useful in targeted usecases, but its parading as a solution for everything is a ruinous fucking bubble that’s spreading and consuming at a civilization-ending rate; it’s collapse if it pops, and it’s dystopian hell if it doesn’t.
You are now antifa. Capitalists are willing to throw you in jail until you die. The profit motive of prisons you demand to exist be sufficiently regulated have deemed you a terrorist. Accept your fate for the prosperity you assume will occur afterwards.
Or consider that capitalism has fundamental issues and a profit motive is probably one of them. The wish to rule the world is the end goal of capitalism, no? If the maximum to capitalism isn’t ruling the world, what’s your proposal for the ceiling of capital? Why cant that ceiling have any more profit? Why is the profit motive limited at a certain point if fundamentally a profit motive is necessary? Unless you are willing to admit that there is a maximum amount an individual can have to be satisfied with life and exceeding it is pure gluttony? If you say that, you are an anti capitalist.
the end goal of capitalism,
f you say that, you are an anti capitalist.
eh. I get the logic of your conclusions, but I disagree.
That is, for example, the end goal of unfettered capitalism, but I support heavily regulated capitalism.
And I support capitalism that still allows people to reach some level of wealth - just not to the degree of wealth inequality we have allowed now.
Mainly I support capitalism because I have not seen another system that has worked to a tenth of the degree.
I’d love some Star Trek bullshit where money doesn’t exist and everything gets done, but I don’t buy it.
So from a pragmatic point of view, I’ve ended up in support of heavily regulated capitalism, which allows governance by democratic socialism, for instance.
The problem with capitalism is that it is inherently designed to unevenly accumulate capital to the owners of the means of production. These owners will always use their capital to influence the governments that are supposed to moderate their greed.
Yes, I agree. And the problem with anything else is that it doesn’t work at all. lol.
But that’s the point of heavily regulated capitalism - to keep those influences in check. And it works, more or less, in some of the highest rated countries in the world (i.e. the US is not in that list) - think where the scan the navy in. :)
There is something that works better though. Co-ops offer a path towards democratic control of the economy and it is more than just idealistic.
Greater job stability than traditional businesses
Higher productivity
Higher profits
More resiliant during economic downturn
Decrease in inequality
Greater job satisfactionYes, I agree. And the problem with anything else is that it doesn’t work at all. lol.
According to who? China is a socialist government where the state has the power to take control over the means of production of any corporation in the country. It has gone from one of the poorest nations on the planet to one of the greatest super powers in a few decades.
Cuba has survived as a socialist nation and has done so despite being neighbors with a country that’s been stepping regime change for over 50 years.
Vietnam defeated the most powerful country in history and has dragged itself out of poverty…
of heavily regulated capitalism - to keep those influences in check. And it works, more or less, in some of the highest rated countries in the world (i.e. the US is not in that list) - think where the scan the navy in. :)
Yes… The point is once people accumulate enough wealth they can influence the government that is regulating the economy. The countries who follow the Nordic model also have the benefit of being relatively small populations who control a vast amount of or natural resources, which allow them to create large sovereign wealth funds.
Evenso wealth and income inequalities are already rising in these nations. Right winged parties have already started to gain traction in a lot of these countries due to immigration scares.
Cuba had struggled - although US sanctions are a big part of that - but they have somewhat recently started allowing some small businesses more officially.
China is pretty capitalist these days. Sure, lots of central control. They are very much not communist or socialist.
Vietnam I don’t know as well, but they seem pretty capitalist to me, but I will refrain comment.
:shrug: I’m not changing my opinion that the most successful countries use capitalism, but also that capitalism unfettered leads to really bad problems, too. Thus I go back to highly regulated capitalism. heh.
I don’t totally disagree with you by any means, but I do end up with somewhat different conclusions. I can see your point, but I see my own point, too. lol.
Cuba had struggled - although US sanctions are a big part of that - but they have somewhat recently started allowing some small businesses more officially.China is pretty capitalist these days. Sure, lots of central control. They are very much not communist or socialist.
Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and Communism. Just because a socialist country has a mixed economy does not mean it isn’t socialist. So long as the government has the ability to control the means of production then it is a socialist country.
I’m not changing my opinion that the most successful countries use capitalism
It depends on how you are defining success. If you are judging it by acquisition of capital, then yeah… But we must be honest and realize that has only been possible by exploiting their own citizens, and by involving themselves with decades if not hundreds of years of imperialism over the southern hemisphere.
Thus I go back to highly regulated capitalism.
Highly regulated capitalism is still dependent on exploitation of the 3rd world.
Elon Musk’s companies directly employ roughly 150,000 to 160,000 people globally, Who do you employ?
I never claimed to be anyone. Who the fuck are you?
Gen Z + Millennial eligible voters total more than 100 million, Boomer voters total maybe 60 million and only 50% of that group voted for Trump.
If Gen Z & Millennials started voting en mass they’d completely overwhelm MAGA and conservative voters and their priorities would become national priorities. Hopefully they’re sick enough of the Trump Show to actually head to the polls in great numbers come November.
Boomer voters total maybe 60 million and only 50% of that group voted for Trump.
Not to be too pessimistic, but the ratio isn’t that far off for Gen Z and Millennials either. The under-30 age bracket in particular shifted further right in 2024 than in previous elections.
Yes, but their lack of participation (~50% for Gen Z and ~60% for Millennials) gives the 70-75% of Gen X and Boomers who do vote control. IMO the people who voted for the child rapist did so because they were stupid enough to believe his campaign promises and ignore the dumpster fire of his first term. As absurd as it was, they expected him to make their daily lives better because he said only he can do it.
Things have gotten significantly worse for people since then and they’re reminded of his bullshit every time they pay their rent, buy groceries, pay for their health insurance, and fill their tank, not to mention look at the news. I think even the most oblivious have noticed by now. One can hope, anyway.
Gen-X: alright, I’ma head out.
But in all seriousness it’s good to see the kids getting it. Not even enough of my own generation does. Enough of them were able to secure enough, that they’ve become detached and ignorant to it. Though they all at least tend to support a jaded understanding.
There was a gen x?
Yeah we were the ones these hypotheses were first tested on.
and their priorities would become national priorities.
Or the ruling class will subvert/overthrow democracy to prevent that from happening (see: Bernie). There’s a reason Marx calls it the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the democracy of the bourgeoisie. Democracy just happens to be the best tool for the rich to rule the imperial core most of the time; when it’s not they tend to pivot to fascism. That is to say: Just voting isn’t enough; worker organization is necessary to make the voting stick.
We could then have an armed uprising, since openly subverting what’s left of this democracy would require widespread treason. I think a great deal of the population is holding their breath until the midterms.
More likely Gen Z and Millennials will believe Musk’s $200 million propaganda push and fail to turn out in the numbers required to overcome the roadblocks the GOP have put in place, or the highly questionable results that our closed-source voting machines generate.
We could then have an armed uprising, since openly subverting what’s left of this democracy would require widespread treason. I think a great deal of the population is holding their breath until the midterms.
If that’s the case, where’s the preparation for that armed uprising? Because there’s a lot of stuff that needs to happen before the fascists fully seize power to enable this sort of counter-escalation. The lack of such preparation betrays the lack of will to take such drastic action, which brings us back to my point: The necessary preparations to make the votes stick need to be made before things get that far, because otherwise the fascists will win.
There’s no preparation because people believe it will not be necessary.
Remember the Yuppies?
Every generation after WWII has had a net negative view of capitalism under 30.
Then they get kids and property and the ones with a voice and power suddenly decide capitalism is OK after all.
That said, each generation since WWII it has taken longer for the next generation to inherit the capital. So Gen Z might be in their 50s or 60s before the majority decides capitalism is OK.
That could prove… interesting.
I own property. I wouldn’t mind seeing its value halved if it meant everybody could afford a house.
Not to mention we shouldn’t be valuing property in terms of monetary value, but rather the utility you get for that value.
Property is worth a shit ton right now, and I get that people like counting the high value of their property as an asset. But say you go to sell that property…you still have to live somewhere afterwards. Any new place you’d be buying or renting would be just as overinflated in terms of cost.
If the housing market were to crash again, you can’t sell your house for as much, but also you wouldn’t need to pay as much to move in somewhere else either. A house losing half its value doesn’t delete half the house, it just makes it more accessible to buyers who don’t already have a house to sell.
A problem here is: how many people with 20+ years on their mortgage are suddenly owing more than the house is worth? If my house’s value were to drop by half tomorrow, I’d be stuck and unable to move because I would still need to pay as much as the previous values in order to move somewhere else.
I don’t know how we fix that, but I don’t think it’s an insurmountable barrier to making housing affordable.
That is something people focus a lot on, but far more important is: can you afford to pay it? As long as the monthly payment doesn’t change, the value of my house doesn’t affect me at all. The problem comes when banks suddenly want to foreclose homes because it’s underwater for reasons that the owner can’t control.
Would you continue to pay $4000/month for a home when identical houses are available for $2000/month?
Banks don’t forclose houses because they’re underwater. Banks forclose houses because the owners realize they’re underwater and they stop making $4000/month mortgage payments on their house that is only worth $2000/month.
I can’t just switch to a cheaper house and pay less if selling my current one doesn’t pay off my mortgage. I’d still be stuck with the same debt, that I took on voluntarily and could afford to pay when I did. As long as that situation doesn’t change, nothing for me has to change.
I don’t think anyone simply stops paying their mortgage just because the value of their house drops. They stop paying because they can’t afford it. The 2008 crisis was because bad, predatory mortgages being pushed onto people who couldn’t afford them (and the mortgager then offloading that risk so unsuspecting investors will bear the risk of the predictable default).
I suppose the comment said they decide capitalism is “ok”, but maybe not ardent support.
If you manage to be confident and comfortable, then you don’t have the interest/energy to be so actively *against" it, but also not mind some change so long as that change doesn’t leave you behind.
There are of course those that want to hoard their wealth and only feel validated of they are scoring higher than others, but most folk just want to get by, and if they are getting by, they aren’t inclined to be passionate one way or the other.
I admit I also feel that pressure to be more successful. I mean, it’s that or accept that I’m being taken advantage of. The people who profit from my work make way more than I do, so I try to position myself so I can get a bigger share of that, but I often wish I could just forget about the money completely and build whatever I want. It’s the unfairness of it all that’s eating at me. Can we just drop this stupid system and make sure everybody has access to a comfortable life?
There’s a difference now. People can’t afford property or kids and they’re pissed.
That’s been the case every generation since Gen X. As I pointed out, the difference is that the age when those become obtainable keeps on getting pushed later each generation. So Gen Z will be able to afford a mortgage just before they retire.
It turns out that that only worked up to Gen X.
I don’t know if it’s so much about “inherit the capital” as it is about unregulated capitalism slowly taking more and more away from people. At some point the corporations will be trying to get blood from a stone.
Thankfully it’s bad enough now that a plurality of young people can’t own property.
My wife and I just had our first, we both make engineer salaries, we can’t afford a home.
Now, to be clear, that’s a good thing; private property is theft. I myself don’t have any interest in home ownership but the fact that even we can’t hopefully ensures that the working class is sufficiently poor enough not be lulled back into complacency.
The bourgeois won’t give up capital without a, literal, fight and the proletariat need to be sufficiently desperate to take it by force.
First day back in school and there’s tremendous support for Zohran (we don’t live in NYC)
Join YDSA
Page not found
Fixed
Come on… They’re still buying sweet treats and treat yo selfing the machine into continued suffering. They’re habitually being fed capitalism disguised as socialism through online influencers and social media. They are literally unable to identify truth from propaganda. They’re very boomer-like in that way. All you gen Z folks go ahead and down vote me, but I’m right.
Edit: I’m wrong, everyone. Gen Z will save us all!
Come on… They’re still buying sweet treats and treat yo selfing the machine into continued suffering.
Literally the Matt Bors comic.
They’re habitually being fed capitalism disguised as socialism through online influencers and social media.
This is their fault?
They are literally unable to identify truth from propaganda. They’re very boomer-like in that way.
Everyone has trouble identifying truth from propaganda. That’s the point of propaganda, and it’s especially effective against people in their twenties.
All you gen Z folks go ahead and down vote me, but I’m right.
I’m an elder millennial. And I know that downvotes don’t mean you’re right.
Edit: I’m wrong, everyone. Gen Z will save us all!
Being butthurt is a great way to prove that you have a thick skin and aren’t insecure about your dumb opinion.
Well said!
I am not sure what your game is here. “Oh haha I bet I can get him to believe that I actually agree with him now lmao”? In what way does that benefit me or harm you? This kind of trolling really just drives home the Matt Bors comic comparison.
There’s just no point in arguing with any of you. You’re certain I’m wrong and you’re right so why would I waste my time trying to present my arguments?
Well if you didn’t intend to actually substantiate any of your arguments, I don’t know exactly what you expected. “Oh sure bro, your feels-based generational warfare screed totally convinced me that the original article was totally wrong!” Come on man. You know how the internet works. Come with receipts or prepare to be roasted.
I mean, even if you do come with receipts, prepare to be roasted. But at least in that case you’d have the moral high ground.
Haha yeah…
So you’re blaming people for not participating in an economic model that currently isn’t available to them?
In your opinion, what exactly would they be doing differently if their beliefs were “authentically” socialist?
Not doing the things I listed? Protesting by not participating? Socialism is available in pockets here in the US. Public library is free!
Not doing the things I listed?
Watching social media?
Protesting by not participating?
Not participating in capitalism? So not having a job and being homeless? Or just not buying items that bring them the small amount of comfort they can afford?
Socialism is available in pockets here in the US. Public library is free!
Social programs are not the same thing as socialism… Socialism is an economic and political system that enables the distribution of resources via workers owning the means of production.
It is the political and economic model that takes place during the transitional period from capitalism to communism. During that transition it’s obvious that you would still engage with capitalism even if you are advocating for more progress.
The idea that you’re only really a socialist if you live a monk like existence devoid of any comforts is just a silly opinion made by people with fox news brain rot.
Stay away from fire. Might burn that massive straw man.
Buddy, I work at a college. I see these kids and young adults spouting anti capitalist phrases while carrying every name brand possible. Just because you’re gen Z and this bothers you doesn’t change anything.
Edit: I’m wrong, everyone. Gen Z will save us all!
I’m a millennial, so jot that down. How does one survive in America while eschewing all brands?
I’m on the border of genx and millennial, I don’t really know why this dude has a problem with genz. It’s not like my generation were any less consumerist than anyone before or after. And politically more genz are further left than any prior generation since ww2.
Hell, I was being called a pinko back in the day for things like publicly being against the invasion of Iraq, or saying Muslims weren’t all terrorists.
You know what… You’re right. Nothing can be done. Gen Z kids will save us all.
Lord, I hope you aren’t responsible for teaching anything on your campus. Personal property is not a concept unique to capitalism. What do you expect these kids to do… tailor their own clothes, build their own computers and phones?
Yup… You’re gen Z alright.
Great rebuttal… especially considering that I’m right on the border of genx and millennial.
Good for you!
Lol, weird way to admit your entire argument is baseless, but okay.
I wonder what percentage is able to accurately define what “capitalism” means.
Probably about the same percentage of the other side that can accurately define what “socialism” means.
so basicly nobody
Well, there are like five different things that people use “capitalism” to mean.
For instance, doctrinaire right-libertarians will insist that “capitalism” means the same thing as “a free market in goods and labor” even though the core institutions of capitalism — stock markets — were developed to finance colonial monopolies that used slavery. (Monopolies = unfree trade; slavery = unfree labor.) Capital markets don’t care about your freedom; they work just fine without freedom of anything but capital itself.
Meanwhile, doctrinaire communists will insist that “capitalism” is a historical stage followed by workers’ revolution creating socialism and eventually communism — despite actually-existing “workers’ revolutions” instead producing a new sort of monarchy and feudalism, in which power is held by a single dictator and his powerful supporters.
There are other uses. For instance, a lot of pop-progressives use “capitalism” to mean something like “the vale of tears, the fallen world, this age of brass and clay, the Kali Yuga” — the human condition! Anyone who thinks scarcity, poverty, or hierarchy are the fault of capitalism is ignorant of history; these troubles are much older than capitalism! Anything that Jesus or Buddha had to deal with, isn’t capitalism.
During the Cold War, “capitalism” sometimes simply meant “the geopolitical interest of the United States and Western Europe; as against those of the Soviet Union and Communist China”, and secondarily “access by American and Western European businesses to the materials, labor, and markets of ‘developing’ countries, typically without the people in those countries enjoying the freedoms that Americans and Western Europeans themselves enjoy.”
And of course, the only correct definition of “capitalism” is mine, namely “an economic system under which ventures seek funding by selling equity (partial ownership), principally through regulated public markets (i.e. the stock market).” It’s not about freedom and it’s not about America; capitalism is about shareholder value.
Stock markets are not fundamental to capitalism and that is most certainly not “the only correct definition,” given it’s not even a correct definition. The only element fundamental to capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and that can exist and has existed without stock markets. A capitalist economy is one in which private owners make a claim to a farm, factory, or any other means by which commodities are produced or service is rendered, employ wage laborers to produce commodities or provide a service (using tools, equipment, or even just a space that is privately owned), and collect the value of their labor in the form of profit while returning a small fraction to the workers in the form of wages. Stocks just divide ownership of the means of production into shares that can be bought and sold at prices tied to the speculative value of the corporation.
Nah, there was private ownership of the means of production in Ea-nāṣir’s day, but capitalism didn’t come around until a few centuries ago.
That’s just mean.
