• ILikeBoobies
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes; under Mercantilism the nobles could sit around all day and their wealth would increase off the backs of the workers

    Enter Capitalism where you no longer have generational wealth and pay is based on how many hours you put in. The goal is that the artisan will be the richest in society because they spend their life working

    Or at least in theory; it fails when you add capitalists which just occupied the nobles branch before

    • folkrav@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, are capitalists really added in? They’re baked in the system, from where I stand. How did it ever try to solve generational wealth, when wealth can be accumulated/inherited? When was it ever about wages, and not about profit incentives and private ownership of production? And is “spending your life working” the thing we want to encourage as a society?

      • ILikeBoobies
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we change systems then people with wealth and power will erode it or seize the power vacuum created

        Also you are correct in saying you can’t have a Capitalist nation with inheritance

        A more recent example is Communism where every country that claims to adopt it doesn’t do that, instead they tend to adopt more authoritarian measures and centralized governments

        Going back even further you can look at Christianity where people are supposed to be banned from having wealth but they needed to get the elite on board for it to spread

          • ILikeBoobies
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Canada is considered a liberal country regardless of the party in power

        • folkrav@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This point of view always leaves me scratching my head. What’s the point, exactly? Are we genuinely arguing that we are not living in a capitalist society?

            • folkrav@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is a very narrow definition of capitalism by which I can’t think of a single country that would qualify. I’ll be honest, it’s the first time someone argues with me that our modern world of Keynesian macroeconomics isn’t fundamentally capitalist.

              I also strongly disagree that having social components to your market economy makes you not Capitalist. Free Market is not all Capitalism is.

          • ILikeBoobies
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The point is that you’re not going to get rid of the problems unless you get rid of the people that seek power