this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
54 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

914 readers
580 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

conform to capitalism to a large extent and only very partially participate in the economy from what I understand

You must have never lived near an Amish community. Pretty much every large Amish community makes a good bit of money off of tourism. Most of them will have a town centered around selling handmade quilts, baked goods, and handmade furniture to out of town visitors.

A lot of them also will have fairly large construction companies that can compete with other local businesses because they don't really pay for labour, that's why they have so many kids in the first place. In the less strict communities that allow the use of tractor and combine machines they will also do a good bit of business via agriculture.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think it would be fair to say they aren't much into conspicuous consumption tho.

No, but they do still engage in consumerism. The very strict communities are a minority, most of the Amish people I knew had very large and quite plain houses. However most of them also had very extravagant barns with power where they kept all their modern amenities.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If they don't pay for labor it's not capitalism.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How so? They still own the means of production and profit from the production done by workers.

Are you also claiming that southern plantation owners were not engaging in capitalism because they did not pay slaves?

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

By Marxist definition - yes, exploiting slave labor is not capitalism, it is some in-between system between feudalism and capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership on means of production + exploitation of wage labor. Marxists also usually acknowledge that capitalism is a better system compared to slave-based societies which came before it.

Eh, that's highly debated. There are arguments that it's a form of proto capitalism, a form of primitive accumulation, or just a higher level of exploitation. After all all labour under capitalism is fraught with levels of coercion. I've also seen it proposed that slaves are considered a part of the means of production themselves as they are viewed and treated as commodities by their owners.