that's besides regular wage theft, which is greater than all other forms of theft combined. which forces people into poverty and therefore forces them towards theft to survive.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
166 points (96.6% liked)
Communism
2280 readers
321 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
A business doesn't need to profit for there to be surplus-value extraction. Describing profits as unpaid wages helps simplify things, but it creates the impression that only profitable corporations exploit, which isn't true. In the M-C(mp +L)...P...C'-M' circuit, the exploitation already happens by P, production, even if commodities C' cannot actually be sold for M', or do so slowly.
The interesting thing is that the US isn't actually a capitalistic system anymore.
In a capitalistic system, you have a few basic assumptions, such as companies competing against each other. The IT economy has proven the opposite: All the software development is carried out by 5 big companies, including Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft.
This lack of competition and concentration of development leads to an effective monopoly, which leads these companies to profit more than they would if they had to compete against other companies. That is one of the clearest examples of the deviation of the principle competition. That is why it is questionable to call the US a "capitalist system" nowadays.
You're describing the necessary trajectory of capitalist systems as somehow not being capitalism. Competition naturally works its way towards monopolization, just because the US is in a later stage of capitalism does not mean that it is no longer capitalist.
To add to my own comment, you can see that the US is no longer a capitalistic system today in a second, clearer way: Trump.
Trump is actively harming the US economy by blocking free trade and blocking renewable-energy projects. That forces the US to pay more for energy, by buying fossil fuels. It is clear why trump is doing that: he is getting money ("lobbied") from the fossil fuels industry, so they face less competition and can continue to sell their energy products for a higher price. If renewable energy could enter the market, all oil companies would face declining revenues in the next 10 years.
The fact that the US pays more for energy is clearly harming the US economy, because it makes manufacturing (which needs a lot of energy) more expensive. But that is a price that Trump is willing to pay.
It is to be noted that in a capitalist system, i.e. a free market, renewable energy would be built in the US today at a rapid pace, as it is the cheapest form of electricity in human history.
Trump responding to lobbying from some of the wealthiest capitalists is a pefectly capitalist thing to do. Capitalism is not "free markets," a system is not capitalist if it has less government influence. The state in capitalism is under the control of capitalists, and plays an integral role in keeping said capitalists in power.
Yeah, no profits means no business! Down with businesses! We don’t need them for paychecks or healthcare! 🤣
Edit: I feel like this comment went over some heads. Socialism is support by higher taxes on businesses. If business doesn’t make money they Will close the business and social programs will not be supported. So basically socialism cannot exist without the business.
Capitalism is not the only mode of production in existence. We can collectivize production and run it in a planned manner. We can't do that all at once, but in socialism we can gradually wrest capital from the capitalists and collectively run and plan the economy.
Edit: responding to your edit, socialism is not "welfare in capitalist systems." Your comment didn't go over anyone's heads, you just don't know what socialism and capitalism are.
Neither system is perfect. Pure capitalism can lead to inequality and under-provided public services, while pure socialism can stifle innovation and create inefficiency. The best-performing countries today typically combine elements of both.
So as anything in life too much of one thing can be bad. It would be nice for everyone to receive free healthcare and higher education in US. I often watch various global news networks. It is odd to see US, Canada, UK all struggling with same issues economically.
UK has 28 million people on assistance out of work. It also has 28 million people employed. So half the UK is paying to support the other half. That is wild to think about.
Canada has a housing crisis currently.
There's no such thing as "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism." Every socialist system has elements of private property, and every capitalist system has elements of public property. A system is capitalist if the large firms and key industries are private, and socialist if the large firms and key industries are public. This is all nonsense on your part, socialist systems have been at the peak of innovation throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
I'm not sure why you brought up a bunch of capitalist countries failing because of issues systemic to capitalism at the end, it didn't really help your point. Moreover, there is no "combining the best of both," the system is determined by what is principle, meaning you can't be both. Furthermore, I think you're alluding to the Nordic Countries, but those are capitalist, deteriorating, and depend on imperialism like the rest of the global north.
I think you should do a bit more reading on what socialism and communism even are to begin with before trying to have discussions about them, same with capitalism.
Hate to break it to you like this but US has both Capitalism and Social programs. Social programs are social security, medicare and public schools.
Social programs are not socialism. Welfare exists in both capitalist systems and socialist systems, which is why I explained that what determines the system is which form of production is principle, private or public. The US, Norway, Singapore, etc are capitalist, plain and simple. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR are examples of socialism.
Again, I think you need to do more reading if you want to actually have a conversation about socialism, capitalism, and communism. If you want, I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, or this crash course on socialism made by Dessalines is good as well.
Profit sharing models and Employee Stock Ownership Programs exist. Employees should have some level of ownership of their labor and the revenue it generates.
Better yet, we should collectivize production and pivot to a socialist economy.