Under capitalism, it seems companies always need to grow bigger. Why can’t they just say, okay, we have 100 employees and produce a nice product for a specific market and that’s fine?

Or is this only a US megacorp thing where they need to grow to satisfy their shareholders?

Let’s ignore that most of the times the small companies get bought by the large ones.

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    3·
    11 hours ago

    What does a farmer having inputs have to do with my argument being removed from reality?

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      15·
      10 hours ago

      1. Because you’re leaning on Marx for definitions, who was famously out of touch with reality as well,

      2. because ALL small business owners need inputs, and labor is only one of them, so inventing the vendor as now a farmer to attempt a workaround is disingenuous,

      3. you also had made the tomato vendor into a farmer in hopes of having a point that fits into a poorly crafted 19th century framework, and don’t know enough about how farms anywhere on earth to realize how blatantly wrong you are,

      4. your definition of capitalist is factually incorrect,

      5. read my edited comment above, which I edited while you wrote this,

      6. a farmer is no different, functionally in a minimalist sense, from a person making jam as a cottage industry, who buys fruit and processes it at home, making a farmer’s field not magic but simply a location where work is done,

      7. I said tomato seller, which is someone that spends their labor time buying tomatoes from farms as a risk and selling them in the market. They own means of logistics, which for anyone not stuck in 1862, would consider essentially a means of production as well, as it takes an input and renders is viable to trade for a medium of exchange. Does a fisherman owning a boat mean she owns the means of production when it’s fish spawning grounds that make fish? It’s a stupid argument to cling to one you’ve already written your first PoliSci paper about it and get it.

      Look, everything is connected, and there is no terminal point of anything from which anarcho-socialist magic can magically arise and flow down to make some post-consumption utopia. It’s a circle with no beginning and no end. You can’t force economic change to change human behavior, and Marx’s ideas have famously failed hard. Over and over. Spectacularly.

      You’re taking about a 30 generation cultural change that you won’t ever see.

      • Goodeye8@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        8 hours ago

        Bro what?

        1. Because you’re leaning on Marx for definitions, who was famously out of touch with reality as well,

        Are we just supposed to believe what you’re saying? Because I have easy counter-argument. You’re out of touch with what Marx wrote and if say-so if enough proof then this statement is proven and you’re wrong. Now, unless you can actually prove this statement we can argue this point.

        1. because ALL small business owners need inputs, and labor is only one of them, so inventing the vendor as now a farmer to attempt a workaround is disingenuous,

        This literally does not change the original argument. Do you think farmers do not need an input? What disqualifies a farmer from being a small business owner?

        1. you also had made the tomato vendor into a farmer in hopes of having a point that fits into a poorly crafted 19th century framework, and don’t know enough about how farms anywhere on earth to realize how blatantly wrong you are,

        Do you think they didn’t have food vendors in the 19th century? Do you think a tomato vendor is a 20th or 21st century concept that invalidates this supposed 19th century argument?

        1. your definition of capitalist is factually incorrect,

        I guess this is another “we just have to believe you” points. Just because you don’t understand Marx’s definition of capitalism doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

        1. read my edited comment above, which I edited while you wrote this,

        Why is this even a point?

        1. a farmer is no different, functionally in a minimalist sense, from a person making jam as a cottage industry, who buys fruit and processes it at home, making a farmer’s field not magic but simply a location where work is done,

        I’m not 100% sure what you’re even trying to say here but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, Marx would agree with you here.

        1. I said tomato seller, which is someone that spends their labor time buying tomatoes from farms as a risk and selling them in the market. They own means of logistics, which for anyone not stuck in 1862, would consider essentially a means of production as well, as it takes an input and renders is viable to trade for a medium of exchange. Does a fisherman owning a boat mean she owns the means of production when it’s fish spawning grounds that make fish? It’s a stupid argument to cling to one you’ve already written your first PoliSci paper about it and get it.

        I guess you also don’t believe logistics existed before 1863. Also your logistics argument doesn’t contradict Marx. And a fisherman owning a fishing boat would mean they own the means of production because the boat is A TOOL to catch fish. The fish don’t magically jump into the fishermans hands. They need to be caught, which requires labor and to ease that labor tools are used. Fish existing doesn’t make a fisherman a fisherman, otherwise I’d be a lumberjack simply because there’s a forest near my home.

        I suggest you actually try to understand Marx before you start mindlessly criticizing something.

      • einkorn@feddit.org
        2·
        10 hours ago

        It would certainly help a lot if you could tone down your condescending attitude a little.

        I fail to see where anything you write is an actual argument against my distinction between different forms of working with the means to produce something. Yes, I’ve misread your vendor as a farmer, but that’s not a reason to go ad hominem.