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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Well, if you assume the farmer excludes others from using the means of production i.e. the fields, then yes you can argue that they are acting as capitalist. But you have to make the distinction between private and personal ownership: Private ownership of the land and personal ownership of the produce. The former is what communists reject. The latter is fine in their books.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      Well, I’d say that the definition of capitalism changes depending on if you’re talking about capitalism as opposed to feudalism (original/historical definition) vs capitalism as opposed to communism (modern definition).