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

    Capitalism isn’t infallible. Externalities to capitalism are well-understood.

    The problem is that the particular criticism being leveled there is nonsensical. We don’t live within a finite system. New avenues of growth are constantly appearing, in both “typical” production methods and, most especially, service sector.

    The idea that capitalism even requires infinite “growth” is problematic because “growth” is indefinable in the way this criticism is being leveled.

    To add on, this criticism is generally leveled by “de-growth” elements of socialists/communists, who also cannot explain why those systems don’t also require “growth” to provide for increasing numbers of people or how “growth” can be offset aside from simply not providing enough resources for people, which has unpleasant undertones.

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re splitting hairs about what people call growth when the term is used most commonly to refer to the ROI and the issue with sustainable business. A perfectly sustainable business is viewed unfavorably if it doesn’t generate increased revenue beyond inflation. I.e. a company makes a revenue jump but no “new profits”, it gets sandbagged.

      The coop business model says “profits” get returned to member/owners as capital credits. Everyone employed can still do really well, members get value for their money, and investors can go fuck themselves.

      We need more co-ops.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All* businesses that don’t make money are viewed unfavorably because they aren’t succeeding.

        *Except, ironically, businesses buoyed by investment capital