Entangling briars already explain it well, but I find that when there technical terms involved, an example is always easier to understand initially.
Under capitalism, John Jacob Richman the 6th owns a cell phone factory. He does not work there. In fact, he has never "worked" in a way the average person would recognize. He has hobbies, skills, even education. But he has never submitted himself to the dictatorship of another person for hours and hours, in exchange for food or tokens to buy food with.
The reason he does not work if because his ownership of a factory means he's entitled to take money from the sale of phones made in that factory. However, these are not phones he made.
Instead, he gives a fraction of the money made by selling those phones to the people who make the phones. In exchange for the money, he gets to control their actions and the things they make while at his factory.
However, without those people to make the phones, there would be no sales. John Richman would become John Poorman, because he does not make anything of his own. He just claims ownership of the facilities and tools used by other people to make the phones.
That ownership is what makes him a capitalist. Anticapitalism argues that the people who use those tools and make those phones should not have to give a share of the sales to John Richman, because he hasn't actually done anything. The factory workers can easily make phones without him there, and because he would not be taking the majority of the profits from phone sales, the factory workers would have more money as well.
There are a lot of complications and layers you can add onto it, but the basic-most premise of Anticapitalism is, "if a product or service could be done just as easily--or MORE easily--without you, then you probably shouldn't be getting all the money from it."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-02-25 02:14 pm (UTC)Under capitalism, John Jacob Richman the 6th owns a cell phone factory. He does not work there. In fact, he has never "worked" in a way the average person would recognize. He has hobbies, skills, even education. But he has never submitted himself to the dictatorship of another person for hours and hours, in exchange for food or tokens to buy food with.
The reason he does not work if because his ownership of a factory means he's entitled to take money from the sale of phones made in that factory. However, these are not phones he made.
Instead, he gives a fraction of the money made by selling those phones to the people who make the phones. In exchange for the money, he gets to control their actions and the things they make while at his factory.
However, without those people to make the phones, there would be no sales. John Richman would become John Poorman, because he does not make anything of his own. He just claims ownership of the facilities and tools used by other people to make the phones.
That ownership is what makes him a capitalist. Anticapitalism argues that the people who use those tools and make those phones should not have to give a share of the sales to John Richman, because he hasn't actually done anything. The factory workers can easily make phones without him there, and because he would not be taking the majority of the profits from phone sales, the factory workers would have more money as well.
There are a lot of complications and layers you can add onto it, but the basic-most premise of Anticapitalism is, "if a product or service could be done just as easily--or MORE easily--without you, then you probably shouldn't be getting all the money from it."