Yes, exactly. Feminists make excellent consoomers because they have nothing else. Even the "furbabies" become commodified.
It's because you're using the Socialist definition of the word
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests. The "market" has long since worked hand-in-hand with the state, from the Enclosure Acts, to the United Fruit Company, to the Federal Reserve, and up today, to Google and Amazon.
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
No, now you've switched from the Marxist definition of Capitalism (where it's the core of your identity), to an economic definition of capitalism, which is simply academic.
And if that were your argument, then it makes even less sense than your use of the Marxist definition. People who use their money as form of investing in businesses in order to give them the capital liquidity to expand and earn a profit are not universally looking to have cheap labor. Investing in higher quality labor for a more efficient system is likely a better strategy than just having "cheap" labor. The kind of Capitalist you're talking about cares about the quality of the business they invested in more than anything else.
Hell, the kind of Capitalist you just defined is the kind of Capitalist that stands against your Marxist definition, and explicitly says, "Cash is a Bad Investment"
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests.
That's not really true. It's more true during the reign of Feudalism, but free markets have and do exist, and they have been most common in England under Liberal philosophies that emphasized private property rights, and prevented the state from simply imposing it's agenda on everyone, and allowed people to develop an economy on their own, while the state could be rewarded for sitting the fuck out and letting people make themselves rich.
Yes, exactly. Feminists make excellent consoomers because they have nothing else. Even the "furbabies" become commodified.
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests. The "market" has long since worked hand-in-hand with the state, from the Enclosure Acts, to the United Fruit Company, to the Federal Reserve, and up today, to Google and Amazon.
No, now you've switched from the Marxist definition of Capitalism (where it's the core of your identity), to an economic definition of capitalism, which is simply academic.
And if that were your argument, then it makes even less sense than your use of the Marxist definition. People who use their money as form of investing in businesses in order to give them the capital liquidity to expand and earn a profit are not universally looking to have cheap labor. Investing in higher quality labor for a more efficient system is likely a better strategy than just having "cheap" labor. The kind of Capitalist you're talking about cares about the quality of the business they invested in more than anything else.
Hell, the kind of Capitalist you just defined is the kind of Capitalist that stands against your Marxist definition, and explicitly says, "Cash is a Bad Investment"
That's not really true. It's more true during the reign of Feudalism, but free markets have and do exist, and they have been most common in England under Liberal philosophies that emphasized private property rights, and prevented the state from simply imposing it's agenda on everyone, and allowed people to develop an economy on their own, while the state could be rewarded for sitting the fuck out and letting people make themselves rich.