People complaining about a problem doesn't mean it is a problem. I want cheaper milk, I complain about the price of milk, but the price is probably correct and that's for me to grumble about.
"Captains of industry" want a pool of unemployed people they can pick from. If the pool is dried then that's fine. It's not a sign that capitalism has failed.
If by "capitalism" we merely mean things like a market economy with property rights, then the question would be what to call a system that has this but where workers, rather than captains of industry, have more power? Whatever we want to call _that_ system, it doesn't currently exist, and we've seen that any moves in that direction are very strongly resisted (c.f. return to office policies driven by captains of industry freaking out).
what "rule" ? - capitalism doesn't set out to "rule" by anyone, it's been a system of owning capital (to put it very simply / abbreviated) for as long as I've known it. I would call myself a "capitalist" (in that i ascribe to it, used it to pull myself out of poverty) but i do not believe in anyone having "rule" over me, especially not my employers. As a sound bite: "freer the markets, freer the people".
> Hence a lack of unemployed people, which would hurt the captains of industry, _would_ be a failure under that definition of "capitalism."
Ok, I could argue "maybe not", but why would we be arguing under that definition of capitalism? Is it not the same as "well my definition of capitalism is that everyone gets ponies and candies, so if you have rotted teeth, that's a failure of capitalism, under that definition."
I'm saying this in jest but for a real reason, why would we "just pick a definition of capitalism and argue why it fails" ?
> If by "capitalism" we merely mean things like a market economy with property rights, then the question would be what to call a system that has this but where workers, rather than captains of industry, have more power?
Capitalism. I'll assume by "power" you mean things like bargaining power for salary negotiations, benefits, etc, which is what unions do.. then yes, by definition, the seller (union) has capital (labour) that the buyer (whatever boogeyman you want) will have to negotiate for. The alternatives are to take it by force, which goes both ways, and ends in eternal conflict or a ruling power (this time real "rule" not phoney "he gave me a job" rule.)
> Whatever we want to call _that_ system, it doesn't currently exist, and we've seen that any moves in that direction are very strongly resisted
I strongly resist the rise in milk prices as well. It's a natural thing to resist having to pay more for the same services, because one seems to be losing something for no reason.. that's not to say it's a bad thing. Milk is expensive, people have real needs.
The only way to supress the complaining is by 1. convincing people that's what they really want, or 2. beating / forcibly supressing that. CCP for example, does both, by attributing anything to nationalism and/or xenophobia - because it works and keeps the populace not demanding more power from the government.
> (c.f. return to office policies driven by captains of industry freaking out).
I would fathom that it's less "captains of industry wanting to enslave the common people like you and I" and more "commercial real-estate no longer has as much of a purpose and people do not want to be left holding the bag"
It seems clear to me that those with a great deal of capital have far more influence over what laws get passed and enforced than those with less capital. And that many laws benefit those with more capital, often at the expense of those with less. I'd call that "rule."
For capitalism you also need to leverage the work of others for your own profit, i.e. wage labor. Syndicalism, for example, also allows for private property and a market economy. It's not capitalism, though.
Worker exploitation is a core principle of capitalism.
you can choose not to work. you just have to figure out how to get food and shelter on your own though.
you can go into the woods, hunt and fish, and build your own shelter. as long as you're not breaking laws, you'll be fine.
If work was owed to the state (or syndicate), then you have no choice (by being part of the state) - so which one is slavery and exploitation?
