You earn a billion selling wonderbras and buy one of these - OK.

You build one of this on corruption money while ruling the richest country with the poorest people - not OK.

> You earn a billion selling wonderbras and buy one of these - OK.

> You build one of this on corruption money while ruling the richest country with the poorest people - not OK.

They are two forms of capitalist exploitation.

Your framing excuses the ‘business‘ kind, but the underlying exploitative mechanics are really no different.

Most global north firms benefit from labor in corporate-bribed and IMF-drained regimes in the global south. Global south citizens are basically locked up in their countries, to be ruthlessly exploited by global north capitalist firms. The capitalist class wins, the working class loses.

Saying that selling someone a product they like and want at a reasonable price is just the same as ruthlessly running a dictatorship in a poor third world nation is another level of pretentious privilege. How can even you compare the two in good faith?

What if the company used child labor? If even Apple used parts built by children for years, I can only assume companies used it as well.

So if that’s the case, is it that different?

Bullshit. Nobody can force me into buying wonderbras. Sure, immense wealth translates into power, monopolies suck and antitrust regulations are the for a reason.

Still it's a far cry from running an oil state and killing adversaries.

> Still it's a far cry from running an oil state and killing adversaries.

Because Amerika doesn’t do exactly that, right?

I don't know about this case

but if you sold someone something that he genuinely wanted to buy something you legally own for the price the buyer could compare to alternatives etc

there is nothing wrong or unfair about it no matter how much you profit from such a deal

> I don't know about this case

I understand your confusion. The capitalist class push a different narrative, a narrative which makes others’ exploitation, as well as our own, seem normal - as well as portraying capitalist production as the only viable system of production.

If you’re genuinely interested in exploring this from a systemic perspective, I can recommend Zak Cope’s ‘The Wealth of Some Nations’, as well as Vijay Prashad’s recent book ‘Washington Bullets‘, or anything written by him really.

Genuinely interested how a sane person can be a communist in the 21st century.

This was not a productive comment. Those that have different views from yours are not insane.

As for how? I am not a communist but I am anti-capitalist because it’s clear to me capitalism is not going to solve the environmental crisis it created.

How does capitalism cause environmental damage any more than alternate systems, say communism, anarchism, or feudalism? Neither of those systems have avoided environmental damage where they've been implemented. The common denominator is humans.

There are a few reasons I think this. Endless growth and short term profit are two hallmarks of capitalism. They also lead to exploiting natural resources past the point of no return.

I think there’s definitely potential for harmful growth + short term thinking in socialist countries as well, especially when you factor in international competition.

But I think it could only be better than what we’re doing now.

Imo the biggest differentiator between a more capitalist society and a more democratic socialist society is who has power. In the US, it’s people and corporations with lots of money. And guess what! People and corporations with lots of money are incentivized to accelerate climate disaster if it means boosting their short term wealth.

In (ideal — I know it’s not going to work out 100% this way) democratic socialism, everyone has equal power. This will necessarily lead to a less exploitative relationship to our planet.

You can see an example of capitalist vs demsoc power dynamics in the green new deal. A majority of registered voters across parties support the GND [1]. So in a demsoc society with the same level of support, the GND would be made into law. But there’s a slim chance it’ll come to fruition in the US. Why? Because the people in power have a vested interest in not losing money, and any worthwhile GND is going to cost the rich a _lot_ of money.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-ma...

But endless growth isn't the goal. Endless improvements in efficiency are, and those improvements are infinitely available in practical terms.

For instance, we have less of that precious Iowan topsoil than we did 100 years ago, but our yields are higher than ever. No endless growth required, but it has made us all better off.

Well endless growth is the goal in capitalism at the level of a publicly traded corporation, but I get what you’re saying that it can actually lead to beneficial impacts if that’s more efficient.

However, I think short term monetary efficiency and long term sustainability are not always going to align.

Is it possible there’s an alternative where we aren’t beholden to the whims of a heavily manipulated market to solve our problems? Where we can address an issue head on instead of waiting until the fix is more efficient than the problem?

You need to check on how communist regimes were handling their environments.

economy is non zero sum game.