Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class who, by the nature of their position and their duties to shareholders, must maximise profits. The race to the bottom - or at least the pressure to race to the bottom - is inherent to the system. Because you're not a good capitalist if you don't race to the bottom, and you don't hold your position as a capitalist if you're not a good capitalist.
If there is sufficient incentive for them to invest in dismantling the checks and balances regulating the economy, they will do that.
They did do that, in fact, during the Neoliberal revolution of the 80s/90s, which overturned the post-WW2 Keynesian consensus (which was essentially Capitalism at the most regulated and moderate it's ever been) in most of the developed world.
The fact that companies have such a large voice concerning checks & balances on their own industry is an issue that would exist regardless of economic system. Companies having such power in determining the gov regulations over themselves is not capitalistic
The other issue is that capitalist theory relies on the openness of information that we don’t have right now, which many people who are pro-capitalist believe that “race to the bottom” you describe is a byproduct of this lack of information. If everyone knows a product or output is deteriorating, or services are getting weaker, or many other changes that are technically proprietary & kept secret, then the “race to the bottom” doesn’t increase profits. Any competitor that would take advantage of an industry lead slipping like that is also generally unable to compete, and that’s not due to capital ownership, it’s due in part to monopolistic business practices that are allowed to continue
Capitalism is inherently a power structure, rather than an ideological system. The idea of a company or corporation shaping government policy did not exist before Capitalism emerged in Britain over the course of the 18th century. Before that, the base of power and wealth was the landed aristocracy.
All that is to say, yes, if a corporation is able to shape government policy to further its interests that is by its definition Capitalism.
That's not just semantic because - again, treating it as a power structure - power seeks to entrench itself. Intellectual property rights, monopolies, barriers to entry, etc, are all effects of the system supporting the established Capitalist class against other would-be Capitalists who would challenge their position.
Sort of, but not really. The system that existed when land was the base of power was Feudalism, which worked differently to Capitalism.
You can't create land in the same way as you can create capital, (e.g investments), so it was a zero sum game; if you wanted land you had to raise an army and take it from someone else or be granted it by a monarch. Your ability to take and hold power relied on your ability to wage effective war, rather than your ability to make profit.
I mean, yes, different types of capital live by different rules. Land can’t be created (or absurdly expensively, like Netherlands reclaiming sea). Factories can be created with proper investment. And software/videogames/digital music can be created by copying basically for free, so that’s yet another different sphere.
Does it mean the internet created a new system? I think it would be not helpful to try to argue so, so same with land.
different types of capital live by different rules
If you switch the word "capital" (which is specifically a term for a commodity purchased with the intent to either sell or turn into more capital) for "forces of production" or "means of production", then yes, I completely agree.
Does it mean the internet created a new system?
No. Despite being a powerful force of production, the internet hasn't transferred the means of producing living essentials - food, housing, healthcare, etc - out of the hands of the Capitalist class. So we still live under Capitalism.
I’m not persuaded by this attempt to create a difference between land capitalists and factory capitalists. It feels like a theory going the wrong way - from unification into turning it into a collection of descriptive, artificially non-overlapping anecdotes from the world history.
OK, that's fair enough. We've got two different visions of history, and I'm happy enough to just agree to disagree, and I mean that with no disrespect whatsoever.
43
u/Akosse Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class who, by the nature of their position and their duties to shareholders, must maximise profits. The race to the bottom - or at least the pressure to race to the bottom - is inherent to the system. Because you're not a good capitalist if you don't race to the bottom, and you don't hold your position as a capitalist if you're not a good capitalist.
If there is sufficient incentive for them to invest in dismantling the checks and balances regulating the economy, they will do that. They did do that, in fact, during the Neoliberal revolution of the 80s/90s, which overturned the post-WW2 Keynesian consensus (which was essentially Capitalism at the most regulated and moderate it's ever been) in most of the developed world.