I'd argue "under unregulated capitalism" and would love to hear how Im wrong here: When you buy an apple from a farmer in EU thats local to your small town, I'd say thats pretty ethical? Isnt it??!

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, "capitalism" here means specifically "late-stage capitalism."

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Now also actually discuss. Would love to know "how" I'm wrong

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're not, I'm agreeing with you.

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes but no. I see the issue in terms of late stage capitalism too - but I think in a sibling comment this discussion already happened.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your example is fine. It's not an option for most people to be able to source everything they need where the supply chain doesn't rely on exploitation of labor and resource extraction somewhere along the process. Whether it's in the materials used by the producer, the logistics in goods transport(oil & gas, shipping, warehousing, etc), or manufacturing of goods (labor, production house, etc...), the chain relies on exploitation somewhere along the way.

Buying the apple from your local farmer still relies on the oil industry to run farm equipment or transit of the product. By and large this is minimize when buying local from independent producers. Those, however, are often more expensive.

The consumer is the last step of exploitation. Where the profit stems from. Again, your local farmer probably isn't extorting you, but your local grocery store probably is.

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So "how" is there no regulation solution – my initial statement in question

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure regulate it then, effectively, and cut out any international trade which allows for the procurement of goods through a non-regulated system. Find a common agreement of what regulation is and find a way to ensure no one has an incentive to break that regulation. Find a way to ensure that a capitalist cannot accrue such wealth as to influence politics (or skirt whatever law you want against it).

The only people I've heard who want NO regulation are AnCaps and yeah lol no - (and also they still want property rights ig).

People just want a better system than what we have now. Which is laissez-faire capitalism. Beyond that there's the political philosophical aspect that "capitalism" can and does effectively mean rule by the wealthiest.

Lot's of people would be happy with a market system in a socialist society. Lots of people want Anarchism. Lots of people want Communism(the good or bad kind depending on who you ask).

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Id just love to see more corporations being like Mondragon(spanish) in the top ranks (i.e. stock corpos) but I would not want governments specifically to gain ownership forcefully.

So I'd call it regulated capitalism - as you said, just not paleo libertarian laissez-faire as we clearly see how that doesnt work once all markets are established (and even the competition phase was, as we all should know, pretty questionable historically cough imperialism cough)

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Buying an apple from a local farmer is not capitalism

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I buy bread from the local baker who is known as the German baker because they make kickass brotchen and these fantastic sesame and marzipan (my autocorrect said marsupial and while I do not doubt their skill I doubt their gluten) twists. They were across the parking lot from my first job and I did not know it but they had also just opened that year.