Capitalism and exploitation: The plight of small and big capitalists

Capitalism is on everyone’s lips, and capitalist thought has the world under its influence over the last few centuries. But what does capitalism signify, and what must we understand from capitalism?

We should first remember that capitalism is identified as an economic system in which the private property of production factors is adopted, and its operation for profit is considered legitimate under competitive (free) market conditions. Karl Marx had a role in achieving this definition. Considering the discussions on capitalism, it can be said that it seems it centralizes the middle-income group. The socialist theory, on the other hand, can be said to focus on the low-income group. I opened this discussion to present a different view later.

Getting back to the definition, it may seem appealing, but in reality, it is contrary to the disposition of economic actors in some respects. It has a problem that leads to major troubles: Capitalist competitiveness.

Capitalist competitiveness refers to the elimination of the values and good traits that will prevent competition from going extreme. This clashing competition is the cause of all capitalism-based problems. It is legitimized by Darwin.

The issue with capitalism lies within its definition, as it emphasizes the profit motive rather than the added value motive. This prioritization suggests that the problem is rooted in the very meaning of capitalism.

Problems will not cease unless capitalist competitiveness is replaced by solidarity, and science has thus started to lean towards solidaristic theories that refute Darwin. However, the definitions (or conceptions) of capitalism, which I will provide, continue to increase against us daily.

Let us take a look at the matter based on the Turkish translation of capitalism.

Though capitalism is translated into Turkish as “sermayecilik, anamalcılık, başmalcılık” or more interestingly, “sermayedarcılık” (all translations of “capitalism”), it is difficult to object. But is actually inappropriate to use the term “sermaye” or its synonyms. Capital and “sermaye” do not seem like one and the same – especially as late capitalism is associated with capital interest. The fact that paying interest on capital in the Turkish law system or tax system is essential, indicates the criticism of this duo in introduction to economy books is an intentional translation error. Capital is not “sermaye.” It is the state of money or easily redemptive movables instrumentalized with interest for production or consumption. In other words, capital is capital. As Turkish is a non-interest language, it lacks an equivalent term. Therefore, the way capitalism is comprehended is more important than its translation, as capitalism is multidimensional like Dante’s inferno.

What we understand from capitalism first is the sanctification of capital, the capitalist. According to economy professor Ahmet Tabakoğlu, it is the abasement of labor. According to Schumpeter, it is monopolism, the praise of stockpiling.

If we understand capitalism through its objective, it is a contemptible expectation of benefit.

Considering its method, it is the encouragement of conflict. Or the preference of short-term benefits over long-term benefits. It is hiding the aim, or deception in the aim.

In terms of the heart of the small capitalist, it is the trade of value.

If we look at the big capitalist, it is the exploitation first of the good, then small capitalists, then those whom they have power over.

In terms of the good, it is overstepping.

In terms of sacrifice, it is the isolation of humans.

As for evolutionist competition, it is appointing a god to humanity. It is rendering them as robotic animals, bionic animals.

From the view of those experiencing famine, capitalism is withholding.

The only economic system that stands in opposition to the current economic landscape is the Islamic economy. This system advocates for the promotion of added value rather than profit as the primary motive, seeks to bridge the income gap between low and high-income groups, and promotes the fair treatment of all production factors without bias. The Islamic economy represents a unique and alternative approach to economic theory in contrast to the dominant profit-driven models.

Most importantly, Islamic economy is the only school of thought that offers the solidaristic understanding and competition discipline that makes possible all the requirements which the above listed and capitalism denies humanity and other creations.

Not for a utopia, but for a reasonable world understanding.

This is the ideational dimension of the matter, but there is an actual dimension as well. I would like to provide one capitalist and one alternative example.

The first is the Turkish table of seven opposition parties. The attitude and decisions on the table are discussed and conveyed like they are based on solidarity. But it is seen that none of this is concrete or goes beyond an argument to “veil” the truth. Everyone is experiencing that competition is the real dynamic that keeps the table alive. Everything from the choice of candidate to the footsies among candidates, from the lists to the order, from the alliance components to the appetite to collect votes, is itself a competition element. Every actor is clashing with one another as if they are on the battlefield – very much like treasure hunters attacking each other upon finding the treasure. This is the embodiment of capitalism. This may not have been the intention, but it is the result.

The opposite example in this discussion is the People’s Alliance. You have compliance instead of competition, a satisfying degree of reciprocal respect and trust, a remarkably impressive body language, an effort to contribute, and an almost impeccable solidaristic approach (even if there are some minor flaws, it will cause no harm).

Both alliances are representatives of different sociologies and values. Both alliances and the different sociologies are valid. yuy