Edit: This question attracted way more interest than I hoped for! I will need some time to go through the comments in the next days, thanks for your efforts everyone. One thing I could grasp from the answers already - it seems to be complicated. There is no one fits all answer.

Under capitalism, it seems companies always need to grow bigger. Why can’t they just say, okay, we have 100 employees and produce a nice product for a specific market and that’s fine?

Or is this only a US megacorp thing where they need to grow to satisfy their shareholders?

Let’s ignore that most of the times the small companies get bought by the large ones.

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    In the strictest definition, they don’t.

    Capitalism is minimally fulfilled when a business sells something for a profit and reinvests the profit (now capital) in the business. Hence the term. It doesn’t have to grow the business, make new products, or do anything beyond maintenance of its processes, be that fixing or updating machinery or training employees. A single person selling tomatoes in a market in Madagascar that fixes of their tomato table with profits is perfectly capitalist.

    Expecting constant growth is not a requirement of anything.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I would argue that this is not really true under capitalism. The logic of capitalism is one of capital accumulation, which requires growth. Under other systems you still have markets and money and profits but there are other goals than the accumulation of capital and therefore achieving “homeostasis” is a successful strategy-a business run with consistent inputs and outputs which includes a sustainable profit.

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You don’t need to argue anything, because there is no universal definition of capitalism. Were not trying to define it.

        But the term itself requires capital to be involved, and for a business to exist, that capital needs to be reinvested in the business. That doesn’t require growth. The absolute minimal state simply requires pricing a good sold at a net profit. That’s all. Growth isn’t a requirement.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      While this is mostly true it’s certainly the case that publicly traded companies have strong incentives to grow.

      Private companies mostly have the ownership, and/or the desire to go public to blame.

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        And publicly traded companies are the also the minority of the total number of companies in the US. So this is a niche issue with outsized effects, meaning a policy solution is out there that