Nothing "capitalist" prevents these parties from renegotiating their agreements and contracts to stop wasting the goods delivered. This is anything but "structural".
As correctly noted by @incognitum seeing such silly reductionism a question logically arises: ok, so what's the alternative?
Then you realise that all known alternatives not based on market economy were event more wasteful and "ecocidal".
@xj9 this!
@xj9
I'm absolutely fine with cooperatives, in fact you can start one today. If it offers customers a better experience than the corporations, you'll kill them off naturally! But I think you'll find instead that big government likes to do big favors for their friends in big corporations (e.g., trillion (with a T!) dollar bailouts... again) you'll have trouble competing :( so *actually* doing the first thing will make the second thing possible, or maybe even unnecessary.
@strypey @kravietz
@incognitum
> government likes to do big favors for their friends in big corporations
Goverment is, as an old ally used to say, an arena of class struggle. Obviously business people are going to do their best to use government to serve their interests (eg DMCA). Civil society can push back and try to use government to serve the public interest (eg GDPR). But the most important thing the state does for capitalists is enforce property claims. Check out:
http://c4ss.org/
sure. It happens in every capitalistic system, it only happens there, it happens everytime, it happens continuously, but is not "structural".
Well, you are right: it is just "automatic", "associated" and "inherent".
Capitalism started in 1800, so there were plenty of systems which were not capitalist , NOT based on market economy, plus working much better.