You're viewing a single thread.
capitalism wouldn't be so bad without the corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs
Capitalism grantees they rise to power.
systematic removal of regulations and consequences has enabled greedy corporate dickbacks to sieze power.
systems are made of people. To make a better system, you need better people.
You're wrong. Capitalism is, by definition, a "winner takes it all" system. The logical endpoint of competition between private entities is the consolidation of one of those entities, and once economy of scale plays a role, reversing that is almost impossible. And once a private entity has significantly more economic power than the others, it can manipulate regulations and consequences. Capitalism explicitly rewards by design being greedy
You're talking about unregulated capitalism...
Give me a historical example of properly functioning, regulated capitalism
You can't, because they're all operated and used by humans. While there may be a logical framework and rules to make a system like capitalism work, it's the fact that not all humans will respect or follow the rules. Eventually any fairness or equality the rules are supposed to ensure will be worked around by humans that choose not to play fair. Watching the response Mamdami received from the Dems is a perfect example of why our system is broken. He's got the popular vote of the party, yet they are doing everything in their power to stop him. That's merely a single recent example though, shit has been broken since the get-go
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, the other animals have stable systems of rules that have worked fine for millenia. We just gotta find a new social order that scales better than tribes.
Yes, and that's capitalism. The regulations are antithetical to capitalism, but they're also the only thing keeping us slightly safe from it. Yes, making capitalism less capitalist makes it a lot better. We can have a better system that's just better, with the people that exist.
I think a lot of people misunderstand capitalism in the same way other people misunderstand communism.
What you said is absolutely wrong, regulations are not antiethical in capitalism, they are necessary for the free market to remain free.
The system we see today is a corruption of capitalism the same way Stalinism is a corruption of Communism
A regulated market is by definition not a free market.
Wrong, a market can only be free if it's regulated, example: I have a competing factory up river from you and we both need clean water to operate, I output toxic chemicals into the water as a result of my operations making your business impossible.
You have to close your business and I get to set the price however I want without competition, in this example the lack of regulations create a less free market.
From the link you posted
In practice, governments usually intervene to reduce externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions;
An absence of any of the conditions of perfect competition is considered a market failure. Regulatory intervention may provide a substitute force to counter a market failure, which leads some economists to believe that some forms of market regulation may be better than an unregulated market at providing a free market.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
The Supreme Court specifically, they gave US citizens united, and then unlimited executive power. Now we’re fucked being most hope.
They always do, regardless of the economic system.
I would not describe any communist or socialist leader as a Christian Fascist Oligarch.
it sure does with small government.
remember there are countries that enjoy capitalism without the 5 ring circus shitshow we have going on in the states
So far, but corruption is always the end result.
corruption is always the end result.
i'm not trying to simp for capitalism, but corruption can and does happen under any system
Give Europe a bit more time. They'll get there.
The problem with capitalism in a representative democracy is that is almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government. If the government asks for too many taxes (on an extreme level) etc the market doesn’t function anymore. The “free market” needs some level of class difference to make profit attractive and keep people committed to their jobs. Because of these differences class conflict is created and through privately owned newspapers, corruption and short term economic gains regulation’s get liberalized. This results in wealth accumulation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This then leads to the social and economic conditions that allow for the rise of the populist right.
As a European I can currently see this happening in all countries to which I pay attention (namely Germany, Netherlands and Britain).
almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government
yep. while that's true, i can't think of a valid argument against some regulating body that protects all the people, which, in america, has been somehow defined as communism by the corrupt upper crust
if there is hope, it lies in the proles
Those countries are headed towards that circus at varying paces, so that argument doesn't work anymore. I mean Germany? France? Sweden? Britain? Italy?
Capitalism ultimately rots into authoritarianism through wealth accumulation.
Capitalism is always bad, because capitalism is where an ownership class who does no work leeches from a working class who owns nothing.
Don’t confuse free markets with capitalism, they’re different.
Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?
The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?
Capital has existed far longer than capitalism has.
I mean, this feels semantic. The word capitalism is obviously of the modern era, but there are governments and economic systems going back to antiquity that I think meet all of the definitional requirements of "capitalistic."
Really, I just lack a vision of what "free trade but not capitalism" could possibly mean. Could you describe that system for me?
When I try to do so, the result always meets the literal, dictionary definition of capitalism, as listed above.
It's definitely semantic, but semantics is the reason we use different words for different things.
Anyway, "free trade but not capitalism" would just be anything where you can buy and sell stuff, but without the individual owner class. It can be part of anything. Let's say workers own their workplace. They still get paid, and they can use that money to buy what they want. That isn't capitalism, but it still has free trade. Free trade is one component that is required in capitalism, but it isn't exclusive to it.
Edit: Also, something can be capitalistic without being capitalism. It can have characters related to capitalism, but not meet all the requirements.
So, it isn't the ownership and trade of capital that makes something capitalism, it's when someone is allowed to accumulate too much capital?
What constitutes "enough" capital to push it over the edge into capitalism?Or is it that you cannot have non-owner workers? That you can't employ additional help without those people buying into the business?
Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand the distinction. I genuinely don't know what "all the requirements" necessary to make it capitalism are, and try as I might I am not finding any beyond the literal definition in the dictionary, which doesn't have any.
What is the source for this definition of capitalism? Just trying to figure out if this is, like, the "academic definition" or something. Cause, as you say, what words mean does mean something, which is why we have different words for different things.
I do think it's really easy to redefine words in a "no true Scotsman"-y way, where you redefine a general word to mean "just the versions of that thing I don't like," in order to tribalise it. Which doesn't mean that's what you're doing here. I'm just trying to understand, and I think if we can't agree on what the word capitalism even means, we aren't exactly going to get anywhere. So I'm just trying to figure out what definition of the term you are using and why.
The definition above, that you're referring to, is clear enough. Ownership of trade and industry by private owners for profit.
If industry isn't privately owned it isn't capitalist. If it isn't for profit it isn't capitalist.
If the state, workers, or other non-private groups own the means of production, it isn't capitalist. If they're not operating the industry in a manner to make profit, and instead are doing good (for example), it isn't capitalist.
People can still be paid and they can still spend their money on goods and services. That is not necessarily capitalist behavior. It's just a method of distributing value.
I think where I struggle with this conceptually is mapping it onto the US service economy.
We've largely moved away from "owning the means of production" translating to "who has the rights to the copper mines" and more to mean, "who owns big businesses." And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are, it feels much more far reaching to say that there should be no "private ownership of businesses" than "someone shouldn't have exclusive rights to all the copper."
I'd also push back on "the workers" not being private ownership, unless you're advocating for a model where any business is required to cut in all employees as part owners?
And I don't know how you legislate running a business "for good" and not "for profit"? That line seems blurry at best, as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed. Maybe caps on the amount of profit that a business can make as a percentage of revenue? Idk, it seems impossible to make such a system that isn't easy to game.
We've largely moved away from "owning the means of production" translating to "who has the rights to the copper mines" and more to mean, "who owns big businesses."
Most often it's about who owns the factories, but yeah, all of it comes into play. For example, there's limited land to get resources, and how did people come to own it? (Check out What is Property? by Proudhon.)
And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are
Barriers of entry is the issue. Say you want to create a competitor to YouTube. You don't just say the words and sign a document and have a competitor. No, you need massive datacenters, deals with ISPs, land, power, employees. That's billions of dollars needed, and then you need to have people visit too, and how are you going to compete with Google for that?
This is similar for most industries. You want to make a car company? Same story. Sure, you can start a restaurant, but not much larger unless you're already a billionaire or have some very good connections.
Even if you can effectively compete with existing companies, they have the connections and access to make it harder for you to fairly compete in the market. They'll make sure companies don't carry your product or do business with you, and they have the capital to undercut you and take a loss until you can't remain solvent. This is what happens on Amazon constantly. Someine releases a product, Amazon copies it and sells it cheaper until the original seller can't continue, then they raise the prices.
And I don't know how you legislate running a business "for good" and not "for profit"?
Even under capitalism we do this. They're called "not-for-profits."
as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed.
No, you need revenue. Profit is income - expenses. If it's neutral that isn't profit. For example, everything after cost of production can go to employees. That leaves you no profit.
The idea is to create a system where people aren't trying to maximize profit. You want everyone creating for the greater good. There are a lot if competing ideas on how to do this. Even if it won't ever be perfect, neither is what we have now. Nothing will ever be perfect.
This is the huge problem with the wider debate; hardcore leftists have a very specific well-defined meaning in mind when they use the word "Capitalism", whereas the majority of the general public think "Capitalism" just means "you can start a business if you want".
"Neoliberalism" doesn't work in most rhetoric either because it's got the word "liberal" in it. We need a new word that's unambiguously understood to refer to the specific components of capitalism that are objectionable.
Which "specific components of capitalism" would you say are not objectionable? It's essence is the private ownership of the productive forces of society and the derivation of profit by selling the product. The core of it is objectionable from the view of democracy or egalitarianism.
You're exemplifying my point quite well there, in terms of debating from the perspective of your own very precise no-true-Scotsman definition.
But to answer you at face value, let's have a look in wikipedia's opening paragraph on Capitalism:
This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
It's going to be a struggle convincing the developed world, or even the majority of left-leaning voters, that owning your own home, earning a company salary, paying people for services rendered, or market competition all need abolishing. Most people just want to see a bit more market regulation, monopoly busting, worker protections, social welfare, money removed from politics, and the rich paying their share of tax.
How is the definition I posted any different from what you quoted? I said the essence, the core required part that defines it as capitalism, there are other historic aspects but I was saying what the most basic elements of it are. And those are what I believe we should have an issue with, and if you remove that essence, it's not capitalism.
You can own your own stuff with socialism, even a home, that is one of the common misunderstandings of socialism. People want to see a lot of things but dreams cannot always become reality. The fact of the matter is that the state will be co-opted by capitalists and they will remove protections, it's a natural cause and effect of the capitalist system. It might be possible to manage this tendency but requires so many controls that it gets further from the definition of capitalism and may as well begin to be called market socialism or another term.
I'm not trying to convice the average westerner who has essentially zero history and political education. Not everyone needs to be convinced anyway, most people right now have little agency in politics and don't care to.
Well you have mercantilism, which was the predecessor of capitalism
Basically, the difference is the role of government. Think of it in feudal terms - a noble owns a mine, owns an expedition, uses their soldiers for both security of their land and their monetary interests. As far as raw resources/resource producing land, you couldn't buy that without buying a title first
But it's a line that blurred as time went on. If you're a leather worker, that leather came from an animal owned by the king or by livestock owned by a noble. So you're paying taxes on the inputs, but you can probably sell stuff freely - although imports and exports might be taxed. And if you're a merchant, you might buy spices from one noble and sell it to others
But the means of production were owned by a noble - they owned the land and the serfs that work it, they own the animals and the mines.
As time went on, it kinda faded... Maybe you sell the rights to mine a site, maybe you partner with a merchant to go on an expedition for spices, maybe you just require a permit to hunt on the land, and so on
But then as supply chains gets more complicated, you kind of naturally evolve into capitalism
See, the trick there is in your first paragraph I feel like. Under mercantilism, trade is under the almost exclusive purview of the government. So I would argue this doesn't really meet the definition of "free trade."
But, to steel man a bit, when "the government" is fairly unstructured, like in a feudal system, the line between government control of trade and "private citizen" control of trade can be a bit blurry. And over time I'm sure it gets messy whether a person is a "government entity" or not.
I do also feel like there's a "difference of scale is difference of kind" problem here. Obviously if you own a copper mine and employ hundreds of people to go down and mine it for you, you own the means of production. But also, if you run a small restaurant in a strip mall and hire a half dozen servers to wait tables, you also own the means of production.
And, to your point, there probably were private innkeepers under mercantilism that took coin in exchange for goods and services. They probably employed people to help work the place. Does that make it capitalism? What if the owner used the money from that inn to build another, then another and another, and eventually had the money to buy a title and become part of the "noble class"? Is it capitalism then? Does a system that allows for that count as a capitalism, or does it need to actively encourage it?
Idk. I think my big issue, at the end of the day, is that the word capitalism doesn't really mean anything. Or, rather, no one can really agree on what it means, and it just turns into a tribalism stand in word for "anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy." But that's so unspecific as to be totally useless. What parts of "capitalism" are you decrying? What would you replace it with? But I feel like any questions are met with anger that you're not bought into the anti-capitalist agenda, even though no two people seem to agree on what that actually means.
To address your first point, you go into the bazaar, and you buy a shirt vs another shirt. The lord owns the cotton fields, they both come from the same place but have different prices and different quality/traits - that's a free market. The raw materials belong to the lord, but what you do with it is up to the artisan
You're trying to cut the difference between raw materials and value added - that's the murky difference between mercantilism and capitalism
Remember, there was an age where shipping iron to a town was how farmers got tools - mercantilism is about raw materials in and out, once things get complicated it doesn't make sense
Fair, though it seems like you're saying that capitalism is just complicated mercantilism, at which point it ceases to be a good example of free trade without capitalism, no?
Though, I do get your overarching point that capitalism has more to do with private ownership of the means of production.
I think though, especially in a service economy like the US, it's hard to define "the means of production" in a way that is distinguishable from generalized private property and enterprise.
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say
If you want free markets without capitalism - this literally existed
What are the means of production? Machines that weave thread into cloth. Machines that weave cotton fibers into thread. The land that grows the cotton. The people that harvest the cotton. The land itself
The was something that money could not buy, until it could. That's the line
Sorry, iirc this conversation started with the question about what does free trade look like in a non-capitalistic system, and you pointed to mercantilism. You then seemed to say that the main difference between capitalism and mercantilism is the complexity of the marketplace. Which, if true, seems like a poor example of free trade without capitalism, as they're largely the same system.
But I do understand your point. When trade is controlled by the state (a la mercantilism), I don't know that I'd call it free trade, but, really, I'm not too hung up on this point, as I think the real blurring of the line is on the micro vs macro scale. You can have local free trade without large scale free trade (e.g I can sell leather goods, but not be involved in the import and export of animal products which remains the purview of the "government"). I might argue that this is localized capitalism in a non-capitalist system, but typically when we talk about capitalism we are talking about governmental economic organization.
I also really feel like this breakdown is due to trying to map this into the modern economy. Does the definition of the "means of production" breaks down in a service economy like the US? The amount of total jobs involved in any part of cloth production (or other manufacturing sector jobs) is a minority. What does "seizing the means of production" look like when what's being "produced" are services not goods?
I think, if nothing else, it makes it hard to distinguish the "leather worker" from the "animal products exporter" as those are only different in scale not kind when there is no immutable aspect of nature or industry under control. The difference between my local burger joint and McDonalds is of scale, not kind, so how do I seize the means of production from one and not the other?
Free trade is "I possess a good or service, and we have agreed that I will exchange it with you for a price."
Capitalism is "I possess capital (money, value), and I have built a scheme where I exchange a tiny bit of that capital for other people's work, where that work generates large profits that go to me."
Free trade is between the seller and the buyer. Capitalism is the wealthy exploiting the non-wealthy.
Can you provide a source for that definition of capitalism?
Genuinely asking, as it's not the definition I have historically heard, and while I can find things that argue that what you are saying is an inevitable byproduct of unregulated capitalism, I can't find anywhere that says those problems are a requirement for a system to be called capitalism.
As far as I can tell, if there is free trade and money/capital is owned and managed by private citizens, then that meets every formal definition of capitalism I have been able to find.
"Late stage capitalism" I think carries the connotations that you have outlined, but not capitalism in general.
Karl Marx
Corruption is an inherent part of capitalism
Capitalism is the accumulation and hoarding of wealth at all costs. Exploitation and abuse are foundational concepts. There is no ethical or moral version of such a system, and so no version of it that “wouldn’t be so bad.” It is immorality and evil distilled into a code of conduct.
There's a reason capitalism is essentially counter to the teachings of all major world religions, many of which are extremely authoritarian in their own way.
One aspect of modern capitalism is predatory loans, which every Abrahamic religion has writings against.
It's pretty telling most religions would not go as far as "poor people can go fuck themselves" despite being used to control people through fear over millenia but the end game of unchecked capitalism is truly as simple as "poor people can go fuck themselves"
That’s what capitalism is.
Anarchists still believe in trade.
corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs
AKA the inventors and vanguard of capitalism.
so … capitalism wouldn’t be so bad without … capitalism. Remember: all of what we see is bog standard capitalist formula.
Capitalism only works when heavily regulated, because human greed is a cancer to everything it touches.
This — if capitalism could be contained by government it would do nicely, but it ends up corrupting government so that it cannot function.
It's the basic idea behind ordoliberalism – companies get free reign until their actions start harming the common good, at which point the government imposes fair rules to even the playing field. It's... reasonably functional as far as political theories go. Still wildly suboptimal, though, and not long-term stable against the influence of hyper-wealthy entities.
That regulation is antithetical to capitalism. Yes, it's the only thing that keeps it functioning in a reasonable manner, but that's just an indication capitalism is bad.
Yes, less capitalist capitalism is better than more capitalist capitalism. Maybe we should just have none.
That's the problem. The system prioritizes wealth accumulation above all else. When you build a society that views wealth as the highest state of being then those regulatory systems will eventually be bought out.
There may well be no such thing as a sustainable regulated capitalism, especially when we've normalized the monetization of everything.
That's saying a grilled cheese wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have cheese. At that point it ain't a grilled cheese anymore so why even try to defend it in the first place? Just eat some god damn bread
capitalism is amazing as long as it not allowed to run rampant. stricter regulations and safety nets (usa) would make the whole risk/reward game of capitalism more palatable imo
Salt and pepper make dog shit more palatable too. Instead of seeking to make bad things palatable, can we try something different instead?
I'd imagine salt would make it taste worse for the same reasons why salt makes food taste better, but this is just me being facetious
Please tell me, when exactly has capitalism been amazing?
They're confusing free market with capitalism most likely.
Yup. Most things go bad if not fixed and out of control. Moderation is key. The problem is the people in charge don't want a good system. They want a system they can control.
They will do anything but a fair system because then they would lose control.
Yes let's set strict global rules on pricing of goods and a living standard of wage as well as rent capped at 10-20% income based(not real estate). Then companies can be taxed to provide health insurance and housing for everyone. Finally we can ensure 97+% employment by setting full time to 20hr a week with 3mo vacation mandatory minimum. I suppose in that world Capitalism sounds A-OK to me.
Simple small changes no biggie
I used to believe this...
Yeah... and for sure there are gradations which are worse or better than what we have now. Like more tightly managed capitalism is better, but there is no way to actually keep the demon capital from escaping containment forever.
You need to nullify the incentives to accumulate capital.
unfortunately no one cares what anyone believes. especially not the capitalists who own us. the only thing that matters is what we do. which, so far, has been nothing.
What I was trying to say is that I'm no longer naive enough to think that's true. This is capitalism working as intended.
congrats, i guess?
Thanks!
Gee I wonder why a system that rewards people for being corrupt … oligarchs keeps producing corrupt … oligarchs?
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh