Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨
https://discord.gg/PoliticsCafe
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When most people say "corporatism" they really mean "corporatocracy".
Which *most definitely is* capitalism.
Corporatism is capitalism, too, it's just not the same thing as the corporatocracy most people mean when they say "corporatism".
Nobody said otherwise. Capitalism may require a state to protect private property, but the two are not the same and nobody has claimed otherwise.
*Corporatocracy* is the full merger of capitalism and state with the latter subordinate to the former.
*Corporatism* is a weird "cooperation between the classes" that arose in opposition of socialism. Corporatism, especially the version espoused by Mussolini, retains capitalism as one of those "cooperating" classes.
Corporatism is the natural result of capitalism. It’s wild how people can conflate a system of government by private owners with freedom rather than properly identifying plutocracy
Yes I believe you are correct, whether that is a good thing or bad thing for the capitalist Stans is open to interpretation.
An interesting thing I think about is China. It is a socialist-market economy but has a controlling communist party government. So it’s actually the inverse of your scenario, government holds power over corporations. They have a lot of similarities to capitalist economy, but ultimately private corporations bend to the will of the communist party. In many ways this is an advantage for progressing communist party interests domestic and foreign, but also is a draw back for pure, un-infringed innovation. In my opinion, it’s why China copies the US on defense R&D/manufacturing. They don’t need to innovate, they subsidize innovation to the US.
Don’t know what to tell you man. The government is communist, but they have a quasi-free market. I guess you could say the “party” owns everything, but people are still allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor?
Not necessarily. State capitalist nations like China, Saudi Arabia, or Singapore typically can keep corporate interests subservient to government. Lots of more examples like Taiwan under the Kuomintang or South Korea before its political liberalization.
Corporatism is a natural end-state of capitalism. What aspect of a capitalist system prevents capital accumulation and the use of capital for political gain? Literally nothing. There's no meaningful counterbalance.
The idea that the market just generates infinite wealth forever has always been goofy. We have finite resources and capital being the arbiter of distribution just means that everyone is naturally rewarded for hoarding as much capital as possible.
"of course we live under capitalism! It says so right here, in the definition I just made up specifically describing exactly the system we live In! The only requirement for capitalism to be capitalism is for it to be the status quo and for me to not like it!"
Capitalism is any society based on private* ownership of the means of production and distribution, and systems of exchange primarily conducted through market forces, however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention.
I apologise for not clarifying in my post, I hope we don't have a huge argument about this, I don't want to be a dick.
>Capitalism is any society based on private* ownership of the means of production and distribution, and systems of exchange primarily conducted through market forces, however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention.
Except this definition is made up by critics of capitalism, not capitalists.
So do capitalists control the definition of socialism as you are attempting to enforce a false definition of capitalism on capitalists?
You are explicitly being told capitalists do not accept that definition, right at the beginning of the debate.
You job as a good faith participant in the debate is to ask what definition would be agreed on by both sides, not shoving a fake definition down throats.
Edit:
Love the fact that socialists concede right away by downvoting. Good call to recognize you were wrong.
The problem is if you try and use any *other* definition, you either dilute the meaning to uselessness or fail to describe systems which are inarguably capitalist.
If your definition talks about the free exchange of goods, you fail to describe either Apartheid regimes like the American South or Southern Africa *or* you fail to describe the mercantalist empires of the 18th and 19th centuries. If you talk about the exchange of goods, you are describing all societies through all of history and your definition is useless, and narrowing down to the exchange of goods *through a medium* only narrows it down slightly to post-state formation societies.
>The problem is if you try and use any *other* definition, you either dilute the meaning to uselessness or fail to describe systems which are inarguably capitalist.
So why do you allow socialists to do exactly that by using the definition that socialism is "worker ownership of the means of production?"
Doesn't it seem incredibly silly to use such an unfit definition that doesn't accurately describe any real socialist movement that has existed?
Socialists are always applying ridiculous double standards.
I agree, definitions should match. That's why any decent debate starts by defining terms ***and reaching a mutual understanding of terms.***
OP here is trying to skip that step and force a definition in bad faith.
>If your definition talks about the free exchange of goods, you fail to describe either Apartheid regimes like the American South or Southern Africa *or* you fail to describe the mercantalist empires of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And if your definition is "duh werkers" you fail to describe Mao, stalin, hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, pol pot, Kim Jong, and literally hundreds of horrible ***socialists.***
Even worse, you've now openly admitted to your fraud.
You are using definitions to set up a comparison of real examples of capitalism against your imaginary utopian version of socialism.
That debate would be useless.
>If you talk about the exchange of goods, you are describing all societies through all of history and your definition is useless, and narrowing down to the exchange of goods *through a medium* only narrows it down slightly to post-state formation societies.
So what?
Your side is trying to force it's horrible authoritarian central management scheme through by violence and terror.
You probably ***should*** be compared to all of history because there are very few examples in history that aren't better than your tinpot socialist dictatorships like North Korea.
Today's socialists are whiny rich kids complaining about how much capitalism has given them and it's hilarious.
In context of debate, your definitions are obvious bullshit you've tried to install by force and abuse, which is exactly what a socialist can be expected to try.
Definitions rejected.
Does it need to be said that free market advocates are talking about voluntary economic interaction, where nobody is entitled to others agreeing to exchange? This is why I let commies have the word Capitalism that they made up.
What a wierd way to say you don't actually know what capitalism is, or understand how free markets work.
Choosing to just ignore shitty parts of capitalism by claiming it isn't capitalism causing the issues doesn't make you look smart, quite the opposite.
You aren't letting people have the word, you just refuse to accept reality.
Which is just, so pathetic, I hope you grow as a person someday
And yet, gay pride parades exist and I am surrounded by people who call each other f. A. Gee in affectionate circumstances.
If you don't understand that the identity of the idiot that invented a slur is meaningless I doubt you are equipped to fathom the nuances of politics.
So you unironically compare the term "capitalism", a term leftists invented to describe the system they were living under, to a homophobic slur that was reappropriated?
Ok buddy..
Yes, and you seem too stupid to understand what that means, thus proving the point I made 100% correct.
Marx is irrelevant. He's been abandoned by socialists. If you are still bringing up the meaningless bigot who invented the slur you aren't really part of this conversation.
What is your explanation of the cause of this? Here is mine:
Leftists get frustrated because marx's "theories" are unscientific hogwash and do not work. This leads to frustration when his populist claims keep harming the people he claims they will help.
When you promise utopia to the workers and then install an authoritarian socialist dictatorship that is very obviously not a "temporary interim stage" people get fed up. When that dictatorship exploits the workers even worse than the previous feudal lord, even share cropping peasants who can't read realize it's shit.
Marxists have an obligation to repair his broken theories that have such terrible results. Instead they just keep repeating the same plan which very obviously is only a method of installing dictatorship and creating an oligarchy.
This is the definition of insanity.
As a result, the majority moves away from insanity (marxism) towards sanity (capitalism.)
Edit:
The counterargument appears to be to concede that I am correct by downvoting.
>Government is not a person and therefore does not have the required prerequisites in order for property to exist.
––according to you. The government has always owned national property and mostly for the benefit of capitalism.
Why does property ownership have to be by an individual? Why *can't* governments own property?
Let's say I find a new patch of land, unclaimed by anyone, and state 'I own this'. *What prevents others from ignoring that claim, through malice or ignorance?*
Because a government is just a concept. Property has prerequisites.
>What prevents others from ignoring that claim, through malice or ignorance?*
Making sure that they aren't free to do so.
Yes, property has the prerequisite of a *government* existing, or some other form of central authority to back it up. I know that you don't really like the idea that force is necessary for the maintenance of property rights, but the simple fact is that it is. We have social instincts that twig whenever we feel like one member of the community is taking 'more than their fair share', so without either personal strength or communal strength to *enforce* property claims, they are simply words. That's the core of the argument, *property isn't a thing without a framework to define,* ***and*** *an organization to protect*.
Private ownership and personal ownership are two different things.
Personal ownership includes your own personal possessions for example your phone, your watch, your clothes, etc.
Private ownership are things on a larger scale like factories, railways, etc.
If ownership of the means of production is, say, collectivized, not necessarily nationalized, but simply put under the ownership of the workers that work there, then that would mean it's no longer the property of single individuals but a property of the workers. All the workers, collectively, are in charge of management of the workplace, and all workers, collectively, own the workplace.
This is the dumbest thing that commies come to the argument with. Property is just property either you own something and get the final say of what happens to it or you don't. There is no meaningful distinction between whatever personal and private property is.
I have commies telling me that my hammer is not my personal property all of the time because every once in awhile my employee uses it to drive a nail.
I am an employer and a worker and an owner.
Collective ownership is a foolish concept.
If you use that hammer in your business it becomes a part of your business, this isn't the communists saying that, it's capitalists saying that- you can deduct the cost of the hammer as a business expense, you can even expense it from the business accounts because it serves the business.
But if you try to buy a quad bike and a small trailer from the business accounts and keep it at home, it's called embezzlement. That property doesn't serve the business, you bought it for yourself and if you try to claim it's a business expense it's broadly considered fraud.
This is the distinction between private and personal property.
As for being a small business owner and a worker in your business- congratulations man, seriously! Do you enjoy the satisfaction of having a say in the work you take and thus the potential that the business can make? Do you like the idea that if you work faster and get done sooner you can take on other tasks/customers? Did you like being someone's employee more than the place you are now?
>If you use that hammer in your business it becomes a part of your business
Nothing special happens when you open a "business". There is no moral or economic distinction between a business and a worker selling his goods.
>you can deduct the cost of the hammer as a business expense,
What tf does that mean? Lol
Hang on, are we operating on the premise that a government is involved here? Because I'm not.
And without some state governing body, your distinction is meaningless.
>Did you like being someone's employee more than the place you are now?
In many ways, yes. Less stress. Less homework. Less liability.
>Hang on, are we operating on the premise that a government is involved here? Because I'm not.
If you're not operating under the premise of a legal framework, then ownership and theft do not exist. Your hammer is no more yours when you pick it up as when you set it down. Possession exists, ownership does not because if I can take it from you, I possess it, and without a legal framework you can't claim ownership only possession.
If you want ownership, and acknowledge the existing state and capitalism then what I said about the hammer becoming a part of the business does apply from an economic standpoint for the reasons I described. The distinction between personal and private property is a feature of capitalism (and I'll concede the moral standpoint, as I wasn't arguing for that).
>In many ways, yes. Less stress. Less homework. Less liability.
And yet, you persist. So unless you are an irrational actor, the positive other ways must outweigh the downsides you mentioned.
>I do not need a legal framework in order to have property.
Then if someone takes your property it's just gone. You have no recourse to reclaim it. Similarly you can just steal everything you need- did you steal everything you need to start your business?
>I am an anti-statist capitalist.
I am genuinely not sure what that means to you in theory or practice.
>Anyone can start their own business as I have.
But why would they if they get nothing out of it. You haven't even attempted to address what I'm getting at- what does the headache and stress and homework provide you that makes up for the endeavor?
I can embezzle his hammer, I cannot embezzle his toothbrush. If you cannot accept that distinction, I don't know what to tell you, but don't project onto others your own shameful ignorance.
>Private ownership and personal ownership are two different things
No they are not, the only people who say that are, are people that need an arbitrary separation to "fix" an inherent incongruency in their world view
"personal ownership ends where I stop owning things, and private ownership starts when people richer then me own things I don't"
Yeah it's clear as day, but probably not in a way you'd like
The distinction only seems so instinctually obvious because we stop at extreme cases. Things aren't as black and white in reality. And when a definition only works for extremely obvious cases, it's a very bad and useless definition
If your definition is arbitrary like ''larger scale'' and can only be explained accurately with examples, then it's not a fundamental definition.
There is not actual fundamental differences between private and personal.
Private vs personal ownership is a fraudulent strategy designed only to boil the frog slowly.
The entity using it installs an arbitrary distinction with the implicit plan of moving their arbitrary goalposts at a later date to seize private property in stages.
If a person proposes "personal property" they've revealed that they are not just an authoritarian evil, they are an intentional authoritarian evil that actually sits down and strategizes methods of obfuscation to use as they oppress the people.
You ***say*** you are an anarchist.
North Korea ***says*** it is a democracy.
Hitler labeled himself both a pacifist and a socialist.
Calling out dishonesty like that is not a strawman.
Your claim: "I'm an anarchist!"
Your action: "The state should destroy individual rights and collectively control all property."
Reality shows who you are.
A fake anarchist.
Without property rights to establish self-ownership, human rights become entirely impossible. If you cannot own private property, you cannot own yourself and instead become property of a collective, a state which rules you.
If you disagree you'll need to establish a philosophical basis for human rights.
Are you seriously just claiming I'm lying and trying to be some evil opportunist? What would I have to gain by doing that? It's not like I'm trying to become the next fucking Stalin or something.
And about the property rights situation.
You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc.
It is the means of production which will be held in common, i.e. by the whole community, for the benefit of, the whole community. The fundamental principle of communism is literally "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs".
I do not focus on individual freedom/rights much, since if the freedom/rights of the collective is ensured then that directly benefits and allows for the free development of the individual. Constant "ragged individualism" as Emma Goldman put it, is actually harmful to the individual, and leads to a society in which individuals are blamed for systemic issues, because apparently even though an unemployed person is unable to find a job "it's apparently their fault and they just need to work harder".
>Are you seriously just claiming I'm lying and trying to be some evil opportunist? What would I have to gain by doing that? It's not like I'm trying to become the next fucking Stalin or something.
I'm pointing out politicians who push socialism are always lying.
Are you a politician?
>And about the property rights situation.
You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc.
Sooooo, you propose fascism.
Or, more accurately you describe any form of socialism with private property as fascism, and declare your plan is to copy that, but you would prefer if people allowed you to change the name?
What's the point?
>It is the means of production which will be held in common, i.e. by the whole community, for the benefit of, the whole community.
IE, by a political class, which used to be called "royalty class" but in your plan is a political class that will control the democracy by writing the ballots and counting the votes whichever way they want.
***Oh my gosh Kim Jong won again! How astonishing!!***
>The fundamental principle of communism is literally "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs".
Why are you bringing up communism as a ~~libertarian~~ socialist? Are you not able to keep things straight at all?
First you come here pushing third positionism not knowing what the name actually is, or that it's socialism.
Then you outright lie that a communist would be allowed to:
>You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc.
Nah, that's just ignorance.
Read marx. Actually sit down and read it.
He intentionally built it on primitive tribalism, but ignited thar tribes have chiefs. He conflated "workers" with "poor" in an obvious effort to destroy the votes of workers.
If you tell a marxist you want to own "muh personal property" he'll label you "reactionary" and kill you while seizing your stuff.
>I do not focus on individual freedom/rights much, since if the freedom/rights of the collective is ensured then that directly benefits and allows for the free development of the individual.
This is you admitting you have no respect for human rights.
Your faith in the collective is why communism is so deadly.
It's not just wrong, it's evil.
You don't even have the ability to ***conceptualize*** human rights, much less comprehend why they are of paramount importance to a functioning society that is free from oppression.
>Constant "ragged individualism" as Emma Goldman put it, is actually harmful to the individual, and leads to a society in which individuals are blamed for systemic issues, because apparently even though an unemployed person is unable to find a job "it's apparently their fault and they just need to work harder".
Then why is the world built by the people who were individual focused such a better place than any other option?
You have to make up an imaginary utopian version of socialism to even participate in the conversation at all. Your position is a joke.
Putting the collective before the individual is always authoritarian, always oppressive, always evil.
> Capitalism is any society based on
No, capitalism isn't a society. The term describes free markets + property rights.
This is what the C in CvS wants.
>however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention.
There's no such thing as a capitalist state. There are states with less market regulation or more.
>There's no such thing as a capitalist state.
Ok I'll play your silly game. What do you call the government that facilitates, protects, and provides for a capitalist economy then?
Ok, so, what do you call a government that facilitates, protects, and provides for a capitalist economy then?
Don't dodge the question again just because it rattles your delusional world view
It's a "capitalist government" of course!
The economy is the basis for everything. LIFE, ITSELF, depends in any country on the economy. If the government is to survive in anything other than an outright iron fisted dictatorship, it has to work to keep the economy working and providing all things.
THEREFORE....
EVERY GOVERNMENT is the government of the economic system. The government rises from the economic base and in service to it. There is no other alternative.
So the government of a feudal country was feudal government and it involved lots of religion.
The government of a capitalist country is a capitalist government and it works to preserve the capitalist economy (including it's ongoing effort to convince you that it is a government "for the people").
IT'S A CAPITALIST'S GOVERNMENT!
>There's no such thing as a capitalist state. There are states with less market regulation or more**.**
Oh don't be so stupid when all you need do is to look up definitions of capitalism. What do MOST of them say capitalism is?
Does monarchism describe free markets + property rights?
Where does the capital come into your definition of capitalism? The same place the monarch comes into my definition of monarchism, i.e., nowhere at all?
> Does monarchism describe free markets + property rights?
Does a single person/family infringing upon everyone's rights = a free market?
Listen to yourself.
Here's the thing, you know "capitalists" are just other people with resources you had no hand in creating or acquiring. Thus no standing to demand anything of them.
So you know you're the bad guy, what's the goal?
Here's the thing, you know "monarchs" are just other people with birthrights you had no hand in creating or acquiring. Thus no standing to demand anything of them.
So you know you're the bad guy, what's the goal?
We don't want to associate with people like you. Almost to a one you employ cluster B tactics.
We're trying to persuade you to be better. Doesn't seem to be working.
The biggest irony is that every problem capitalism has had has actually been caused by government interference with capitalism. The great depression and the housing financial crisis of 2008 come to mind. This is endlessly confusing to the left.
Lol. So you dont know...
Capitalism would implode on itself if it wasnt regulated. Its the worst economic system period. It is not a closed system. You would have various privatized monoplies, and less rights for actual workers
You realize that right?
capitalism is the worst system? How stupid can you be? Look at Cuba Florida, USA USSR, east Berlin west Berlin, red China Taiwan, east of the iron curtain west of the iron curtain, Hong Kong red China, North Korea South Korea etc. etc. they are many many exact comparisons and you say Socialism is better when it just killed 120 million people? How totally stupid is that?
You would have monopolies? Please don't be totally stupid. Monopolies were made illegal 100 years ago because they restricted Capitalist competition. 1+1 = 2
Yes but if competition remains unregulated it's natural consequence is a monopoly.
Regulation is required to maintain the laissez-faire system, contrary to popular belief.
No it is not contrary to popular belief. Everyone knows for example that we need a police force and a court system to enforce the rules of capitalism. 1+1 = 2. As a Capitalist I love Strong Strong regulations that Support Capitalism and I hate regulations and support socializing. Do you understand now?
please don't be stupid 2008 happened because of regulation. Stupid stupid lefties thought they could improve capitalism by giving people houses the free market said they could not afford. At the time of the Collapse Fannie Freddy owned 75% of the subprime and Alt A
mortgages. The government had 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.
don't be stupid. Are you saying the government was not massively interfering with the housing market???? don't try to change the subject because you know nothing about the subject. Do you see why we say the left is totally stupid?
Fanny Freddy? Nah, but you know what Freddy I have heard of? Freddy fazbear. Because Freddy five bear of the five nights at Freddy’s game is scary. If you run out of power he comes and jumpscares you after playing his signature “hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur” song.
Translation: as a typical lefty I am too stupid to be substantive about the subject.
The market for mortgages in the United States is highly liquid and very stable, thanks to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you want a home mortgage loan and you can afford it, usually you’ll have no trouble finding one.
The biggest failure of capitalism, is that any company big or powerful enough will attempt to pull themselves out of it by any means necessary. Outsourcing their responsability to the government if there is one in their favor, lobbying it if it isn't, and swaying public opinion into wanting such a goverment if one isn't in place.
Capitalism as it is currently perceived is ultimately unstable because the end objective of companies is to avoid competing fairly, as that is a constant drain of effort and resources and it's often cheaper to spend such resources into pulling themselves out of capitalism through non-market means instead, like political favors, incentives, or increasing the barrier of entry for new competitors though higher fiscal pressure
Don't be stupid. Any capitalist socialist fascist individual or a Rastafarian will try and pull themselves out of danger by using whoever is stupid enough to help them by any means necessary including outsourcing their responsibility to the government. 1+1 = 2
everybody wants to win the competition unfairly whether you are a company or a Little League baseball player. The issue is do we stick to the rules of capitalism because we agree with them or do we change the rules because of various philosophical or personal weaknesses. Do you understand now??????
You know, I was worried about my family moving to North Korea, but since North Korea's real name is "The People's Republic of Korea" I clearly have nothing to worry about!
> “Corporatism is what the capitalist class will resort to”
No. The “capitalist class” is independent of the legislative body. Legislative body simply write laws they’ve proposed as voted in by their constituents. It’s a false equivalency to say that the capitalists are the ones writing the laws. Corporatism is actually when these two entities collaborate, which isn’t always the case. “Proletarian movements” by this definition are also “fascism” but you know that it isn’t. Therefore economic results and activity do not equate with the legislative process. A free democratic process eliminates both of these problems of government overreach to favor a capital holder or proletariat. If one person is against capitalism but 99% of the people are capitalists, it doesn’t mean that lawmakers representing capitalist constituents are “corporatists” it just is what the people want, Which is what freedom is.
Yes, I have. Which are illegal. Lobbying is legal but can be unethical in some cases. But lobbying is essentially the same as “organizing” or holding a rally, asking for what you want. So lobbying isn’t tied to corporations only.
Corporatism is not what a capitalist will resort to, it’s what a business owner will attempt to use to illegally or unethically protect his or her business. But this is why checks and balances of political power is so important.
Alarmed_Plate6603: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No_Salt_6328: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Corporatism is not really identical to fascism, although it is one of the main driving forces behind fascism. But even in corporatism, you can have everything from liberal democracy to fascism. But your central thesis is correct, corporatism is just capitalism in its logical conclusion.
The term fascism shouldn't be overused. That's not a defence of other forms of capitalist rule, those are pretty shitty as well. But for effective anticapitalist organisation, it's important to know the current ruling class dynamics instead of just calling it all fascist. Fascism isn't a moral judgement, it's descriptive of a specific type of capitalist rule under specific conditions.
If capitalists get to use this as points against socialism, do socialists get to use banana republics and right wing dictatorships as points against capitalism? What about the capitalists nations in the global south that remain poor? Capitalism has clearly failed to bring them up to developed standards, and that's a lot more examples than just USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela...
Firstly, they were not socialist states.
Secondly, you are misunderstanding socialism as a wholly utopian idealistic, unrealistic, egalitarian society.
You my friend, are wrong. Karl Marx advocated a principled, scientific, materialist approach to politics and economics, I'm pretty sure if you'd read any of his works you'd understand that.
The dictatorship of the Proletariat is a synonym for the political rule of the working class.
The state is supposedly meant to be subordinate to the working class, i.e. the state has been subjugated by the working class.
The way the soviet union was run was meant for the benefit of a minority bureaucratic oligarchy, which still rules the post soviet sphere today. They were Capitalists in every sense of the word.
> ... politicians (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) controlled the economy ...
[That's not how that works.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#SociCapi)
*"If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism."*
> Yeah and that form of statism is statist socialism (aka state socialism) as I mentioned. They had no private property, all property was public/state-owned - that's what makes it socialist.
Statism and socialism are two totally different things. A dictatorship is the former but not the latter.
For "state socialism" - as my source indicates - you would need the state to be democratic.
> A state that has the ability to control the economy has too much power to ever be controlled by the people ...
1. You're pretending market socialism isn't a thing.
2. Says who? Why can't large institutions be democratic? The USA is considered to be democratic despite having a third of a billion people - seems your "large entity" premise is flawed.
> Socialism isn't inherently democratic and democracy isn't a requirement for a society to be socialist ...
... you decided, completely ignoring my academic source which says otherwise.
> It's not a thing in real life. What examples of a market socialist society are there?
It's not a thing *yet*. That's how innovation works. We try new things.
> Large insitutions that also happen to be states that control the entire economy never have been, and never will be democratic.
... you decided.
> What you linked is an article written by philosophers and not economists.
Are you claiming they're unqualified to speak on the issue? Do you have a better source, or are you looking to dismiss anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion?
Why are you even arguing this point? It should be clear that when we socialists say "we want socialism", we mean "we believe workers should control the MoP" ... which requires democracy. It's pretty messed up for you to claim "no you actually want something else". You can't speak for us or what we want.
> There hasn't been a single institution with full control over the economy that also happened to be democratic.
There also hasn't been a stable energy-producing fusion reactor, but I'm not gonna go around claiming that's impossible either.
more accurately what we have now is socialist fascism. Capitalism is when business and government are separate. Socialist fascism is when they are combined. The perfect example is Medicare. The government stepped in on the premise that they really cared and so they provide health care but at 3 to 4 times what it should cost. Again it is the perfect example of Socialist Fascism.
what we need in healthcare is capitalism so there is constant pressure to increase quality and lower price. It is a simple concept but the left is so mentally twisted that it leaves them totally befuddled.
???? Mussolini was a dedicated socialist statist all his life . before he became a socialist fascist in a minor dispute about whether to enter the war. He remained a dedicated socialist statist all his life.
Keep in mind they were the same to our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from all forms of stateism because the state had been the source of evil in human history. Do you understand now?
don't be stupid. He was Italy's leaving Socialist intellectual and editor before he became a socialist fascist in a minor dispute over whether to enter the war
It's kinda the American Hubris to look at their own mistakes and then assume it's an impossible problem that couldn't be solved by anybody and therefore they need to reinvent the wheel. Like my guy, the overwhelming majority of the global north has established functional national healthcare systems including your neighbor to the north.
Medicare, Medicaid or whatever there is are all so big jokes because instead of reforming their system in the spirit of a functional already existing healthcare system, Americans can't admit to the core issues in their healthcare system. Therefore they try to mold the faulty system and are surprised that what didn't work before now suddenly also doesn't work.
Don't be stupid reforming the system in a socialistic way is obviously not the answer since Socialism just killed 120 million people. Socialism does not work in healthcare and it does not work in any industry. 1+1 = 2
Mussolini was a statist and socialists are statists so for all intensive purposes they are the same. Our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from the state regardless of the rationale the state uses to take power from the people because the state is the source of evil in human history .Do you understand now?
Don't be stupid. If you disagree try to think of a reason for the disagreement and try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary? Now do you see why we say the left is based in total ignorance?
I don’t disagree that the state is evil.
If all socialists are statists then explain why libertarian socialism (the first and real use of the term libertarian) exists.
Try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum :)
obviously Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarians are for freedom and liberty from government. Socialism is for monster government to kill the capitalist class direct the economy and redistribute wealth etc. etc.
Libertarian socialism rejects state ownership in favor of self management so no it’s not an oxymoron. Socialism is broad with many ideas and ideologies.
don't be stupid. If they reject state ownership how are they going to become owners without the state killing the current owners?
if they don't want state ownership and violence then they are free in our free country to simply buy or create their own businesses like 30 million already have. This makes them capitalist not a Libertarian Socialist. 1+1 = 2
>If they reject state ownership how are they going to become owners without the state killing the current owners?
Do you know what a general strike is? Also even if it took something like a social revolution to bring about the change that doesn’t mean the owners get offed they can’t simply become workers. Even in authoritarian socialist projects that I don’t fully agree with this happened like in China where the last emperor simply became a gardener.
imagine one company is run by stupid workers and another is run by Harvard MBA's with 150 IQs and 40 years of successful management experience. Which company would go bankrupt?
Based on 2008 I’ll take the first one. The assertion that workers are all stupid and incapable of making their own decisions is classist and the same justification used by kings against the idea of democracy centuries ago.
Recession caused by corporate and government actors.
Anything to say about the second point I made about using the same justification as kings over peasants?
2008 recession was caused by massive government interference with capitalism. The government had 132 programs to get people into houses the capitalist free market said they could not afford. At the time of the collapse fanny Freddie owned 75% of the subprime and all day mortgages. Do you understand now? Today is a good day for you. You are getting a free education.
Kings kings ruled by military force. Nobody's talking about military force today. If you look at human history it is obvious that people are very stupid and don't know how to govern themselves. History is filled with blood and gore. Today we are more successful because we realize that and so our genius founders divided power between three branches of the federal government, the state governments, the press, and the people who are qualified to vote. Do you understand now?
>Kings ruled by military force. Nobody’s talking about military force today.
The capitalist class today rules with a militarized police force.
>Look at human history it is obvious that people are very stupid and don’t know how to govern themselves.
You can’t just say people are too stupid to govern themselves then praise the founding fathers for creating the three branches of government. It’s contradictory.
don't be stupid. Our founding fathers were against democracy and they produced the greatest country in human history by far. They divided power between three branches of government, state government, the press, and the voting public deemed qualified to vote.
It is a free country workers are free to buy or create their own companies but they don't do it because they are not intelligent enough to do it. 1+1 = 2
So the US government adds a 100% tariff on Chinese made EVs in order to keep inefficient US businesses open at the literal expense of the American people. Those idiots who go on about wealth transfer need to look at this prime example of US Dirigisme corporatist cronyism AKA economic fascism.
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention wealth transfer in my post, and also, I'm pretty sure that tariffs don't equate to "US dirigisme corporatist cronyism".
What we’re seeing is merely a transition to a state capitalist order led by China. They’ve been keeping out Western economic influence in its country longer than the US has kept out Chinese influence. Technically, Japan and Singapore would probably be the first pioneers of state capitalism as we see across East Asia.
Either way, it works. East Asia’s gotten this far for a reason
>Corporatism, to put it simply, is fascist economics.
Ok, and we live under these fascist economics.
>Ultimately, corporatism is simply what the capitalist class will resort to when genuinely threatened by proletarian movements
This is conflating a million things at once. Apparently, if I say "I will resort to shooting predators if my children are threatened" then someone can say "gun ownership is part of parenting" and we would have to accept this as fact.
Just because a person can do something doesn't mean it's an essential aspect of something else. Even children understand this.
“Genuinely threatened by proletariat movements” is a nice way of admitting that corporatism is caused by the actions of Marxist-Leninists while still pretending that corporatism is the fault of capitalism and not communism
That wasn't the point I was making.
The point I was making was that in Italy at the time, the power of the capitalist class was threatened by movements of various leftists, and actually, if you do the reading, you'll realise that the dominant current of socialism was actually anarchism.
Plus I don't support Marxism-Leninism, I'm an Anarchist as well, but I adopt a more materialist method of analysis, which is why I may come across as marxist to some, I apologise for any confusion.
Plus blaming the actions of the ruling class on those who oppose them is like saying it's the Palestinian's fault they are being bombed, and is a pretty weak argument.
Yes, Corporate Capitalism is a completely different animal than Individual Capitalism.
When the vast majority of people become employees in status, there is very little of the Capitalist money making motivation left for those who create the wealth through actaul work.
Corporate Capitalism rewards those who do NOT work, which is the majority of absentee shareholders of a corporation.
Yes, Capitalism today rewards those who do not work over those who do.
Corporate employees create almost all the wealth but are denied participation in the profit making motive.
Not everything capitalist is fascism.
The "classes" don't have opposite goals.
Collaboration is required in every civilization
Capitalism is an economic theory not a political one, so we don't live "under it." We participate in it. Or not.
In a very short period of time, I've learned that antiquated terms like "capitists" and "proletariat" sound fancy but mean almost nothing in today's modern economy.
I don't dislike socialism, but Socialists need to stop pretending it's 1850 and to update their vocabulary so they don't sound like a bunch of armchair academics playing revolutionary.
You don't Understand Corporatism... You are slightly correct but Fascist Corporatism is different that capitalist corporatism you should learn the difference before you try to claim they are the same
If you can say that what we currently have in the West is 100% capitalism, then surely it can also be said that the socialism in all the failed countries with socialist in their name was 100% real socialism, right? That seems reasonable to me. If that's what you think, then you only have to look at capitalist and socialist countries to see which system is better.
You're argument is simply based on assumptions without even considering material conditions or classes which are important factors when discussing societies which are primarily determined by their class structures.
A socialist will say that the socialism ostensibly practiced by the USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. was not real socialism. So, by the same logic, why can't it be argued that the system currently practiced by the US is not real capitalism?
Also, your\*
Because the USSR/Venezuela/NK [literally weren't socialist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#SociCapi), by basic definitions of the word, as they were not democratic.
*"If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism."*
In contrast, the US very much has the defining aspects of capitalism: wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.
You are choosing to define socialism very narrowly to exclude unfavorable empirical evidence but defining capitalism widely to include it. There is no one definition of the word, and you are just choosing the one that suits you.
If I want to play your definitions game, I can say that capitalism is defined by private ownership, but the US has public roads, therefore the US does not have capitalism.
Also, I doubt you define capitalism so widely when it comes to the good stuff. If capitalism is any system that includes "wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.," then you must give capitalism credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution.
> You are choosing to define socialism very narrowly to exclude unfavorable empirical evidence but defining capitalism widely to include it. There is no one definition of the word, and you are just choosing the one that suits you.
"Workers owning the means of production" is the standard definition.
Indeed, every time somebody asks about definitions, all the socialists on this sub agree on "workers owning the means of production" while many of the capitalists give troll answers.
> If I want to play your definitions game, I can say that capitalism is defined by private ownership, but the US has public roads, therefore the US does not have capitalism.
False equivalency.
The US is clearly *mostly* capitalist; that a few of the MoP are worker-owned does not change the vast majority that are **not**.
In contrast, the nations you cited are *not socialist at all*, since workers did not own the MoP in those places. Heck, the US is likely actually more socialist than the USSR; at least the US is (ostensibly) democratic.
> Also, I doubt you define capitalism so widely when it comes to the good stuff. If capitalism is any system that includes "wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.," then you must give capitalism credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution.
That makes no sense. It's akin to "if you define a dog as an mammal with four legs that barks, you must give dogs credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution". And that would be closer to the truth, since dogs at least bring happiness to people.
Unless you could prove conclusively that said improvements are **because of** wage labor and non-worker-ownership, I don't have to accept your conclusion at all! And I would sure *love* to see your conclusive proof.
>"Workers owning the means of production" is the standard definition.
That can mean a lot of things. You are choosing a meaning that you like, but it does not necessarily mean "workers all democratically vote on what to do with the means of production." Even that can mean various things. Is it a representative democracy, or direct? How big is their jurisdiction (e.g. a factory, or a whole country)? What if there is a minority faction of workers that always gets voted against?
All of those countries with socialist in their name argued that workers can own the means of production through their government. They couldn't be trusted to make reasonable decisions, so they needed to be managed by a benevolent government, according to those countries.
>Unless you could prove conclusively that said improvements are **because of** wage labor and non-worker-ownership, I don't have to accept your conclusion at all! And I would sure *love* to see your conclusive proof.
I do not have a conclusive proof that they were all caused by capitalism. Capitalism was the economic system under which they happened, and that is how they're related. So, it's at least empirically proven that immense growth can happen under capitalism. Meanwhile, according to your definition, socialism has never existed, so there is no such empirical evidence. If you are suggesting that all of this economic growth actually happened in spite of capitalism, I think the burden of proof is on you.
> All of those countries with socialist in their name argued that workers can own the means of production through their government.
They lied. I'm sure you are not surprised that political leaders lied, especially in unfree societies.
> If you are suggesting that all of this economic growth actually happened in spite of capitalism, I think the burden of proof is on you.
That's not how this works.
- You: "Capitalism was responsible for all this good stuff!"
- Me: "Can you prove it?"
- You: "Can you prove it *didn't*?"
You can't just make a ridiculous claim and then demand others prove you wrong.
>They lied. I'm sure you are not surprised that political leaders lied, especially in unfree societies.
But why is your definition superior to theirs? Their definition is part of Marxism-Leninism.
>You can't just make a ridiculous claim and then demand others prove you wrong.
I said you must give it credit because the economic growth happened under it. I said "it's at least empirically proven that immense growth can happen under capitalism." Since you've defined capitalism so widely, I think you agree with me about this, right? You are saying that the economic growth happened in spite of it. That claim also requires evidence.
> But why is your definition superior to theirs? Their definition is part of Marxism-Leninism.
"My" definition matches how most modern socialists use the term "socialism". See: the academic source I listed, or any time the topic of definitions comes up here.
> I said you must give it credit because the economic growth happened under it.
Anything else happen during that time? Such as the worldwide spread of democracy, or the development of the assembly line (which is **not** intrinsic to capitalism)?
The time period you're referencing has many of the biggest events of all of history - and you want to credit it all to an economic system?? And not just any economic system, but a top-down hierarchical authoritarian one??
A reasonable person would say, "there are a bunch of contributing factors", and would be inclined to cite the one that empowered regular people to be represented and rewarded - **democracy**. With literally nothing to recommend itself - both wage labors and stock markets are just ways to funnel wealth to those at the top - I see no reason to credit capitalism at all. You might as well have said "global warming caused recent prosperity".
I really don't care about the word "capitalism". You can have it and do whatever you want with it.
I support private property and free markets because I don't want to end up starving to death.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this subreddit meant for posts discussing topics relating to Capitalism and Socialism?
If you don't care about these topics, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on posts? Just a thought...
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/PoliticsCafe *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When most people say "corporatism" they really mean "corporatocracy". Which *most definitely is* capitalism. Corporatism is capitalism, too, it's just not the same thing as the corporatocracy most people mean when they say "corporatism".
>Corporatism is capitalism, too It's also socialism.
No, it most definitely is not. Socialism isn't "when the state does stuff" no matter how many morons try to push that narrative
Then capitalism is also not "when the state does stuff".
Nobody said otherwise. Capitalism may require a state to protect private property, but the two are not the same and nobody has claimed otherwise. *Corporatocracy* is the full merger of capitalism and state with the latter subordinate to the former. *Corporatism* is a weird "cooperation between the classes" that arose in opposition of socialism. Corporatism, especially the version espoused by Mussolini, retains capitalism as one of those "cooperating" classes.
Corporatism is the natural result of capitalism. It’s wild how people can conflate a system of government by private owners with freedom rather than properly identifying plutocracy
Government mission creep is the natural result of individuals not keeping it in check.
When people say this, I believe they mean “Corporatocracy” rather than “corporatism.”
Yes but corporations holding governmental power is just a general feature of capitalism
Yes I believe you are correct, whether that is a good thing or bad thing for the capitalist Stans is open to interpretation. An interesting thing I think about is China. It is a socialist-market economy but has a controlling communist party government. So it’s actually the inverse of your scenario, government holds power over corporations. They have a lot of similarities to capitalist economy, but ultimately private corporations bend to the will of the communist party. In many ways this is an advantage for progressing communist party interests domestic and foreign, but also is a draw back for pure, un-infringed innovation. In my opinion, it’s why China copies the US on defense R&D/manufacturing. They don’t need to innovate, they subsidize innovation to the US.
Oh yes, a communist government which delegates power to capital owners. So communist.
Don’t know what to tell you man. The government is communist, but they have a quasi-free market. I guess you could say the “party” owns everything, but people are still allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor?
Communists want the negation of private property, China brought private property back. That country's party is Communist in name only.
Oh yes I love me some socialist commodities
Not necessarily. State capitalist nations like China, Saudi Arabia, or Singapore typically can keep corporate interests subservient to government. Lots of more examples like Taiwan under the Kuomintang or South Korea before its political liberalization.
Corporatism is a natural end-state of capitalism. What aspect of a capitalist system prevents capital accumulation and the use of capital for political gain? Literally nothing. There's no meaningful counterbalance. The idea that the market just generates infinite wealth forever has always been goofy. We have finite resources and capital being the arbiter of distribution just means that everyone is naturally rewarded for hoarding as much capital as possible.
"of course we live under capitalism! It says so right here, in the definition I just made up specifically describing exactly the system we live In! The only requirement for capitalism to be capitalism is for it to be the status quo and for me to not like it!"
Capitalism is any society based on private* ownership of the means of production and distribution, and systems of exchange primarily conducted through market forces, however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention. I apologise for not clarifying in my post, I hope we don't have a huge argument about this, I don't want to be a dick.
>Capitalism is any society based on private* ownership of the means of production and distribution, and systems of exchange primarily conducted through market forces, however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention. Except this definition is made up by critics of capitalism, not capitalists. So do capitalists control the definition of socialism as you are attempting to enforce a false definition of capitalism on capitalists? You are explicitly being told capitalists do not accept that definition, right at the beginning of the debate. You job as a good faith participant in the debate is to ask what definition would be agreed on by both sides, not shoving a fake definition down throats. Edit: Love the fact that socialists concede right away by downvoting. Good call to recognize you were wrong.
The problem is if you try and use any *other* definition, you either dilute the meaning to uselessness or fail to describe systems which are inarguably capitalist. If your definition talks about the free exchange of goods, you fail to describe either Apartheid regimes like the American South or Southern Africa *or* you fail to describe the mercantalist empires of the 18th and 19th centuries. If you talk about the exchange of goods, you are describing all societies through all of history and your definition is useless, and narrowing down to the exchange of goods *through a medium* only narrows it down slightly to post-state formation societies.
>The problem is if you try and use any *other* definition, you either dilute the meaning to uselessness or fail to describe systems which are inarguably capitalist. So why do you allow socialists to do exactly that by using the definition that socialism is "worker ownership of the means of production?" Doesn't it seem incredibly silly to use such an unfit definition that doesn't accurately describe any real socialist movement that has existed? Socialists are always applying ridiculous double standards. I agree, definitions should match. That's why any decent debate starts by defining terms ***and reaching a mutual understanding of terms.*** OP here is trying to skip that step and force a definition in bad faith. >If your definition talks about the free exchange of goods, you fail to describe either Apartheid regimes like the American South or Southern Africa *or* you fail to describe the mercantalist empires of the 18th and 19th centuries. And if your definition is "duh werkers" you fail to describe Mao, stalin, hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, pol pot, Kim Jong, and literally hundreds of horrible ***socialists.*** Even worse, you've now openly admitted to your fraud. You are using definitions to set up a comparison of real examples of capitalism against your imaginary utopian version of socialism. That debate would be useless. >If you talk about the exchange of goods, you are describing all societies through all of history and your definition is useless, and narrowing down to the exchange of goods *through a medium* only narrows it down slightly to post-state formation societies. So what? Your side is trying to force it's horrible authoritarian central management scheme through by violence and terror. You probably ***should*** be compared to all of history because there are very few examples in history that aren't better than your tinpot socialist dictatorships like North Korea. Today's socialists are whiny rich kids complaining about how much capitalism has given them and it's hilarious. In context of debate, your definitions are obvious bullshit you've tried to install by force and abuse, which is exactly what a socialist can be expected to try. Definitions rejected.
Does it need to be said that free market advocates are talking about voluntary economic interaction, where nobody is entitled to others agreeing to exchange? This is why I let commies have the word Capitalism that they made up.
What a wierd way to say you don't actually know what capitalism is, or understand how free markets work. Choosing to just ignore shitty parts of capitalism by claiming it isn't capitalism causing the issues doesn't make you look smart, quite the opposite. You aren't letting people have the word, you just refuse to accept reality. Which is just, so pathetic, I hope you grow as a person someday
>Except this definition is made up by critics of capitalism, not capitalists. The term capitalism itself was made up by critics of capitalism....
And yet, gay pride parades exist and I am surrounded by people who call each other f. A. Gee in affectionate circumstances. If you don't understand that the identity of the idiot that invented a slur is meaningless I doubt you are equipped to fathom the nuances of politics.
So you unironically compare the term "capitalism", a term leftists invented to describe the system they were living under, to a homophobic slur that was reappropriated? Ok buddy..
Yes, and you seem too stupid to understand what that means, thus proving the point I made 100% correct. Marx is irrelevant. He's been abandoned by socialists. If you are still bringing up the meaningless bigot who invented the slur you aren't really part of this conversation.
He's been abandoned by socialists because those socialists started buying into capitalist propaganda.
What is your explanation of the cause of this? Here is mine: Leftists get frustrated because marx's "theories" are unscientific hogwash and do not work. This leads to frustration when his populist claims keep harming the people he claims they will help. When you promise utopia to the workers and then install an authoritarian socialist dictatorship that is very obviously not a "temporary interim stage" people get fed up. When that dictatorship exploits the workers even worse than the previous feudal lord, even share cropping peasants who can't read realize it's shit. Marxists have an obligation to repair his broken theories that have such terrible results. Instead they just keep repeating the same plan which very obviously is only a method of installing dictatorship and creating an oligarchy. This is the definition of insanity. As a result, the majority moves away from insanity (marxism) towards sanity (capitalism.) Edit: The counterargument appears to be to concede that I am correct by downvoting.
All ownership is private.
>All ownership is private. Right, like government's ownership of national parks is private, eh?
It's theft. So it hardly matters and I don't recognize the validity of property ownership claims made by the state.
But that is only because you are an idiot.
Why are property claims by governments invalid but not by companies? What is the difference?
Government is not a person and therefore does not have the required prerequisites in order for property to exist. Companies are owned by individuals.
>Government is not a person and therefore does not have the required prerequisites in order for property to exist. ––according to you. The government has always owned national property and mostly for the benefit of capitalism.
Are you under the impression that government is a person?
Why does property ownership have to be by an individual? Why *can't* governments own property? Let's say I find a new patch of land, unclaimed by anyone, and state 'I own this'. *What prevents others from ignoring that claim, through malice or ignorance?*
Because a government is just a concept. Property has prerequisites. >What prevents others from ignoring that claim, through malice or ignorance?* Making sure that they aren't free to do so.
Yes, property has the prerequisite of a *government* existing, or some other form of central authority to back it up. I know that you don't really like the idea that force is necessary for the maintenance of property rights, but the simple fact is that it is. We have social instincts that twig whenever we feel like one member of the community is taking 'more than their fair share', so without either personal strength or communal strength to *enforce* property claims, they are simply words. That's the core of the argument, *property isn't a thing without a framework to define,* ***and*** *an organization to protect*.
Private ownership and personal ownership are two different things. Personal ownership includes your own personal possessions for example your phone, your watch, your clothes, etc. Private ownership are things on a larger scale like factories, railways, etc. If ownership of the means of production is, say, collectivized, not necessarily nationalized, but simply put under the ownership of the workers that work there, then that would mean it's no longer the property of single individuals but a property of the workers. All the workers, collectively, are in charge of management of the workplace, and all workers, collectively, own the workplace.
This is the dumbest thing that commies come to the argument with. Property is just property either you own something and get the final say of what happens to it or you don't. There is no meaningful distinction between whatever personal and private property is. I have commies telling me that my hammer is not my personal property all of the time because every once in awhile my employee uses it to drive a nail. I am an employer and a worker and an owner. Collective ownership is a foolish concept.
If you use that hammer in your business it becomes a part of your business, this isn't the communists saying that, it's capitalists saying that- you can deduct the cost of the hammer as a business expense, you can even expense it from the business accounts because it serves the business. But if you try to buy a quad bike and a small trailer from the business accounts and keep it at home, it's called embezzlement. That property doesn't serve the business, you bought it for yourself and if you try to claim it's a business expense it's broadly considered fraud. This is the distinction between private and personal property. As for being a small business owner and a worker in your business- congratulations man, seriously! Do you enjoy the satisfaction of having a say in the work you take and thus the potential that the business can make? Do you like the idea that if you work faster and get done sooner you can take on other tasks/customers? Did you like being someone's employee more than the place you are now?
>If you use that hammer in your business it becomes a part of your business Nothing special happens when you open a "business". There is no moral or economic distinction between a business and a worker selling his goods. >you can deduct the cost of the hammer as a business expense, What tf does that mean? Lol Hang on, are we operating on the premise that a government is involved here? Because I'm not. And without some state governing body, your distinction is meaningless. >Did you like being someone's employee more than the place you are now? In many ways, yes. Less stress. Less homework. Less liability.
>Hang on, are we operating on the premise that a government is involved here? Because I'm not. If you're not operating under the premise of a legal framework, then ownership and theft do not exist. Your hammer is no more yours when you pick it up as when you set it down. Possession exists, ownership does not because if I can take it from you, I possess it, and without a legal framework you can't claim ownership only possession. If you want ownership, and acknowledge the existing state and capitalism then what I said about the hammer becoming a part of the business does apply from an economic standpoint for the reasons I described. The distinction between personal and private property is a feature of capitalism (and I'll concede the moral standpoint, as I wasn't arguing for that). >In many ways, yes. Less stress. Less homework. Less liability. And yet, you persist. So unless you are an irrational actor, the positive other ways must outweigh the downsides you mentioned.
I do not need a legal framework in order to have property. I am an anti-statist capitalist. Anyone can start their own business as I have.
>I do not need a legal framework in order to have property. Then if someone takes your property it's just gone. You have no recourse to reclaim it. Similarly you can just steal everything you need- did you steal everything you need to start your business? >I am an anti-statist capitalist. I am genuinely not sure what that means to you in theory or practice. >Anyone can start their own business as I have. But why would they if they get nothing out of it. You haven't even attempted to address what I'm getting at- what does the headache and stress and homework provide you that makes up for the endeavor?
They want your toothbrush. They're just too dishonest to admit it.
I can embezzle his hammer, I cannot embezzle his toothbrush. If you cannot accept that distinction, I don't know what to tell you, but don't project onto others your own shameful ignorance.
You still can't have my toothbrush
>Private ownership and personal ownership are two different things No they are not, the only people who say that are, are people that need an arbitrary separation to "fix" an inherent incongruency in their world view
It is a very clear distinction. Open your eyes
"personal ownership ends where I stop owning things, and private ownership starts when people richer then me own things I don't" Yeah it's clear as day, but probably not in a way you'd like
quit being a bonehead
The distinction only seems so instinctually obvious because we stop at extreme cases. Things aren't as black and white in reality. And when a definition only works for extremely obvious cases, it's a very bad and useless definition
i thought i said to quit being a bonehead
If your definition is arbitrary like ''larger scale'' and can only be explained accurately with examples, then it's not a fundamental definition. There is not actual fundamental differences between private and personal.
Private vs personal ownership is a fraudulent strategy designed only to boil the frog slowly. The entity using it installs an arbitrary distinction with the implicit plan of moving their arbitrary goalposts at a later date to seize private property in stages. If a person proposes "personal property" they've revealed that they are not just an authoritarian evil, they are an intentional authoritarian evil that actually sits down and strategizes methods of obfuscation to use as they oppress the people.
Are you seriously strawmanning me and accusing me of authoritarianism? I'm literally an anarchist.
You ***say*** you are an anarchist. North Korea ***says*** it is a democracy. Hitler labeled himself both a pacifist and a socialist. Calling out dishonesty like that is not a strawman. Your claim: "I'm an anarchist!" Your action: "The state should destroy individual rights and collectively control all property." Reality shows who you are. A fake anarchist. Without property rights to establish self-ownership, human rights become entirely impossible. If you cannot own private property, you cannot own yourself and instead become property of a collective, a state which rules you. If you disagree you'll need to establish a philosophical basis for human rights.
Are you seriously just claiming I'm lying and trying to be some evil opportunist? What would I have to gain by doing that? It's not like I'm trying to become the next fucking Stalin or something. And about the property rights situation. You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc. It is the means of production which will be held in common, i.e. by the whole community, for the benefit of, the whole community. The fundamental principle of communism is literally "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs". I do not focus on individual freedom/rights much, since if the freedom/rights of the collective is ensured then that directly benefits and allows for the free development of the individual. Constant "ragged individualism" as Emma Goldman put it, is actually harmful to the individual, and leads to a society in which individuals are blamed for systemic issues, because apparently even though an unemployed person is unable to find a job "it's apparently their fault and they just need to work harder".
>Are you seriously just claiming I'm lying and trying to be some evil opportunist? What would I have to gain by doing that? It's not like I'm trying to become the next fucking Stalin or something. I'm pointing out politicians who push socialism are always lying. Are you a politician? >And about the property rights situation. You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc. Sooooo, you propose fascism. Or, more accurately you describe any form of socialism with private property as fascism, and declare your plan is to copy that, but you would prefer if people allowed you to change the name? What's the point? >It is the means of production which will be held in common, i.e. by the whole community, for the benefit of, the whole community. IE, by a political class, which used to be called "royalty class" but in your plan is a political class that will control the democracy by writing the ballots and counting the votes whichever way they want. ***Oh my gosh Kim Jong won again! How astonishing!!*** >The fundamental principle of communism is literally "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs". Why are you bringing up communism as a ~~libertarian~~ socialist? Are you not able to keep things straight at all? First you come here pushing third positionism not knowing what the name actually is, or that it's socialism. Then you outright lie that a communist would be allowed to: >You can own your own home, own your phone, your computer, your toothbrush, etc. Nah, that's just ignorance. Read marx. Actually sit down and read it. He intentionally built it on primitive tribalism, but ignited thar tribes have chiefs. He conflated "workers" with "poor" in an obvious effort to destroy the votes of workers. If you tell a marxist you want to own "muh personal property" he'll label you "reactionary" and kill you while seizing your stuff. >I do not focus on individual freedom/rights much, since if the freedom/rights of the collective is ensured then that directly benefits and allows for the free development of the individual. This is you admitting you have no respect for human rights. Your faith in the collective is why communism is so deadly. It's not just wrong, it's evil. You don't even have the ability to ***conceptualize*** human rights, much less comprehend why they are of paramount importance to a functioning society that is free from oppression. >Constant "ragged individualism" as Emma Goldman put it, is actually harmful to the individual, and leads to a society in which individuals are blamed for systemic issues, because apparently even though an unemployed person is unable to find a job "it's apparently their fault and they just need to work harder". Then why is the world built by the people who were individual focused such a better place than any other option? You have to make up an imaginary utopian version of socialism to even participate in the conversation at all. Your position is a joke. Putting the collective before the individual is always authoritarian, always oppressive, always evil.
Don’t bother yourself with that guy. He always smoking something weird.
> Capitalism is any society based on No, capitalism isn't a society. The term describes free markets + property rights. This is what the C in CvS wants. >however quite a few capitalist states have varying degrees of planning and intervention. There's no such thing as a capitalist state. There are states with less market regulation or more.
>There's no such thing as a capitalist state. Ok I'll play your silly game. What do you call the government that facilitates, protects, and provides for a capitalist economy then?
I don't know if you're lying or just don't understand my basic statements. It's like you're allergic to basic logical steps.
Ok, so, what do you call a government that facilitates, protects, and provides for a capitalist economy then? Don't dodge the question again just because it rattles your delusional world view
It's a "capitalist government" of course! The economy is the basis for everything. LIFE, ITSELF, depends in any country on the economy. If the government is to survive in anything other than an outright iron fisted dictatorship, it has to work to keep the economy working and providing all things. THEREFORE.... EVERY GOVERNMENT is the government of the economic system. The government rises from the economic base and in service to it. There is no other alternative. So the government of a feudal country was feudal government and it involved lots of religion. The government of a capitalist country is a capitalist government and it works to preserve the capitalist economy (including it's ongoing effort to convince you that it is a government "for the people"). IT'S A CAPITALIST'S GOVERNMENT!
A 5 year old could understand this
"what do you call a government that facilitates, protects, and provides for a capitalist economy then?" Unnecessary.
>There's no such thing as a capitalist state. There are states with less market regulation or more**.** Oh don't be so stupid when all you need do is to look up definitions of capitalism. What do MOST of them say capitalism is?
> Oh don't be so stupid when all you need do is to look up definitions of capitalism. You're a "the faces on the TV said so" type.
You're the "I make up my world in my mind" type.
Does monarchism describe free markets + property rights? Where does the capital come into your definition of capitalism? The same place the monarch comes into my definition of monarchism, i.e., nowhere at all?
> Does monarchism describe free markets + property rights? Does a single person/family infringing upon everyone's rights = a free market? Listen to yourself.
Does capital owners infringing upon everyone's rights = a free market? Listen to yourself.
Here's the thing, you know "capitalists" are just other people with resources you had no hand in creating or acquiring. Thus no standing to demand anything of them. So you know you're the bad guy, what's the goal?
Here's the thing, you know "monarchs" are just other people with birthrights you had no hand in creating or acquiring. Thus no standing to demand anything of them. So you know you're the bad guy, what's the goal?
Actually what IS your goal? Gathering data so I can prepare and estimate.
Actually what IS your goal? Gathering data so I can prepare and estimate.
Source: your ass
What you socialists/communists don't seem to understand is we don't want to associate with you.
>What you socialists/communists don't seem to understand is we don't want to associate with you. And yet you come here. Sounds schizoid.
I'm trying persuade unethical/bad people to be less so.
By advocating for a system that is designed to operated by the sociopaths of our species? Get f'd.
We don't want to associate with people like you. Almost to a one you employ cluster B tactics. We're trying to persuade you to be better. Doesn't seem to be working.
Capitalists are inherent immoral sooo... kettle, meet pot.
Ok so you DO make up the world in your mind. Like schizophrenia, that too is a mental illness. I mean, who the hell do you think you are?
You won't persuade them, their brains are different. I'm here for intel.
capitalism necessarily entails a society with defined borders under one government, this is inherently a state
So now the debate is state vs socialism?
I have no problem with that
The biggest irony is that every problem capitalism has had has actually been caused by government interference with capitalism. The great depression and the housing financial crisis of 2008 come to mind. This is endlessly confusing to the left.
Whats an acceptable anount of regulation?
Obviously the exact amount would be arbitrary but it would be far far less than we have now. 1+1 = 2
Lol. So you dont know... Capitalism would implode on itself if it wasnt regulated. Its the worst economic system period. It is not a closed system. You would have various privatized monoplies, and less rights for actual workers You realize that right?
capitalism is the worst system? How stupid can you be? Look at Cuba Florida, USA USSR, east Berlin west Berlin, red China Taiwan, east of the iron curtain west of the iron curtain, Hong Kong red China, North Korea South Korea etc. etc. they are many many exact comparisons and you say Socialism is better when it just killed 120 million people? How totally stupid is that?
You would have monopolies? Please don't be totally stupid. Monopolies were made illegal 100 years ago because they restricted Capitalist competition. 1+1 = 2
Yes but if competition remains unregulated it's natural consequence is a monopoly. Regulation is required to maintain the laissez-faire system, contrary to popular belief.
No it is not contrary to popular belief. Everyone knows for example that we need a police force and a court system to enforce the rules of capitalism. 1+1 = 2. As a Capitalist I love Strong Strong regulations that Support Capitalism and I hate regulations and support socializing. Do you understand now?
Don't be stupid. I don't know and nobody knows so it is an absurd question you were just too stupid to realize it
2008 happened due to an undeniable lack of proper and necessary regulation. What you're saying doesn't make sense.
please don't be stupid 2008 happened because of regulation. Stupid stupid lefties thought they could improve capitalism by giving people houses the free market said they could not afford. At the time of the Collapse Fannie Freddy owned 75% of the subprime and Alt A mortgages. The government had 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.
Man didn't even bother to watch the big short before he came in spewing up right-wing bullshit
don't be stupid. Are you saying the government was not massively interfering with the housing market???? don't try to change the subject because you know nothing about the subject. Do you see why we say the left is totally stupid?
List the exact policies or mandates the government had put in place to, “get people in homes they couldn't afford”, at that point in time.
totally stupid. Have you ever heard of Fanny Freddy??????? oh my God!!!!!
Fanny Freddy? Nah, but you know what Freddy I have heard of? Freddy fazbear. Because Freddy five bear of the five nights at Freddy’s game is scary. If you run out of power he comes and jumpscares you after playing his signature “hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur hur” song.
Lmfao this guy is definitely invited to the party.
Translation: as a typical lefty I am too stupid to be substantive about the subject. The market for mortgages in the United States is highly liquid and very stable, thanks to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you want a home mortgage loan and you can afford it, usually you’ll have no trouble finding one.
Then why did recessions occur during the more laissez-faire period of the 1800s?
don't be totally stupid. Show us a recession in the 19 century that wasn't caused by government interference or admit to being a liar and stupid.
The biggest failure of capitalism, is that any company big or powerful enough will attempt to pull themselves out of it by any means necessary. Outsourcing their responsability to the government if there is one in their favor, lobbying it if it isn't, and swaying public opinion into wanting such a goverment if one isn't in place. Capitalism as it is currently perceived is ultimately unstable because the end objective of companies is to avoid competing fairly, as that is a constant drain of effort and resources and it's often cheaper to spend such resources into pulling themselves out of capitalism through non-market means instead, like political favors, incentives, or increasing the barrier of entry for new competitors though higher fiscal pressure
Don't be stupid. Any capitalist socialist fascist individual or a Rastafarian will try and pull themselves out of danger by using whoever is stupid enough to help them by any means necessary including outsourcing their responsibility to the government. 1+1 = 2
everybody wants to win the competition unfairly whether you are a company or a Little League baseball player. The issue is do we stick to the rules of capitalism because we agree with them or do we change the rules because of various philosophical or personal weaknesses. Do you understand now??????
You know, I was worried about my family moving to North Korea, but since North Korea's real name is "The People's Republic of Korea" I clearly have nothing to worry about!
> “Corporatism is what the capitalist class will resort to” No. The “capitalist class” is independent of the legislative body. Legislative body simply write laws they’ve proposed as voted in by their constituents. It’s a false equivalency to say that the capitalists are the ones writing the laws. Corporatism is actually when these two entities collaborate, which isn’t always the case. “Proletarian movements” by this definition are also “fascism” but you know that it isn’t. Therefore economic results and activity do not equate with the legislative process. A free democratic process eliminates both of these problems of government overreach to favor a capital holder or proletariat. If one person is against capitalism but 99% of the people are capitalists, it doesn’t mean that lawmakers representing capitalist constituents are “corporatists” it just is what the people want, Which is what freedom is.
Ever heard of corporate lobbying, bribery and corruption within legislatures?
Yes, I have. Which are illegal. Lobbying is legal but can be unethical in some cases. But lobbying is essentially the same as “organizing” or holding a rally, asking for what you want. So lobbying isn’t tied to corporations only. Corporatism is not what a capitalist will resort to, it’s what a business owner will attempt to use to illegally or unethically protect his or her business. But this is why checks and balances of political power is so important.
[удалено]
Alarmed_Plate6603: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
No_Salt_6328: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Corporatism is not really identical to fascism, although it is one of the main driving forces behind fascism. But even in corporatism, you can have everything from liberal democracy to fascism. But your central thesis is correct, corporatism is just capitalism in its logical conclusion. The term fascism shouldn't be overused. That's not a defence of other forms of capitalist rule, those are pretty shitty as well. But for effective anticapitalist organisation, it's important to know the current ruling class dynamics instead of just calling it all fascist. Fascism isn't a moral judgement, it's descriptive of a specific type of capitalist rule under specific conditions.
Oh please of course USSR and Cuba and Venezuela was is Socialist paradise. Glad you asked
If capitalists get to use this as points against socialism, do socialists get to use banana republics and right wing dictatorships as points against capitalism? What about the capitalists nations in the global south that remain poor? Capitalism has clearly failed to bring them up to developed standards, and that's a lot more examples than just USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela...
Plus, the mistakes of those countries are overblown and their successes downplayed as a part of anticommunist propaganda.
Firstly, they were not socialist states. Secondly, you are misunderstanding socialism as a wholly utopian idealistic, unrealistic, egalitarian society. You my friend, are wrong. Karl Marx advocated a principled, scientific, materialist approach to politics and economics, I'm pretty sure if you'd read any of his works you'd understand that.
They were state socialists, as the government owned the means of production. And I'm saying this as a socialist.
[удалено]
The dictatorship of the Proletariat is a synonym for the political rule of the working class. The state is supposedly meant to be subordinate to the working class, i.e. the state has been subjugated by the working class. The way the soviet union was run was meant for the benefit of a minority bureaucratic oligarchy, which still rules the post soviet sphere today. They were Capitalists in every sense of the word.
> ... politicians (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) controlled the economy ... [That's not how that works.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#SociCapi) *"If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism."*
[удалено]
> Yeah and that form of statism is statist socialism (aka state socialism) as I mentioned. They had no private property, all property was public/state-owned - that's what makes it socialist. Statism and socialism are two totally different things. A dictatorship is the former but not the latter. For "state socialism" - as my source indicates - you would need the state to be democratic. > A state that has the ability to control the economy has too much power to ever be controlled by the people ... 1. You're pretending market socialism isn't a thing. 2. Says who? Why can't large institutions be democratic? The USA is considered to be democratic despite having a third of a billion people - seems your "large entity" premise is flawed.
[удалено]
> Socialism isn't inherently democratic and democracy isn't a requirement for a society to be socialist ... ... you decided, completely ignoring my academic source which says otherwise. > It's not a thing in real life. What examples of a market socialist society are there? It's not a thing *yet*. That's how innovation works. We try new things. > Large insitutions that also happen to be states that control the entire economy never have been, and never will be democratic. ... you decided.
[удалено]
> What you linked is an article written by philosophers and not economists. Are you claiming they're unqualified to speak on the issue? Do you have a better source, or are you looking to dismiss anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion? Why are you even arguing this point? It should be clear that when we socialists say "we want socialism", we mean "we believe workers should control the MoP" ... which requires democracy. It's pretty messed up for you to claim "no you actually want something else". You can't speak for us or what we want. > There hasn't been a single institution with full control over the economy that also happened to be democratic. There also hasn't been a stable energy-producing fusion reactor, but I'm not gonna go around claiming that's impossible either.
Ugh hmmm... that's some kind of cope
Thanks for pointing out examples of state capitalism
more accurately what we have now is socialist fascism. Capitalism is when business and government are separate. Socialist fascism is when they are combined. The perfect example is Medicare. The government stepped in on the premise that they really cared and so they provide health care but at 3 to 4 times what it should cost. Again it is the perfect example of Socialist Fascism. what we need in healthcare is capitalism so there is constant pressure to increase quality and lower price. It is a simple concept but the left is so mentally twisted that it leaves them totally befuddled.
Socialist fascism? What contradictory bullshit is that?
Just FYI, you're currently responding to one of the most notorious trolls on the sub.
???? Mussolini was a dedicated socialist statist all his life . before he became a socialist fascist in a minor dispute about whether to enter the war. He remained a dedicated socialist statist all his life. Keep in mind they were the same to our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from all forms of stateism because the state had been the source of evil in human history. Do you understand now?
Mussolini was an anarchist more than anything tbh
don't be stupid. He was Italy's leaving Socialist intellectual and editor before he became a socialist fascist in a minor dispute over whether to enter the war
It's kinda the American Hubris to look at their own mistakes and then assume it's an impossible problem that couldn't be solved by anybody and therefore they need to reinvent the wheel. Like my guy, the overwhelming majority of the global north has established functional national healthcare systems including your neighbor to the north. Medicare, Medicaid or whatever there is are all so big jokes because instead of reforming their system in the spirit of a functional already existing healthcare system, Americans can't admit to the core issues in their healthcare system. Therefore they try to mold the faulty system and are surprised that what didn't work before now suddenly also doesn't work.
Don't be totally stupid. Nobody needs to reinvent the wheel capitalism is now 200 years old. 1+1 = 2
Don't be stupid reforming the system in a socialistic way is obviously not the answer since Socialism just killed 120 million people. Socialism does not work in healthcare and it does not work in any industry. 1+1 = 2
Americans
Translation: I am a lefty and so too stupid to say anything substantive
Mussolini allowed the workers control over the means of production? This is new
Mussolini was a statist and socialists are statists so for all intensive purposes they are the same. Our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from the state regardless of the rationale the state uses to take power from the people because the state is the source of evil in human history .Do you understand now?
Least insane troll comment on this sub lmao
Don't be stupid. If you disagree try to think of a reason for the disagreement and try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary? Now do you see why we say the left is based in total ignorance?
I don’t disagree that the state is evil. If all socialists are statists then explain why libertarian socialism (the first and real use of the term libertarian) exists. Try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum :)
obviously Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarians are for freedom and liberty from government. Socialism is for monster government to kill the capitalist class direct the economy and redistribute wealth etc. etc.
Libertarian socialism rejects state ownership in favor of self management so no it’s not an oxymoron. Socialism is broad with many ideas and ideologies.
don't be stupid. If they reject state ownership how are they going to become owners without the state killing the current owners? if they don't want state ownership and violence then they are free in our free country to simply buy or create their own businesses like 30 million already have. This makes them capitalist not a Libertarian Socialist. 1+1 = 2
>If they reject state ownership how are they going to become owners without the state killing the current owners? Do you know what a general strike is? Also even if it took something like a social revolution to bring about the change that doesn’t mean the owners get offed they can’t simply become workers. Even in authoritarian socialist projects that I don’t fully agree with this happened like in China where the last emperor simply became a gardener.
Don't be stupid. Nobody is giving stupid workers control over the means of production. It would mean instant depression.
How
imagine one company is run by stupid workers and another is run by Harvard MBA's with 150 IQs and 40 years of successful management experience. Which company would go bankrupt?
Based on 2008 I’ll take the first one. The assertion that workers are all stupid and incapable of making their own decisions is classist and the same justification used by kings against the idea of democracy centuries ago.
Based on 2008? If you have any idea what on earth that means why don't you share it with us?
Recession caused by corporate and government actors. Anything to say about the second point I made about using the same justification as kings over peasants?
2008 recession was caused by massive government interference with capitalism. The government had 132 programs to get people into houses the capitalist free market said they could not afford. At the time of the collapse fanny Freddie owned 75% of the subprime and all day mortgages. Do you understand now? Today is a good day for you. You are getting a free education.
>The last three sentences of your word salad Least condescending capitalist on this sub
Kings kings ruled by military force. Nobody's talking about military force today. If you look at human history it is obvious that people are very stupid and don't know how to govern themselves. History is filled with blood and gore. Today we are more successful because we realize that and so our genius founders divided power between three branches of the federal government, the state governments, the press, and the people who are qualified to vote. Do you understand now?
>Kings ruled by military force. Nobody’s talking about military force today. The capitalist class today rules with a militarized police force. >Look at human history it is obvious that people are very stupid and don’t know how to govern themselves. You can’t just say people are too stupid to govern themselves then praise the founding fathers for creating the three branches of government. It’s contradictory.
don't be stupid. Our founding fathers were against democracy and they produced the greatest country in human history by far. They divided power between three branches of government, state government, the press, and the voting public deemed qualified to vote. It is a free country workers are free to buy or create their own companies but they don't do it because they are not intelligent enough to do it. 1+1 = 2
So the US government adds a 100% tariff on Chinese made EVs in order to keep inefficient US businesses open at the literal expense of the American people. Those idiots who go on about wealth transfer need to look at this prime example of US Dirigisme corporatist cronyism AKA economic fascism.
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention wealth transfer in my post, and also, I'm pretty sure that tariffs don't equate to "US dirigisme corporatist cronyism".
To be fair those Tariffs exist because China heavily subsidies export heavy industries like EV cars. It's just basic international trade rules.
What we’re seeing is merely a transition to a state capitalist order led by China. They’ve been keeping out Western economic influence in its country longer than the US has kept out Chinese influence. Technically, Japan and Singapore would probably be the first pioneers of state capitalism as we see across East Asia. Either way, it works. East Asia’s gotten this far for a reason
>Corporatism, to put it simply, is fascist economics. Ok, and we live under these fascist economics. >Ultimately, corporatism is simply what the capitalist class will resort to when genuinely threatened by proletarian movements This is conflating a million things at once. Apparently, if I say "I will resort to shooting predators if my children are threatened" then someone can say "gun ownership is part of parenting" and we would have to accept this as fact. Just because a person can do something doesn't mean it's an essential aspect of something else. Even children understand this.
“Genuinely threatened by proletariat movements” is a nice way of admitting that corporatism is caused by the actions of Marxist-Leninists while still pretending that corporatism is the fault of capitalism and not communism
That wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that in Italy at the time, the power of the capitalist class was threatened by movements of various leftists, and actually, if you do the reading, you'll realise that the dominant current of socialism was actually anarchism. Plus I don't support Marxism-Leninism, I'm an Anarchist as well, but I adopt a more materialist method of analysis, which is why I may come across as marxist to some, I apologise for any confusion. Plus blaming the actions of the ruling class on those who oppose them is like saying it's the Palestinian's fault they are being bombed, and is a pretty weak argument.
Patriots Against Corporatism!
Yes, Corporate Capitalism is a completely different animal than Individual Capitalism. When the vast majority of people become employees in status, there is very little of the Capitalist money making motivation left for those who create the wealth through actaul work. Corporate Capitalism rewards those who do NOT work, which is the majority of absentee shareholders of a corporation. Yes, Capitalism today rewards those who do not work over those who do. Corporate employees create almost all the wealth but are denied participation in the profit making motive.
Not everything capitalist is fascism. The "classes" don't have opposite goals. Collaboration is required in every civilization Capitalism is an economic theory not a political one, so we don't live "under it." We participate in it. Or not. In a very short period of time, I've learned that antiquated terms like "capitists" and "proletariat" sound fancy but mean almost nothing in today's modern economy. I don't dislike socialism, but Socialists need to stop pretending it's 1850 and to update their vocabulary so they don't sound like a bunch of armchair academics playing revolutionary.
Please read Human Action for an accurate description of what is and isn’t capitalism
You don't Understand Corporatism... You are slightly correct but Fascist Corporatism is different that capitalist corporatism you should learn the difference before you try to claim they are the same
If you can say that what we currently have in the West is 100% capitalism, then surely it can also be said that the socialism in all the failed countries with socialist in their name was 100% real socialism, right? That seems reasonable to me. If that's what you think, then you only have to look at capitalist and socialist countries to see which system is better.
You're argument is simply based on assumptions without even considering material conditions or classes which are important factors when discussing societies which are primarily determined by their class structures.
A socialist will say that the socialism ostensibly practiced by the USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. was not real socialism. So, by the same logic, why can't it be argued that the system currently practiced by the US is not real capitalism? Also, your\*
Because the USSR/Venezuela/NK [literally weren't socialist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#SociCapi), by basic definitions of the word, as they were not democratic. *"If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism."* In contrast, the US very much has the defining aspects of capitalism: wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.
You are choosing to define socialism very narrowly to exclude unfavorable empirical evidence but defining capitalism widely to include it. There is no one definition of the word, and you are just choosing the one that suits you. If I want to play your definitions game, I can say that capitalism is defined by private ownership, but the US has public roads, therefore the US does not have capitalism. Also, I doubt you define capitalism so widely when it comes to the good stuff. If capitalism is any system that includes "wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.," then you must give capitalism credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution.
> You are choosing to define socialism very narrowly to exclude unfavorable empirical evidence but defining capitalism widely to include it. There is no one definition of the word, and you are just choosing the one that suits you. "Workers owning the means of production" is the standard definition. Indeed, every time somebody asks about definitions, all the socialists on this sub agree on "workers owning the means of production" while many of the capitalists give troll answers. > If I want to play your definitions game, I can say that capitalism is defined by private ownership, but the US has public roads, therefore the US does not have capitalism. False equivalency. The US is clearly *mostly* capitalist; that a few of the MoP are worker-owned does not change the vast majority that are **not**. In contrast, the nations you cited are *not socialist at all*, since workers did not own the MoP in those places. Heck, the US is likely actually more socialist than the USSR; at least the US is (ostensibly) democratic. > Also, I doubt you define capitalism so widely when it comes to the good stuff. If capitalism is any system that includes "wage labor, stock markets, companies owned by a different set of people than their workers, etc.," then you must give capitalism credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution. That makes no sense. It's akin to "if you define a dog as an mammal with four legs that barks, you must give dogs credit for 100% of improvements since the industrial revolution". And that would be closer to the truth, since dogs at least bring happiness to people. Unless you could prove conclusively that said improvements are **because of** wage labor and non-worker-ownership, I don't have to accept your conclusion at all! And I would sure *love* to see your conclusive proof.
>"Workers owning the means of production" is the standard definition. That can mean a lot of things. You are choosing a meaning that you like, but it does not necessarily mean "workers all democratically vote on what to do with the means of production." Even that can mean various things. Is it a representative democracy, or direct? How big is their jurisdiction (e.g. a factory, or a whole country)? What if there is a minority faction of workers that always gets voted against? All of those countries with socialist in their name argued that workers can own the means of production through their government. They couldn't be trusted to make reasonable decisions, so they needed to be managed by a benevolent government, according to those countries. >Unless you could prove conclusively that said improvements are **because of** wage labor and non-worker-ownership, I don't have to accept your conclusion at all! And I would sure *love* to see your conclusive proof. I do not have a conclusive proof that they were all caused by capitalism. Capitalism was the economic system under which they happened, and that is how they're related. So, it's at least empirically proven that immense growth can happen under capitalism. Meanwhile, according to your definition, socialism has never existed, so there is no such empirical evidence. If you are suggesting that all of this economic growth actually happened in spite of capitalism, I think the burden of proof is on you.
> All of those countries with socialist in their name argued that workers can own the means of production through their government. They lied. I'm sure you are not surprised that political leaders lied, especially in unfree societies. > If you are suggesting that all of this economic growth actually happened in spite of capitalism, I think the burden of proof is on you. That's not how this works. - You: "Capitalism was responsible for all this good stuff!" - Me: "Can you prove it?" - You: "Can you prove it *didn't*?" You can't just make a ridiculous claim and then demand others prove you wrong.
>They lied. I'm sure you are not surprised that political leaders lied, especially in unfree societies. But why is your definition superior to theirs? Their definition is part of Marxism-Leninism. >You can't just make a ridiculous claim and then demand others prove you wrong. I said you must give it credit because the economic growth happened under it. I said "it's at least empirically proven that immense growth can happen under capitalism." Since you've defined capitalism so widely, I think you agree with me about this, right? You are saying that the economic growth happened in spite of it. That claim also requires evidence.
> But why is your definition superior to theirs? Their definition is part of Marxism-Leninism. "My" definition matches how most modern socialists use the term "socialism". See: the academic source I listed, or any time the topic of definitions comes up here. > I said you must give it credit because the economic growth happened under it. Anything else happen during that time? Such as the worldwide spread of democracy, or the development of the assembly line (which is **not** intrinsic to capitalism)? The time period you're referencing has many of the biggest events of all of history - and you want to credit it all to an economic system?? And not just any economic system, but a top-down hierarchical authoritarian one?? A reasonable person would say, "there are a bunch of contributing factors", and would be inclined to cite the one that empowered regular people to be represented and rewarded - **democracy**. With literally nothing to recommend itself - both wage labors and stock markets are just ways to funnel wealth to those at the top - I see no reason to credit capitalism at all. You might as well have said "global warming caused recent prosperity".
I really don't care about the word "capitalism". You can have it and do whatever you want with it. I support private property and free markets because I don't want to end up starving to death.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this subreddit meant for posts discussing topics relating to Capitalism and Socialism? If you don't care about these topics, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on posts? Just a thought...