It’s still called capitalism, but in reality it’s drifted way off course. What we’ve got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players, big banks and mega-corps get bailouts, write policy through lobbyists, and face no real consequences for failure. It’s capitalism in name, but the rules are rigged. Real capitalism doesn’t have a reset button for the rich and a bootstraps lecture for everyone else.
Free market capitalism has always been an ideological myth. The definition of capitalism has more to do with ownership of the means of production than anything about free markets.
We now live in the age of techno feudalism. The mega corps aren’t producing and selling actual things they are just rent seeking and extracting wealth from their fiefdoms.
The only way that capitalism could ever work would be to remove any generational wealth and make it only about personal achievement. When you die it all goes back to the state(assets and money).
Even then, rich parents can pay for better education and tend to have better connections. Doing it that way would mostly just fuel nepotism in companies and encourage people to find loopholes to pass on most of their wealth before they die.
I’ve always toyed with the idea of a wealth cap. 1 billion dollars is the max amount of money any one person or entity can make. Anything after that is either reinvested, split amoung the workers (not the board of directors) or payed a taxes to the government.
One thing is for sure. We don’t need billionaires.
Actually, I do. It has a definition, one that all of you seem eager to twist and reshape into whatever suits your narrative.
In reality, you’re the one who doesn’t understand it. You’re so far removed from the mechanics that you can’t even see what’s actually happening. Instead, you just blame “the system” and an amorphous blob of people you call “the rich.”
It’s the worst kind of idealism, screaming at windmills while pretending to have some enlightened grasp of “what’s really going on.”
You’re no different in rhetoric or philosophy from a MAGA supporter—just flipped to the opposite pole.
Yes, capitalism greatly expanded the scale and speed at which things could be produced. But how do you keep capitalism ‘real’ and prevent the issues you described in your first comment?
Monopolizing of certain productions, rabid financialization of the economy and extreme wealth agglomeration at the top, combined with rampant poverty at the bottom have been the go to in the US capitalism. There was only a relatively brief period in between, when the scare of communism forced the oligarchy to give some concessions before people get too angry.
I mean it does. At least as far as it can. I live in America. And aside from the shit we’re going through right now and the myriad of issues that we have as a country and society our standard if living is very hight. Not the highest of course but very high never the less. That standard is made possible in large by capitalism.
I believe Rand called it reasonable self interest, not every billionaire is an oligarch, not every rich person wants to rent out a god dammed city for their wedding like some cartoonish villian.
Penn Jillette said that he believes most people are good and I believe that applies to the rich as well.
Corporate oligarchy can be argued as a natural out come if capitalism run rampant I agree. But to equate the two as the same… They’re just not.
This is a literal insane take. America only has the standard of living it does because of the rampant exploitation of the third world, and so i guess in that sense capitalism does work at the only thing its meant for, funneling resources away from the exploited masses and into the hands of a privileged few. Pointing at america as an example of the success of capitalism is peak brainrot.
This is such a black-and-white take it practically erases reality. Yes, America exploited the Third World-but pretending the exploited had zero agency is just historical revisionism. It’s like blaming the Atlantic slave trade solely on Europeans while ignoring the African slavers who sold their own people. Exploitation requires both a buyer and a seller. If you’re going to condemn capitalism, do it honestly-recognize that local elites, corrupt governments, and internal power structures played a role too. The world isn’t split into pure villains and innocent victims.
I will agree fully, however that to reach a level of success in capitalism someone at the bottom has to suffer. I’m not supporting the system I’m just saying that it is successful within it’s framework.
Yo I’m from Honduras and your corporations literally invaded my country when workers started complaining about the dismal work conditions. There was a straight up coup enacted by an American business owner, specifically to get someone who aligned with American corporate values. Now the only way things have shifted is you no longer send a fleet filled with armed people to get rid of protests, you simply shut down entire factories with single digit day notice if people start even speaking about unionizing. The empire still intervenes when they don’t like a political candidate, even now. I’m here to assure you that your take is just wrong. This is capitalism, and it evidently does not work.
Yes. American corporations do this this is an absolute fact.
I condemn such actions and hope for a better system at some point in the future or even now if it’s impossible.
At no time have I defended capitalism.
The issue is most of the time people on this platform don’t even know what their protesting against.
Just under this comment alone there are people who don’t even know the definition capitalism.
Capitalism absolutely does work. It is a completely functional system of finance and in some minor ways even governance. It’s not good it’s inherently evil but it does function I don’t know why people can’t just accept that objectively.
This is arguably one of the core components of capitalism that many capitalists choose to forget. Simping for the rich and powerful is not, itself, capitalism - capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention in economic matters. Capitalism was not born with the first exchange of goods between people, capitalism was born with the rise of complex legal and financial instruments in European states in the 16th-17th century limiting the use of feudal and financial power.
The issue is that capitalist elites, like all prior elites, are not actually ideologues, whatever their claims. Capitalist elites are elites first, and capitalists second, if at all - the goal of elites is to preserve and enhance their own power, even at the expense of the system that enables them.
Capitalism is a touch worse at preventing elite accumulation of power than other systems (socialism), and a touch better than others (actual feudalism), but ultimately any examination which forgets that, no matter how ideologically ‘pure’ the analysis is, will always miss the fucking trapdoor to a more despotic and unfair system right beneath our feet.
Never trust the powerful. Any cooperation should always be conditional.
This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets. Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved. Yeah, modern capitalism what we see post
16th century definitely grew with state backing: contract enforcement, corporate law, banking systems, even colonial muscle. But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets.
Oh, so instead of a ‘vague historical version’ of capitalism that is widely accepted by applying a set of unique organizational characteristics that arose and spread from a single epicenter in Renaissance Europe, instead we have the vague historical notion that capitalism predates the written word. Great.
Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved.
Fucking what.
You… you do realize that markets only exist because of government enforcement, right?
But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
No, not only does capitalism only exist because of government intervention, as capitalism is defined by transferable private investor ownership of the means of production, but markets themselves, which predate capitalism, also only exist because of government intervention, and claiming otherwise is ignorant of the basic underpinnings of pre-modern economics, instead projecting a very modern view of economic systems on the distant past wherein the very structures that enable every piece of the economic puzzle are, very often, fucking lacking entirely.
What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
Sir or madam. You’re doing a gish gallop even Kent hovind would be proud of and I don’t have the energy or desire to fully respond to any of that. I’ve written enough dissertations in my life.
Capitalism doesn’t require need or desire government intervention to work or exist. I suggest you brush up on your economics or ask chatgpt to explain it to you.
What we’ve got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players
Tell me, how free was India to develop in free competition against England in the 19th century? How free was Congo to compete against Belgium? Oh, wait, you’re only talking for a white minority, I see. When exactly was capitalism better, when English children lost their fingers trapped in machinery in coal-powered factories in England in the 1850s and died at 30-ish years of age? Maybe it was better in 1917, when the ambitions of capitalism and imperialism triggered WW1 and ground tens of millions of lives? Or was it good in the 1950s/60s when the US murdered millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea through the most horrific bombing campaigns just because they didn’t want to be capitalist? What good capitalism are you exactly talking about?
I’m sorry what? I didn’t say anything about “good capitalism” or any kind of warfare or committed atrocious or any kind of racial issues.
In fact I am denouncing capitalism in my comment.
It’s like you just picked a random line to quote then went off on some idealistic rant about literally nothing.
Jkf was assassinated, there’s micro plastics in our food, I took a painful shit last night = therefore capitalism is bad!
Strawman Fallacy Oh, wait, you’re only talking for a white minority, I see.
False Dilemma What good capitalism are you exactly talking about
Appeal to Emotion English children lost their fingers… died at 30-ish
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Capitalism and imperialism triggered WWI.
Guilt by Association US murdered millions… because they didn’t want to be capitalist.
Red Herring The entire comment diverts from discussing actual merits or failures of capitalism as an economic system by listing atrocities as if they are direct and exclusive outcomes of capitalism, avoiding systemic analysis.
Loaded Question When exactly was capitalism better…
Your entire comment is nothing more than idealistic mental masturbation, what a waste.
Communism: ownership of the means of production by the people.
Capitalism: ownership of the means of production by private entities.
Your definition was vague enough to fit both, which was funny because you gave it while patronizingly stating how easy it was to define. Doubling down by patronizingly reciting what the word ‘definition’ means is one way to go I guess.
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[a] This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.[b] Capitalist economies tend to experience a business cycle of economic growth followed by recessions.[13]
Two completely separate meaningful definitions of two different economic processes and philosophies.
I honestly don’t know why I continue to engage. You people don’t even know what you’re arguing against.
The red herring fallacy run rampant in the comment section equating capitalism to atrocities committed by war criminals etc.
Idealistic morons with their head in the clouds talking about concepts they don’t know anything about.
Heck even people from other countries talking about how evil America is for destroying their economic system which was something that America does.
And now here you are talking about how my definition of capitalism is too vague.
What on God’s green earth does that have to do with the current American economic landscape turning into a corporate oligarchy.
Literally no one even addressed a single concept in my original comment except to harass me about how capitalism is bad.
Nah thats capitalism buddy, at its core. The point is the rigging, in order to profit as much as possible. Corporate Oligarcy is the ineveitable outcome of capitalism, because capitalism creates its own destruction after a certain point of wealth consolidation, after which point the system can no longer function as is after all the cannabalizing of its own sectors.
It’s capitalism in the same way the Soviet Union was communism. No matter the theory, this is how these systems play out when real humans are in charge. That said, humans can clearly do better than the US system. Western Europe is full of counterexamples of semi-capitalism done better.
I think capitalism could have played out differently if it were started from a different point. We started with aristocrats and never got rid of them.
Communism in the Soviet Union started through revolution which is often co-opted by strong men authoritarians. It ended up in a dictatorship. If communism were attempted in a different manner, then it would end differently.
There is no other goal in capitalism other than the concentration of power and wealth. It is the default setting and needs many rules not to get there(reformism).
At least with socialism society is fully democratic by having democracy in the workplace; the last bastion of the Elite.
One system favors the few while the other the many.
In capitalism the goal is to use the money you have now to help you get more money in the future. If you can spend a few million dollars training your workforce or spend a few million buying corrupt politicians, and the latter nets you 10x the return in 1/10 the time, the system will reward those who make the immoral choice. And if you are working for a publicly traded company, your shareholders and board of directors will probably fire you for not using all technically-legal tools at your disposal.
I was recently thinking that the proponents of unregulated capitalism make it sound like natural selection for corporations. And it kind of does sound like that, until you think about it a little bit. It would be like an animal that grows more mouths as it finds more food, and if it eats even more food it can do magic shit like edit its own DNA and warp the laws of physics. Oh and of course it would be immortal, able to die from injury or starvation but never old age. (and if it did die from injury or starvation, it’s probably so that its owner can sell its kidneys)
Unfortunately like every system we have tried to do at scale, capitalism favors concentration of power over time and being gamed by some folks or others. Humans love to surrender power to the powerful up until some breaking point.
So corporate oligarchy is an expected long term result of capitalism. Unfortunately some other type of oligarchy is the outcome from alternatives once the “wrong” players figure out the rules of the game and how they can break them as needed to get an advantage over those following the spirit of the rules
Hey, just FYI, you’re arguing on Lemmy. Most people here get their political opinions from memes and Twitter screenshots. One third are tankies, one third are people that agree with tankies minus China/Russia support, and the one third are actually people that read the news, understand history, and at least somewhat educated or more.
I’ve seen and been involved with many discussions where people on Lemmy don’t know what a primary is. And that’s just one example, so yeah. Many idiots.
Someone asked me to provide them with the definition of capitalism which I did. Their responce was “that could mean anything! You could use that to define communism”
I responded by providing them with the definition of the word “definition”
It’s still called capitalism, but in reality it’s drifted way off course. What we’ve got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players, big banks and mega-corps get bailouts, write policy through lobbyists, and face no real consequences for failure. It’s capitalism in name, but the rules are rigged. Real capitalism doesn’t have a reset button for the rich and a bootstraps lecture for everyone else.
Free market capitalism has always been an ideological myth. The definition of capitalism has more to do with ownership of the means of production than anything about free markets.
Capitalism hates free markets and will always strive to monopolise them.
You’re the first person to correctly use and define the word capitalism in this entire discussion.
Your analysis and critique is absolutely correct.
We now live in the age of techno feudalism. The mega corps aren’t producing and selling actual things they are just rent seeking and extracting wealth from their fiefdoms.
The only way that capitalism could ever work would be to remove any generational wealth and make it only about personal achievement. When you die it all goes back to the state(assets and money).
Removing all inheritance was one of the items Marx suggested in The Communist Manifesto.
Even then, rich parents can pay for better education and tend to have better connections. Doing it that way would mostly just fuel nepotism in companies and encourage people to find loopholes to pass on most of their wealth before they die.
I’ve always toyed with the idea of a wealth cap. 1 billion dollars is the max amount of money any one person or entity can make. Anything after that is either reinvested, split amoung the workers (not the board of directors) or payed a taxes to the government.
One thing is for sure. We don’t need billionaires.
How about.
Const is chosen to maximize tax revenues.
So your saying give ppl who gucked up this system more power? That’s crazy man
No, what we have is capitalism. There has been no veering off course. You don’t know what capitalism is.
Actually, I do. It has a definition, one that all of you seem eager to twist and reshape into whatever suits your narrative.
In reality, you’re the one who doesn’t understand it. You’re so far removed from the mechanics that you can’t even see what’s actually happening. Instead, you just blame “the system” and an amorphous blob of people you call “the rich.”
It’s the worst kind of idealism, screaming at windmills while pretending to have some enlightened grasp of “what’s really going on.”
You’re no different in rhetoric or philosophy from a MAGA supporter—just flipped to the opposite pole.
Care to share it with the rest of the class?
Also, do you have any examples of this ‘real capitalism’? Or at least a plan to keep capitalism ‘real’?
Ownership of the means of production.
The history of the model T from ford.
Right
Yes, capitalism greatly expanded the scale and speed at which things could be produced. But how do you keep capitalism ‘real’ and prevent the issues you described in your first comment?
Oligarchy and capitalism are in no way incompatible.
One is a form of governance, one is an economic system.
That you would pose the notion of “we don’t have capitalism, we have oligarchy” shows that you don’t seem to know the definitions.
MAGA has a lot more to do with hate for others and retribution for perceived slights than any coherent take on policy.
Out of all the idealistic head in the clouds idiots under my original comment you by far take the cake you are alone on a pedestal of stupid.
You claim that I don’t know the definitions of capitalism and oligarchy when you can’t even use the words correctly.
If anything you have no clue what those words mean nor have you understood a single word that I said.
Capitalism and oligarchy are of course compatible which is why I called our current system of economics a corporate oligarchy.
Please don’t respond there is no way you can save yourself.
What about my comment made me seem idealistic? Or is this another word you don’t understand?
In what way did I use them incorrectly?
Of course I haven’t understood what you said, you defined capitalism as
Do you actually think this is a sensible response to that question?
It doesn’t even say who owns it. Those exact words can be used to define communism, if you change who the “owners” are.
Save myself from what? The stakes of this internet debate seem to be much higher for you than they are for me.
deleted by creator
What was my last statement to you on my comment?
You said you weren’t going to reply to me, and that mine was a gish gallop comment, and then you deleted it.
Classic projection, I can see why you wanted to hide it.
No. This was what I said.
I deleted my previous responce because I thought you were someone else.
But please continue to be slick. You’re only digging your hole deeper.
Also I appreciate your missuse of the word projection which you clearly don’t understand the meaning of.
Monopolizing of certain productions, rabid financialization of the economy and extreme wealth agglomeration at the top, combined with rampant poverty at the bottom have been the go to in the US capitalism. There was only a relatively brief period in between, when the scare of communism forced the oligarchy to give some concessions before people get too angry.
Fully agree.
This is real capitalism. Real capitalism does not work
I mean it does. At least as far as it can. I live in America. And aside from the shit we’re going through right now and the myriad of issues that we have as a country and society our standard if living is very hight. Not the highest of course but very high never the less. That standard is made possible in large by capitalism.
I believe Rand called it reasonable self interest, not every billionaire is an oligarch, not every rich person wants to rent out a god dammed city for their wedding like some cartoonish villian.
Penn Jillette said that he believes most people are good and I believe that applies to the rich as well.
Corporate oligarchy can be argued as a natural out come if capitalism run rampant I agree. But to equate the two as the same… They’re just not.
If you ignore the ever growing body of evidence against fair and sustainable capitalism… yeah.
This is a literal insane take. America only has the standard of living it does because of the rampant exploitation of the third world, and so i guess in that sense capitalism does work at the only thing its meant for, funneling resources away from the exploited masses and into the hands of a privileged few. Pointing at america as an example of the success of capitalism is peak brainrot.
This is such a black-and-white take it practically erases reality. Yes, America exploited the Third World-but pretending the exploited had zero agency is just historical revisionism. It’s like blaming the Atlantic slave trade solely on Europeans while ignoring the African slavers who sold their own people. Exploitation requires both a buyer and a seller. If you’re going to condemn capitalism, do it honestly-recognize that local elites, corrupt governments, and internal power structures played a role too. The world isn’t split into pure villains and innocent victims.
I will agree fully, however that to reach a level of success in capitalism someone at the bottom has to suffer. I’m not supporting the system I’m just saying that it is successful within it’s framework.
Yo I’m from Honduras and your corporations literally invaded my country when workers started complaining about the dismal work conditions. There was a straight up coup enacted by an American business owner, specifically to get someone who aligned with American corporate values. Now the only way things have shifted is you no longer send a fleet filled with armed people to get rid of protests, you simply shut down entire factories with single digit day notice if people start even speaking about unionizing. The empire still intervenes when they don’t like a political candidate, even now. I’m here to assure you that your take is just wrong. This is capitalism, and it evidently does not work.
Those same assholes will do the same in America I assure you.
Yes. American corporations do this this is an absolute fact.
I condemn such actions and hope for a better system at some point in the future or even now if it’s impossible.
At no time have I defended capitalism.
The issue is most of the time people on this platform don’t even know what their protesting against.
Just under this comment alone there are people who don’t even know the definition capitalism.
Capitalism absolutely does work. It is a completely functional system of finance and in some minor ways even governance. It’s not good it’s inherently evil but it does function I don’t know why people can’t just accept that objectively.
High? Sure. But not sustainable. Far from sustainable. Capitalism is great for short term. But we can’t live with just short term.
You don’t become a billionaire by not being one
This is arguably one of the core components of capitalism that many capitalists choose to forget. Simping for the rich and powerful is not, itself, capitalism - capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention in economic matters. Capitalism was not born with the first exchange of goods between people, capitalism was born with the rise of complex legal and financial instruments in European states in the 16th-17th century limiting the use of feudal and financial power.
The issue is that capitalist elites, like all prior elites, are not actually ideologues, whatever their claims. Capitalist elites are elites first, and capitalists second, if at all - the goal of elites is to preserve and enhance their own power, even at the expense of the system that enables them.
Capitalism is a touch worse at preventing elite accumulation of power than other systems (socialism), and a touch better than others (actual feudalism), but ultimately any examination which forgets that, no matter how ideologically ‘pure’ the analysis is, will always miss the fucking trapdoor to a more despotic and unfair system right beneath our feet.
Never trust the powerful. Any cooperation should always be conditional.
This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets. Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved. Yeah, modern capitalism what we see post 16th century definitely grew with state backing: contract enforcement, corporate law, banking systems, even colonial muscle. But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
Oh, so instead of a ‘vague historical version’ of capitalism that is widely accepted by applying a set of unique organizational characteristics that arose and spread from a single epicenter in Renaissance Europe, instead we have the vague historical notion that capitalism predates the written word. Great.
Fucking what.
You… you do realize that markets only exist because of government enforcement, right?
No, not only does capitalism only exist because of government intervention, as capitalism is defined by transferable private investor ownership of the means of production, but markets themselves, which predate capitalism, also only exist because of government intervention, and claiming otherwise is ignorant of the basic underpinnings of pre-modern economics, instead projecting a very modern view of economic systems on the distant past wherein the very structures that enable every piece of the economic puzzle are, very often, fucking lacking entirely.
Would you care to tell me what property is?
Sir or madam. You’re doing a gish gallop even Kent hovind would be proud of and I don’t have the energy or desire to fully respond to any of that. I’ve written enough dissertations in my life.
Capitalism doesn’t require need or desire government intervention to work or exist. I suggest you brush up on your economics or ask chatgpt to explain it to you.
Tell me, how free was India to develop in free competition against England in the 19th century? How free was Congo to compete against Belgium? Oh, wait, you’re only talking for a white minority, I see. When exactly was capitalism better, when English children lost their fingers trapped in machinery in coal-powered factories in England in the 1850s and died at 30-ish years of age? Maybe it was better in 1917, when the ambitions of capitalism and imperialism triggered WW1 and ground tens of millions of lives? Or was it good in the 1950s/60s when the US murdered millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea through the most horrific bombing campaigns just because they didn’t want to be capitalist? What good capitalism are you exactly talking about?
I’m sorry what? I didn’t say anything about “good capitalism” or any kind of warfare or committed atrocious or any kind of racial issues.
In fact I am denouncing capitalism in my comment.
It’s like you just picked a random line to quote then went off on some idealistic rant about literally nothing.
Jkf was assassinated, there’s micro plastics in our food, I took a painful shit last night = therefore capitalism is bad!
Strawman Fallacy Oh, wait, you’re only talking for a white minority, I see.
False Dilemma What good capitalism are you exactly talking about
Appeal to Emotion English children lost their fingers… died at 30-ish
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Capitalism and imperialism triggered WWI.
Guilt by Association US murdered millions… because they didn’t want to be capitalist.
Red Herring The entire comment diverts from discussing actual merits or failures of capitalism as an economic system by listing atrocities as if they are direct and exclusive outcomes of capitalism, avoiding systemic analysis.
Loaded Question When exactly was capitalism better…
Your entire comment is nothing more than idealistic mental masturbation, what a waste.
Coming from somebody who doesn’t understand the basics of capitalism.
Ownership of the means of production.
It’s not fucking hard.
You messed that up too - whose ownership? ‘Ownership of the means of production’ could just as easily fit the definition of communism.
No it can’t because the word communism doesn’t define as the ownership of the means of production that’s the definition for capitalism.
But here’s one that you might need some help with:
Definition
“a dictionary definition of the verb”
“the clarity and definition of pictures can be aided by using computer graphics”
Guess I have to spell it out.
Communism: ownership of the means of production by the people.
Capitalism: ownership of the means of production by private entities.
Your definition was vague enough to fit both, which was funny because you gave it while patronizingly stating how easy it was to define. Doubling down by patronizingly reciting what the word ‘definition’ means is one way to go I guess.
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.[a] This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.[b] Capitalist economies tend to experience a business cycle of economic growth followed by recessions.[13]
Two completely separate meaningful definitions of two different economic processes and philosophies.
I honestly don’t know why I continue to engage. You people don’t even know what you’re arguing against.
The red herring fallacy run rampant in the comment section equating capitalism to atrocities committed by war criminals etc.
Idealistic morons with their head in the clouds talking about concepts they don’t know anything about.
Heck even people from other countries talking about how evil America is for destroying their economic system which was something that America does.
And now here you are talking about how my definition of capitalism is too vague.
What on God’s green earth does that have to do with the current American economic landscape turning into a corporate oligarchy.
Literally no one even addressed a single concept in my original comment except to harass me about how capitalism is bad.
Nah thats capitalism buddy, at its core. The point is the rigging, in order to profit as much as possible. Corporate Oligarcy is the ineveitable outcome of capitalism, because capitalism creates its own destruction after a certain point of wealth consolidation, after which point the system can no longer function as is after all the cannabalizing of its own sectors.
It’s capitalism in the same way the Soviet Union was communism. No matter the theory, this is how these systems play out when real humans are in charge. That said, humans can clearly do better than the US system. Western Europe is full of counterexamples of semi-capitalism done better.
I think capitalism could have played out differently if it were started from a different point. We started with aristocrats and never got rid of them.
Communism in the Soviet Union started through revolution which is often co-opted by strong men authoritarians. It ended up in a dictatorship. If communism were attempted in a different manner, then it would end differently.
There is no other goal in capitalism other than the concentration of power and wealth. It is the default setting and needs many rules not to get there(reformism).
At least with socialism society is fully democratic by having democracy in the workplace; the last bastion of the Elite.
One system favors the few while the other the many.
In capitalism the goal is to use the money you have now to help you get more money in the future. If you can spend a few million dollars training your workforce or spend a few million buying corrupt politicians, and the latter nets you 10x the return in 1/10 the time, the system will reward those who make the immoral choice. And if you are working for a publicly traded company, your shareholders and board of directors will probably fire you for not using all technically-legal tools at your disposal.
I was recently thinking that the proponents of unregulated capitalism make it sound like natural selection for corporations. And it kind of does sound like that, until you think about it a little bit. It would be like an animal that grows more mouths as it finds more food, and if it eats even more food it can do magic shit like edit its own DNA and warp the laws of physics. Oh and of course it would be immortal, able to die from injury or starvation but never old age. (and if it did die from injury or starvation, it’s probably so that its owner can sell its kidneys)
Unfortunately like every system we have tried to do at scale, capitalism favors concentration of power over time and being gamed by some folks or others. Humans love to surrender power to the powerful up until some breaking point.
So corporate oligarchy is an expected long term result of capitalism. Unfortunately some other type of oligarchy is the outcome from alternatives once the “wrong” players figure out the rules of the game and how they can break them as needed to get an advantage over those following the spirit of the rules
Hey, just FYI, you’re arguing on Lemmy. Most people here get their political opinions from memes and Twitter screenshots. One third are tankies, one third are people that agree with tankies minus China/Russia support, and the one third are actually people that read the news, understand history, and at least somewhat educated or more.
“everyone is an idiot except me and people who agree with me.”
I’ve seen and been involved with many discussions where people on Lemmy don’t know what a primary is. And that’s just one example, so yeah. Many idiots.
Someone asked me to provide them with the definition of capitalism which I did. Their responce was “that could mean anything! You could use that to define communism”
I responded by providing them with the definition of the word “definition”
There are idiots here…
☹️ ya man… I know… I’m beating a dead horse.
Sometimes I just respond so anyone that does read it will see someone fighting against the idiocy.