3 ms·

"it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom" Well then it wouldn't be capitalism all the way down? It would only be c

by bstills 16y ago

"it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom" Well then it wouldn't be capitalism all the way down? It would only be capitalism on the outside, socialism on the inside. Capitalism is a system in which individuals are rewarded according to what the market will give them. If you don't do that you simply don't have capitalism.

cynicalkane 16y ago
I don't think there really is a popular definition for capitalism. People who use the word always use it to mean what they want it to mean, usually in the context of praising or criticizing capitalist society. The best definition (in my ever humble opinion) is that capitalism is a society where the means of production live in a free market, which is completely consistent with what the GP said.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I believe that the common definition in most folks' minds is that capitalism refers to the system we have today in the USA, where the government rewards business interests with handouts, protective regulations, and the like. This is not capitalism, though. What people are experiencing and objecting to is corporatism [1]. I believe that if people would give real capitalism a chance, the result would be positive. But as it stands now, the economics are too intertwined with the politics. In order to successfully implement real capitalism, the power that the state wields to erect regulations that can be subverted would have to be stripped: we'd have to neuter the government. Clearly the government would never allow that to happen. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism
  - varjag 16y ago
    It can be argued that as soon as capital begins to concentrate, the benefactors begin to affect policy making to their advantage. Thus you end up with the current system. Just as attempts at establishing communism end up with coercion and purges of dissent, theoretical capitalism ends up with powerful interest groups in practice.
datapimp 16y ago
Since Capitalism ultimately depends on the social relationship between owners and workers, where owners purchase the output of worker's activity for less than they sell it to an outside party that desires that output, accumulating and reinvesting the difference ( i.e. Capital ) I think that is a much more important attribute to focus on than the means Capitalist organizations use to determine prices. ( Markets vs State Planning ). The argument you are repeating is a distraction from this central fact. From the point of view of the 95% who have no Capital, the 95% who only have their ability to exchange labor for currency, life is fundamentally the same. >40 hours a week traded to somebody else for the currency I need to pay for food, shelter, and entertainment. The value I create in that 40 hours is always greater than I was paid, and the difference is always accumulated by a better connected and more socially powerful minority. Markets and State Planning are superfluous details in this equation.

by bstills 16y ago

cynicalkane 16y ago

I don't think there really is a popular definition for capitalism. People who use the word always use it to mean what they want it to mean, usually in the context of praising or criticizing capitalist society. The best definition (in my ever humble opinion) is that capitalism is a society where the means of production live in a free market, which is completely consistent with what the GP said.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I believe that the common definition in most folks' minds is that capitalism refers to the system we have today in the USA, where the government rewards business interests with handouts, protective regulations, and the like. This is not capitalism, though. What people are experiencing and objecting to is corporatism [1]. I believe that if people would give real capitalism a chance, the result would be positive. But as it stands now, the economics are too intertwined with the politics. In order to successfully implement real capitalism, the power that the state wields to erect regulations that can be subverted would have to be stripped: we'd have to neuter the government. Clearly the government would never allow that to happen. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism
- varjag 16y ago
  It can be argued that as soon as capital begins to concentrate, the benefactors begin to affect policy making to their advantage. Thus you end up with the current system. Just as attempts at establishing communism end up with coercion and purges of dissent, theoretical capitalism ends up with powerful interest groups in practice.

datapimp 16y ago

Since Capitalism ultimately depends on the social relationship between owners and workers, where owners purchase the output of worker's activity for less than they sell it to an outside party that desires that output, accumulating and reinvesting the difference ( i.e. Capital ) I think that is a much more important attribute to focus on than the means Capitalist organizations use to determine prices. ( Markets vs State Planning ). The argument you are repeating is a distraction from this central fact. From the point of view of the 95% who have no Capital, the 95% who only have their ability to exchange labor for currency, life is fundamentally the same. >40 hours a week traded to somebody else for the currency I need to pay for food, shelter, and entertainment. The value I create in that 40 hours is always greater than I was paid, and the difference is always accumulated by a better connected and more socially powerful minority. Markets and State Planning are superfluous details in this equation.