4 ms·
> No, it wouldn't, because it is marketable ownership I have to be sincere, I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new for me. P
by wtdata 7y ago
> No, it wouldn't, because it is marketable ownership
I have to be sincere, I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new for me. Perhaps it's really like you say, but that's not the definition I had, nor the one I see as the generally accepted one when checking up the definition of capitalism.
> For a version of your example, if everyone owned a fixed
But that is the thing, it isn't fixed. You are free to manage it, sell it, buy it, as you wish. That's why it's an hypothetical situation, where everyone would end up with a part voluntarily and not forced by the state.
- dllthomas 7y agoIf people are free to buy and sell, "everyone owns some" is a description of some states of the system, not the system itself.
- dragonwriter 7y agoYou say this: > I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new for me. Perhaps it's really like you say, but that's not the definition I had But then also this about your hypothetical about a “capitalist” system where “everyone owns capital” which makes it capitalist as opposed to socialist: > You are free to manage it, sell it, buy it, as you wish. You seem to explicitly recognize that marketability—the right to buy and sell—is an essential element of the kind of capital ownership that defines capitalism in the same post that you claim that it isn't.
- wtdata 7y agoMy bad I misunderstood your answer to my first comment. I understood you were taking about the marketability of the produce, not of the means of production. In any case, that is the reasoning of my second point when originally answering to you: A hypothetic situation where most people would own means of production, would still be capitalism when means of production are free to exchange hands. That is too say: it's capitalism by definition as long as the means of production can exchange hands freely, it doesn't matter if they are all concentrated on the possession of a few or not.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> it's capitalism by definition as long as the means of production can exchange hands freely, it doesn't matter if they are all concentrated on the possession of a few or not. If they can be freely exchanged, absent active as social management if distribution (which is not capitalism), they will become narrowly concentrated over time. Broad distribution is not a stable condition.