4 ms·

The term capitalism is meaningless now. For example: the Japanese mode of lifetime employment, low salaries, high intangible benefits to employment, an almost

by rland 7y ago

The term capitalism is meaningless now. For example: the Japanese mode of lifetime employment, low salaries, high intangible benefits to employment, an almost exclusively age based hierarchical system is labeled the same thing as the American model, where every individual is a capitalist and a sole individual's brand determines their compensation and worth. The two models are called "capitalist", but they share almost nothing. If everyone is a capitalist, why aren't all of the world's markets integrated? Why is it so hard to strike a trade deal? Why is trade still organized into ideological blocs? We have always had global trade, but we've never ever had a shared definition of what "a capitalist society" actually means. And then of course the term is used extensively as an ideological cudgel. Saying things like "Capitalism is the only means of production in the world" or "Capitalism is inevitable" has no meaning at all. Do a find and replace with "Human Nature" and this makes a lot more sense.

kennywinker 7y ago
It sounds like you're describing historical social differences between countries, rather than a different implementation of capitalism. capitalism is the economic system that "lifetime employment, low salaries, high intangible benefits to employment" exist within. I.e. the concept of employment and salaries are part of capitalism, how they are used is up to the specific society. Based on my experience I would would argue that capitalism influences the structure of society so that the world is getting more homogenous, and differences like the ones you describe are getting less and less. But that's a different issue from the ubiquitousness of capitalism.
- rland 7y ago
  So, maybe it will help to look at what is Not Capitalism. In say some midecentury communist country, the workers owned the capital, right? In practice, though, someone who called themselves a worker (a party secretary) with political power had de facto control over how and where the capital was allocated and spent. Sounds an awful lot like private ownership. Also, it resembles some parts of the US, like defense, where single bid contracts go conveniently to the friends of lawmakers. It's the taxpayer's capital, right, not privately owned? The capital in these cases is not explicit in a spreadsheet, but it undeniably exists and is owned. My example of the Japanese salaryman is similar: if my boss at Mitsubishi is the division leader of heavy industry, my paycheck comes in large part from being able to give his name on the phone with someone when asking for a favor. I'm not paid that, but I own the privilege -- the capital -- if I get high enough up at Mitsubishi. I can even pass this intangible owned thing along to my children, through my family name. These are all of my cut-and-dry examples, but there are many which are more muddled. The spending of huge companies on lobbying--is that Capitalism? Or some perversion? Depending on what point you're trying to make ideologically, these situations are all either Capitalism OR Not Capitalism, OR somewhere in between. So what the hell is capitalism anyway and why is it even useful to talk about it like the way the OP talks about it? That is my point.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
cairo_x 7y ago
Most of the people here only seem to have the vaguest of intuitions of what Capitalism is. Capitalism is when the person who put up the capital gets ROI plus the surplus wealth created by the workers, and the workers themselves get a small fraction of said surplus called a wage minus any say over reinvestment of surplus. The world is full of many large worker co-ops and credit unions that exist in democratic countries (AKA: not Capitalism). Furthermore, it has been pointed out by many throughout history that state communism is no more than a lame reimplementation of the capitalist model where the state itself acts as the corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  How are worker co-ops and credit unions not a form of capitalism? It is a profitable application of capital, so what excludes it?
  - cairo_x 7y ago
    Making a profit is not capitalism. I don't know how I can more simply state it. Capitalism=private ownership of a company/economy (that's te literal one liner google definition even more condensed). Think of it like democracy vs dictatorship. Democracy->workers control surplus (investors still get their investment back+interest--there are different models), dictatorship->an investor or a proxy investor controls the company, or an upper class within the company control the surplus and workers get a set wage and have no power. Ultimately it's the relationship the workers have with what they produce. In the google definition it gives state ownership as a 'rather than capitalism' example, but that assumes a non dictatorship where the workers collectives are actually autonomous and self governed. In the case of Soviets and China, however, the system of collectives was always centralized state-capitalism (and later full blown state sanctioned hyper-capitalism). But there are commie examples like in Spain, where are a huge system of worker run co-ops that have existed since the late 50s with roots going further back to anarchist run co-ops of the civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caja_Laboral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caja_Laboral
godelski 7y ago
Or consider that the Nordic countries are confused when US politicians call their countries Socialist. I think the problem is that the word "Capitalism" (and "Socialism") are very high level terms but people use them to represent very specific ideas. So there is a huge breakdown in communication and everyone is just talking past one another (we could probably say this about quite a few hot topics).

by rland 7y ago

kennywinker 7y ago

It sounds like you're describing historical social differences between countries, rather than a different implementation of capitalism. capitalism is the economic system that "lifetime employment, low salaries, high intangible benefits to employment" exist within. I.e. the concept of employment and salaries are part of capitalism, how they are used is up to the specific society. Based on my experience I would would argue that capitalism influences the structure of society so that the world is getting more homogenous, and differences like the ones you describe are getting less and less. But that's a different issue from the ubiquitousness of capitalism.

rland 7y ago
So, maybe it will help to look at what is Not Capitalism. In say some midecentury communist country, the workers owned the capital, right? In practice, though, someone who called themselves a worker (a party secretary) with political power had de facto control over how and where the capital was allocated and spent. Sounds an awful lot like private ownership. Also, it resembles some parts of the US, like defense, where single bid contracts go conveniently to the friends of lawmakers. It's the taxpayer's capital, right, not privately owned? The capital in these cases is not explicit in a spreadsheet, but it undeniably exists and is owned. My example of the Japanese salaryman is similar: if my boss at Mitsubishi is the division leader of heavy industry, my paycheck comes in large part from being able to give his name on the phone with someone when asking for a favor. I'm not paid that, but I own the privilege -- the capital -- if I get high enough up at Mitsubishi. I can even pass this intangible owned thing along to my children, through my family name. These are all of my cut-and-dry examples, but there are many which are more muddled. The spending of huge companies on lobbying--is that Capitalism? Or some perversion? Depending on what point you're trying to make ideologically, these situations are all either Capitalism OR Not Capitalism, OR somewhere in between. So what the hell is capitalism anyway and why is it even useful to talk about it like the way the OP talks about it? That is my point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

cairo_x 7y ago

Most of the people here only seem to have the vaguest of intuitions of what Capitalism is. Capitalism is when the person who put up the capital gets ROI plus the surplus wealth created by the workers, and the workers themselves get a small fraction of said surplus called a wage minus any say over reinvestment of surplus. The world is full of many large worker co-ops and credit unions that exist in democratic countries (AKA: not Capitalism). Furthermore, it has been pointed out by many throughout history that state communism is no more than a lame reimplementation of the capitalist model where the state itself acts as the corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
How are worker co-ops and credit unions not a form of capitalism? It is a profitable application of capital, so what excludes it?
- cairo_x 7y ago
  Making a profit is not capitalism. I don't know how I can more simply state it. Capitalism=private ownership of a company/economy (that's te literal one liner google definition even more condensed). Think of it like democracy vs dictatorship. Democracy->workers control surplus (investors still get their investment back+interest--there are different models), dictatorship->an investor or a proxy investor controls the company, or an upper class within the company control the surplus and workers get a set wage and have no power. Ultimately it's the relationship the workers have with what they produce. In the google definition it gives state ownership as a 'rather than capitalism' example, but that assumes a non dictatorship where the workers collectives are actually autonomous and self governed. In the case of Soviets and China, however, the system of collectives was always centralized state-capitalism (and later full blown state sanctioned hyper-capitalism). But there are commie examples like in Spain, where are a huge system of worker run co-ops that have existed since the late 50s with roots going further back to anarchist run co-ops of the civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caja_Laboral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caja_Laboral

godelski 7y ago

Or consider that the Nordic countries are confused when US politicians call their countries Socialist. I think the problem is that the word "Capitalism" (and "Socialism") are very high level terms but people use them to represent very specific ideas. So there is a huge breakdown in communication and everyone is just talking past one another (we could probably say this about quite a few hot topics).