3 ms·

It sounds like you're describing historical social differences between countries, rather than a different implementation of capitalism. capitalism is the econo

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]

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]