4 ms·

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership and control of the means of production and their operation for profit."

js8 5y ago
And also based on free market for labor.
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
so if I have a hammer and am using it to build houses when someone pays me, and I refuse to lend out my hammer to everyone who asks, that's capitalism?
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  > I refuse to lend out my hammer to everyone who asks, that's capitalism Capitalism in this analogy is your ownership of the hammer, not who you are or are not obligated to lend it to. Though it’s not really a great example, a lot of things are missing from this example, such as how you came to have ownership of the hammer, what property rights you are entitled to with the hammer, and why you even need to have ownership of said hammer in the first place. Alternatively, there is some sort of public ownership (as opposed to private, not necessarily implying state ownership) of the supply of hammers, and you are able to obtain a hammer to fit your business needs as needed.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Is there any situation in which Alice can refuse Bob access to a tool Bob's declared a need for not capitalism? I don't care about the word 'ownership' or what makes it valid, I care about limiting access to limited resources, be those resources hammers or the land my ancestors are buried on.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Well, ownership is the operative term here, so it’s a big deal. Ownership is who decides access (a more appropriate term would probably be who governs utilization), not where access can or cannot be limited. So to directly answer the question, yes, within certain definitions of “socialism” bobs access can be limited.
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        Can a private citizen limit access of another private citizen's access without it being capitalism?
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        I mean yes, I could literally take the hammer from you and destroy it under any system, thus “limiting your access”. The question is whether or not that is a crime, whether or not you or I have a right to the hammer or control over what’s done with it. Again, ownership is the operative idea here.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        I think you’re trying to ask if there’s such a thing as private property/ownership outside of capitalism, and the answer is yes. An obvious example would be feudalism.
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        Then what are people referring to when they say "Capitalism caused this"? If capitalism is private ownership of tools, and there are systems other than capitalism with private ownership of tools, what are people diagnosing when they say 'capitalism' in this context?
        5y ago

js8 5y ago

And also based on free market for labor.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

so if I have a hammer and am using it to build houses when someone pays me, and I refuse to lend out my hammer to everyone who asks, that's capitalism?

wbsss4412 5y ago
> I refuse to lend out my hammer to everyone who asks, that's capitalism Capitalism in this analogy is your ownership of the hammer, not who you are or are not obligated to lend it to. Though it’s not really a great example, a lot of things are missing from this example, such as how you came to have ownership of the hammer, what property rights you are entitled to with the hammer, and why you even need to have ownership of said hammer in the first place. Alternatively, there is some sort of public ownership (as opposed to private, not necessarily implying state ownership) of the supply of hammers, and you are able to obtain a hammer to fit your business needs as needed.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Is there any situation in which Alice can refuse Bob access to a tool Bob's declared a need for not capitalism? I don't care about the word 'ownership' or what makes it valid, I care about limiting access to limited resources, be those resources hammers or the land my ancestors are buried on.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    Well, ownership is the operative term here, so it’s a big deal. Ownership is who decides access (a more appropriate term would probably be who governs utilization), not where access can or cannot be limited. So to directly answer the question, yes, within certain definitions of “socialism” bobs access can be limited.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Can a private citizen limit access of another private citizen's access without it being capitalism?
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        I mean yes, I could literally take the hammer from you and destroy it under any system, thus “limiting your access”. The question is whether or not that is a crime, whether or not you or I have a right to the hammer or control over what’s done with it. Again, ownership is the operative idea here.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        I think you’re trying to ask if there’s such a thing as private property/ownership outside of capitalism, and the answer is yes. An obvious example would be feudalism.
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        Then what are people referring to when they say "Capitalism caused this"? If capitalism is private ownership of tools, and there are systems other than capitalism with private ownership of tools, what are people diagnosing when they say 'capitalism' in this context?
        5y ago