3 ms·

> Bullshit jobs are not specific to state capitalist Yes, but unlike in socialist governments, companies with a lot of bullshit jobs will die due to being inef

> Bullshit jobs are not specific to state capitalist Yes, but unlike in socialist governments, companies with a lot of bullshit jobs will die due to being inefficient. Thats the point of capitalism. Nobody has to work to support other able bodied humans rent seeking off their labor and capital. But in the US this is not true, as we don't have true capitalism in the US, we have a socialist mix and the govt can sometimes prop up inefficient companies. But in socialism, authoritarians will remain in power for decades even if the majority doesn't like it. Rent seeking is a natural state of affairs in more socialist countries.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> But in the US this is not true, as we don't have true capitalism in the US, we have a socialist mix and the govt can sometimes prop up inefficient companies. This is the "no true capitalist" fallacy. The reality of capitalism is that big companies get to impose whatever they want on any smaller entity they want. They may either do so directly (e.g. when operating in a weak country, like Chiquita's Banana Republics) or by co-opting government (either in cahoots with an authoritarian government like the USSR or China, or a democratic government like the USA or Europe). And big corporations will always have local fiefdoms with bullshit jobs, since corruption rears its ugly head in any large org - be it Oracle or the US Federal government. > Thats the point of capitalism. Nobody has to work to support other able bodied humans rent seeking off their labor and capital. Before claiming such hilarious idealism, maybe take a look at the capitalist US South and the way it was built by 150 years or more of slave labor.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > This is the "no true capitalist" fallacy. How is it different from the "no true socialist/communist" fallacy that is more common? > Before claiming such hilarious idealism, maybe take a look at the capitalist US South and the way it was built by 150 years or more of slave labor. A free market requires free participants. Therefore, the US South was not purely capitalist. Also, slavery was not the only component in building the South. Other continents and countries have/had slavery for longer periods and are poorer. The US South was an exploitative mix of socialism + capitalism that was defeated by the more capitalist and freer North. > The reality of capitalism is that big companies get to impose whatever they want on any smaller entity they want. Which exploitative project by a company has the lifespan and reach of CCP or Soviet Russia's decades long exploitation and rent seeking? The difference is Oracle can't force you to buy their database for your small company but you have to pay gawking wages even if you are a poor person. > weak country ... or by co-opting government (either in cahoots with an authoritarian government like the USSR or China, or a democratic government like the USA or Europe). Thank you, thats my point. They can't survive long unless they are supported by an authoritarian govt or by a weak govt. It is obvious now that we are arguing in circles with you supporting my point. So I guess we can end the conversation here.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It seems that to you, capitalist simply means free market, and you call any kind of state intervention socialist. If those are the definitions, we probably agree. However, that is not how those terms are normally defined or used. Capitalism means "an economic system where most enterprises are wholy owned by those who invest the initial capital". This differs from earlier economic models like feudalism, where enterprises were typically wholy owned by a lord through hereditary rule. Socialism is normally defined as "an economic system where most enterprises are wholy owned by the workers who work in them". Socialism can very well be a free market system, just like workers co-ops compete today with other worker's co-ops and more traditional capitalist corporations. Conversely, an economic system doesn't stop being capitalist just because there are tariffs or subsidies or other interventions by the state. In particular, you can have a purely capitalist system with slave labor, since workers' rights are entirely irrelevant to whether a system is capitalist or not. In fact, freeing slaves has usually posed a problem to those with capital, and so the states that forced them to free their slave typically had to reimburse the owners for their loss of property as if they had nationalized a piece of land. Later edit: > Thank you, thats my point. They can't survive long unless they are supported by an authoritarian govt or by a weak govt. My point about the weak government was that a powerful corporation faced with a weak government will just hire its own mercenaries and do what it wants, ignoring any law (usually forcing people to work) - like Chiquita and other banana companies did in South America.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> But in the US this is not true, as we don't have true capitalism in the US, we have a socialist mix and the govt can sometimes prop up inefficient companies. This is the "no true capitalist" fallacy. The reality of capitalism is that big companies get to impose whatever they want on any smaller entity they want. They may either do so directly (e.g. when operating in a weak country, like Chiquita's Banana Republics) or by co-opting government (either in cahoots with an authoritarian government like the USSR or China, or a democratic government like the USA or Europe). And big corporations will always have local fiefdoms with bullshit jobs, since corruption rears its ugly head in any large org - be it Oracle or the US Federal government. > Thats the point of capitalism. Nobody has to work to support other able bodied humans rent seeking off their labor and capital. Before claiming such hilarious idealism, maybe take a look at the capitalist US South and the way it was built by 150 years or more of slave labor.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> This is the "no true capitalist" fallacy. How is it different from the "no true socialist/communist" fallacy that is more common? > Before claiming such hilarious idealism, maybe take a look at the capitalist US South and the way it was built by 150 years or more of slave labor. A free market requires free participants. Therefore, the US South was not purely capitalist. Also, slavery was not the only component in building the South. Other continents and countries have/had slavery for longer periods and are poorer. The US South was an exploitative mix of socialism + capitalism that was defeated by the more capitalist and freer North. > The reality of capitalism is that big companies get to impose whatever they want on any smaller entity they want. Which exploitative project by a company has the lifespan and reach of CCP or Soviet Russia's decades long exploitation and rent seeking? The difference is Oracle can't force you to buy their database for your small company but you have to pay gawking wages even if you are a poor person. > weak country ... or by co-opting government (either in cahoots with an authoritarian government like the USSR or China, or a democratic government like the USA or Europe). Thank you, thats my point. They can't survive long unless they are supported by an authoritarian govt or by a weak govt. It is obvious now that we are arguing in circles with you supporting my point. So I guess we can end the conversation here.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It seems that to you, capitalist simply means free market, and you call any kind of state intervention socialist. If those are the definitions, we probably agree. However, that is not how those terms are normally defined or used. Capitalism means "an economic system where most enterprises are wholy owned by those who invest the initial capital". This differs from earlier economic models like feudalism, where enterprises were typically wholy owned by a lord through hereditary rule. Socialism is normally defined as "an economic system where most enterprises are wholy owned by the workers who work in them". Socialism can very well be a free market system, just like workers co-ops compete today with other worker's co-ops and more traditional capitalist corporations. Conversely, an economic system doesn't stop being capitalist just because there are tariffs or subsidies or other interventions by the state. In particular, you can have a purely capitalist system with slave labor, since workers' rights are entirely irrelevant to whether a system is capitalist or not. In fact, freeing slaves has usually posed a problem to those with capital, and so the states that forced them to free their slave typically had to reimburse the owners for their loss of property as if they had nationalized a piece of land. Later edit: > Thank you, thats my point. They can't survive long unless they are supported by an authoritarian govt or by a weak govt. My point about the weak government was that a powerful corporation faced with a weak government will just hire its own mercenaries and do what it wants, ignoring any law (usually forcing people to work) - like Chiquita and other banana companies did in South America.