3 ms·

Socialism is a big tent, by definition that's only one possible manifestation. Incidentally co-ops are not mutually exclusive with Capitalism (private property

Socialism is a big tent, by definition that's only one possible manifestation. Incidentally co-ops are not mutually exclusive with Capitalism (private property + market economy), for the same reason mixed-market economy (as practiced by most liberal democracies) represents not purely one thing or another. Co-ops are nothing new. > The Amish keep their surplus labor value. People don't want to live like the Amish. > It saddens me to see how fundamentally people misunderstand what capitalism actually is. The right to private property + market economy.

bumby 2y ago
>People don't want to live like the Amish. To the OP's point, do you think living like the Amish is necessary to keeping surplus labor value?
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Labor theory of value is bunk.
  - bumby 2y ago
    Gotcha. That makes your above point somewhat confusing, since it makes it a moot point whether people want to live like the Amish or not.
jmyeet 2y ago
> Incidentally co-ops are not mutually exclusive with Capitalism (private property + market economy), As I just explained, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism is a relatively new invention (~500 years) that arose from the ashes of feudalism. Exact same economic structure. Different exploiters. Consider this: markets exist in supposedly non-capitalist countries. They existed in the Communist bloc. We've got cuneiform tablets describing markets going back 5000+ years. Capitalism didn't create markets or a market economy. This is what I mean when I say that not only do people not know what scoaialism is, they don't know what capitalism is either. Yet the instinct to defend it is so strong, particularly in Americans. That too is relatively new. Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist, for example. > People don't want to live like the Amish. Who says they have to? We can point to an example of people living co-operatively in, oh I don't know, the article of this submission? > The right to private property + market economy. Then why did market economies exist before and outside capitalism? Private property is a core tenet of liberalism (which really means "neoliberalism" today). Private property in capitalism can be more accurately traced back to enclosures, which are really an evolution of land grants under feudalism.
- namlem 2y ago
  Private property under feudalism wasn't available to all. There can be no capitalism without liberalism. Property rights as a matter of law and everyone being equal under the law is essential. Earlier partial market economies were in practice more like command economies with relatively small free markets in certain sectors.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    Monarchs and nobles having estates is functionally indistinguishable from private property.
    - namlem 2y ago
      They key difference is that only nobles could have private property.
- lanfeust6 2y ago
  Capitalism has a definition, and you don't get to change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism > supposedly non-capitalist countries. They are State Capitalist. There's no supposition about it. That the governing body is captured by Communist ideologues has no bearing. Hence there are now billionaires operating in China and Russia. > They existed in the Communist bloc. They were re-introduced so fast it would make your head spin when Lenin's reforms were shown to be a disaster. > Capitalism didn't create markets or a market economy. I did not say so, and this is perhaps where your confusion lies. I said Capitalism is the right to private property and a market economy. I did not say markets are strictly endemic to Capitalism. Although you'll find no scalable one in a liberal democracy devoid of Capitalism. > We can point to an example of people living co-operatively in, oh I don't know, the article of this submission? A co-op is not tantamount to a society, it's an employer. The existence of a co-op in itself does not jeopardize the right to private property, or by extension Capitalism. This is why the quiet part the zealots eventually meander to is "see, we just have to force people to..."
- bumby 2y ago

bumby 2y ago

>People don't want to live like the Amish. To the OP's point, do you think living like the Amish is necessary to keeping surplus labor value?

slothtrop 2y ago
Labor theory of value is bunk.
- bumby 2y ago
  Gotcha. That makes your above point somewhat confusing, since it makes it a moot point whether people want to live like the Amish or not.

jmyeet 2y ago

> Incidentally co-ops are not mutually exclusive with Capitalism (private property + market economy), As I just explained, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism is a relatively new invention (~500 years) that arose from the ashes of feudalism. Exact same economic structure. Different exploiters. Consider this: markets exist in supposedly non-capitalist countries. They existed in the Communist bloc. We've got cuneiform tablets describing markets going back 5000+ years. Capitalism didn't create markets or a market economy. This is what I mean when I say that not only do people not know what scoaialism is, they don't know what capitalism is either. Yet the instinct to defend it is so strong, particularly in Americans. That too is relatively new. Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist, for example. > People don't want to live like the Amish. Who says they have to? We can point to an example of people living co-operatively in, oh I don't know, the article of this submission? > The right to private property + market economy. Then why did market economies exist before and outside capitalism? Private property is a core tenet of liberalism (which really means "neoliberalism" today). Private property in capitalism can be more accurately traced back to enclosures, which are really an evolution of land grants under feudalism.

namlem 2y ago
Private property under feudalism wasn't available to all. There can be no capitalism without liberalism. Property rights as a matter of law and everyone being equal under the law is essential. Earlier partial market economies were in practice more like command economies with relatively small free markets in certain sectors.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  Monarchs and nobles having estates is functionally indistinguishable from private property.
  - namlem 2y ago
    They key difference is that only nobles could have private property.
lanfeust6 2y ago
Capitalism has a definition, and you don't get to change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism > supposedly non-capitalist countries. They are State Capitalist. There's no supposition about it. That the governing body is captured by Communist ideologues has no bearing. Hence there are now billionaires operating in China and Russia. > They existed in the Communist bloc. They were re-introduced so fast it would make your head spin when Lenin's reforms were shown to be a disaster. > Capitalism didn't create markets or a market economy. I did not say so, and this is perhaps where your confusion lies. I said Capitalism is the right to private property and a market economy. I did not say markets are strictly endemic to Capitalism. Although you'll find no scalable one in a liberal democracy devoid of Capitalism. > We can point to an example of people living co-operatively in, oh I don't know, the article of this submission? A co-op is not tantamount to a society, it's an employer. The existence of a co-op in itself does not jeopardize the right to private property, or by extension Capitalism. This is why the quiet part the zealots eventually meander to is "see, we just have to force people to..."
bumby 2y ago