Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you’re describing as “free-markets” I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we’re being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist,
I agree with this without any reservations.
and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I take exception with “always”. In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I’d probably agree if you changed your word to “frequently” though.
Capitalism on its own doesn’t have any guaranteed and deliberate, measured, studied, tested and understood anti-concentrationist dynamics.
What we get from the cappies instead is a head fake like this: “Check out this example of a corporation losing wealth and its competitor gaining wealth. Now add the magical invisible hand. Therefore, capitalism magically balances itself out.”
But while there is always a rags to richies story to be found, and also an occasional redistribution from one cappie to the next, at the macro level we see a totally different picture.
At the macro level property/wealth holdings concentrate. Reliably. If left alone. More and more is owned by fewer and fewer hands.
And ownership isn’t just about the balance sheet. The owners tell nonowners how to live. It’s about power and dominance.
The landlord tells their tenants how to cut grass, how to aqcept and not accept guests and for how long, what to keep and not keep inside the appartment/flat. Etc. The employer tells the worker how to dress, when to show up and where, what to do, how to do it, and what you can and cannot do on your time off, and it doen’t stop there because there is no line where the cappie says to hirself, “ok, this is plenty of dominance for me, I am satisfied, I will stop making additional demands.” So the cappies tell their workers how to vote, how to organize or not organize, how to share or not share certain information (like about their own salary), etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal or if it is enforceable. It works often enough that it makes it worth it to cappies to keep pushing the line.
So not having the wealth is bad enough on its own, but when every aspect of life is tightly managed, including how to think and not to think, capitalism rapes your soul in addition to either keeping you poor, or forcing a neverending hassle, a neverending energy drain on you, unless and until you yourself become a cappie.
That is criminal.
And capitalism doesn’t value anything not denominated in currency. Thus the commons get raped, science is only OK if someone somewhere is profiting, etc.
You get cities that are dirty, dense with money making properties, and little to no space to kick back for free, etc. Anywhere it is not like that is because people pushed back! And not because the cappies prefer ample parks or open land.
Just the fact that the accounting books are almost always the most closely guarded secret of a cappie, that alone, if you are knowledgeable about how power works, should tell you everything about what kind of relationship exists between the various people under capitalism. Workers are roped by the system into projects the details of which they aren’t welcome to know. And the government is also not welcome to audit anything.
Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.
South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.
The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that’s not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.
You’re listing things and going “BAD” so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can’t really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It’s like you’re pointing at a gun and saying “FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!” because guns kill people. It’s pretty caveman.
I mean, capitalist do the same thing with socialism every day. It takes a lot of propaganda to get people to believe that caring for your neighbors = bad.
As someone who supports socialist movements I 100% agree. But I really think the big problem in the world right now is the misunderstanding of capital basically. People think capital or money or anything that involves government is capitalism? Or something? I don’t really understand.
But just because people we might call capitalists pearl clutch about socialism doesn’t give someone the space to do the same back, or really just lie/be ignorant. We can definitely discuss the flaws of economic systems or the system we live under and some solutions. But stamping “CAPITALISM BAD” or “SOCIALISM BAD” literally gets us nowhere.
No this was capitalism in action. Capitalism bred the innovation in TRON.
Governments getting involved and putting their thumb on the scales to control the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
Say the line!!
“That isn’t REAL captialism”
Lmao
Just like the dumbasses say “the Soviet Union wasn’t REAL communism”?
Except I’m correct. A government implementing protectionist policies to control economic sectors is not capitalist.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You’re thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you’re describing as “free-markets” I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we’re being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn’t really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I agree with this without any reservations.
I take exception with “always”. In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I’d probably agree if you changed your word to “frequently” though.
Wealth concentration is problematic.
Capitalism on its own doesn’t have any guaranteed and deliberate, measured, studied, tested and understood anti-concentrationist dynamics.
What we get from the cappies instead is a head fake like this: “Check out this example of a corporation losing wealth and its competitor gaining wealth. Now add the magical invisible hand. Therefore, capitalism magically balances itself out.”
But while there is always a rags to richies story to be found, and also an occasional redistribution from one cappie to the next, at the macro level we see a totally different picture.
At the macro level property/wealth holdings concentrate. Reliably. If left alone. More and more is owned by fewer and fewer hands.
And ownership isn’t just about the balance sheet. The owners tell nonowners how to live. It’s about power and dominance.
The landlord tells their tenants how to cut grass, how to aqcept and not accept guests and for how long, what to keep and not keep inside the appartment/flat. Etc. The employer tells the worker how to dress, when to show up and where, what to do, how to do it, and what you can and cannot do on your time off, and it doen’t stop there because there is no line where the cappie says to hirself, “ok, this is plenty of dominance for me, I am satisfied, I will stop making additional demands.” So the cappies tell their workers how to vote, how to organize or not organize, how to share or not share certain information (like about their own salary), etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal or if it is enforceable. It works often enough that it makes it worth it to cappies to keep pushing the line.
So not having the wealth is bad enough on its own, but when every aspect of life is tightly managed, including how to think and not to think, capitalism rapes your soul in addition to either keeping you poor, or forcing a neverending hassle, a neverending energy drain on you, unless and until you yourself become a cappie.
That is criminal.
And capitalism doesn’t value anything not denominated in currency. Thus the commons get raped, science is only OK if someone somewhere is profiting, etc.
You get cities that are dirty, dense with money making properties, and little to no space to kick back for free, etc. Anywhere it is not like that is because people pushed back! And not because the cappies prefer ample parks or open land.
Just the fact that the accounting books are almost always the most closely guarded secret of a cappie, that alone, if you are knowledgeable about how power works, should tell you everything about what kind of relationship exists between the various people under capitalism. Workers are roped by the system into projects the details of which they aren’t welcome to know. And the government is also not welcome to audit anything.
fair - I agree ;)
Except I never said you were factually incorrect, since that seems to be the most important thing for you to get out of this exchange.
Government tipping the scales to help their capitalist mates seems to be exactly how capitalism works.
And North Korea is definitely a democratic republic 🙄🙄
It is capitalism. It’s all part of the system.
Government getting involved and putting their thumb on the economy is as capitalist as it gets.
South Sea Trading bubble, East India Company, Lake Eyrie Canal, trans continental railroad. Teapot Dome.
The government has ALLWAYS had its thumb on the scale for big business interests and if you think that’s not true I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
Right next to some beachfront property in Arizona.
I don’t understand your comment.
You’re listing things and going “BAD” so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can’t really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It’s like you’re pointing at a gun and saying “FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!” because guns kill people. It’s pretty caveman.
I mean, capitalist do the same thing with socialism every day. It takes a lot of propaganda to get people to believe that caring for your neighbors = bad.
As someone who supports socialist movements I 100% agree. But I really think the big problem in the world right now is the misunderstanding of capital basically. People think capital or money or anything that involves government is capitalism? Or something? I don’t really understand.
But just because people we might call capitalists pearl clutch about socialism doesn’t give someone the space to do the same back, or really just lie/be ignorant. We can definitely discuss the flaws of economic systems or the system we live under and some solutions. But stamping “CAPITALISM BAD” or “SOCIALISM BAD” literally gets us nowhere.
Hard dissagree, the average American reads at a 5th grade level.
If you want to have a higher level coveraation, sure, but for general messaging: CAPITALISM BAD is the only thing that will get through.
did you read the article? TRON was heavily backed by the japanese government.