In search of a definition of Capitalism

[barbarianhorde]

Is this sufficient....?;

The culture of borrowing money on interest to start businesses to generate wealth that isn't coming from either inheritance or plunder.


Or does it require shareholdership?


The former was introduced in Venice and caused the Renaissance, the latter in Amsterdam and caused the colonial age.

[Serendipper]

Is this sufficient....?;

The culture of borrowing money on interest to start businesses to generate wealth that isn't coming from either inheritance or plunder.


Or does it require shareholdership?


The former was introduced in Venice and caused the Renaissance, the latter in Amsterdam and caused the colonial age.

Capitalism = capitalizing on things.

If I were a capitalist, then...

I'm capitalizing on the fact that someone is willing to work for less than what I get from selling the things he produces.

I'm capitalizing on the fact that desperate people exist.

I'm capitalizing on the fact that people are stupid, since they decided to lower my taxes again and again and again.

I have incentive to perpetuate these conditions and the suffering that must exist in order to compel people to toil for the profit of another in order to survive. Go get a job you lazy bum and make me richer!

[barbarianhorde]

Edit well thanks for the response Serendipper.

I was a little impolite at first reply.

But yeah

Yes we can call capitalizing on things capitalism though I was more looking for something that refers to the ammasment of yuge capital like what Xarm went against and in the end turned a great asset of.

[bogdan9310]

Capitalism = a hierarchical structure that enslaves what's driving it.

[barbarianhorde]

Also if money borrowing to launch great Ventures is considered the standard for Capitalism which I think it is or should be, then Iulius Kaesar the greatest money borrower in known human history is the creator of the "company" that is the continent Europe.

[Serendipper]

Edit well thanks for the response Serendipper.

I was a little impolite at first reply.

But yeah

Yes we can call capitalizing on things capitalism though I was more looking for something that refers to the ammasment of yuge capital like what Xarm went against and in the end turned a great asset of.

I've formerly defined 4 systems as follows:

Capitalism = 0% regulation
Socialism = more than 0%, but less than 100% regulation.
Fascism = 100% regulation while maintaining private ownership
Communism = 100% regulation and the state owns the means of production.

Concession of even one regulation makes one a socialist because there is no reason for a capitalist to desire even one regulation. All regulation is for the benefit of society (socialism).

So once you concede one regulation, you're a socialist and it's now a matter of how much regulation is appropriate.

Most folks don't like this definition because "socialism" is a bad word and they want capitalism to include regulations and still be capitalism in order to avoid the label of socialism, but all regulation is for the benefit of society and works against the interests of the capitalist.

So my definitions are concise, precise, and mutually exclusive (they don't overlap and contribute to confusion).

[barbarianhorde]

Yeah but there is one caveat: to have no regulation you got to have a regulation against regulation. It is a really deep caveat.

[Serendipper]

Yeah but there is one caveat: to have no regulation you got to have a regulation against regulation. It is a really deep caveat.

Good point. Someone recently pointed out that freemarket capitalism is also a utopian idea: just remove all regulation and poof, utopia! It's magic

[barbarianhorde]

I think Islam solves the problem of the threat of capitalism fairly well. I lived in that world and everyone is equal. No one has any real rights or incentives but that's not a problem there. People just go smoke the pipe and watch some belly dancing at night and it seems to be plenty for their psyches to get by on. I only met one extremist. He had eyes that seemed made of glass. Fu king extreme extremist. Weird guy. Everyone else was pretty normal. You can see why the Democrats embrace it. It works.

[Serendipper]

I think Islam solves the problem of the threat of capitalism fairly well. I lived in that world and everyone is equal. No one has any real rights or incentives but that's not a problem there. People just go smoke the pipe and watch some belly dancing at night and it seems to be plenty for their psyches to get by on. I only met one extremist. He had eyes that seemed made of glass. Fu king extreme extremist. Weird guy. Everyone else was pretty normal. You can see why the Democrats embrace it. It works.

But you're going from one extreme to the other: from complete deregulation to totalitarianism where everyone is forced to be equal. For 50 years in the US the socialism coincided with what was the best country ever. Now that socialism has been reduced since 1980, the US is lagging the world on all metrics except prisoners and number of people who believe angels are real. Capitalism transformed a powerhouse into an embarrassment.

From 1930 to 1980 the rich paid essentially and effectively 50% of their income in taxes, yet had plenty of incentive to get richer. 50 years man!

Now conservatives make it seem like if we put taxes even half what they were before that there would be no incentive for the rich to get richer. Then explain the 50 years when america was the best country on earth.

We can provide a minimum standard of existence and still leave plenty of room for people to compete and keep up with the joneses.

[barbarianhorde]

Well I'm happy we broke through the stalemate and now you are expressing some respect and even admiration for capitalism. Given that the wealthy put in some money back to the community. But not 90 percent. If you still call that Capitalism then I think we can all talk.

But the Democrats with the Bern standing obediently behind that veilscarved woman cursing "motherfucker" at the elected president in the house , you can see how they're a threat to the heart of us right? Gruesome night of the American soul.

Let's first just respect the People and not threaten the goddamn president. For sure it will be war if this keeps up. For 100% sure man.

[Gloominary]

Capitalism is an ideology.
Capitalists are ideologues.
Capitalists believe every (freeborn) person owns themselves and in some schools of thought their children and slaves, but not other (freeborn) persons.
A person/co-op can own a place/thing/slave if the current owner gives/sells it to them, or if they occupy/take an unowned place/thing/slave, or if they make a place/thing out of unowned places/things.
Once someone owns something they own it till they die or give/sell it, altho if they can't prove they own it to other capitalist, other capitalists may take it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I've formerly defined 4 systems as follows:

Capitalism = 0% regulation
Socialism = more than 0%, but less than 100% regulation.
Fascism = 100% regulation while maintaining private ownership
Communism = 100% regulation and the state owns the means of production.

Regulation of the market?
Would contract enforcement and legal adjudication and tort law be considered forms of regulation?

[Karpel Tunnel]

But you're going from one extreme to the other:

I don't feel like anyone is really competent to have the solution, but here are some things I would remove. Corporate personhood. Gone. And the return of the potential threat of end a particular corporations charter. You commit enough crimes as an organization, you lose the charter. It is a set of priviledges. And as original conceived it was meant only to be permanent if you were a good little corporation. IOW the conservative position, let alone the liberal one, should be to go to the original intent which was: should we let you incorporate, but you pull a lot of shit, we will take away that priviledge.

Fiat banking. The whole BS that a bank when it loans out money now can invest more money is absurd. WE have given the banks too much money. There were problems earlier, but now there is so little connection between what is loaned and invested and what the bank actually has.

The government should print its own money. Why should a private corporation make money off of making money. Absurd.

I would tax the shit of money made from capital. IOW not through labor. I am sure there are fuzzy lines. But the idea was not that at some point you have an AI that plays with money for you and you earn more that people who actually do things, from street cleaners to CEOs.

Overhaul the campaign finance thing. If every candidate is beholden to Wall St., Wall street will create legislation that allows the rich to work less and create nothing. And the distance they have come in doing this is utterly unbelievable.

We do not have a democracy, we have an oligarchy.
Without campaign finance and the near elimnation of lobbying, we do nto have a democracy.
Oversight much be not revolving door or there is no oversight.

And there should be a commons. And conservatives should want a commons. It seems like privitizatoin of everything is a conservative position. But it shouldn't be. It used to be there were thing - like the town forest, the water - that were commonly held. The neo-cons - a shorthand term - want nothing to be not on the market, even our fucking bodies and the air in the end. They have gone after water and tried to patent the fucking neem tree. They want every single thing on the market. That is a radical anti-conservative position. They used the gulf wars to privitize many parts of the military. The intelligence services are very privitized now. They want ot be able to buy and sell everything. Liberals make little grunts of objections to this, but in fact conservatives are on better ground because it is a radical shift in the way of viewing the world. It is radical reform.

[Gloominary]

Capitalism: A free market.
Socialism: The people regulate the means of production, distribution and exchange but not the products themselves.
Syndicalism: The unionization of the means of production.
Communism: The people regulate the means of production and the products themselves.
Corporatism: Capitalists regulate the means of production (and the products themselves).

[Serendipper]

Well I'm happy we broke through the stalemate and now you are expressing some respect and even admiration for capitalism. Given that the wealthy put in some money back to the community. But not 90 percent. If you still call that Capitalism then I think we can all talk.

FDR said his greatest accomplishment was saving capitalism. Meaning he didn't have to resort to state ownership and prices controls, et al. His solution was to tax the capitalists on their profits and redistribute and do public works projects. Lots of zoos, dams, parks, libraries, etc were built with the "stolen money". Then Eisenhower followed with the interstate system. Everything worked beautifully until JFK decided to cut taxes and then Reagan, who I'd sooner consider a traitor than a president.

But the Democrats with the Bern standing obediently behind that veilscarved woman cursing "motherfucker" at the elected president in the house , you can see how they're a threat to the heart of us right? Gruesome night of the American soul.

I don't know what you're on about there.

Let's first just respect the People and not threaten the goddamn president. For sure it will be war if this keeps up. For 100% sure man.

Yes, we need to support Trump driving the economy into the ground so we can elect his antithesis who will clean up the mess just as FDR did.

[Serendipper]

I've formerly defined 4 systems as follows:

Capitalism = 0% regulation
Socialism = more than 0%, but less than 100% regulation.
Fascism = 100% regulation while maintaining private ownership
Communism = 100% regulation and the state owns the means of production.

Regulation of the market?
Would contract enforcement and legal adjudication and tort law be considered forms of regulation?

That's actually very astute of you to see that. Yes, tort is regulation, but only after the crime. The european model is to regulate everything so that tort won't be required. One regulatory mechanism is backend and one frontend.

Europe says no lead in paint and the US says whatever damages results, you can be compensated for, and that is the deterrent meant to prevent shenanigans. So Pharma rushes drugs to market, then invariably gets a classaction lawsuit, but $100 million fine is nothing to them, so the deterrent doesn't work.

I can't imagine a capitalist would advocate for any regulation, either criminal or tort. A capitalist would say the freemarket will decide the fate of immoral or criminal business practices by voting with wallets. I'm pretty sure that would be Friedman's response on the issue.

I think the capitalist wants the freedom to capitalize on anything and everything and the freemarket will determine how noble the business model is. This of course favors the most amoral/immoral people. Morality is not competitive, but is a weakness.

[Serendipper]

Liberals make little grunts of objections to this, but in fact conservatives are on better ground because it is a radical shift in the way of viewing the world. It is radical reform.

It's probably not on the forefront of the left's agenda.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's actually very astute of you to see that. Yes, tort is regulation, but only after the crime. The european model is to regulate everything so that tort won't be required. One regulatory mechanism is backend and one frontend.

Europe says no lead in paint and the US says whatever damages results, you can be compensated for, and that is the deterrent meant to prevent shenanigans. So Pharma rushes drugs to market, then invariably gets a classaction lawsuit, but $100 million fine is nothing to them, so the deterrent doesn't work.

There are anti-lead laws in the US. And as far as pharma, there are regulations about drug trials and theoretically the FDA would regulate this. So it's not all after the fact. But either way we are dealing with regulations, courts, laws, enforcement of court decisions, regulating bodies, inspectors, etc.

I can't imagine a capitalist would advocate for any regulation, either criminal or tort. A capitalist would say the freemarket will decide the fate of immoral or criminal business practices by voting with wallets. I'm pretty sure that would be Friedman's response on the issue.

Then you have something more like a totally chaotic feudalism. Because corporations love contracts. Not just with employees, but with suppliers, with intellectual rights, with property rights. Contracts, property law, intellectual rights...(there's probably more, but that's enough to make the point) these are enormous areas of regulation. A highly regulated economy does not need as many lawyers. The government decides. A free market capitalist society requires a shitload of laws, vast numbers of lawyers, a court system powerful enough so that Bill Gates can fuck over Apple if they steal something from him. That means the government needs a serious fucking police force and courts with powerful regulatory tools. Or Apple will laugh at them

or

Bill Gates will have his own army...

Hence I say something like feudalism. Or perhaps better something like ongoing constant tribal warfare.

People take the phrase free markets at face value. The most powerful advocates of free markets are always pushing for legislation about markets and contracts. And Disney will fuck you up the ass and quote all sorts of regulations if you do something with MIckey even though Disney himself is dead.

I think the capitalist wants the freedom to capitalize on anything and everything and the freemarket will determine how noble the business model is. This of course favors the most amoral/immoral people.

Free markets advocates don't want goverments to limit corporations IN GENERAL. But they demand a vast amount of rules and regulations - around rights and contracts, to keep their power over individuals and over each other. You violate their vast array of rules and regulation, the ones corporations want, and theywill happily use the governments they paid for to slam those regulations home, if they can't do it themselves.

I mean, I agree with you. I just don't even want to grant this idea that corporations don't want regulations. Their functioning depends on them and in fact creates vast swathes of regulations communist countries don't need so much because there is no separation between state and industry and thus there is a central arbiter.

This is not me arguing for communism which I dislike in the extreme for all sorts of reasons.

I am just trying to eliminate the 'free' from the free marketers.

Letting the market decide period would be an armed struggle all the time.

Steve jobs shows up with his elite mercenaries and takes over Microsoft. I mean, why not. What, you want to limit is his freedom? He could and he did.

Oh, they say, no, no violence. First, give me a break, but then second. But that is not the only limit the corporations demand. They regulate the songs you sing, what marks you can put on pants you make yourself to sell. They evict based on contracts. And, well, you get the point. And I went into this in another thread also.....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194668&p=2718389#p2718389

[Karpel Tunnel]

Liberals make little grunts of objections to this, but in fact conservatives are on better ground because it is a radical shift in the way of viewing the world. It is radical reform.

It's probably not on the forefront of the left's agenda.

Unfortunately it seems to be transpersons and microaggression, what a monster Trump is.

You know, in a mainstream newspaper where I am it went through the history of the wall with Mexico. Obama and the Clintons extended the wall, defending the idea of the wall. Trump is just the one who wants to have a complete wall now. But they make vocal defenses of wall building between the US and Mexico. But with Trump it is seen as psychosis and evil.

Not meaning I want the wall...but seriously. It's like everyone is a football hooligan now.

[barbarianhorde]

Karpel youre on point with the distinction between lawyers and bureaucrats.

In a regulated economy no citizen has any rights or incentives. In an unregulated economy the law is an actual thing to which citizenry can appeal.

It's rather interesting that when I give three massive examples of regulated economies then the response is "yeah but they don't count because there are also marginal and less relevant sort-of-examples".

Undeniable evidence says that regulated economies destroy both human life and the environment. But that does not, predictably, lead to any consensus. People just have their consensus that it just isn't so. Because they'll fucking believe what their little belly tells them to.

[barbarianhorde]

Regulation of trade and living situations occurs spontaneously between sane beings. That's the only form of consensus that is sane. But precisely this is disallowed by a priori regulating.

"Oh we humans of group C have decided humans in general are evil so we will regulate them" (Hitler)
Or: "Humans will figure it out if a few don't manage to monopolise and regulate the rest." (American constitution)

[Serendipper]

That's actually very astute of you to see that. Yes, tort is regulation, but only after the crime. The european model is to regulate everything so that tort won't be required. One regulatory mechanism is backend and one frontend.

Europe says no lead in paint and the US says whatever damages results, you can be compensated for, and that is the deterrent meant to prevent shenanigans. So Pharma rushes drugs to market, then invariably gets a classaction lawsuit, but $100 million fine is nothing to them, so the deterrent doesn't work.

There are anti-lead laws in the US. And as far as pharma, there are regulations about drug trials and theoretically the FDA would regulate this. So it's not all after the fact. But either way we are dealing with regulations, courts, laws, enforcement of court decisions, regulating bodies, inspectors, etc.

It was just an example. I know the US has regulations. The US has a tendency to regulate by tort while Europe has a tendency to regulate via the iron fist.

I can't imagine a capitalist would advocate for any regulation, either criminal or tort. A capitalist would say the freemarket will decide the fate of immoral or criminal business practices by voting with wallets. I'm pretty sure that would be Friedman's response on the issue.

Then you have something more like a totally chaotic feudalism. Because corporations love contracts. Not just with employees, but with suppliers, with intellectual rights, with property rights. Contracts, property law, intellectual rights...(there's probably more, but that's enough to make the point) these are enormous areas of regulation. A highly regulated economy does not need as many lawyers. The government decides. A free market capitalist society requires a shitload of laws, vast numbers of lawyers, a court system powerful enough so that Bill Gates can fuck over Apple if they steal something from him. That means the government needs a serious fucking police force and courts with powerful regulatory tools. Or Apple will laugh at them

or

Bill Gates will have his own army...

Hence I say something like feudalism. Or perhaps better something like ongoing constant tribal warfare.

Capitalism isn't that far from feudalism really.

The-six-stages-of-Marxs-theory-of-history-of-class-struggle.jpg (33.41 KiB) Viewed 7821 times

People take the phrase free markets at face value. The most powerful advocates of free markets are always pushing for legislation about markets and contracts. And Disney will fuck you up the ass and quote all sorts of regulations if you do something with MIckey even though Disney himself is dead.

Yup, freedom isn't free.

I think the capitalist wants the freedom to capitalize on anything and everything and the freemarket will determine how noble the business model is. This of course favors the most amoral/immoral people.

Free markets advocates don't want goverments to limit corporations IN GENERAL. But they demand a vast amount of rules and regulations - around rights and contracts, to keep their power over individuals and over each other. You violate their vast array of rules and regulation, the ones corporations want, and theywill happily use the governments they paid for to slam those regulations home, if they can't do it themselves.

I mean, I agree with you. I just don't even want to grant this idea that corporations don't want regulations. Their functioning depends on them and in fact creates vast swathes of regulations communist countries don't need so much because there is no separation between state and industry and thus there is a central arbiter.

I definitely see what you mean, but I'm not sure a regulation allowing them a "get out of jail free" pass counts as a regulation. I think "law" and "regulation" are different. If I'm playing monopoly and propose a new regulation that all players give their money to me, I don't think it will be seen as a regulation lol. A regulation would be like a max amount of money any player could have and any excess goes in the pot.

Regulators/governors usually slow engines down and not speed them up.

This is not me arguing for communism which I dislike in the extreme for all sorts of reasons.

Marx envisioned communism as WAY in the future when technology enabled abundance to such degree that no government was necessary. It's not anarchy, but lack of necessity for law... you know, like wearing a helmet in your living room is silly. Communism wasn't meant to be forced or dictated... and when it is, it's not leftwing, but rightwing authoritariansim. Leftwing authoritarianism is an oxymoron.

Slavery is full consolidation of power (zero dispersal)
Feudalism is slightly less consolidation
Capitalism is slightly less
Socialism is slightly less
Communism is zero consolidation (full dispersal).

I am just trying to eliminate the 'free' from the free marketers.

Yes me too.

Letting the market decide period would be an armed struggle all the time.

Steve jobs shows up with his elite mercenaries and takes over Microsoft. I mean, why not. What, you want to limit is his freedom? He could and he did.

Oh, they say, no, no violence. First, give me a break, but then second. But that is not the only limit the corporations demand. They regulate the songs you sing, what marks you can put on pants you make yourself to sell. They evict based on contracts. And, well, you get the point. And I went into this in another thread also.....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194668&p=2718389#p2718389

Yes, I don't know why some people can't see that. Free market means king of the hill.

[Serendipper]

Liberals make little grunts of objections to this, but in fact conservatives are on better ground because it is a radical shift in the way of viewing the world. It is radical reform.

It's probably not on the forefront of the left's agenda.

Unfortunately it seems to be transpersons and microaggression, what a monster Trump is.

You know, in a mainstream newspaper where I am it went through the history of the wall with Mexico. Obama and the Clintons extended the wall, defending the idea of the wall. Trump is just the one who wants to have a complete wall now. But they make vocal defenses of wall building between the US and Mexico. But with Trump it is seen as psychosis and evil.

Not meaning I want the wall...but seriously. It's like everyone is a football hooligan now.

I know what you mean. The left is looking to demonize Trump however they can and I think that undermines their goal. It seems transparent to me, but idk, maybe they can't see it.

[Serendipper]

Undeniable evidence says that regulated economies destroy both human life and the environment.

What evidence?

The USDA regulates food and because of that, people die?

The EPA regulates where waste is dumped and that destroys the environment?