Anti-capitalist. Thereâs also the whole treasures section of the sermon that goes against capital accumulation. IOW you should not have a system structure to create shored up treasures, since this is anti-Christian.
Iâm not hanging on to my petty reactions and irritations.
But thanks for bringing it up.
Employers (or rather owners) have access to capital and are willing to use it to make a profit.
Sure, people want to take advantage of laws and want laws and regulations which favor them in general. Owners, employers and employees all want that. In a fair system, there is balance.
I understand that the criticism of capitalism is that it is unfair and that it allows those with money, the capitalists, to exploit those without money, the workers. But if you look at the history, there have been genuine and effective actions to reduce the unfairness. And the standard of living of the worker classes has risen substantially.
Not really. There may come a day when I donât want write anything on ILP, but it doesnât mean that I wonât be involved in another forum or IRL conversations. And as I said, thatâs not necessarily something I will hang on to forever ⌠I reevaluate all the time.
Reminds me of : âWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.â - Epictetus
In the most fair capitalist system capital can make money without labor, and does. A capitalist system would allow the taking away of livlihood of someone who does not do their physical labor well, enough hours, or at all. The capitalist need not labor, while the laborer must. This does not fit with do unto others. Of course many capitalists do also labor, but fundmentally, they accrue wealth, power, safety, better health care for their children and more AND can do this without labor. I expect you to exert effort and energy to get benefits and fundamentals for your life, but I do not expect this of myself. And I will pressure the system to enforce this difference in treatment. Though of course the laws within a capitalist nation mean this must be the case.
Prove what? Your words have such huge ranges of meaning, I donât even know what you are saying.
What does âequalityâ mean when a group of people uses it as a basis for a society? Obviously, all individuals are different and there will always be inequality in some sense.
The correct term for regulation in an otherwise capitalistic economy is Social Democracy, not Socialism. Socialism is a means towards Communism with âemployeesâ forcibly taking over the State (which arguably only needs to exist to moderate otherwise unfettered Capitalism) to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism). Itâs not simply a regulated Capitalism. Furthermore, the difference between Anarchists and Communists is that Anarchists simply wish to abolish the State altogether, where Communists, upon overtaking the State, seek only to allow their own State to âwither awayâ and give way to communes (hence Communism) - basically businesses with no owner, everything is âownedâ collectively by whomever uses and is control of anything in the workplace at any given time, fluidly.
As you can see, Communism isnât even that different to Capitalism, it was merely appropriated simultaneously by both the US and the USSR but for different reasons. The USSR wanted to take advantage of the good names of Socialism and Communism despite more or less being its opposite: an authoritarian dictatorship. What about that is the same as working-class owned self-running communes? And the US wanted to denigrate the good names of Socialism and Communism by agreeing that the bad state of things in USSR is what it looks like in practice - forevermore lumping together the words Socialism and Communism with Totalitarianism and words such Fascism like you used. Ever noticed how people always feel the need to combine one of these terms with another, as if one isnât enough by itself, needing to be somehow clarified with another? Itâs almost as if they arenât quite sure which they mean or at least they arenât convinced other people will know exactly what they mean if they use only one - and the reason why is what Iâve just explained.
This very conveniently fits Socialism and Communism in with the more left-leaning party of the two you always seem to see in western democracies, such that youâre either supporting the left or the right or just variations of the same thing, and they just take turns to run things in slightly different ways like two sports teams pitted against one another - essentially resulting in a single party state. The reality is that there are variations, and itâs not just a sliding scale between two extremes of pure Capitalism and complete State-regulation.
Government workers should be voluntary and not be paid. Or they will continue to vote themselves more money and higher salaries.
Socialism revolves around corrupt government (a huge bloc of the population, govt workers, voting themselves most of the money and consuming taxes themselves).
Why include the word âdemocracyâ? That implies regulations are the result of democratic consensus.
Regulations are for the good of society, but they arenât voted into effect by society.
The problem with that definition is that not all socialists want communism (state controlled means of production). Myself, for instance, I believe capitalism is the best way, but it needs to be tempered for the good of society. For example, I donât believe the gov could dictate a novel and interesting product into existence like free-market competition can, but for the good of society, they shouldnât be allowed to use lead or radioactive paint while otherwise freely competing. Companies canât dump waste into rivers in order to compete more effectively; they canât offer dog meat labeled as chicken; and they shouldnât be allowed to grind up euthanized pets into pet food, but they do because âthatâs capitalismâ. Without regulation, the capitalist will resort to every underhanded trick he can devise because, if he doesnât, someone else will.
Ism is defined as a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. âSocialâ is defined as living in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation. So âsocial+ismâ = is the practice of living in companionship with others in a community, but not communal.
Anarchists and Communists are two polar extremes. The capitalist doesnât advocate elimination of the gov, but only all regulations affecting the practice of his amassing of capital, so it could be described as âeconomically anarchisticâ.
Communism is essentially one big corporation in competition with 1000s of smaller ones in a capitalistic market. Alan Watts said at the height of the Vietnam War, âI wouldnât think youâd need to fight it; it should just fall apart because itâs terribly inefficient.â And he was right; it did fall apart and it was terribly inefficient. The free market is akin to natural selection and the tempering of capitalism with regulation is akin to humanity regulating nature with artificial selection.
Everyone has personalized definitions with no standardization somewhat like âawareness, perception, consciousnessâ are conflated and interchangeable instead of being mutually exclusive in meaning.
That is why I say letâs scrap all our preconceived notions and proclivities for what we want words to mean and lets instead devise proper definitions, such as what I proposed:
Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.
Pretty simple; no definitions overlap; every one is distinct, and nothing is left out.
Iâve posted this 3 or 4 times on here and each time someone comes along objecting on the basis that they are evidently socialist, but canât tolerate the label of âsocialistâ and prefer to be called a capitalist even though theyâre in favor of a whole laundry list of regulations, such as food inspection, toxic waste dumping, etc.
Apparently some people want to define capitalism as, oh I donât know, say, 10% regulation or some arbitrary number greater than zero, but that makes the definition completely arbitrary and subjective and that defeats the purpose of having a definition. Folks will just have to let go of their connotations concerning the word âsocialismâ and, in other words, just get over it already.
Yup, extremes are bad. The middle way is the best way.
Capitalism is the base-reality because as soon as trade developed, someone brought a product to a market that had no gov regulation, then someone objected to advantages taken and propositioned for an authority to regulate the market. So if we take a hands-off approach, capitalism will prevail and therefore that is the base-reality from where we start. From there we add regulations until perfection is found or until the gov totally takes over.
There are two states: hands-off and hands-on. Once you decide to put a hand on, itâs socialism, because the only reason youâre seeking to put a hand on for control is for the good of society and not profits, which take care of themselves.
The problem is we need gov jobs so that people have jobs because âpeople must suffer for moneyâ. Because we canât just hand people money for nothing, we must make them dig a hole and fill it back in again (ie the IRS). We could have a streamlined tax code, but it would put the IRS, the tax industry, and many lawyers out of a job. Weâve created a lot of jobs simply by complicating to the code for absolutely no reason other than because âpeople must suffer for moneyâ, so we need to find ways to make them suffer.
Weâre going to need more of these meaningless jobs in the future as automation progresses.
Guys, Iâm telling you how Socialism and Communism were actually defined by Lenin and why your definitions are colloquially warped appropriations - why then go on to just repeat them?
Social Democracy is a real term, dude. Iâm not just shoving two words together.
And regulations are a result of democratic consensus, itâs just that most people arenât involved in it.
Thatâs why our democracy is openly and intentionally an indirect democracy, where we democratically choose which people we want to democratically legitimise regulations.
As I said, Communism is working class collective control of the means of production without a state (because it has withered away).
You canât be a Socialist without wanting Communism when you understand and accept what these terms were actually designed to mean before they were attributed to something else and everyone just went with that instead.
As I said, Socialism is the initial working class revolution of taking over the State, using its power to cease the practice of private ownership of the means of production (Capitalism), in the belief that this will cause the state to wither away because itâs no longer needed - opening up the change from Socialism (with a working class controlled State) to Communism (working class control without a state).
You arenât a Socialist without the above and you arenât a Communist without the above. The state not being controlled by the working class is Totalitarianism, the state not being controlled by the working class but instead a single dictator is Autocracy. Stateless control by those with capital is Capitalism. This is why we have different terms for all these different power structures, they mean different things. A working class controlled state would be a variation on Socialism, and an indirectly democratic state control to regulate Capitalism is Social Democracy.
Nope. See above. Want to argue with Lenin? He was there and could confirm this, but heâs dead so youâll just have to read his books.
Fascism - gov controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profits.
Communism - lack of centralised gov of collective working class controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because theyâre 100% of the people).
Socialism - gov of collective working class controls 100% of the means of production and keeps 100% of the profit (because theyâre 100% of the people).
Capitalism - lack of centralised gov of capitalists control 100% of the means of production and keep 100% of the profit.
Social Democracy - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of the profits.
This sounds like Minarchism.
I agree with this justifiably cynical attitude towards Capitalism.
I disagree that the middle way is always the best way. To confirm that I am not intending to commit a black-or-white fallacy, I am not saying that extremes are always the best, I am saying that it can depend.
Trade doesnât necessarily mean capitalism if property is not thought of as private - with or without a government to enforce it.
Itâs not capitalism if the means of production are not privately owned, even if the products of production are privately owned, and none of this necessitates that a profit is the goal, allowed by either gov or socially accepted moral norms.
And itâs not as simple as hands-off or hands-on, it matters whose hands are off/on.
Imagine if all the work in the world could be done by just 1 person e.g. activating/operating some particularly advanced technology, either needing skill or just to press a button, whatever. Do we still need as close to 100% employment as possible within the current economic climate?
We are somewhere between this and the primitive extreme where we needed all the man-power we could get. At what point are we finally going to accept that we donât need maximum employment? Yes, within the current fast-out-dating system, this would require more and more taxation, and this is currently very difficult to persuade people to accept - regardless of reality.
Whether the solution is to educate, enforce, wait for people to educate themselves and accept this⌠or transform the system altogether - one of these things is inevitable and fast-approaching.
Honestly, Iâd rather we got there sooner than later because we still havenât cracked immortality, Iâm just waiting on vast swathes of stupidity to subside, and lacking the ability to change minds that wonât be changed is extremely frustrating.
Equality never really existed in the language lexicon until Christians came along, maybe you should tell me. I am merely asserting the absolute hypocrisy of Christian beliefs specifically how Christians reconcile their belief in capitalism.
You know they always talk about how deregulation is good for society as a whole but they never really explain how. Always seems like an argument of letting foxes guard the hen house if you were to ask me. Of course there would be no foxes around if the farmer or caretaker was around guarding the hen house.
Thatâs cool from a historical perspective, but why should Lenin have authority over our conceptualizations and nomenclature?
I think âcolloquially warped appropriationâ describes the popular perspective on capitalism perfectly by dividing capitalism into types such as anarcho-capitalism, laissez faire capitalism, crony capitalism, etc as if capitalism could be anything but crony, laissez faire, and anarcho. Itâs a retention of moral ground by arbitrary and convenient redefinition when need be: âIâm capitalist, butâŚâ
I understand, but Iâm an outlaw who doesnât always defer to the authority of dictionaries when striving to make sense of the world.
Ok so letâs examine this:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve: a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes;
So the idea is redistributive tax structures instead of regulations on the activity of trade itself in order to maintain a capitalistic economy but with benefits to the poor.
We essentially have two mechanisms to bring a product to market: the free market determines what âsurvivesâ or an authority dictates what will be offered. Those are the two possible states, so itâs analogous to ânatural selectionâ and âartificial selectionâ where ânaturalâ is lack of human interference and âartificialâ is human dictation; itâs a duality of authority on one hand vs happenstance on the other. In this case, capitalism is the happenstance and socialism is the âartificial selectionâ with communism, fascism being subsets of socialism.
I once commented that if the cops can give me a ticket for having a trailer light out, then the gov should regulate how trailer lights are made instead of the cheapest pieces of crap monopolizing shelf space. They should have gold plating or something, by law, or else I should not be cited if they fail because the gov cannot obligate me to re-engineer the garbage that competition has offered.
Sometimes the free market is not the best guide and standards should be set by authority, but deference should always be given to a viable capitalistic solution before resorting to regulation. The term social democracy seems to embody that philosophy, but the choice for the name is clear: they want the stigma associated with âsocialâ to be cancelled by the warm fuzzy feeling from âdemocracyâ, since itâs nothing other than socialism, from the backend to the front, both in tax structure and product regulation (fda, usda, osha, epa, etc) and the name is just lipstick on a pig rather than a serious economic system exclusive from any other.
Reservation of the âsocial democracyâ name for anything other than a facade and window dressing seems unwarranted to me and only serves to clutter the nomenclature which leaves us discombobbled.
If most people are not involved, then how can you call it democracy?
Anyway, most people have no clue who chooses the regulations or even what the regulations are until they happen to get caught violating one, so how can that be considered democratic?
Thatâs reminiescent of Richard Wolffâs worker co-op strategy where all employees own the company. rdwolff.com/
What is the timeline for that history? Iâve never heard that before. How could anyone envision a withering government and institutionalizing a coordinated takeover of private industry? That seems like something that can never happen.
I donât see the benefit of adhering to those definitions. Socialists want 100% control over private industry via the gov? I donât think thatâs a good definition because then what will you label someone who wants 70% control? Or 50%?
And a communist wants 100% control via a withered state? Then what is the label for someone less than 100%?
I would lump those together under communism.
Precisely! 0% regulation and 100% of profits.
I agree. A subset of socialism.
I would just call it âsocialismâ, but the âdemocracyâ removes the stigma.
Yes Iâll argue with Lenin. I argue with Kant and Nietzsche, so why wouldnât I argue with Lenin?
I canât imagine that ever happening. I canât imagine what essentially amounts to the government consisting of 100% of the people. What good is this definition?
I agree here. At least we have that and, honestly, thatâs good enough for me as I was mainly interested in nailing down the capitalist end of it.
Thatâs what I previously called socialism.
I donât mind the existence of such divisions into subsets so long as we realize thatâs what they are.
And you have just embraced the Middle Way
This is actually a core philosophy of mine by which I try to live. âAll things in moderation, including moderation.â - Twain. If we make it a rule that the middle way were always the best way, the rule would be an extreme and in violation of itself.
Normally this is fine, I am no conservative, not even with language & itâs inevitable and in general good that language evolves. The reason why in this particular case it is not fine is as follows:
I explain to someone what Socialism and Communism are in Leninist and Marxist terms.
This other person invariably says âoh thatâs Marxist Socialist Communism - we tried that, and it didnât workâ.
See the problem? I get dismissed due to the flaws of something else because it used the same names. Additionally, consider the following:
I use new terms for these concepts that I was originally explaining, letting the terms Socialism and Communism etc. mean what theyâve been colloquially appropriated to.
The other person invariably says âoh thatâs Marxist Socialist Communism - we tried that, and it didnât workâ.
See the problem? People know enough to recognise these concepts, or anything similar enough in their opinion, and lump it into their appropriated understanding, which in their understanding was tried and tested and it failed.
Iâm therefore put in a lose-lose situation as long as these appropriated understandings are accepted. My only option is therefore to demand the authority of the historical conceptualisations and nomenclature.
Democracy doesnât imply anything about the size of the âdemosâ. You can even use it in a âlets take a voteâ situation with 3 people where 2 votes wins - thatâs being democratic. Even the famous Greek roots of democracy still didnât include most of the population.
Republic is basically just the Latin version of the same thing: âthing of the peopleâ instead of ârule of the peopleâ - where the Latin res âthingâ is just meant to mean rule.
Theyâve been colloquially appropriated too, no doubt. Republics became more meant as ânot a monarchy anymoreâ and now in the US theyâre associated with the more right leaning party, while democracy became associated with the less right leaning party. But Republics are still democratic and Democracies are no different from a republicâŚ
Yeah it wasnât Richard Wolff who came up with it first though was it. Heâs just another Marxist whoâs trying to accept that people are now all using the kind of definitions that you want to use, and thereby re-brand the same original and untested ideas so they might actually stand more of a chance of actually being tested some day.
He too will fall foul to the conundrum with which I opened this post like all the rest.
Iâve taken it from âThe State and Revolutionâ by Lenin, who wrote it in late 1917.
Honestly, it seems like most people have never heard it before, but so many of these people still think they know plenty enough to about Communism to comment with such certainty about how it will always failâŚ
Well you donât call them a Socialist or a Communist respectively. Without 100%, you still have the practice of Capitalism, so itâs not either, itâs not on the continuum between Totalitarianism and Capitalism. And yes, you would lump Communism as under this because you have unhelpful definitions. The original theory is that Capitalism canât be moderated, it needs to be stopped completely, and the only way to do it isnât through democracy but through forceful denial of private ownership of the means of production via revolutionary State occupation.
Btw, if you didnât think something like that would never happen, it did in the Russian Revolution, but it quickly turned into something else and way too few people seem to know exactly why or how. Perhaps it necessarily was going to and always would in every situation, but the jury is far from out - itâs barely even in.
Argue whether their concepts are good or not, sure. Donât argue that they are what they arenât.
Yeah ok, with emphasis on that caveat (arguably implicit, as you say) sure.
Would you prefer the hands of a Monarch on things or the hands of Capitalists? I would definitely prefer the latter.
The improvement comes from increased pluralism. Now just extend the pluralism even further and you end up with Communism⌠this is Marxâs historical materialism (of which all the Marx experts out there are equally ignorant).
The deregulation is selective. It means that if you have capital the privileges you have been granted by law for having these will expand AND the power of the state will enforce and regulate any responses to the use of these privileges. Deregulation sounds like freedom. But in fact it requires enforcement of the those privileges and empowered suppression of reactions to that. And economic deregulation around what capital is allowed to do is generally coupled with deregulation around the concentration of media in a few hands. That is the law allows and enforces capitalâs use of disinformation, closing one of the last possible legal resources to the abuse of state granted and regulated increased power that capital has.