Yeah, well, Iβm no communist! There shouldnβt even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
β Temporarily inconvenienced billionaires at my workplace.
Yeah, well, Iβm no communist! There shouldnβt even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
β Temporarily inconvenienced billionaires at my workplace.
Omg, I have to say this way too often. The amount of people who think capitalism is commerce is too darn high.
Honestly we need to explain this shit more often. As soon as people understand exactly how much a billion dollars is they get visibly angry.
"You know what the difference is between a million dollars and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars."
Basically we're all serfs.
And increasingly ill-treated ones.
Serfs were tied to the land, and produced what they actually, directly used, as well as traded their surplus for goods. The rise of capitalism came alongside expelling the serfs from the land, turning them into wage laborers.
The serfs could be expelled because while the serfs were not free to leave, it was the lords who actually owned the land.
The analogy is not prefect, but not terrible.
Technically small companies also are just employees. Risks outsourced and it can be easily killed away when the bigger company doesn't need them anymore. That's so fucked up and governments all around protect this behavior.
That's a very narrow view.
Many or most small companies have many customers - they're not subcontracting to a single upstream provider.
In the case of small subcontractors, what you're talking about is a necessary risk management strategy. It's not a sneaky underhanded contrivance on the part of large companies. Its how "limited liability" is intended to work.
Of course governments protect this because it's essential to a functional economy. You may as well complain about insurance or something.
to be fair there is a lot to complain about the existence of insurance, too
insurance is usually necessary when essential services like Healthcare are not fully nationalized/subsidized.
only exception I can think of is maybe some kind of fire or other destruction insurance, but even so it should be government provided.
There may be more exceptions i am not immediately thinking of, but basically, insurance how it exists right now is extremely fucking predatory and one of the worst things about capitalism - especially health insurance.
Health insurance is an exception amongst insurances.
The primary form of insurance is paying a third party to take on a risk on your behalf.
For example, if my business owns a truck, but I don't want to take the risk that it might be stolen or be involved in an accident, I can pay someone else to take that risk. There's nothing wrong with that and it's a normal part of business.
However, there's all sorts of weird things called insurance that are really something else. Life insurance is my favourite awful example. Some policies are ok, like I have $x left to pay on my mortgage, so I can get a life insurance policy for a similar amount and at least if I die my family will have the house paid off. Others are a weird kind of savings plan, where you pay a lot more but get a big pay out once you reach a certain age.
Health insurance in the US is obviously tangled up with politics and profiteering and is more like a complicated extortion plan than insurance.
As a general guide, any insurance you intend to make a claim on is usually problematic.
i mean, that all makes a lot of sense, and you're not wrong, I just believe insurance ought to be a public service.
If the purpose of insurance is to spread risk so that people can still live their lives when unforeseen events happen, that benefits a country, that is a risk the government should be shouldering.
Anyway, I have found myself on a tangent. I guess fundamentally I don't disagree with the concept of insurance, my biggest complaints are regarding the execution of it within capitalism, but you already basically said what I wanted to about health insurance in particular.
No, that's not essential to a functional economy. That's a predatory thing.
This is the dialogue people should be having with the ones who are misguided, if even a few people understand it thatβs progress
these are important distinctions that are often glossed over and obscured: capitalist vs supporter of capitalism; Republican vs Republican-aligned voter. terms that make one seem like part of the in-group when they're not; terms that are nouns rather than verbs, that make an idea seem like an identity, so that changing your mind seems like uprooting your whole personality
If you work you are not a capitalist.
The whole point of capitalism is making money without working.
The petite bourgeoisie exist as laboring capitalists, they aren't really working class but they aren't haut bourgeois either.
Why "false class solidarity". I think it's honest, if misplaced, solidarity. Temporarily embarrassed millionaire and all that.
The issue even more dire, those who exploited by capitalist, most of them doesn't even understand "word" anymore.
Well yeah, the Powell memo set the conservative strategies for convincing working class individuals that they're investors and it was in their best interest to support pro-corporate legislation back in the 70s
I hate the "it has existed since caveman times." Trading is an action and a concept, something we had always, meanwhile capitalism is just a system developed by the spooky scary muslims.
Some people are predisposed to be followers. It's okay to follow structure and authority but do not have blind obedience.
What makes you say that?
I know many people who fawn over an authority figure without question. There is kind of a psychology in which some people are happy to be number two to the top person.
I mean, what do you think is causing this? I don't really agree with the premise, but more than the premise, an underlying reason is necessary.
It's kinda down to evolutionary psychology. I've read it sometime ago that some people are happy to be followers because they gain access to the resources that could be given by the leader. Also, the follower or the second in command has the benefits of access to resource, but without the responsibility of running the group, while also being privy to the private information relating to the leader which could be leveraged.
I don't like the implication that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting authority. This seems to be a eugenecist explanation for why organizational structures form, not actual science.
I'm not saying genetics is end all be all but nature is still a dominant influence whether we like to admit it or not. It's why cults of personality persist. That's why there are plenty of bootlickers for the wealthy, especially on social media (assuming they're not shills and/or bots).
I think theories of false consciousness are more accurate.
Even before the capitalist system, there are those who already fawn hierarchy. The French revolution, for example, wasn't an overnight success because there are still those from the peasant and working class who support the Royalists.
I didn't say that people never support those that go against their own interests. I think your line of thinking seems to be veering towards a genetic view, one that is more based in eugenics, than a socialist view. That's why I referenced Lukacs' theory of false consciousness, Gramsci's theory of hegemony is also quite useful here.
Not everything can be viewed from socialist/material dialectic perspective alone. Even the human penchance for tribalistic behaviour could be attributed to simple survival mechanism, ingrained in our psyche, that anyone outside from the group are seen with either suspicion or outright disdain. This leads to bigotry. Animals exhibit the same behaviour-- we are animals after all.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but your tiny ETF portfolio does not make you an investor either.
Unless you're a boomer, as they own most of the economy through their different investments and other holdings. That's who capitalism is working for. Average American owns jack shit, billionaires all together own abour 10 trillion, baby boomers all together own over 80 trillion. That's why they're not just part of the problem, they're the main course.
There are poor boomers as well. This is not about age, but about wealth
On average, they're millionaires. That's why they're doing their best to pull the ladder up after themselves. Majority of them benefit when you're paid less.
On average, yes, but that's distorted by the wealthy having a lot of money.
The median boomer has less than $400k, and most of that is in their home.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/smart-money/average-net-worth-by-age
We are all operating under the system of capitalism. Call it commerce, whatever, its commerce in a capitalist system.
Dont get me wrong, Im not going to work everyday to be a capitalist but there is no doubt in my mind Im doing capitalism.
That's the exact mindset OP is trying to expose. You are a participant in capitalism, but you are most likely not a capitalist. And that is true for 99.9% of people probably
The are two definitions of capitalist, one is a person that supports capitalism regardless of their class. It's possible for a person to recognize that they're a worker and consumer, and unlikely to ever have any capitol outside of their house and retirement accounts, and maybe not even that, and still think capitalism is the best system for workers to live under. Dumb, but possible, and seemingly widespread.
Supporting it doesn't make them a part of it. If you want to own a home but dont, you are not a homeowner
Homeowner does not have a second definition of supporting homeownership regardless of whether or not you own a home. You can absolutely support homeownership if you don't own one.
The word for a person that supports capitalism regardless of class and amount of capital, is capitalist.
And being "a part of it" is something else altogether, separate from whether or not you support it, or have any capital. If you live under it, like it or not, you are part of it, even if you don't own shit.
There's been a word for someone who supports capitalism for 200 years, its liberal.
Liberalism encompasses more than just capitalism. The word for someone that supports capitalism is capitalist.
Have you read any serious work by any of the major liberal philosophers or analysis of their works, or are you going off vibes?
The core of liberalism, when faced with its various contradictions, has always been the freedom of the capitalist class to exploit the working class.
"The core of liberalism", so there is more to it than just capitalism? The word for someone who supports capitalism is capitalist.
I have made no statements about liberal philosophy or capitalism, neither of which am I a fan of. This is about the multiple definitions of capitalist; one of which is a person who supports capitalism, with no requirement that they actually have, or have any hope of having, capital.
What's your goal here? Do you think you can convince me to listen to some random jerk-off with an axe to grind over a dictionary?
And, even if I'm not an owner of capital, I think it's a better system than most of the systems that have come before it.
Capitalism is the result of well-intentioned people looking at feudalism / manorialism and saying "that system is really fucked, let's see if we can improve it". And, they did. All out capitalism is horrible, but mix in some socialism and it seems to work fairly well. All out socialism has been tried and inevitably fails.
But, if we're going to do capitalism, we should really do it the way that the people who originally proposed it intended. They knew that the main benefit of capitalism was that there was competition. Without competition, it inevitably becomes winner-take-all, which just basically reverts to feudalism. For competition to work the government has to actively break up big, powerful companies, and the government has to be significantly more influential / powerful than all the businesses or people that it regulates (otherwise they'll just corrupt or ignore the regulations).
A proper capitalist system wouldn't have billionaires, because billionaires are evidence that competition has failed.
Capitalism did not arise because it was invented, it grew out of mercantalists in feudalism planting roots and gaining machinery like the steam engine, which grew into capitalism. This is why political economists analyzed capitalism after it had arisen.
The entire idea that capitalism was "designed" is confusing and incorrect. Capitalism is working exactly as it should, meaning it is working into its eventual demise, as a system that arose from the advancement in human production.
Capitalism required that serfs be allowed to leave the lands that they were tied to to take jobs in factories. Serfs didn't have the right to look for jobs elsewhere, the law required that they live and work there entire lives on the same patch of land on which they were born.
Allowing serfs to go work in factories required laws to be changed. Getting those laws changed required making an argument to the people with the power to change those laws. The theory of "capitalism" was that argument.
You're looking at it too much from the superstructure, and not from the base, which is why those laws changed in the first place. It wasn't an argument that ended feudalism, it was the development of the steam engine and the growth of mercantilists. As these groups formed a budding capitalist class, they overpowered the old aristocracy.
Im not willing to just say capitalism is the best just because it had some good results. I think we can be more imaginative.
I'm not saying it's the best either. But, it may be the best that we've tried so far among systems that have actually worked in a scale bigger than a few hundred individuals, or in a time span lasting at least a decade.
We should definitely keep experimenting and trying to find a better system. In fact, we've already found a better system, and that's a mixed economy with capitalism for some things, and socialism for others. I think only a crazy person would want a capitalist fire department, capitalist food safety inspectors, purely capitalist education of children, etc. And, it's only the US that thinks that a capitalist health care system is possible. Virtually every other country thinks that's just crazy.
We should also strive to have the best possible capitalist system, if it's what we're stuck with for now. Just because there may be a better system out there doesn't mean we should give up on trying to regulate privately owned companies and put all our efforts into just coming up with a new system, or overthrowing the system. Monopolies should be smashed, billionaires should be taxed out of existence, and the central government should be reinforced so that it is bigger, stronger and smarter than all the companies out there that it's regulating. Only then can we have the best possible version of capitalism (or at least the part of the mixed system that is capitalist).
Commerce is not capitalism
I agree. I get the point she's making but I think she's wrong about the details. Your skills and experience are your capital, and you sell the products of them to employers. Everybody who has a job is also running a business. I don't think most people give themselves credit for that.
Technically yes but itβs a difference without a distinction since you really donβt carry any power unless you have a plurality or greater of shares in a given company
If your dividends are just enough to get you a cup of coffee every once in a while, youβre a microcapitalist.
Well, I've recently visited an ancap chat where people were discussing how a charter city project failed because the next government of a host country retracted the law.
Nobody wanted to listen to the simple argument that it can't be cheaper to buy land for a charter city than to build ancap in your own town. There's no unowned land. There's no good cheap land. If you get such a deal, it's someone else being robbed and you helping launder it, which then backfires (sometimes).
Invoked NAP many times (that, well, when a corrupt government sells you something they don't have right to sell, it's both a negligible deal and dealing with a government is ideologically dirty), nobody batted an eye.
One type mentioned Israel, I suppose the unsaid part was that colonizing brown people in dirty ways is fine.
And from the examples I've realized that most of those people are not ancap, they are cosplaying "nice life" thinking they might get there doing that. It's just a "nice life cargo cult". Real ancap sort of leads you to ideological neutrality (or something like Catholic distributivism) eventually. At least to anarchist neutrality.
Having said that, I'm still ancap morally, in that discussion it's them who were ignoring the basic stated principles of that ideology. I also know that saying ancap things isn't Harry Potter magic to become strong enough to build it.
Sorry none of this makes much sense.
I've never heard a single person claim to be a capitalist.
The "people who have the power to repossess your belongings" are lenders.
In most developed countries, employees have pension funds, and those pension funds are likely invested in large corporations including lenders. The amount of money invested in this way, in the pension funds of employees, is far, far greater than that of a single obscenely wealthy investor.
Where i live the pension is founded by taxes and spent only for pensions, isn't like that in most developed countries except the USA and a few others?
I don't really know which countries have private pension funds.
Certainly in countries with an ageing population it's difficult to fund retirement pensions with tax revenue.
Supposedly the USA is one of the few places where you get paid back what you paid in plus interest earned, whereas here in Estonia for example we pay for the current retired people and once we're retired, IFF the system still functions, younger people will pay for our retirement.
Pretty much a ponzi scheme that I don't expect to still be functioning by the time I'm old, we're an aging society and there's going to be fewer taxpayers in the future.
Tell me how working by the hour at a grocery store varies from working for a repo center by the hour or being a by the hour debt collector?
The billionaires who have abused the capitalistic society we live in aren't the true capitalists no one is a true capitalist.
People own shit, people have stuff, people don't have anywhere nice to put their stuff because of a priced out housing market.
If you live in the US you're living within the capitalistic guidelines that the powers that be set for us. If you live in China you're living within the semi-communistic way of life they've set.......
This is a trash take. Capitalist just means pro-capitalism, not "rich". Capitalism
Capitalist means "owner of capital." Supporters of capitalism are generally known as liberals.
"Capitalist" redirects here. For other uses, see Capitalist (disambiguation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_(disambiguation)
A capitalist can refer to the owner and manager of economic capital, or a supporter of the economic system of capitalism.
top 98 comments