That’s not true. Socialism is against the idea of private property outright. The very aim of the socialism as an economic system to collectivize all infrastructure, resources, property, land, and means of production where everything is “owned” by the “public”. Something like a co-op where workers directly own the business they operate like a grocery store aren’t allowed in a socialist system because that’s still private property and the business is engaging in the free market. So even though its worker owned and it follows socialist principles on a micro level, it’s antithetical to socialism.
Market socialism as a concept is vague. Are you talking about something more akin China or Vietnam today or something more idealistic and hypothetical? If it’s the former then I assure you that China today is just state capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
More than that, we’re capable of ignoring the personal attacks and push the point further. Capitalism is sociopolitical so dismissing comparisons to other political arrangements is silly
Capitalism is not sociopolitical, it’s an economic system. You don’t even have a point to push because you clearly don’t even understand what capitalism is, let alone make valid comparisons for it. Comparing capitalism to monarchy is like comparing luggage to airplanes, it’s just not the same thing.
You pointed out how capitalism depends on private property, that is a social relationship that is backed by political power to enforce said property rights. You can try to redefine economics but you can’t escape observed reality. But please continue to insist I don’t know what i am talking about, it truly adds value to the debate. You should actually require payment before making such statements
You keep making one ignorant statement after another while doubling down on being a smug pseudointellectual. All economic systems are backed by their government, and all governments have a monopoly on violence to maintain order. That’s not a revelation of anything but your ignorance. All societies in history with a socialist system have the same exact dynamic. This doesn’t change the fact that monarchy and capitalism aren’t comparable because they’re fundamentally different concepts. If you’re going to double down again on such a painfully false notion, then this conversation is not worth continuing.
Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.
No, you’re still wrong. There is not single person who made or defined capitalism. It’s a concept that evolved through through the contributions of multiple philosophers and economists in different times. Kind of like the internet. It’s not like Marxism where it has specific inventors that you can point to.
Oh, I mean I guess, but isn’t that pointlessly semantic point? The same exact concept has existed before its modern coinage, it was just called by different names like “system of natural liberty” or “commercial society”. It was and still is the go to economic system for classical liberalism which is the ideology that shaped Europe out of the age of the age of feudal monarchies and into constitutional democracies.
Commerce in what sense? Socialism is very much against the idea of a free market where commerce happens. It tries to substitute that concept with collectivization and redistribution.
Do you? Capitalism is quite literally the idea that private individuals can own and control the means of production.
So not the same as all the workers owning the factory…just one guy maybe.
No every business is a factory or a corporation, most businesses aren’t.
Most businesses have atleast one employee who has no ownership stake in the company
And? You understand that socialism is antithetical to the concept of ownership, right? Of course you don’t. You don’t even understand what it is.
No, socialism is antithetical to the concept of non worker ownership.
That’s not true. Socialism is against the idea of private property outright. The very aim of the socialism as an economic system to collectivize all infrastructure, resources, property, land, and means of production where everything is “owned” by the “public”. Something like a co-op where workers directly own the business they operate like a grocery store aren’t allowed in a socialist system because that’s still private property and the business is engaging in the free market. So even though its worker owned and it follows socialist principles on a micro level, it’s antithetical to socialism.
That’s not true. Market socialism (which is what I support) allows for independent companies.
What you’re talking about is Leninism and it’s derivatives (which I oppose).
Market socialism as a concept is vague. Are you talking about something more akin China or Vietnam today or something more idealistic and hypothetical? If it’s the former then I assure you that China today is just state capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
The concept of ownership? Do you think socialistes aren’t allowed to own, say, the clothes they wear?
That depends on the the type of socialism. Marxist socialism let’s own a pair of jeans but not a house.
Go a step further and argue Monarchies are really capitalism as well because the king is a private individual owning the means of production.
Monarchy is a system of government. Are people on this site allergic to basic information?
More than that, we’re capable of ignoring the personal attacks and push the point further. Capitalism is sociopolitical so dismissing comparisons to other political arrangements is silly
Capitalism is not sociopolitical, it’s an economic system. You don’t even have a point to push because you clearly don’t even understand what capitalism is, let alone make valid comparisons for it. Comparing capitalism to monarchy is like comparing luggage to airplanes, it’s just not the same thing.
You pointed out how capitalism depends on private property, that is a social relationship that is backed by political power to enforce said property rights. You can try to redefine economics but you can’t escape observed reality. But please continue to insist I don’t know what i am talking about, it truly adds value to the debate. You should actually require payment before making such statements
You keep making one ignorant statement after another while doubling down on being a smug pseudointellectual. All economic systems are backed by their government, and all governments have a monopoly on violence to maintain order. That’s not a revelation of anything but your ignorance. All societies in history with a socialist system have the same exact dynamic. This doesn’t change the fact that monarchy and capitalism aren’t comparable because they’re fundamentally different concepts. If you’re going to double down again on such a painfully false notion, then this conversation is not worth continuing.
Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.
No. Marx, who defined Capitalism was clear that it was a state of the world where most wealth was controlled by a select few.
Marx didn’t define capitalism moron
Fair. It was defined by a French socialist apparently. Still, capitalism was defined by the left.
No, you’re still wrong. There is not single person who made or defined capitalism. It’s a concept that evolved through through the contributions of multiple philosophers and economists in different times. Kind of like the internet. It’s not like Marxism where it has specific inventors that you can point to.
I meant the term
Oh, I mean I guess, but isn’t that pointlessly semantic point? The same exact concept has existed before its modern coinage, it was just called by different names like “system of natural liberty” or “commercial society”. It was and still is the go to economic system for classical liberalism which is the ideology that shaped Europe out of the age of the age of feudal monarchies and into constitutional democracies.
Most socialists support the existence of commerce. It is the hoarding of wealth that we oppose.
Commerce in what sense? Socialism is very much against the idea of a free market where commerce happens. It tries to substitute that concept with collectivization and redistribution.