If you ask what is "capitalism" -well, that is only a concept and concepts only exist in relation to their context. So, conceptually, capitalism is simply the application of capital. Capital is the legitimization of any action by social agreement. Social agreement means investment by a communities shareholders. Finally, the success of one's actions is judged by the creation of greater capital and failure by the diminishment of all shareholder's capital. — ASmallTalentForWar
All of this is wrong. — Streetlight
The vision of the free society is about social roles. No one is locked into a particular role. — frank
Is there a kernel of truth in my thinking the state taking on private risk is least talked about (albeit most consequential) because it is a critical phase of the economic life of a mature capitalist state wherein it starts to move toward socialism strategically?
Moreover, have you seen this movement towards state-run economy attributes in other mature capitalist economies that are nearing market saturation (in the absence of wars of conquest), thus suggesting as capitalism matures, it's compelled to move away from free market purity towards a complex, mixed capitalist-socialist economy? — ucarr
I don't understand. Do you have anything more interesting to add or is this the extent of your contribution? So far, it seems fairly traditional with nothing unique in the historical perspective.Hmm. Are we arriving at the reason they banned you? — frank
There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by workers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree. — Streetlight
It can be more productive to expand the discussion of contemporary capitalism beyond the framework of “the exchange/production distinction so that production becomes production-for-market.” — Number2018
To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation. As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity. — Number2018
Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well. — Xtrix
There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by taxpayers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree such that private enterprise parasitizes on public finances. — Streetlight
Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? — Streetlight
It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip. — Streetlight
But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix
Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them. — Isaac
All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints. — Isaac
I largely disagree, but none of this has much to do with what you originally wrote, nor what I was replying to. — Streetlight
Everything I have written has to do with what I originally wrote, if not with the OP itself. — Janus
Then no doubt you can spell out the connection between treating capitalism wrongly as an abstract matter of profit growth and two paragraphs of "there's no hope to change it". — Streetlight
I agree with you that capitalism has become more and more widespread, nearly universal, as a socio-economic model and practice; and I haven't said otherwise. This is now so deeply entrenched that I think there is little hope it will change; not as we might want it to and certainly not rapidly. This is because there is no clear figurehead which represents it which could be overthrown, as was possible with feudalism.
So, as I see it, sweeping, rapid change is unthinkable and not worth wasting any intellectual effort on. The only way to effect any (modest) change at all will be from within the system itself. The system is now a juggernaut which cannot willfully be stopped, although it could indeed collapse, and inevitably will, if we don't address the problems of overpopulation, environmental pollution and destruction, resource depletion, impoverishment and destruction of soils, global warming, etc, etc. Problem is we can't predict when or how that will happen, so for the time being it is possible to remain in general denial — Janus
The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus
To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation. As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity.
— Number2018
I think such discussions have their place, but are they ultimately consequences of capitalism. Yet people cannot even get their head around basic principles, and so confuse markets, interest, finance, and profit with the existence of capitalism. There is interest in talking about individuation and so on, but at some point this stuff is mystifying rather than clarifying if our basic concepts are not fixed. — Streetlight
being wrong about this?:
The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus
Which is what I was responding to. — Streetlight
Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix
Just a thumbs up from me. A great threat and analysis and I would love to jump in, but I am unfortunately too short of time to focus on the really serious threats on this forum :chin: However, I applaud the analyis of our leading light. — Tobias
That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism. — Xtrix
private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making. — Xtrix
while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction. — Xtrix
China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.