#Capitalism Explained...
#Quotes from @freemo conversations in digestible bullet points...
Capitalism (free markets), in it's correct meaning, is not a rule so much as an ideological guideline, and in reality should be in a #mix of many things, where #capitalism is only an #influence of *some* things (not all).
We don't live in a country that is a pure capitalism, or even much of a capitalism at all...
Right now we don't have free markets, and that's the point.
Not only is it not a free market, but it is quite far away from being one.
All-in- version...
We also shouldn't strive for capitalism (free markets) as the default, it's not a rule so much as an ideological guideline, and the reality should be a mix of many things, where capitalism is only an influence.
=====================
3 Capitalism (free markets) Tips:
=====================
is a way of doing things as a guideline - and not for everything to be done in this way.
Capitalism isn't a binary word to say government is or isn't Capitalism since it's mixed.
#Plutocracy probably as better word.
#Plutocracy as a best word to replace Capitalism maybe.
Capitalism perhaps does not mention the rich explicitly -
specifically the rich is perhaps more what people mean sometimes!
(Plutocracy = #political #system governed by the #wealthy people)
Perhaps "Capital" in the word also helps people not see or assume centralization rather than the many versions, including Free Market version which is important next to the word as a kind of sub-type of it"
Capitalism (free markets)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
@freeschool @freemo I disagree in the fact that I do not considere capitalism and free market to be the same thing.
Capitalism is a kind of economy, free market is an economic policy applied to a capitalist economy.
You can have a socialist policy and the economy would still be capitalist.
Capitalism (+SubTypes) E.G (State monopoly) capitalism or (Techno) capitalism... Generally the types with power over people or profit over people... ?
@rastinza @freemo Sorry for delay, post didn't show up in my notification or I missed it.
TLDR = see end paragraph!
1/ So yes Rastinza I too was having these thoughts...
... though I am sure not completely in agreeing with you mostly because of your first line because we were writing it as Capitalism (Free Market)... which is the bracketed version and maybe it's contradiction as both are part of the same thing AND each can also be separate in it's own way.
The brackets shows it is a subtype (or economic policy as you say) and written as: Capitalism (Free Market OR ANY SUBTYPE) and maybe both can imply it's on way to be applied to things too...
Overall seems both is use in a variety of ways and all have their sub variants or mix of practices within other big headers as a 'way of doing things' and not just 1 thing...
2/ I realised as Freemo was talking tht he declared along the way 1 sub-type of Capitalism was the focus but initially / to start with it was first more about how *other people* use the word alone as "Capitalism" incorrectly - so if other people do not state it or mean the free market type, (let's say they mean "State monopoly" type capitalism or similar -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism
then they are more likely correct IF many more mean this sub-types or infer things of that Capitalism umbrella topic that covers those bad things commonly people mean (to do with the rich ruling, unfair possession, state interventions to keep it unfair, oligarchy etc)...
So perhaps it's generally accepted to mean this type more than any other... and I would accept people are less wrong if a majority means things whatever way they mean it IF they use it enough and assume between them which one they (especially if the other nuances are a bit niche / never learnt and nearly non-existent to them). So if people don't declare it then it might not be (Free Market) and as Freemo confirmed we don't have that type today so could suit most all people who say it and be correct about that (accidentally correct or not!)...
So the type of Capitalism is important of course but most people who don't declare subtype might agree on similar things (which might not know until we asked them) but generally in the State monopoly category or oligarchy / Techno-capitalism ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocapitalism
...and similar variants of power over people or #profit over people... ?
(I just made this up but from hearing it often elsewhere).
3/ Which is why I liked the word #Plutocracy instead of Capitalism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
...because as it's a totally different word! HA
CONCLUSION
1 Capitalism has many types
2 Use Plutocracy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
@freeschool @freemo
Sure, I agreed with you. A few remarks.
You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society. As long as the government exists the government will be doing something: they must get some money somehow. It may not impose tariffs or trade restrictions but you can argue that any kind of taxation breaks the free trade in one way or another.
I feel the Oxford dictionary definition covers capitalism quite well and in a short sentence "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
I would not use plutocracy as a synonym of capitalism at all. That would imply that you cannot have a democratic state with a capitalist economy. Sure, democracy is strongly influenced by the rich in capitalism, but they don't necessarily have government powers and their interests can be disregarded by politicians.
I would not include state capitalism as a subtype of capitalism. It is in fact very different from capitalism, since individual people do not own the means of production and you don't organise production to generate profit but rather to supply the population with certain things. The decision process of which things to produce is very different from capitalism, you don't have a bunch of people deciding what the economy should produce according to how much profit they can make, but rather politicians and economists taking decisions according to what they feel is better for the nation.
> You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society.
You could, but no one should want that. As I said this goes back to my comment about pure ideologies, they are almost always bad. Ideologies are meant to be principles, default ideas that work **most** of the time, but no ideaology should ever be applied in the absolute.
Nor does capitalism (or any ideology) require itself to be applied absolutely. Capitalism as a principle applied most of the time, and other principles used where they apply is completely in line with capitalism, and should be the goal of a capitalist.
> I feel the Oxford dictionary definition...
as I said words dont have a single definition, that is certainly one of them. It is distinctly different than free-market which is another definition. Since private ownership and free market are two halves of the same coin I find the distinction largely irrelevant. If the market isnt free then you dont truly completely own your products since someone else can force you to sell it as a price other than what it is worth. You dont truly own a thing if you cant choose when and how to sell it.
@freemo @freeschool I don't receive notifications for your replies nor I see your toot you now refer to for some reason.
> Free trade definition
Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.
> Capitalism cannot exist if not in a free market
I strongly disagree. If I own a brick factory I decide which kinds of bricks we produce every year and how many of each type. I decide that according to how much profit I expect to make. I own the factory, I shape the economy. The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done. The tariffs are just a restriction which may as well be modelled as a different production/demand curve. Production limits also do not remove my freedom to decide what to do, but rather limit it in certain aspects. Minimum and maximum prices imposed by the government also do not affect my ability to choose what to do according to my expected returns, they just change the kinds of choices I will take. Taking different choices according to external influences is normal, otherwise the capitalist economy couldn't adapt to the market anyway.
> Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.
The existent of, or lack of tariffs, if applied equally to all members (usually not the case) is still free market. When you have tariffs the market is no longer internationally free (some countries are at a disadvantage others are) but locally/internally is a free market. In other words, all the players in the market in the country have equal footing.
So the mere existence of tariffs doesnt make a country a capitalism or not, it depends on how it is applied. In fact if tariffs are meant to offset an unfair advantage one party has at the table then it would be against the principles of capitalism to not have tariffs. For example if china had a monopoly on cell phones then putting a tariffs on cell phones would be a requirement to follow capitalist ideals.
> The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done.
Then to my original point you dont fully own those bricks. If someone is **forcing** me to sell those bricks at some price that isnt the market price then I dont **fully** own the bricks. Someone else is telling me what I can or cant do with my bricks, and therefore someone else has some level of joint ownership over those bricks. Now again im not saying this is a bad thing, or even that it should or can be avoided entirely, capitalisms (along with any other ideal) does not exist in a pure sense so that would be nonsense anyway. But absolutely if there is a tariff exclusive to a category of goods, and that tariff is **not** designed to make the markets free (that is, everyone having equal power), then it is contrary to capitalism since it makes markets less free (brick sellers are at a disadvantage due to price fixing).
@freemo @freeschool
We have a clearly distinct vision of what capitalism is.
In my opinion capitalism exists when I can own the brick factory and decide what the brick factory should do and make money off of it. That is the capital. If I can have the factory, employ people and make money off the work of those people, whether I work or not, that is capitalism.
I don't see the complete freedom of trade as a prerequisite of capitalism. I'm allowed to have the capital, and profit off of it, even if restrictions are applied to prices.
If goods prices and quantities cannot be manipulated by the government, that is what I'd refer to as free trade.
Someone may be forcing me to sell bricks at a price within 5$ and 100$, but I still have the factory, I can decide what to do with the factory and I profit with the bricks produced by the factory.
The distinction here in my opinion is with other economic systems in which you are not allowed to own the factory, or if you are allowed to own it you are not allowed to make profit off the factory.
For example, you may "own" an association, but you cannot profit off of it; you can pay yourself a salary.
In a communist economy, nobody is allowed to own a company, you may be in the position to decide what the company should produce, but the company is not yours and you don't make profit off the company but rather receive a salary from the government.
Again your viewing capitalism as yes or no, I am viewing the nuance.
Its all capitalism just in different ways and to varying degrees, thats the point, there is no "this is capitalism and this isnt" Everything is a mix of ideologies applied in many different ways.
I would say that what you describe "is mostly capitalism", it has aspects to it that are strongly capitalist (the private person gets a significant portion of ownership rights) and has anti-capatilist components such as lacking certain ownership rights in dealing with how I wish to use my property (in this case to sell it).
@freeschool @freemo about the last point. In a communist economy the state decides how production is organised, how many people should be making bricks, how many people should be building cars and so on.
It is not for profit in the sense that there is no individual gaining the profits of those factories. The factories may make a profit, it could then be decided whether to reinvest that in the same factory or somewhere else.
It is the state to decide what the economy does, this means politicians, since they generally represent the state. Of course you can organise it in different ways: you don't necessarily need the prime minister to be there every day saying alright, the next week we need 50k bricks. You'll have comitees studying the economy and taking decisions along those lines.
Then you may have factory directors who'll be tasked with executing those things. We need your factory to produce 50k bricks a month, here is some money employ the necessary people and buy necessary machinery. The factory director will receive a salary, it may be increased if the factory works efficiently but he won't be directly profiting off the factory production.
Do politicians and economists know what is the better for the nation and are very good at organising production? No, not at all; that is not to be expected. On the other hand: are capitalists very good at the same? I would argue also no. Capitalism is a good system because it requires no bureaucracy to function, it functions automatically. It however also has plenty drawbacks for the people.
In communism do people at the top really make no profits? Well, there always will be corruption and power grabbing. But that is not really the point. The economy is organised in a different way. It is not capitalists deciding what a nation should produce in order to make profit for themselves. It is rather the government deciding what should be made on a national level.
Communism is one example of an economy type in which production is not controlled by capitalists for profit. It is not the only one.
The Soviet Union has failed under many fronts, but a 5 years plan appears like a wonderful way to organise the expansion of production. In capitalism you get that freely, but you also get a bunch of stupid people messing things up: 1929 crisis, dot com bubble, 2008 crisis these are all directly related to capitalism. Such a crisis can happen only in a capitalist economy, as it happens due to the expectations of profits of the people.
You speak of communism and socialism as if it is some opposite of capitalism. It isnt. A communism with a free-market economy is not just possible, it has been done and is called "Market Socialism":
You speak of communism and socialism as if it is some opposite of capitalism. It isnt. A communism with a free-market economy is not just possible, it has been done and is called "Market Socialism":
Capitalism flow chart / diagram ? (to differentiate economies)
@undefined @freemo @rastinza Good stuff rastinza - happy with how you've said things and will think more on it...
Idea: Would be good if there was a flow chart to #capitalism or way to differentiating certain parts of it a bit more clearly (certainly in the what things are not also)... though I haven't searched for this kind of diagram I bet someone (probably) has already had this idea and smart enough in the #sciences / #humanities / #anthropology / #finance and maybe other areas it might come labelled under?...
I put picture here as #visual example what be of future #help to differentiate economies in static #economy #flowchart or active menu of choices...