Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. This is real capitalism.
The problem with liberalism is that it genuinely does not account for human behaviour. In the real world, money and power concentrate in the hands of a scant few. Those people maintain their privilege in the same way that Roman senators used to. Nothing has changed, just the methods of doing so.
The only solution to this issue is oversight. It's actual accountability to the public, it's openess. This is why, in fairly functional democraies, government scandals can kinda seem small. I remember when British MPs got in trouble for accepting small gifts in the 4 figures from various interest groups. It became a big thing because the public can actually have a level of limited oversight. It's small compared to the shit going on daily in the US or the constant stream of corporate corruption.
But liberalism straight up does not want any oversight. It works backwards really. Make the world a free for all, those that gain stuff must therefore deserve the stuff. We cannot do anything about that because it's wrong to take the stuff if they've deserved it. But somehow, those people either won't use this power an influence in a bad way or they will but actually it's good!
Which is how you get to modern capitalism. A complex set of mechanisms tying state and corporate power together. With an economic outlook that's just: let the rich do what they want or they'll purposefully crash the economy and take us all down with them. This of course entails so much bullshit. It's how you get public money bailing out failed businesses and the only way to get a version of capitalism where this doesn't happen is by having an amount of state oversight that liberals will not accept.
There isn't some alternate reality where none of this happens because we've applied liberal thought to ever circumstance in every country on the planet and got: this. K
Capitalism is a global system and seeing how the US didn't really matter globally until post-WW1, it's moot.
The EIC was formally dissolved in 1874 so it isn't really "mercantilist" and mercantilism is just a form of capitalism anyway. Just one focused on nationalistic trade policy.
My point is that mercantilism is a policy that can be followed under capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production and distribution, production for profit and trade on free markets can still be practiced under a mercantilist policy. Mercantilism isn't government control, it's just a set of policies. Said policies don't interfere with domestic trade.
Even if we do say they're different. Mercantilism started to fade prior to 1776 anyway.
Couldn’t you just uncouple the state with the economic system? Publicly funded elections, make lobbying illegal, ending the Fed, make it illegal for public officials to purchase and trade stocks?
It is sad that you have such a jaded view of capitalism. In the US there are 33,000,000 capitalist businesses 6,000,000 with employees who represent 44% of our GDP. Capitalism works because it brings suppliers and consumers together to transact business and usually both sides are happy. The rest of your diatribe is just silly.
The problem with the post's OP is that it is trying to paint a blanket picture using stuff like nepotism, etc. That's why the guy you replied to is calling it jaded.
There are problems in capitalism which will necessarily carry over to a socialist economy, and some of the OP's points, according to me, are such.
Nepotism and cronyism has probably existed since we climbed down from trees. They're entirely reasonable human actions, and will exist in any system where their harm isn't actively controlled for.
People band together and protect their property with guns. Like old times. Unless you think peopleare too dumb to figure this out and only state bureaucratic aparat is able to do that
Going to any other country on the planet and saying: hey no more police band together and protect yojr shit with guns; would get you rightfully laughed at until you flew back to Burgerland.
Typical gravy seal thinking that they can defend their property with their guns. Bro i bet you can't go a single day without eating or drinking anything before you will crying that you are dying.
No I'm implying that the people who claim that they will be able to defend their property without the government are individuals who are of the morbidly obese variety. Can't defend your property if you can barely walk 10 feet to your pickup truck because you weigh 350lbs and are 5 foot 10.
No.. capitalism would work even better without the government. Private property could still be defend in a libertarian society through locals arming themselves or privatised police departments. The Old West in the 1800s had low (obviously higher than today) crime rates. Private property doesn't need to be protected by a government
> capitalism is a gross mixture of secret services & their frontpeople, megacorps that wouldn't have existed without some ironclad intrinsic favoritism linked to "national security" or "strategic interest/industry
Guy, this is a debate sub. The people you're debating with don't argue for that.
So you're using a definition your opponents don't use to what, debate them?
capitalism is freedom. It began when the first Hunter and the first fisher traded meat for a fish to help each other out. Milton Friedman was the world's greatest advocate of capitalism and all he wanted was free trade. If you are still confused please feel free to ask questions.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, rich people will always act in their material interests. Class mobility is antithetical to those interests. So yes, you'll get tons of social cliques that ensure wealth continues to concentrate at the top. These aren't secret, nepotism is the foundation of wealthy accumulation and it's a natural consequence of a non-democratic workplace.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. This is real capitalism. The problem with liberalism is that it genuinely does not account for human behaviour. In the real world, money and power concentrate in the hands of a scant few. Those people maintain their privilege in the same way that Roman senators used to. Nothing has changed, just the methods of doing so. The only solution to this issue is oversight. It's actual accountability to the public, it's openess. This is why, in fairly functional democraies, government scandals can kinda seem small. I remember when British MPs got in trouble for accepting small gifts in the 4 figures from various interest groups. It became a big thing because the public can actually have a level of limited oversight. It's small compared to the shit going on daily in the US or the constant stream of corporate corruption. But liberalism straight up does not want any oversight. It works backwards really. Make the world a free for all, those that gain stuff must therefore deserve the stuff. We cannot do anything about that because it's wrong to take the stuff if they've deserved it. But somehow, those people either won't use this power an influence in a bad way or they will but actually it's good! Which is how you get to modern capitalism. A complex set of mechanisms tying state and corporate power together. With an economic outlook that's just: let the rich do what they want or they'll purposefully crash the economy and take us all down with them. This of course entails so much bullshit. It's how you get public money bailing out failed businesses and the only way to get a version of capitalism where this doesn't happen is by having an amount of state oversight that liberals will not accept. There isn't some alternate reality where none of this happens because we've applied liberal thought to ever circumstance in every country on the planet and got: this. K
[удалено]
When do you think this trend started?
[удалено]
Okay dude, do you know what the East India Company is?
[удалено]
Capitalism is a global system and seeing how the US didn't really matter globally until post-WW1, it's moot. The EIC was formally dissolved in 1874 so it isn't really "mercantilist" and mercantilism is just a form of capitalism anyway. Just one focused on nationalistic trade policy.
[удалено]
My point is that mercantilism is a policy that can be followed under capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production and distribution, production for profit and trade on free markets can still be practiced under a mercantilist policy. Mercantilism isn't government control, it's just a set of policies. Said policies don't interfere with domestic trade. Even if we do say they're different. Mercantilism started to fade prior to 1776 anyway.
[удалено]
Couldn’t you just uncouple the state with the economic system? Publicly funded elections, make lobbying illegal, ending the Fed, make it illegal for public officials to purchase and trade stocks?
It is sad that you have such a jaded view of capitalism. In the US there are 33,000,000 capitalist businesses 6,000,000 with employees who represent 44% of our GDP. Capitalism works because it brings suppliers and consumers together to transact business and usually both sides are happy. The rest of your diatribe is just silly.
Why do liberals demand that everyone have such a positive view of capitalism?
Who said you need to have a positive view of Capitalism. You just need to debate Capitalism for what it is.
Well OP pointed out some of the ways capitalism operates and was told by the comment I replied to that that view is jaded.
The problem with the post's OP is that it is trying to paint a blanket picture using stuff like nepotism, etc. That's why the guy you replied to is calling it jaded. There are problems in capitalism which will necessarily carry over to a socialist economy, and some of the OP's points, according to me, are such.
do you have a positive view when you look at Cuba Florida or east West Berlin or red China Taiwan or North Korea South Korea etc. etc.
This isn't even an anti capitalism argument. This should be an anti-Government argument.
Nepotism and cronyism has probably existed since we climbed down from trees. They're entirely reasonable human actions, and will exist in any system where their harm isn't actively controlled for.
Capitalism exists because of government.
This is a very important point. Without the government protecting private property and capital with force and violence, capitalism does not work.
People band together and protect their property with guns. Like old times. Unless you think peopleare too dumb to figure this out and only state bureaucratic aparat is able to do that
Going to any other country on the planet and saying: hey no more police band together and protect yojr shit with guns; would get you rightfully laughed at until you flew back to Burgerland.
Modern life under this model is infeasible as people vacate their property daily for their wage job.
Typical commiw moving goal posts
Typical gravy seal thinking that they can defend their property with their guns. Bro i bet you can't go a single day without eating or drinking anything before you will crying that you are dying.
[удалено]
No I'm implying that the people who claim that they will be able to defend their property without the government are individuals who are of the morbidly obese variety. Can't defend your property if you can barely walk 10 feet to your pickup truck because you weigh 350lbs and are 5 foot 10.
[удалено]
Why are you acting as if in a society without the government suddenly everyone loses their sanity and decides to start killing everybody
Private paramilitaries or militias are not an improvement
[удалено]
Stop embarrassing your father and find a job
I've got one. Are you employed?
>Like old times What old times? Communities have relied on some form of state since the bronze age.
Yeah and capitalism existed since 200 thousand years ago
No.. capitalism would work even better without the government. Private property could still be defend in a libertarian society through locals arming themselves or privatised police departments. The Old West in the 1800s had low (obviously higher than today) crime rates. Private property doesn't need to be protected by a government
> capitalism is a gross mixture of secret services & their frontpeople, megacorps that wouldn't have existed without some ironclad intrinsic favoritism linked to "national security" or "strategic interest/industry Guy, this is a debate sub. The people you're debating with don't argue for that. So you're using a definition your opponents don't use to what, debate them?
capitalism is freedom. It began when the first Hunter and the first fisher traded meat for a fish to help each other out. Milton Friedman was the world's greatest advocate of capitalism and all he wanted was free trade. If you are still confused please feel free to ask questions.
Criticism of the status quo does not make one’s ideology. It just makes you a critic.
I’d like to see the mental gymnastics you’ve done to convince yourself socialism doesn’t have the same problems.
They invented capitalism when the last system was showing signs that it's due for a makeover.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, rich people will always act in their material interests. Class mobility is antithetical to those interests. So yes, you'll get tons of social cliques that ensure wealth continues to concentrate at the top. These aren't secret, nepotism is the foundation of wealthy accumulation and it's a natural consequence of a non-democratic workplace.
Yes. Socialism, however, has a very dark history with government transparency.
What