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.*
Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods.
Because ultimately even companies are just goods that can be freely exchanged with other individuals. Owning a company is no more abstract than owning a pair of socks.
Sure but the whole legal idea of a corporation distinct from it's actual owners is unique to capitalism. An idea cam be a logical follow on from another idea and still be distinct from it. Rock music is an evolution of the blues but still distinct from the blues.
> a corporation distinct from it's actual owners
What exactly do you mean by that?
How is a corporation any more distinct from its owners, than my coffee mug is distinct from me?
Because if you sue a corporation, you sue a corporation. That corporation is it's own thing. The collection of people who own it are not legally liable for everything regarding that corporation. Corporate personhood.
That's just a logical conclusion that comes with shared ownership. Obviously no single person can be liable for something that is owned by many.
However, that has nothing to do capitalism in itself. Capitalism is not defined by the existence of corporations with shared ownership.
You can totally have a capitalist economy in which no such thing exists and all businesses are owned by single individuals.
>That's just a logical conclusion that comes with shared ownership.
And brutal death metal is the logical conclusion of rock music. But we still differntiate them.
The existance of corporations has been an inexorable element of capitalism. Corporations didn't exist before, now they're such a key element of this economic system that one failing can cause a depression.
Corporatism is a logical extension of capitalism, but we still differentiate them. You should too.
Corporate structures are convenient, but capitalism can and does exist without them.
But there is no meaningful distinction between capitalism and corporatism. They function the same, corporatism is just a strawman to blame the issues of modern capitalism on
> The existance of corporations has been an inexorable element of capitalism.
The existece of corporations is an element of corporatism, which is a concept that was central to fascism. Capitalism is basically economic liberalism, and corporatism, if anything, is an affront to that rather than an intrinsic part of it.
Capitalism is defined by, well, capital and investment. Corporations follow as a consequence to allow for movement of financial capital and investment.
Llc limited liability companies separate owners finances and company finances. There’s laws that regulate it you can’t use your company bank account as a personal account you have to pay yourself a salary not just the profits on the business, etc. So that you can’t sue the owner and take their house and other property if the business messes up.
Citizen united ruling is some fuck shit also but that’s a longer story.
"Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods."
Free and voluntary exchange of good existed even 20.000 years ago, did company ownership exist ?
Also how about the outcome of free and coerced voluntary exchange ? :)
>Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods
One would think so these days. But I'd say that's mainly because since the idea of shareholder companies and markets are 500 years old at this point, most people have a difficult time imaging that there was a time BEFORE anyone had thought of buying and selling share of ownership.
Once an idea has been around long enough, people think its "natural and logical."
No, it's just natural that if businesses exist and are owned by individuals, then these individuals are free to sell their property in part or in whole as they wish.
As much as people today would claim that "it's just natural to sell a company in whole or in part", it should be pointed out that prior to the 1600s, nobody had ever even THOUGHT of selling "shares of the company's action" before the VOC did that in Amsterdam in 1602.
I'm certain that in the distant future, people will think that wireless electronic information sharing (i.e., the WWW) "was always just natural". Historians used to thin that about agrculture, the wheel, writing, and nails, among other things.
History demonstrates to us all that inventions don't occur naturally. People need to actually think of them.
> prior to the 1600s, nobody had ever even THOUGHT of selling "shares of the company's action"
Because at that time the predominant system was feudalism.
I don't mean that this is literally *natural* to happen out of nowhere.
I mean that it's a logical and obvious outcome of economic liberalism which grants all private individuals the right to buy and own property and the freedom do with it whatever they want.
> Because at that time the predominant system was feudalism.
>
>
Two things to retort there:
1. Feudalism was the norm in some parts of Europe. But not in Amsterdam during the 1500s. And considering that the English were also buying and selling stock less than a decade after the VOC first did it, one might ask why THEY didn't think of it 10 or 20 years sooner. Same goes for Genoa and Venice, other trade powers that economic historians tend to consider as early capitalist nations. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland (who was formed as a rebellion AGAINST feudalism) was also independent by then, and COULD HAVE thought of it (i.e., the legal and institutional tools needed for stock trading to exist were there). But didn't.
2. Prior to the feudal middle ages, roman times were also recorded as being extremely trade-focused. With roman law supporting that (it was the original civil law). They also COULD HAVE thought of the idea of stock markets. Had all the tools and trade networks to do so. But didn't.
> I mean that it's a logical and obvious outcome of economic liberalism which grants all private individuals the right to buy and own property and the freedom do with it whatever they want.
Sure. It's a pretty safe bet that SOMEBODY would have thought of stock markets eventually, once renaissance ideas became widespread and popular enough. Might have taken another 100 years.
> Owning a company is no more abstract than owning a pair of socks.
This is obviously false, as one includes control of others (workers) and the other does not.
"We aren't buying *people*, just telling them exactly what to do and how to do it for half their waking hours while under total surveillance, with zero accountability to ourselves! That makes it ok, right?"
> just telling them exactly what to do and how to do it for half their waking hours
For the hours they themselves have sold to us! And they can't be told to do whatever the fuck the employer wants either. They only agreed to do a certain set of tasks for a certain amount of time in exchange for money.
Worker: "I'll lay bricks for 8 hours a day in exchange for $20 per hour"
Employer: "Okay, I'll pay you $20 per hour of laying bricks where I need them."
Worker: "I consent.😊"
Employer: "I consent.😊"
You: "I DON'T!!!!😭😡😭"
> They only agreed to do a certain set of tasks for a certain amount of time in exchange for money.
There's a term for only doing what you promised ... it's called "quiet quitting" and employers try to stamp it out whenever possible.
> Worker: "I'll lay bricks for 8 hours a day in exchange for $20 per hour"
>
> Employer: "Okay, I'll pay you $20 per hour of laying bricks where I need them."
You paint it as this simple consensual transaction where both sides can walk away with no issues. But the reality is that if the worker "walks away", they suffer homeless/starvation/infirmity. If the employer "walks away" (fires or lays off the worker), they typically have minimal consequences.
Until you get past this naive notion that working for a capitalist is *in any way* "consensual", you will not be able to reason sensibly about economic systems.
> There's a term for only doing what you promised ... it's called "quiet quitting"
Nope, "quiet quitting" is doing the absolute bare minimum you can possibly get away with. That's certainly not what you promised you employer when he hired you.
> simple consensual transaction where both sides can walk away with no issues.
Because that's exactly what it is!
> if the worker "walks away", they suffer homeless/starvation/infirmity.
Bullshit! I was unemployed several times in my youth, but not once was I ever homeless or anywhere near the risk of starvation.
You are aware that social security programs are a thing, right?
Also, most workers who quit their jobs, do so because they found a better job somewhere else.
> If the employer "walks away" (fires or lays off the worker), they typically have minimal consequences.
When an employer lays off workers, then mostly because the employer can no longer afford the worker's labor, which is usually a worse situation for the employer than for the worker, since the worker can just work somehwere else by the end of the week, whereas the employer may have to shut down his entire business soon and end up massively in debt.
> Until you get past this naive notion that working for a capitalist is in any way "consensual"
It surely fucking is! Source: I worked for capitalists by my own full consent. Who are you to tell me otherwise?
> Nope, "quiet quitting" is doing the absolute bare minimum you can possibly get away with. That's certainly not what you promised you employer when he hired you.
Searched "quiet quitting definition"; the first blurb said this:
*"Quiet quitting is when employees continue to put in the minimum amount of effort to keep their jobs, but don't go the extra mile for their employer. This might mean not speaking up in meetings, not volunteering for tasks, and refusing to work overtime."*
So you're now saying every contract includes an implicit promise to "go the extra mile"?? Doesn't sound like "only doing a certain set of tasks" like you claimed just one post up.
> Bullshit! I was unemployed several times in my youth, but not once was I ever homeless or anywhere near the risk of starvation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_anecdote
> You are aware that social security programs are a thing, right?
They *kinda* are; conservatives fight them tooth and nail, and they are woefully insufficient.
> Also, most workers who quit their jobs, do so because they found a better job somewhere else.
And you think this somehow disproves that threats of firing are ways of controlling people?
> When an employer lays off workers, then mostly because the employer can no longer afford the worker's labor ...
Because people have never been laid off amidst record profits, surely ...
> Source: I worked for capitalists by my own full consent. Who are you to tell me otherwise?
I can very easily tell you that **you don't speak for everybody**. As long as there are **any** people trapped in jobs with shitty employers because "they need the money" or "they need the health insurance", your claim about it being "consensual" goes out the window. The fact that you are fortunate enough to be healthy and financially independent, does not mean everyone is.
>free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods
Without defining what these words mean specifically, this a meaningless concoction of letters. All trade can be said to be "free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods". Capitalism is a very specific form of exchange based on private property rights, titles and legal contracts enforced by a state.
Maybe if you skip a lot of steps, but each step would have to make valid and have acceptable unintended consequences.
First, company ownership isn't a good it is an abstract idea, closer to a contract. There is nothing tangible about a company. Yes a company owns tangible goods, but how can you make a leap that goods and abstract ideas are equivalent?
And fractional ownership is also an issue, is co-owning a pair of socks the same as owning minority stake in a company? Can you unilaterally sell a co-owned pair of socks? No, but you could unilaterally sell a co-owned company.
Nothing immediately follows as true from your unjustified hand waving assertion.
> Yes a company owns tangible goods
And those goods are therefore owned by the company's owner.
> you could unilaterally sell a co-owned company.
No you can't. You may unilaterally sell your shares of that company, but you can't sell the whole company if you don't completely own it.
>And those goods are therefore owned by the company's owner.
As I stated. My point is that the company isn't a good, your chain of logic doesn't substantiate a leap from good to abstract idea such as a company.
>You may unilaterally sell your shares of that company, but you can't sell the whole company if you don't completely own it.
You are making an assumption about the shareholder rights for the company, which generally is untrue. Majority, super-majority, or board approval typically will override a minority. This isn't true for a shared property, it doesn't matter if you own < 0.1% of a house or car, you can block the sale.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Unless there is a pre-existing contract that forbids it, you can sell your stake in anything you are part owner of. Other part owners don't have any more say in the case of a car or house than they do in a corporation.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm stating that a "majority" owner has more rights to *full* company sale than a majority owner of property would.
Ownership of a company is very different than ownership of goods. You indicate that it is necessary to refer back to contracts/agreements of company ownership, while for goods ownership it is quite simple, unless additional separate contracts are established.
The assertion that ownership of a company, an abstraction, is similiar enough to ownership of property to substantiate that a stockmarket is similiar to a marketplace of goods, fails.
Your argument rests on the assertion that a company is an abstraction, which for the purposes of trade and ownership, it isn't. A company is a real thing in every way that a house or a car is. Because your reasoning is based on a false premise, your conclusion is invalid.
It’s not like there was about of century of thought preceding the American Revolution called the ‘enlightenment’ where those ideas were articulated and written down or anything…
what defines capitalism is that it encourages us to care for others. If the capitalist does not care more for his workers and customers than the worldwide competition he goes bankrupt. capitalism then is about caring for others.
Yeah, I am definitely pro-capitalism but that’s some bullshit right there.
The defining nature of capitalism is that it uses competition to distribute the factors of production with the greatest efficiency.
Capitalism says nothing about caring for its fellow man. You’re thinking of the Bible.
If you think for one split second that capitalism is not about caring try opening a business and advertising that you don't care about your workers and customers and so have substandard jobs and substandard products. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen?
Don't be stupid. If you don't actually care your workers and customers will figure it out regardless of advertising and you will go bankrupt against the Christian maternal people who actually do care because they are decent people. 1+1 = 2.
lol, yeah…I don’t think you have much experience with corporate entities, how convincingly they can say “I sawry”, or the American (and presumably other peoples also well) willingness to buy their ‘heartfelt’ apology.
distribute the factors of production????
capitalism uses competition to create better products and a better standard of living. In fact it is a race to the top to improve our standard of living at the fastest possible rate. 1+1 = 2
It is a free country and workers are free to contest in the vet the same as anybody else by acquiring in free markets the ability to contest and event.
Wage labour can be traced back to Roman empire
What you described is public trading of shares which is irrelevant to what the counter argument you described is countering.
>Wage labour can be traced back to Roman empire
Agreed and probably before that. I read some economic historians and they pretty much ditched "capitalism" with market economies being pretty much the same as today nearing a thousand years. With that information I did my own digging for fun and I found quotes of Aristotle describing market economies much like our own. That's over 600 BC
Then there is that whole two eras of egyption research now. Egypt standard of Greece and prior and the new on which is like 12,000 BC. I'm not read up on it and just tossing some of the research I've heard about from some podcasts.
The key features of capitalism are (1) private property and (2) state defense of that private property. It doesn't matter if this property is commodities, debt, equity, trademarks, whatever. Private property is private property.
You might have some philosophical claims about intellectual property or equity, but they certainly aren't inherent to capitalism. You could easily have a state owned oil company that floats 20% of its shares on the public market while the government retains 80%.
A long time ago, farm owners would have to go try to entice people to work on their farms. The workers only worked as much as the reward seemed worth. There ended up being alternating long and short days, because humans hate doing the same amount of work every day.
The reason clocks became so widespread was to control labor. The real enemy is the clock and standardization of labor. We're not supposed to work like this and it's driving us insane.
>Thing is, all this has existed before capitalism,
there is no "before capitalism" any more than there is a before nationalism or before conservatism. capitalism isn't like socialism in that it isn't a system. it is an individualist philosophy specifically concerning ownership. it wasn't created, instead it was identified by a man named karl marx specifically as the enemy/opposite of social ownership which is a socialist philosophy. karl marx didn't create capitalism, he only named a behavior (really a misconception) that already existed.
karl marx sort of thought (as people like you do now) that capitalism is an invention of adam smith. but adam smith too simply identified certain phenomena that had already existed and adam smith never once called it capitalism, he merely described how the behavior generated wealth where the misconceived mercantilism could not.
as you correctly stated, both commodity markets and equity markets existed long before marx and adam smith so even if one of them had invented capitalism, it would disprove the idea that either do only exist under some kind of capitalist system.
>What defines capitalism is abstract company ownership, where said ownership can be split into arbitrary shares and traded, given away, merged and so forth.
what you have here is indeed not capitalism (individual ownership, individual control), but a kind of social ownership called corporatism. this is not defining of capitalism except in the minds of people who do not understand what capitalism is, or what stock market trading is, or what collective ownership is.
so, while i like your point, and i think your message is important for socialists to understand, it seems to me that you have a lot of thinking left to do before you can teach me and many other capitalists about capitalism.
That word does not mean what you think it means.
A commodity market is a market which futures contracts are traded. It's not retail (buying stuff from the store). Retail is more of a distribution system than a market, where the price is set by the seller specifically to make a profit, rather than both market participants, where both participants has the opportunity to lose or gain money.
And you did mention debt and equity markets, but you didn't mention the currency market, which is the last of the four types of markets.
This has nothing to do with "personal vs real property."
It's about there being multiple markets, which even the austrian school recognizes (Equity, Debt, Commodity, Money, Stock etc...)
So if a contract says that I own 100 humans as property, and the state says "yep, that's fine because those are not actually humans" you have no problem with that? I hope this strawman shows you what direction our criticism comes from.
Property isn't just an obvious thing that is equal wether worth one dollar or billions, it's something regulated by the state. If the state say's "you are allowed to own this, and we will use the police to protect your claim" then it is by definition legal property.
Communists don't say "this isn't *actually* legal property", they name reasons why it ***shouldn't** be*
We instead say "You don't actually need this to live a good life and hurt the economy by controling it" when it comes to factories and the like.
The reason we make a distinction between ***personal*** property and ***private*** property is because owning and inheriting the house you live in doesn't affect the economy and doesn't hurt anyone if you control it (most of the time, which is the only time we actually care about)
but owning (and thereby controlling) a *thousand* houses affects the livelihood of a *thousand* people
The wider issue here is just that of definitions. People don't understand how definitions work which leads to a lot of bizarre and illogical arguments. The fact that capitalism itself is a term distinct from trade, markets or exchange should clue people into the fact that capitalism isn't just those things.
Unfortunately, these arguments mostly come from the free market fundamentalist crowd. Who are, for all intents and purposes, a cult.
I think one of the wider issues is that definitions don't meaningfully exist because words are just clusters of phonemes meant to heuristically relate to an aggregate of memes that pattern recognizing agents are expected to develop over time.
Also that people keep insulting each other rather than asking clarifying questions. The amount of times I've had someone misread a statement here and then run off in another direction trying to tar and feather me for something I never said is... *a lot*, and I've only been here like a week.
>I frequently see people citing interpersonal exchanges, buying food, tools, equipment houses etc as something capitalism gave us as "free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods."
No, its not what capitalism gave us. Its what capitalism IS.
No, your hatred towards facts disagreeing with your worldview corrupt your ability to read sentences. In this case, you misread my comment and reversed implication i made, thats why it looks like "uneducated ignrance" to you. Its because your delusion kicked in.
Capitalism is private ownership of MoP. Free trade necessitates it. OP makes a strawman "capitalism gave us free market", while in reality simply having (actual, non-fake) free market would make the economic system capitalist, due to capitalist principle being necessity for free market (you cant exchange goods freely, without having private ownership of said goods).
Basically OP tries to dismiss capitalists argument based on his strawman version of actual capitalist argument.
I think I see where you're coming from. Would you mind elaborating on private ownership of the means of production?
For context, to me ownership is the authority to decide how something is utilized and what is done with the product of its utilization.
If the government tells you how to use something, and takes away a portion of its products, to me that is equivalent to them claiming partial ownership over the utilization of that property.
At least, that is my understanding of why [regulated markets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy) are mixed capitalist/socialist systems.
Looking at your comments, you dont need much to elaborate, given you have there everything needed to make basic conclusions. Private ownership is simply ownership by private (non-public) entities. Depending on definition private means individual or family, public refers to collective/state (state being embodiment of organised collective). If government/state (public bodies) dictates economic action, it is public action. If private citizen dictates economic action, its private action.
Not sure what you need to elaborate on, some questions would be nice, tough i will answer them tomorrow if you have any.
Oh, I was asking you to elaborate on your definition to make sure we're on the same page.
To me saying "simply ownership" leaves it unclear if you mean economic ownership, or if you're include regulations/taxes, which is a point of contention that I find crops up between liberals and libertarians.
I would also personally make a distinction between democratic state ownership (social ownership) and autocratic/oligarchic state ownership (class ownership).
I think you categorize those as public/private action, if I'm following along?
>I think you categorize those as public/private action, if I'm following along?
Pretty much, though there isnt much difference between "democratic state ownership" and "oligarchic state ownership" in practice. It is basically reduced to the same thing, as for organization purpose there will always be elite committee/public body required to secure "democratic" ownership and they will become the oligarchy. Bureaucracy scale problem.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. It feels like you may be making presuppositions that are leading you to conclude that democracy is inherently authoritarian?
Not "democratic", but "state" ownership is inherently authoritarian, so its not much different between democratic or oligarchic ownership, if its still state.
>"state" ownership is inherently authoritarian
If you define ownership as having an inherent relationship to authority, and that the anarchism-statism continuum represents individual vs group authority, I suppose you could argue that. It would, however, make libertarianism anarcho-authoritarianist? That doesn't feel very wieldy.
..Honestly I'm not sure if you could argue that.
>so its not much different between democratic or oligarchic ownership
To me those are very different models of power distribution, so this comes across as somewhat confusing? Most forms of democracy have extensive checks and balances intended to prevent oligarchy. You could say failed democracies often devolve into oligarchies, but the same is true of failed non-democracies?
Our founding fathers didn't have toilet paper.
And they took their ethics from the works of Greek slavers.
It's possible we have better ways to do things than they did.
Actually we still live under their constitution and declaration, and it made us the most successful nation in all of human history by far. 1+1 = 2
keep in mind that we saved civilization on earth in two world wars and then re-created the world in our image and now police it for free in the name of liberty to save civilization on earth every day. America is so vast that you don't realize how vastly important it is. Today can be the first day of the rest of your life if you have the character and intelligence to learn from it.
Good to see that you are consistently finding yourself too stupid to make a substantive comment on the topic. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
[Says the guy who got debunked by empirical studies and coped by simply ignoring them all.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/T0S7882Q5F)
💀
Projection is the tool of the ignorant.
nobody is ignoring the data. It says that after 200 years .00003% of the American workforce is in co-ops.
The idea of course never caught on because it is so stupid. Workers are not intelligent enough to run businesses which is why they are workers. 1+1 = 2
imagine you have one business run by stupid workers and another run by Harvard MBAs with 150 IQs and 40 years of successful management experience. Which company would go bankrupt?
"Workers are too stupid to run businesses"
Debunked you with data.
Worker-managed firms last longer.
You ignored the data.
Keep coping, little baby with your addition practice again. 😭
Pretty sure that was after the US did a bunch of genocides to establish hegemony over a fertile colonial empire. Also:
>The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another…
>On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…
>Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
-Thomas Jefferson
Nobody is denying genocides so what point you are making remains unknown. If you ever think of the point you are trying to make why don't you share it with us.
Because I expect we're not bots and that you will be able to synthesize a heuristic understanding of social situations through context instead of needing to process it in a linear spoon-fed fashion.
Think about it. Get back to me when you figure it out.
Actually, this is capitalism versus Socialism. Why don't you think about which you prefer and let us know the reason for your preference? How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
Capitalism and freedom are 2000 years old. If you think there is something not thought about it is because you are illiterate. Nevertheless tell me what you think it was and I will help you understand it.
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.*
Agree. OP makes a pretty solid point here
Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods. Because ultimately even companies are just goods that can be freely exchanged with other individuals. Owning a company is no more abstract than owning a pair of socks.
Sure but the whole legal idea of a corporation distinct from it's actual owners is unique to capitalism. An idea cam be a logical follow on from another idea and still be distinct from it. Rock music is an evolution of the blues but still distinct from the blues.
> a corporation distinct from it's actual owners What exactly do you mean by that? How is a corporation any more distinct from its owners, than my coffee mug is distinct from me?
Because if you sue a corporation, you sue a corporation. That corporation is it's own thing. The collection of people who own it are not legally liable for everything regarding that corporation. Corporate personhood.
That's just a logical conclusion that comes with shared ownership. Obviously no single person can be liable for something that is owned by many. However, that has nothing to do capitalism in itself. Capitalism is not defined by the existence of corporations with shared ownership. You can totally have a capitalist economy in which no such thing exists and all businesses are owned by single individuals.
>That's just a logical conclusion that comes with shared ownership. And brutal death metal is the logical conclusion of rock music. But we still differntiate them. The existance of corporations has been an inexorable element of capitalism. Corporations didn't exist before, now they're such a key element of this economic system that one failing can cause a depression.
Corporatism is a logical extension of capitalism, but we still differentiate them. You should too. Corporate structures are convenient, but capitalism can and does exist without them.
But there is no meaningful distinction between capitalism and corporatism. They function the same, corporatism is just a strawman to blame the issues of modern capitalism on
Translation: You choose not to see the distinction because doing so would challenge your world view.
No, there's just no distinction. What differentiates them? Tell me.
> The existance of corporations has been an inexorable element of capitalism Statism. Only the state enables corporations
Yes yes the state everything bad. The state also stops you noncing up little girls.
Every non barbarian society would do stop that
Why do you keep trying to lift age of consent laws then?
> The existance of corporations has been an inexorable element of capitalism. The existece of corporations is an element of corporatism, which is a concept that was central to fascism. Capitalism is basically economic liberalism, and corporatism, if anything, is an affront to that rather than an intrinsic part of it.
Fucking hell...
The gymnastics I watched the other user take on to avoid directly responding to anything you said coherently was fun!
Capitalism is defined by, well, capital and investment. Corporations follow as a consequence to allow for movement of financial capital and investment.
Llc limited liability companies separate owners finances and company finances. There’s laws that regulate it you can’t use your company bank account as a personal account you have to pay yourself a salary not just the profits on the business, etc. So that you can’t sue the owner and take their house and other property if the business messes up. Citizen united ruling is some fuck shit also but that’s a longer story.
"Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods." Free and voluntary exchange of good existed even 20.000 years ago, did company ownership exist ? Also how about the outcome of free and coerced voluntary exchange ? :)
>Company ownership is just a logical and natural outcome of free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods One would think so these days. But I'd say that's mainly because since the idea of shareholder companies and markets are 500 years old at this point, most people have a difficult time imaging that there was a time BEFORE anyone had thought of buying and selling share of ownership. Once an idea has been around long enough, people think its "natural and logical."
No, it's just natural that if businesses exist and are owned by individuals, then these individuals are free to sell their property in part or in whole as they wish.
As much as people today would claim that "it's just natural to sell a company in whole or in part", it should be pointed out that prior to the 1600s, nobody had ever even THOUGHT of selling "shares of the company's action" before the VOC did that in Amsterdam in 1602. I'm certain that in the distant future, people will think that wireless electronic information sharing (i.e., the WWW) "was always just natural". Historians used to thin that about agrculture, the wheel, writing, and nails, among other things. History demonstrates to us all that inventions don't occur naturally. People need to actually think of them.
> prior to the 1600s, nobody had ever even THOUGHT of selling "shares of the company's action" Because at that time the predominant system was feudalism. I don't mean that this is literally *natural* to happen out of nowhere. I mean that it's a logical and obvious outcome of economic liberalism which grants all private individuals the right to buy and own property and the freedom do with it whatever they want.
> Because at that time the predominant system was feudalism. > > Two things to retort there: 1. Feudalism was the norm in some parts of Europe. But not in Amsterdam during the 1500s. And considering that the English were also buying and selling stock less than a decade after the VOC first did it, one might ask why THEY didn't think of it 10 or 20 years sooner. Same goes for Genoa and Venice, other trade powers that economic historians tend to consider as early capitalist nations. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland (who was formed as a rebellion AGAINST feudalism) was also independent by then, and COULD HAVE thought of it (i.e., the legal and institutional tools needed for stock trading to exist were there). But didn't. 2. Prior to the feudal middle ages, roman times were also recorded as being extremely trade-focused. With roman law supporting that (it was the original civil law). They also COULD HAVE thought of the idea of stock markets. Had all the tools and trade networks to do so. But didn't. > I mean that it's a logical and obvious outcome of economic liberalism which grants all private individuals the right to buy and own property and the freedom do with it whatever they want. Sure. It's a pretty safe bet that SOMEBODY would have thought of stock markets eventually, once renaissance ideas became widespread and popular enough. Might have taken another 100 years.
No, corporations are a legal entity. They require a very specific legal framework.
> Owning a company is no more abstract than owning a pair of socks. This is obviously false, as one includes control of others (workers) and the other does not.
You always have control over the things you buy, whether that's labor or socks. That's the whole point of buying anything!
... which is why you shouldn't be able to buy people.
No one is buying *people*. Employers are buying labor *from* the people who sell it.
"We aren't buying *people*, just telling them exactly what to do and how to do it for half their waking hours while under total surveillance, with zero accountability to ourselves! That makes it ok, right?"
> just telling them exactly what to do and how to do it for half their waking hours For the hours they themselves have sold to us! And they can't be told to do whatever the fuck the employer wants either. They only agreed to do a certain set of tasks for a certain amount of time in exchange for money. Worker: "I'll lay bricks for 8 hours a day in exchange for $20 per hour" Employer: "Okay, I'll pay you $20 per hour of laying bricks where I need them." Worker: "I consent.😊" Employer: "I consent.😊" You: "I DON'T!!!!😭😡😭"
> They only agreed to do a certain set of tasks for a certain amount of time in exchange for money. There's a term for only doing what you promised ... it's called "quiet quitting" and employers try to stamp it out whenever possible. > Worker: "I'll lay bricks for 8 hours a day in exchange for $20 per hour" > > Employer: "Okay, I'll pay you $20 per hour of laying bricks where I need them." You paint it as this simple consensual transaction where both sides can walk away with no issues. But the reality is that if the worker "walks away", they suffer homeless/starvation/infirmity. If the employer "walks away" (fires or lays off the worker), they typically have minimal consequences. Until you get past this naive notion that working for a capitalist is *in any way* "consensual", you will not be able to reason sensibly about economic systems.
> There's a term for only doing what you promised ... it's called "quiet quitting" Nope, "quiet quitting" is doing the absolute bare minimum you can possibly get away with. That's certainly not what you promised you employer when he hired you. > simple consensual transaction where both sides can walk away with no issues. Because that's exactly what it is! > if the worker "walks away", they suffer homeless/starvation/infirmity. Bullshit! I was unemployed several times in my youth, but not once was I ever homeless or anywhere near the risk of starvation. You are aware that social security programs are a thing, right? Also, most workers who quit their jobs, do so because they found a better job somewhere else. > If the employer "walks away" (fires or lays off the worker), they typically have minimal consequences. When an employer lays off workers, then mostly because the employer can no longer afford the worker's labor, which is usually a worse situation for the employer than for the worker, since the worker can just work somehwere else by the end of the week, whereas the employer may have to shut down his entire business soon and end up massively in debt. > Until you get past this naive notion that working for a capitalist is in any way "consensual" It surely fucking is! Source: I worked for capitalists by my own full consent. Who are you to tell me otherwise?
> Nope, "quiet quitting" is doing the absolute bare minimum you can possibly get away with. That's certainly not what you promised you employer when he hired you. Searched "quiet quitting definition"; the first blurb said this: *"Quiet quitting is when employees continue to put in the minimum amount of effort to keep their jobs, but don't go the extra mile for their employer. This might mean not speaking up in meetings, not volunteering for tasks, and refusing to work overtime."* So you're now saying every contract includes an implicit promise to "go the extra mile"?? Doesn't sound like "only doing a certain set of tasks" like you claimed just one post up. > Bullshit! I was unemployed several times in my youth, but not once was I ever homeless or anywhere near the risk of starvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_anecdote > You are aware that social security programs are a thing, right? They *kinda* are; conservatives fight them tooth and nail, and they are woefully insufficient. > Also, most workers who quit their jobs, do so because they found a better job somewhere else. And you think this somehow disproves that threats of firing are ways of controlling people? > When an employer lays off workers, then mostly because the employer can no longer afford the worker's labor ... Because people have never been laid off amidst record profits, surely ... > Source: I worked for capitalists by my own full consent. Who are you to tell me otherwise? I can very easily tell you that **you don't speak for everybody**. As long as there are **any** people trapped in jobs with shitty employers because "they need the money" or "they need the health insurance", your claim about it being "consensual" goes out the window. The fact that you are fortunate enough to be healthy and financially independent, does not mean everyone is.
>free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods Without defining what these words mean specifically, this a meaningless concoction of letters. All trade can be said to be "free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods". Capitalism is a very specific form of exchange based on private property rights, titles and legal contracts enforced by a state.
Maybe if you skip a lot of steps, but each step would have to make valid and have acceptable unintended consequences. First, company ownership isn't a good it is an abstract idea, closer to a contract. There is nothing tangible about a company. Yes a company owns tangible goods, but how can you make a leap that goods and abstract ideas are equivalent? And fractional ownership is also an issue, is co-owning a pair of socks the same as owning minority stake in a company? Can you unilaterally sell a co-owned pair of socks? No, but you could unilaterally sell a co-owned company. Nothing immediately follows as true from your unjustified hand waving assertion.
> Yes a company owns tangible goods And those goods are therefore owned by the company's owner. > you could unilaterally sell a co-owned company. No you can't. You may unilaterally sell your shares of that company, but you can't sell the whole company if you don't completely own it.
>And those goods are therefore owned by the company's owner. As I stated. My point is that the company isn't a good, your chain of logic doesn't substantiate a leap from good to abstract idea such as a company. >You may unilaterally sell your shares of that company, but you can't sell the whole company if you don't completely own it. You are making an assumption about the shareholder rights for the company, which generally is untrue. Majority, super-majority, or board approval typically will override a minority. This isn't true for a shared property, it doesn't matter if you own < 0.1% of a house or car, you can block the sale.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Unless there is a pre-existing contract that forbids it, you can sell your stake in anything you are part owner of. Other part owners don't have any more say in the case of a car or house than they do in a corporation.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm stating that a "majority" owner has more rights to *full* company sale than a majority owner of property would. Ownership of a company is very different than ownership of goods. You indicate that it is necessary to refer back to contracts/agreements of company ownership, while for goods ownership it is quite simple, unless additional separate contracts are established. The assertion that ownership of a company, an abstraction, is similiar enough to ownership of property to substantiate that a stockmarket is similiar to a marketplace of goods, fails.
Your argument rests on the assertion that a company is an abstraction, which for the purposes of trade and ownership, it isn't. A company is a real thing in every way that a house or a car is. Because your reasoning is based on a false premise, your conclusion is invalid.
>what defines capitalism is abstract company ownership ***Good news everyone! We now can own private property and have wage labor!!!! YEAH!!!!!***
The free exchange of goods services equity was considered so natural by oour genius founding fathers that they did not consider any other system.
It’s not like there was about of century of thought preceding the American Revolution called the ‘enlightenment’ where those ideas were articulated and written down or anything…
what defines capitalism is that it encourages us to care for others. If the capitalist does not care more for his workers and customers than the worldwide competition he goes bankrupt. capitalism then is about caring for others.
Yeah, I am definitely pro-capitalism but that’s some bullshit right there. The defining nature of capitalism is that it uses competition to distribute the factors of production with the greatest efficiency. Capitalism says nothing about caring for its fellow man. You’re thinking of the Bible.
If you think for one split second that capitalism is not about caring try opening a business and advertising that you don't care about your workers and customers and so have substandard jobs and substandard products. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen?
Wait…should I advertise that I don’t care while actually caring? Or should I advertise that I care while actually not caring?
Don't be stupid. If you don't actually care your workers and customers will figure it out regardless of advertising and you will go bankrupt against the Christian maternal people who actually do care because they are decent people. 1+1 = 2.
lol, yeah…I don’t think you have much experience with corporate entities, how convincingly they can say “I sawry”, or the American (and presumably other peoples also well) willingness to buy their ‘heartfelt’ apology.
what on earth are you talking about????? if you have any idea why are you so afraid to let us know??
Most corporate entities, but if you want an easy case study you can look at Big Oil’s willingness to kill people to pump more crude.
distribute the factors of production???? capitalism uses competition to create better products and a better standard of living. In fact it is a race to the top to improve our standard of living at the fastest possible rate. 1+1 = 2
The free exchange of goods services equity was considered so natural by oour genius founding fathers that they did not consider any other system.
It is a free country and workers are free to contest in the vet the same as anybody else by acquiring in free markets the ability to contest and event.
Wage labour can be traced back to Roman empire What you described is public trading of shares which is irrelevant to what the counter argument you described is countering.
>Wage labour can be traced back to Roman empire Agreed and probably before that. I read some economic historians and they pretty much ditched "capitalism" with market economies being pretty much the same as today nearing a thousand years. With that information I did my own digging for fun and I found quotes of Aristotle describing market economies much like our own. That's over 600 BC Then there is that whole two eras of egyption research now. Egypt standard of Greece and prior and the new on which is like 12,000 BC. I'm not read up on it and just tossing some of the research I've heard about from some podcasts.
The key features of capitalism are (1) private property and (2) state defense of that private property. It doesn't matter if this property is commodities, debt, equity, trademarks, whatever. Private property is private property. You might have some philosophical claims about intellectual property or equity, but they certainly aren't inherent to capitalism. You could easily have a state owned oil company that floats 20% of its shares on the public market while the government retains 80%.
A long time ago, farm owners would have to go try to entice people to work on their farms. The workers only worked as much as the reward seemed worth. There ended up being alternating long and short days, because humans hate doing the same amount of work every day. The reason clocks became so widespread was to control labor. The real enemy is the clock and standardization of labor. We're not supposed to work like this and it's driving us insane.
There is a reason we call debt and equity markets combined *capital* markets.
>Thing is, all this has existed before capitalism, there is no "before capitalism" any more than there is a before nationalism or before conservatism. capitalism isn't like socialism in that it isn't a system. it is an individualist philosophy specifically concerning ownership. it wasn't created, instead it was identified by a man named karl marx specifically as the enemy/opposite of social ownership which is a socialist philosophy. karl marx didn't create capitalism, he only named a behavior (really a misconception) that already existed. karl marx sort of thought (as people like you do now) that capitalism is an invention of adam smith. but adam smith too simply identified certain phenomena that had already existed and adam smith never once called it capitalism, he merely described how the behavior generated wealth where the misconceived mercantilism could not. as you correctly stated, both commodity markets and equity markets existed long before marx and adam smith so even if one of them had invented capitalism, it would disprove the idea that either do only exist under some kind of capitalist system. >What defines capitalism is abstract company ownership, where said ownership can be split into arbitrary shares and traded, given away, merged and so forth. what you have here is indeed not capitalism (individual ownership, individual control), but a kind of social ownership called corporatism. this is not defining of capitalism except in the minds of people who do not understand what capitalism is, or what stock market trading is, or what collective ownership is. so, while i like your point, and i think your message is important for socialists to understand, it seems to me that you have a lot of thinking left to do before you can teach me and many other capitalists about capitalism.
That word does not mean what you think it means. A commodity market is a market which futures contracts are traded. It's not retail (buying stuff from the store). Retail is more of a distribution system than a market, where the price is set by the seller specifically to make a profit, rather than both market participants, where both participants has the opportunity to lose or gain money. And you did mention debt and equity markets, but you didn't mention the currency market, which is the last of the four types of markets.
Yawn another drivel OP about how there's two magic types of property. Personal and real property
This has nothing to do with "personal vs real property." It's about there being multiple markets, which even the austrian school recognizes (Equity, Debt, Commodity, Money, Stock etc...)
Good for them. Property is only property. The thing one owns and can sell or give away.
Ah. Well masters thesis finished there eh? No need to expand our knowledge beyond this 🤦
So if a contract says that I own 100 humans as property, and the state says "yep, that's fine because those are not actually humans" you have no problem with that? I hope this strawman shows you what direction our criticism comes from. Property isn't just an obvious thing that is equal wether worth one dollar or billions, it's something regulated by the state. If the state say's "you are allowed to own this, and we will use the police to protect your claim" then it is by definition legal property. Communists don't say "this isn't *actually* legal property", they name reasons why it ***shouldn't** be* We instead say "You don't actually need this to live a good life and hurt the economy by controling it" when it comes to factories and the like. The reason we make a distinction between ***personal*** property and ***private*** property is because owning and inheriting the house you live in doesn't affect the economy and doesn't hurt anyone if you control it (most of the time, which is the only time we actually care about) but owning (and thereby controlling) a *thousand* houses affects the livelihood of a *thousand* people
Yeah just like those liberal painters who try to claim red, blue, orange and yellow are real. They're all just colors dipshit! I'm very smart.
Elaborate?
> two magic types of property. Personal and real property shitlibs love it
The wider issue here is just that of definitions. People don't understand how definitions work which leads to a lot of bizarre and illogical arguments. The fact that capitalism itself is a term distinct from trade, markets or exchange should clue people into the fact that capitalism isn't just those things. Unfortunately, these arguments mostly come from the free market fundamentalist crowd. Who are, for all intents and purposes, a cult.
I think one of the wider issues is that definitions don't meaningfully exist because words are just clusters of phonemes meant to heuristically relate to an aggregate of memes that pattern recognizing agents are expected to develop over time. Also that people keep insulting each other rather than asking clarifying questions. The amount of times I've had someone misread a statement here and then run off in another direction trying to tar and feather me for something I never said is... *a lot*, and I've only been here like a week.
>I frequently see people citing interpersonal exchanges, buying food, tools, equipment houses etc as something capitalism gave us as "free and uncoerced voluntary exchange of goods." No, its not what capitalism gave us. Its what capitalism IS.
"Capitalism is when people interact with each other!"
Holgrins inability to understand english is showing again.
No, you're grossly mistaken for trying to suggest that simple trades and economic interactions are "capitalism." That is pure, uneducated ignorance.
Again, you show your inability to understand english. You reversed implication, buddy.
Lol no, that *is* the argument you constructed.
No, your hatred towards facts disagreeing with your worldview corrupt your ability to read sentences. In this case, you misread my comment and reversed implication i made, thats why it looks like "uneducated ignrance" to you. Its because your delusion kicked in.
Can you elaborate? From that definition it sounds like me freely exchanging these words with you would be capitalism.
Capitalism is private ownership of MoP. Free trade necessitates it. OP makes a strawman "capitalism gave us free market", while in reality simply having (actual, non-fake) free market would make the economic system capitalist, due to capitalist principle being necessity for free market (you cant exchange goods freely, without having private ownership of said goods). Basically OP tries to dismiss capitalists argument based on his strawman version of actual capitalist argument.
I think I see where you're coming from. Would you mind elaborating on private ownership of the means of production? For context, to me ownership is the authority to decide how something is utilized and what is done with the product of its utilization. If the government tells you how to use something, and takes away a portion of its products, to me that is equivalent to them claiming partial ownership over the utilization of that property. At least, that is my understanding of why [regulated markets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy) are mixed capitalist/socialist systems.
Looking at your comments, you dont need much to elaborate, given you have there everything needed to make basic conclusions. Private ownership is simply ownership by private (non-public) entities. Depending on definition private means individual or family, public refers to collective/state (state being embodiment of organised collective). If government/state (public bodies) dictates economic action, it is public action. If private citizen dictates economic action, its private action. Not sure what you need to elaborate on, some questions would be nice, tough i will answer them tomorrow if you have any.
Oh, I was asking you to elaborate on your definition to make sure we're on the same page. To me saying "simply ownership" leaves it unclear if you mean economic ownership, or if you're include regulations/taxes, which is a point of contention that I find crops up between liberals and libertarians. I would also personally make a distinction between democratic state ownership (social ownership) and autocratic/oligarchic state ownership (class ownership). I think you categorize those as public/private action, if I'm following along?
>I think you categorize those as public/private action, if I'm following along? Pretty much, though there isnt much difference between "democratic state ownership" and "oligarchic state ownership" in practice. It is basically reduced to the same thing, as for organization purpose there will always be elite committee/public body required to secure "democratic" ownership and they will become the oligarchy. Bureaucracy scale problem.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. It feels like you may be making presuppositions that are leading you to conclude that democracy is inherently authoritarian?
Not "democratic", but "state" ownership is inherently authoritarian, so its not much different between democratic or oligarchic ownership, if its still state.
>"state" ownership is inherently authoritarian If you define ownership as having an inherent relationship to authority, and that the anarchism-statism continuum represents individual vs group authority, I suppose you could argue that. It would, however, make libertarianism anarcho-authoritarianist? That doesn't feel very wieldy. ..Honestly I'm not sure if you could argue that. >so its not much different between democratic or oligarchic ownership To me those are very different models of power distribution, so this comes across as somewhat confusing? Most forms of democracy have extensive checks and balances intended to prevent oligarchy. You could say failed democracies often devolve into oligarchies, but the same is true of failed non-democracies?
You're 100% correct. Unfortunately, as seen in the comments section, most of the people who need to hear it are unwilling to listen.
The free exchange of goods services equity was considered so natural by oour genius founding fathers that they did not consider any other system.
Our founding fathers didn't have toilet paper. And they took their ethics from the works of Greek slavers. It's possible we have better ways to do things than they did.
Actually we still live under their constitution and declaration, and it made us the most successful nation in all of human history by far. 1+1 = 2 keep in mind that we saved civilization on earth in two world wars and then re-created the world in our image and now police it for free in the name of liberty to save civilization on earth every day. America is so vast that you don't realize how vastly important it is. Today can be the first day of the rest of your life if you have the character and intelligence to learn from it.
Jefferson is still practicing his addition, good to see. Almost ready to try subtraction.
Good to see that you are consistently finding yourself too stupid to make a substantive comment on the topic. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
[Says the guy who got debunked by empirical studies and coped by simply ignoring them all.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/T0S7882Q5F) 💀 Projection is the tool of the ignorant.
empirical studies show that 200 years of freedom in America has resulted in .00003% of its workforce in co-ops.
Keep doing those mental gymnastics and ignore the data! 😭💀 But be careful, you need some brain power reserved to do your addition.
nobody is ignoring the data. It says that after 200 years .00003% of the American workforce is in co-ops. The idea of course never caught on because it is so stupid. Workers are not intelligent enough to run businesses which is why they are workers. 1+1 = 2 imagine you have one business run by stupid workers and another run by Harvard MBAs with 150 IQs and 40 years of successful management experience. Which company would go bankrupt?
"Workers are too stupid to run businesses" Debunked you with data. Worker-managed firms last longer. You ignored the data. Keep coping, little baby with your addition practice again. 😭
Pretty sure that was after the US did a bunch of genocides to establish hegemony over a fertile colonial empire. Also: >The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… >On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… >Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. -Thomas Jefferson
Nobody is denying genocides so what point you are making remains unknown. If you ever think of the point you are trying to make why don't you share it with us.
If you have any idea why you are quoting Thomas Jefferson why don't you let us know the reason you are quoting Thomas Jefferson.
Because I expect we're not bots and that you will be able to synthesize a heuristic understanding of social situations through context instead of needing to process it in a linear spoon-fed fashion. Think about it. Get back to me when you figure it out.
Actually, this is capitalism versus Socialism. Why don't you think about which you prefer and let us know the reason for your preference? How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
You didn't think about it. Get back to me when you do.
Capitalism and freedom are 2000 years old. If you think there is something not thought about it is because you are illiterate. Nevertheless tell me what you think it was and I will help you understand it.
You didn't think about it. Get back to me when you do.
>Capitalism and freedom are 2000 years old. Bruh, I need some of whatever you're huffing.
Capitalism is free trade.