I don’t really fit in that well here at times because I don’t consider Capitalism as having anything to do with governance. Capitalism is a market system that uses competition to drive efficiency of creation of satisfaction of needs and luxuries both. If your democratic system of laws is being leveraged by highly efficient non-state entities, then you should really fix that shit, but fixing it doesn’t require abolishing private property nor would that end corruption.
I want to abolish private property, as in “private ownership of the means of production”. I don’t want to abolish personal property such as your house or your toothbrush, neither does anyone, which is proven by the home ownership rates in communist or post-communist countries hovering or being above 90%, compared to the sad 50% of Germany and slightly higher values in the US or UK.
I don’t consider Capitalism as having anything to do with governance
Then you don’t know what capitalism is because you haven’t cared to educate yourself about it.
Capitalism is a market system
No, it’s not, it’s a social system which defines class relations, and markets are only part of it. There were markets in late feudalism but there was no capitalism. Markets are a necessary condition for capitalism, but not the only one.
Capitalism is the system where the means of production are owned by private individuals called bourgeoisie or capitalists, and they’re worked on exchange for a wage worth less than what they produce by other private individuals called workers or proletariat. The class relations are by means of legal and theoretically voluntary contracts enforced by a government, as opposed to, for example, the god-given right of a king to put his peasants to work during feudalism.
that uses competition to drive efficiency of creation of satisfaction of needs and luxuries both
It doesn’t “use” competition, competition is sometimes a condition, but capitalism works actively against competition. Free markets and competition initially mean that some companies will fare better than others, and of those which fare better, some will invest more in increasing their productive capabilities and their efficiency, through technological means and through economy of scale. The foundation of capitalism is that capital has to revalorize itself, which is equivalent to saying bigger companies will necessarily either become bigger or die. This ends up in monopolies, oligopolies, trusts and cartels, as we see in the case of Google, Amazon, Walmart, car manufacturing, computing, or basically every single sector of the economy at this point.
If your democratic system of laws is being leveraged by highly efficient non-state entities
It is, because they can lobby politicians and corrupt them, and because the media are owned by these powerful owners of capital.
then you should really fix that shit, but fixing it doesn’t require abolishing private property
Ok, any other historical solutions that have worked? Progressive democratic movements such as Salvador Allende in Chile, or the Spanish second republic, or the Iranian secular progressive government of Mosaddegh (I could go on for 500 lines citing examples but you get the point), were historically ended by fascism when the owners of the means of production see that their profits are going to diminish in favour of the majority. More recent examples are the lawfare cases against Lula da Silva in Brazil, or against Podemos in Spain, or the coup in Bolivia against Evo Morales. Can you propose a realistic and historically proven method of preventing this from happening other than workers organizing (as socialists defend) and leftists taking control of the institutions?
nor would that end corruption.
Nobody claims it would end corruption, the fight against corruption is permanent, and the best ways to deal with it are the highest possible degrees of transparency and democracy. Private companies aren’t democratic by their nature, and aren’t required to be transparent. In fact corruption in most cases isn’t even defined in private companies. Nepotism isn’t a crime, it’s my company I’ll hire whomever I want. I need a renovation in my building, I’ll pay my friend to do it even if it’s more expensive because I owe him a favour, it’s my company. So yeah, can’t have corruption when it’s legal right?
Ok, any other historical solutions that have worked?
Most of Europe has phenomenal education and happiness rates with low crime rates despite the massive impoverished refugee camps they’ve taken in out of goodwill. If competent legislative reform and regulation doesn’t work then businesses wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail to stop it. Better question: When has that other option ever worked?
It doesn’t “use” competition, competition is sometimes a condition, but capitalism works actively against competition.
And the absolute authority of the state to seize any and all assets, allocate all resources wherever they see fit, works actively against competition to a much higher degree, among the many other reasons not to do that. For an example look at Chinese housing infrastructure: everybody was built a home, massive complexes paid for by the public built by lowest bidders and people with connections rather than by developers and contractors. The problem is the homes weren’t built in the places those people live and work, so there is a massive homelessness problem in China and many housing units have sat vacant since they were built. And the amount of blood sacrificed to build this ineffective system under Mao was astronomical.
And that’s a controversial take. I could have brought up the USSR.
I don’t really fit in that well here at times because I don’t consider Capitalism as having anything to do with governance. Capitalism is a market system that uses competition to drive efficiency of creation of satisfaction of needs and luxuries both. If your democratic system of laws is being leveraged by highly efficient non-state entities, then you should really fix that shit, but fixing it doesn’t require abolishing private property nor would that end corruption.
Who wants to abolish private property? You don’t need capitalism to have private property.
Some users on here use Capitalism as an opposite term to Communism.
I want to abolish private property, as in “private ownership of the means of production”. I don’t want to abolish personal property such as your house or your toothbrush, neither does anyone, which is proven by the home ownership rates in communist or post-communist countries hovering or being above 90%, compared to the sad 50% of Germany and slightly higher values in the US or UK.
Then you don’t know what capitalism is because you haven’t cared to educate yourself about it.
No, it’s not, it’s a social system which defines class relations, and markets are only part of it. There were markets in late feudalism but there was no capitalism. Markets are a necessary condition for capitalism, but not the only one.
Capitalism is the system where the means of production are owned by private individuals called bourgeoisie or capitalists, and they’re worked on exchange for a wage worth less than what they produce by other private individuals called workers or proletariat. The class relations are by means of legal and theoretically voluntary contracts enforced by a government, as opposed to, for example, the god-given right of a king to put his peasants to work during feudalism.
It doesn’t “use” competition, competition is sometimes a condition, but capitalism works actively against competition. Free markets and competition initially mean that some companies will fare better than others, and of those which fare better, some will invest more in increasing their productive capabilities and their efficiency, through technological means and through economy of scale. The foundation of capitalism is that capital has to revalorize itself, which is equivalent to saying bigger companies will necessarily either become bigger or die. This ends up in monopolies, oligopolies, trusts and cartels, as we see in the case of Google, Amazon, Walmart, car manufacturing, computing, or basically every single sector of the economy at this point.
It is, because they can lobby politicians and corrupt them, and because the media are owned by these powerful owners of capital.
Ok, any other historical solutions that have worked? Progressive democratic movements such as Salvador Allende in Chile, or the Spanish second republic, or the Iranian secular progressive government of Mosaddegh (I could go on for 500 lines citing examples but you get the point), were historically ended by fascism when the owners of the means of production see that their profits are going to diminish in favour of the majority. More recent examples are the lawfare cases against Lula da Silva in Brazil, or against Podemos in Spain, or the coup in Bolivia against Evo Morales. Can you propose a realistic and historically proven method of preventing this from happening other than workers organizing (as socialists defend) and leftists taking control of the institutions?
Nobody claims it would end corruption, the fight against corruption is permanent, and the best ways to deal with it are the highest possible degrees of transparency and democracy. Private companies aren’t democratic by their nature, and aren’t required to be transparent. In fact corruption in most cases isn’t even defined in private companies. Nepotism isn’t a crime, it’s my company I’ll hire whomever I want. I need a renovation in my building, I’ll pay my friend to do it even if it’s more expensive because I owe him a favour, it’s my company. So yeah, can’t have corruption when it’s legal right?
Most of Europe has phenomenal education and happiness rates with low crime rates despite the massive impoverished refugee camps they’ve taken in out of goodwill. If competent legislative reform and regulation doesn’t work then businesses wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail to stop it. Better question: When has that other option ever worked?
And the absolute authority of the state to seize any and all assets, allocate all resources wherever they see fit, works actively against competition to a much higher degree, among the many other reasons not to do that. For an example look at Chinese housing infrastructure: everybody was built a home, massive complexes paid for by the public built by lowest bidders and people with connections rather than by developers and contractors. The problem is the homes weren’t built in the places those people live and work, so there is a massive homelessness problem in China and many housing units have sat vacant since they were built. And the amount of blood sacrificed to build this ineffective system under Mao was astronomical.
And that’s a controversial take. I could have brought up the USSR.