Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425348]Did you read like a one paragraph synopsis of Marx and think you knew how the entire history of economic development worked?[/QUOTE] Are you gonna come with excuses for why these badly functioning countries doesn't count as capitalist?

[QUOTE=RB33;52425518]Are you gonna come with excuses for why these badly functioning countries doesn't count as capitalist?[/QUOTE] if he accepts those countries are capitalist can you accept that the USSR/china/NK/Venezuela were socialist :3?

[QUOTE=RB33;52425518]Are you gonna come with excuses for why these badly functioning countries doesn't count as capitalist?[/QUOTE] they are capitalist though i cant really think of any feudal or tribal countries around at the moment

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52425530]if he accepts those countries are capitalist can you accept that the USSR/china/NK/Venezuela were socialist :3?[/QUOTE] Sure, in a fucked-up socialist way that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52425530]if he accepts those countries are capitalist can you accept that the USSR/china/NK/Venezuela were socialist :3?[/QUOTE] Hardly. The law of value still operated within the USSR and there was still commodity production. Not only that, but the agricultural sectors of the USSR had private owners who would pay other farmers small wages in return for their work, just like a capitalist system. Please read Bordiga [url]https://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-workers-movement-agrarian-question-amadeo-bordiga[/url] [url]https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/commrus1.htm[/url] [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] Also to RB33, Socialism is more than just workers ownership, free healthcare and etc. It is the total abolishment of the present state of things, I would suggest you read Marx before posting about him.

[QUOTE=RB33;52425540]Sure, in a fucked-up socialist way that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.[/QUOTE] A lot of people socialists do. You'll find that many online socialists still cling to Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc.. [QUOTE=ImUnstoppable;52425564]Hardly. The law of value still operated within the USSR and there was still commodity production. Not only that, but the agricultural sectors of the USSR had private owners who would pay other farmers small wages in return for their work, just like a capitalist system. Please read Bordiga [url]https://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-workers-movement-agrarian-question-amadeo-bordiga[/url] [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] Also to RB33, Socialism is more than just workers ownership, free healthcare and etc. It is the total abolishment of the present state of things, I would suggest you read Marx before posting about him.[/QUOTE] I find a lot of people use the more general definition of workers ownership at this point. Usually it's the meme response of why the USSR wasn't socialist. You seem to be giving a much more orthodox old-school marxist definition. If we use that then the USSR was socialist, but only until the russian civil war began. From that point on, while the USSR was ran by socialists who wanted socialism, they pretty much locked themselves into state capitalism. Also we can tell that the bordiga link is ironic because an unironic bordigist wouldn't be reading FP because there's more bordiga to be read ;).

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52425608]A lot of people socialists do. You'll find that many online socialists still cling to Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc.. I find a lot of people use the more general definition of workers ownership at this point. Usually it's the meme response of why the USSR wasn't socialist. You seem to be giving a much more orthodox old-school marxist definition. If we use that then the USSR was socialist, but only until the russian civil war began. From that point on, while the USSR was ran by socialists who wanted socialism, they pretty much locked themselves into state capitalism. Also we can tell that the bordiga link is ironic because an unironic bordigist wouldn't be reading FP because there's more bordiga to be read ;).[/QUOTE] Ive read enough Bordiga, I am now reading Lukács.

[QUOTE=ImUnstoppable;52425564]Also to RB33, Socialism is more than just workers ownership, free healthcare and etc. It is the total abolishment of the present state of things, I would suggest you read Marx before posting about him.[/QUOTE] Some claim a welfare-state is socialism, then we have you claiming that not even worker ownership is socialism. There's ideologies aplenty on the left, no one has a monopoly on words.

[QUOTE=RB33;52425629]Some claim a welfare-state is socialism, then we have you claiming that not even worker ownership is socialism. There's ideologies aplenty on the left, no one has a monopoly on words.[/QUOTE] The reason the welfare state=socialism definition is terrible is that it renders socialism meaningless as everyone is made a socialist by its definition aside from literal anarchists. liberals should stick with calling it social democracy, ordoliberalism, etc.. We're not so starved for words that we have to go steal socialism.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52425635]The reason the welfare state=socialism definition is terrible is that it renders socialism meaningless as everyone is made a socialist by its definition aside from literal anarchists. liberals should stick with calling it social democracy, ordoliberalism, etc.. We're not so starved for words that we have to go steal socialism.[/QUOTE] I think you can find a fair bit of american conservatives who also doesn't fit into that definition.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52425537]they are capitalist though i cant really think of any feudal or tribal countries around at the moment[/QUOTE] Anarchy is not the same as capitalism. The vast majority of these countries have insanely corrupt governments, no real property rights, mass violence, no real legal system, etc. that all prevent them from really being capitalistic. Capitalism requires private property rights that are effectively protected and ensured, from both government corruption and violence.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425712]Anarchy is not the same as capitalism. The vast majority of these countries have insanely corrupt governments, no real property rights, mass violence, no real legal system, etc. that all prevent them from really being capitalistic. Capitalism requires private property rights that are effectively protected and ensured, from both government corruption and violence.[/QUOTE] they are essentially capitalist economies though. the majority of capital resources still lays in private hands. they use money, they have markets with pricing mechanisms, and people can still make money and invest much like they do in the west (albeit with more difficulty). capitalism doesn't need private property rights, it just needs private property to exist

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52425832]they are essentially capitalist economies though. the majority of capital resources still lays in private hands. they use money, they have markets with pricing mechanisms, and people can still make money and invest much like they do in the west (albeit with more difficulty). capitalism doesn't need private property rights, it just needs private property to exist[/QUOTE] Private property doesn't really exist if there's no consistent legal system to back it up. Private property doesn't mean I happen to be using it right now. It means I own it and have my rights to it guaranteed by the governmental system. It's not an inherent property of property. It's an established right by society.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52425863]Private property doesn't really exist if there's no consistent legal system to back it up. Private property doesn't mean I happen to be using it right now. It means I own it and have my rights to it guaranteed by the governmental system. It's not an inherent property of property. It's an established right by society.[/QUOTE] yes it does, we're talking about something that exists in practice and happens. black markets, grey markets, and white markets all operate off essentially the same rules and do more or less the same things (with varying degrees of legality). private property exists if you can use it as a private property in practice. even in countries where the government does not function the economies are not too appreciably different. the vast bulk of capital resources will still reside in private hands, and the same activities (buying and selling, investment, etc) will still operate. private property is yours by the fact that you exercise power over it, not by the fact that a legal system gives you the right to it (even then, legal systems and governments essentially back up and help reinforce your power over a particular private resources)

[QUOTE=RB33;52425116]Everyone who owns a company isn't sitting making decisions as its CEO. They let others do the work, while they watch the profits. [/QUOTE] You are absolutely clueless.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52426186]You are absolutely clueless.[/QUOTE] So you're telling they exist no people able to survive without working only due to the things they own? These people doesn't exist?

[QUOTE=RB33;52426287]So you're telling they exist no people able to survive without working only due to the things they own? These people doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] You can own a company without making regular returns off it. Example: stocks that don't payout dividends. Ownership is simply a share in the companies stock. If I buy one share of Tesla, I own a sliver of Tesla. I am part owner of Tesla Inc. [I]I own Tesla.[/I] But not enough to not work off it. Sure, there are a lot of rich schmucks out there that can afford to have their money work for them, but they account for a very small % of people. (while holding a large % of the wealth, to be fair) More often than not, unless the company is super old or has been bought out, the CEO is also the biggest shareholder. (See: Musk, Bezos, pre-retirement Gates) Owning companies doesn't make you automatically rich. It can also bankrupt you really fast if you're bad at it. As a shareholder you're responsible for the direction you want the company to go. You vote in shareholder meetings and can elect board members and choose whether or not to fire/hire the CEO. It comes with a lot of responsibility if you own any substantial amount of the companies stocks. If you want to make your money work for you, you're far better off just dumping your money into mutual funds/some other less risky investment vehicle. If you're own enough of a stock that people see you as "the owner" of the company, you're going to be very busy with your responsibilities if you want to stay rich. Now, you're not wrong with the definition of a capitalist, I just don't think it's a bad word. There are people who are Venture Capitalists who use their money to invest in start up businesses or incubate young ones. A lot of innovation would not be possible without these people shoveling money into companies. [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] If you wanna get mad at capitalists, get mad at shady bankers and landlords. Not business owners.

I'm mad at the system, since it's not the optimal for mankind. We still got progress to make. We can do better, but we won't as long as we trick ourselves into believing this is the best we will ever get.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52425927]yes it does, we're talking about something that exists in practice and happens. black markets, grey markets, and white markets all operate off essentially the same rules and do more or less the same things (with varying degrees of legality). private property exists if you can use it as a private property in practice. even in countries where the government does not function the economies are not too appreciably different. the vast bulk of capital resources will still reside in private hands, and the same activities (buying and selling, investment, etc) will still operate. private property is yours by the fact that you exercise power over it, not by the fact that a legal system gives you the right to it (even then, legal systems and governments essentially back up and help reinforce your power over a particular private resources)[/QUOTE] ... then every system ever is capitalistic because someone, or some group, owns it. Even in a socialist system, every person is a co-owner of everything. Reducing it down to the extreme basics makes it almost impossible to draw distinctions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52426771]... then every system ever is capitalistic because someone, or some group, owns it. Even in a socialist system, every person is a co-owner of everything. Reducing it down to the extreme basics makes it almost impossible to draw distinctions.[/QUOTE] there's a difference between one person exercising power/control, and multiple. there are also other importance aspects to having a capitalist society (such as a market system) by having an economy which is essentially capitalist [b]in practice[/b] you have a capitalist economy. those corrupt African nations with poor rule of law are still capitalist because resources are extracted, processed, and distributed in essentially the same way (as opposed to a subsistence agrarian society or a socialist one where the bulk of economic activity is actively directed, planned, etc instead of going through a normal market system)

[QUOTE=sgman91;52426771]... then every system ever is capitalistic because someone, or some group, owns it. Even in a socialist system, every person is a co-owner of everything. Reducing it down to the extreme basics makes it almost impossible to draw distinctions.[/QUOTE] Private and public property are different things, learn the difference.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52427060]there's a difference between one person exercising power/control, and multiple. there are also other importance aspects to having a capitalist society (such as a market system) by having an economy which is essentially capitalist [b]in practice[/b] you have a capitalist economy. those corrupt African nations with poor rule of law are still capitalist because resources are extracted, processed, and distributed in essentially the same way (as opposed to a subsistence agrarian society or a socialist one where the bulk of economic activity is actively directed, planned, etc instead of going through a normal market system)[/QUOTE] There's no requirement in capitalism that all property is owned by one person. Multi-owner businesses are extremely commonplace.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52427703]There's no requirement in capitalism that all property is owned by one person. Multi-owner businesses are extremely commonplace.[/QUOTE] It's the difference of ownership by the one or few versus the many or all. The first two private property, the other two public property.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52427703]There's no requirement in capitalism that all property is owned by one person. Multi-owner businesses are extremely commonplace.[/QUOTE] in a socialist system, ownership of property by one person doesn't exist. the point I was trying to make is that in a socialist economy, everything is held in common and ownership of say a farm by one person is unheard of. you're intentionally missing the point. if it functions like a capitalist economy and looks like one, then it is one. legislation doesn't really matter here

[QUOTE=RB33;52426287]So you're telling they exist no people able to survive without working only due to the things they own? These people doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] You wrote that everyone who owns a company is not sitting down making decisions as a CEO. Which implies that people who own a company, don't manage anything of it. They don't make decisions about the future of the company, they don't lead the company in the direction of improvement. No, according to you, they do nothing but counting money the whole day for up to 12 hours a day including the weekend in the office. And this is why I call you naive. When are you done antagonising people who made the right choice at the right time to be successful?

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52427845][B]You wrote that everyone who owns a company is not sitting down making decisions as a CEO.[/B] Which implies that people who own a company, don't manage anything of it. They don't make decisions about the future of the company, they don't lead the company in the direction of improvement.[/QUOTE] No, I did not say that. I meant 'everyone' as in all people are not managing their own business as a CEO or such. My point is that it's entirely possible to do it and that is what defines a capitalist (someone having the ability to do so). [QUOTE]No, according to you, they do nothing but counting money the whole day for up to 12 hours a day including the weekend in the office. And this is why I call you naive. When are you done antagonising people who made the right choice at the right time to be successful?[/QUOTE] Never, as long as I believe in socialism and the end of exploitation.

[QUOTE=RB33;52427930]No, I did not say that. I meant 'everyone' as in all people are not managing their own business as a CEO or such. My point is that it's entirely possible to do it and that is what defines a capitalist (someone having the ability to do so).[/QUOTE] Do you know any CEO personally? Or any business owner? Saying that they can simply stop managing or leading their company and everything will go on as usual is just very naive. [QUOTE]Never, as long as I believe in socialism and the end of exploitation.[/QUOTE] Why do you think that as long as there is the factor of humanity involved that there will be true socialism? All attempts at it failed.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52428908]Do you know any CEO personally? Or any business owner? Saying that they can simply stop managing or leading their company and everything will go on as usual is just very naive.[/QUOTE] They can afford with letting someone else do it and keep collecting their profits. Ordinary people don't have that luxury, because they don't own any companies. It doesn't matter if the company suffers as a result, the only important fact is that they can do so if they wish. [QUOTE]Why do you think that as long as there is the factor of humanity involved that there will be true socialism? All attempts at it failed.[/QUOTE] How many of those attempts have been democratic?

[QUOTE=RB33;52428965]They can afford with letting someone else do it and keep collecting their profits. Ordinary people don't have that luxury, because they don't own any companies. It doesn't matter if the company suffers as a result, the only important fact is that they can do so if they wish. How many of those attempts have been democratic?[/QUOTE] Look at Germany or Sweden (your own country) which have socialism with their welfare services, while also having a democratic process of electing representative parties. You can live your life by living on welfare in our countries, so does this make the jobless people capitalists? Think about it. They get money from the government, and the government takes the money in form of tax from workers. In your way of thinking the welfare receving unemployed are exploiting the hard working low wealth and middle class. It is even worse, they can't simply say "No, I don't want to be exploited by you, I switch the job", they will still have to pay taxes which support people receiving welfare. To clear up, this might sound like I am against a welfare state. This is not true, I support it. People might be injured in some way that they can't work a job. And these people should get support. This was just analyzation in the way of RB33.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52431458]Look at Germany or Sweden (your own country) which have socialism with their welfare services, while also having a democratic process of electing representative parties. You can live your life by living on welfare in our countries, so does this make the jobless people capitalists? Think about it. They get money from the government, and the government takes the money in form of tax from workers. In your way of thinking the welfare receving unemployed are exploiting the hard working low wealth and middle class. It is even worse, they can't simply say "No, I don't want to be exploited by you, I switch the job", they will still have to pay taxes which support people receiving welfare. To clear up, this might sound like I am against a welfare state. This is not true, I support it. People might be injured in some way that they can't work a job. And these people should get support. This was just analyzation in the way of RB33.[/QUOTE] Do ordinary people own the welfare and the state? Is that their property? It's a sum of money given to you as aid. You don't own whoever gave it to you. That's the difference.