Jesus fuckin’ christ, you always have the most undercooked, read-the-first-half, dumb as fuck middle schooler interpretation takes on everything. You need to stop hammering nails halfway in and actually do some understanding of concepts.
Capitalism, by definition, is a system not a tool. “Free market” may be a tool. “Private ownership of capital” may be a tool. “Free contracts of employment between individual economical agents” may be a tool. But the conjunction of those things is what defines the system of capitalism.
Like I say, children think of capitalism as a system. The right wing believes this too. Children arguing with children.
“I am not going to actually explain what I think people are getting wrong. I’m just going to pretend I know more than everyone else to give myself a false sense of superiority.”
Economics is a whole field of study. You expect me to teach a University class in a web forum thread?
You’re choosing narratives over listening to experts. I’m not an expert on economics, but I’ve learned enough to know that best case leftists are grifters, and worst case they are true believers that might actually try to implement economic policy without consulting with experts.
Finance != Economics. Financial dumbassery can impact economics and economics will improve finances, there’s a relationship but they aren’t the same thing.
People learned the long lesson from the energy crisis in the 1970s, choosing “supply side” economics, which is putting the financial sector in charge of economics, and that’s resulted in an upside down economy. People learned the wrong lesson from the energy crisis, should’ve learned to end our dependence on oil, but people got bamboozled into thinking Reagan good and Carter bad. Now we’re in a situation where we can’t make the economy function properly because half the electorate is convinced the anything other than supply side economics is literally communism, and a significant portion of other half of the electorate is becoming convinced that they should support other failed economic policies in opposition to the failed supply side policies.
Many of the economic problems we’re facing have happened before, and instead of considering those policies (trust-busting, Keynesian economics, taxes on the wealthy) you’re presented with a choice between different paths to economic failure.
If you had specific knowledge you wanted to impart you might be able to teach something. You’re not going to teach anything through snark.
You think if you come into a random thread with vague statements calling people ignorant while providing no actual information we’re going to rush to sit at your feet asking questions? Either make posts that actually have useful information in them or fuck off.
Capitalism can co-exist with socialism in the same economic system
Lemme guess: “socialism is when the government does stuff. And the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. And when the government does a real lotta stuff, that’s communism”
Communism is when authoritarians impose socialism for weirdo ideological reasons. Libertarianism is when people want capitalism control every sector of the economy, also for ideological reasons.
“Weirdo ideological reasons” such as belief in equality of opportunities, belief in universal free education, healthcare and pensions, belief in worker rights or belief in the right to housing and of employment. Those weird to you?
Belief in at dictatorship of the proletariat and “the state will wither away” and all of the nonsense around how capitalism and imperialism corrupted science, etc.
The biggest famines in history weren’t caused by natural disasters, they were caused by weirdo ideology.
Well he’s a corporate socialist (wanting a system for the benefit for corporations) similar to Xi Jinping (who Trump admires). But fascists call themselves whatever will get them power, so I guess Trump calls himself a Republican and Xi calls himself a Communist. So use what they label themselves or choose your own labels.
You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line. But within the same country you could still have private businesses. And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it. It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
But if the majority of the productive forces are primarily privately owned it is a capitalist system. Capitalist and socialist as adjectives are separate from ‘Capitalism’ as an economic system. What you are describing is a capitalist system with socialist elements and sounds like what most developed nations have today.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done, any society will require work and civic diligence until we could build the technology to be in as some call it ‘Fully-automated luxury gay space communism’ or FALGSC.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done
It’s what Marxism is about isn’t it? Leftism is heavily influenced by Marxism, you hear leftists often say “late stage capitalism” without thinking how stupid the implications of that phrase are. Constant references to Star Trek abound, without realizing that show is actually agnostic on economics, they use an ideal system, but the writers don’t know what that would be. “Post-scarcity economy” is another phrase that’s used often.
Overall this indicates leftists don’t actually know anything about economics, they’re just unhappy with how things are going and have no idea how to fix it. Not significantly different than the MAGA movement, just putting faith into narratives that feel right to them.
In what way is that what Marxism is about? And anyway there have been a lot of developments in socialist theory since Marx. What implications of the phrase “late-stage capitalism” are you referring to?
Children think of capitalism as a system. Economists think of capitalism as a tool.
So it’s just going to be children arguing against children with no one even trying to learn anything?
Jesus fuckin’ christ, you always have the most undercooked, read-the-first-half, dumb as fuck middle schooler interpretation takes on everything. You need to stop hammering nails halfway in and actually do some understanding of concepts.
Back at ya.
Oof, fuckin’ got me, good one.
Capitalism, by definition, is a system not a tool. “Free market” may be a tool. “Private ownership of capital” may be a tool. “Free contracts of employment between individual economical agents” may be a tool. But the conjunction of those things is what defines the system of capitalism.
Like I say, children think of capitalism as a system. The right wing believes this too. Children arguing with children.
Capitalism can co-exist with socialism in the same economic system. Happens in many countries. Just Americans can’t make that work.
metastatic Cancer can coexist with healthy tissues,
look at all the terminal cancer patients that are still alive
“I am not going to actually explain what I think people are getting wrong. I’m just going to pretend I know more than everyone else to give myself a false sense of superiority.”
Economics is a whole field of study. You expect me to teach a University class in a web forum thread?
You’re choosing narratives over listening to experts. I’m not an expert on economics, but I’ve learned enough to know that best case leftists are grifters, and worst case they are true believers that might actually try to implement economic policy without consulting with experts.
I guess we’ll need to wait and see on Mamdani.
Removed by mod
Finance != Economics. Financial dumbassery can impact economics and economics will improve finances, there’s a relationship but they aren’t the same thing.
People learned the long lesson from the energy crisis in the 1970s, choosing “supply side” economics, which is putting the financial sector in charge of economics, and that’s resulted in an upside down economy. People learned the wrong lesson from the energy crisis, should’ve learned to end our dependence on oil, but people got bamboozled into thinking Reagan good and Carter bad. Now we’re in a situation where we can’t make the economy function properly because half the electorate is convinced the anything other than supply side economics is literally communism, and a significant portion of other half of the electorate is becoming convinced that they should support other failed economic policies in opposition to the failed supply side policies.
Many of the economic problems we’re facing have happened before, and instead of considering those policies (trust-busting, Keynesian economics, taxes on the wealthy) you’re presented with a choice between different paths to economic failure.
I’m expecting for you to say something by way of explanation. “Some Rando Lemming said so” is not going to convince anybody.
“If you cannot explain it simply, then you do not understand it.”
If you had specific questions on how things worked, then you might be able to learn something. You’re not going to learn anything by through snark.
If you had specific knowledge you wanted to impart you might be able to teach something. You’re not going to teach anything through snark.
You think if you come into a random thread with vague statements calling people ignorant while providing no actual information we’re going to rush to sit at your feet asking questions? Either make posts that actually have useful information in them or fuck off.
It by definition cannot and does not anywhere.
you’re thinking of “social democracy” which is capitalist and not at all socialist.
Lemme guess: “socialism is when the government does stuff. And the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. And when the government does a real lotta stuff, that’s communism”
Communism is when authoritarians impose socialism for weirdo ideological reasons. Libertarianism is when people want capitalism control every sector of the economy, also for ideological reasons.
Both are stupid.
“Weirdo ideological reasons” such as belief in equality of opportunities, belief in universal free education, healthcare and pensions, belief in worker rights or belief in the right to housing and of employment. Those weird to you?
Belief in at dictatorship of the proletariat and “the state will wither away” and all of the nonsense around how capitalism and imperialism corrupted science, etc.
The biggest famines in history weren’t caused by natural disasters, they were caused by weirdo ideology.
Ergo Trump is a communist. Case and point
Well he’s a corporate socialist (wanting a system for the benefit for corporations) similar to Xi Jinping (who Trump admires). But fascists call themselves whatever will get them power, so I guess Trump calls himself a Republican and Xi calls himself a Communist. So use what they label themselves or choose your own labels.
‘Case in point’ ffs
What does it mean for socialism and capitalism to co-exist in one system?
You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line. But within the same country you could still have private businesses. And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it. It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
But if the majority of the productive forces are primarily privately owned it is a capitalist system. Capitalist and socialist as adjectives are separate from ‘Capitalism’ as an economic system. What you are describing is a capitalist system with socialist elements and sounds like what most developed nations have today.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done, any society will require work and civic diligence until we could build the technology to be in as some call it ‘Fully-automated luxury gay space communism’ or FALGSC.
It’s what Marxism is about isn’t it? Leftism is heavily influenced by Marxism, you hear leftists often say “late stage capitalism” without thinking how stupid the implications of that phrase are. Constant references to Star Trek abound, without realizing that show is actually agnostic on economics, they use an ideal system, but the writers don’t know what that would be. “Post-scarcity economy” is another phrase that’s used often.
Overall this indicates leftists don’t actually know anything about economics, they’re just unhappy with how things are going and have no idea how to fix it. Not significantly different than the MAGA movement, just putting faith into narratives that feel right to them.
In what way is that what Marxism is about? And anyway there have been a lot of developments in socialist theory since Marx. What implications of the phrase “late-stage capitalism” are you referring to?