Capital does not mean “for profit,” Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you’d read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that’s just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That’s wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You’re one of the most incoherent right-wingers I’ve encountered, I’ll tell you that much.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
FOR PROFIT
#FOR PROFIT
How is that hard for you to understand?
I love how you keep pretending you’ve read Das Kapital. “But markets existed before Marx!”
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them
by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who’s even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I’m enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you’ve missed of the book you’ve definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn’t a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That’s what Marx’s whole book is about.
I’d say “nice try”, but it really, really wasn’t a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
We don’t lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don’t have one in law. You don’t understand what “de jure” and “de facto” mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland’s government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn’t come from the law. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and “rightwinger”? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you’re smoking, I’m begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it’s a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven’t read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it’s stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn’t. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
for sale, ie for profit.
Selling something doesn’t mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn’t.
It’s things like that which show you’ve not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I’m gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you’re a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can’t link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it’s not within socialism. Again. And you don’t understand how ridiculous that is. “For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta.” is equally ridiculous a sentence as “Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism”
Again, repeating the “believe me”. If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the “community as a whole”? (That’s a rhetoric question, as I said I’m quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I’ve had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren’t ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production.
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I’ would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn’t make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it’s still Capitalism.
Yes, you’re a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!
Capital does not mean “for profit,” Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you’d read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that’s just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That’s wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You’re one of the most incoherent right-wingers I’ve encountered, I’ll tell you that much.
You still can’t give a simple definition of capitalism. You simply don’t even understand what the word means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
#FOR PROFIT
How is that hard for you to understand?
I love how you keep pretending you’ve read Das Kapital. “But markets existed before Marx!”
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who’s even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I’m enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you’ve missed of the book you’ve definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn’t a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That’s what Marx’s whole book is about.
I’d say “nice try”, but it really, really wasn’t a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
We don’t lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don’t have one in law. You don’t understand what “de jure” and “de facto” mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland’s government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn’t come from the law. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and “rightwinger”? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you’re smoking, I’m begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it’s a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven’t read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it’s stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn’t. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
Selling something doesn’t mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn’t.
It’s things like that which show you’ve not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I’m gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you’re a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can’t link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it’s not within socialism. Again. And you don’t understand how ridiculous that is. “For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta.” is equally ridiculous a sentence as “Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism”
Again, repeating the “believe me”. If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the “community as a whole”? (That’s a rhetoric question, as I said I’m quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I’ve had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren’t ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I’ would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn’t make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it’s still Capitalism.
Yes, you’re a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!