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!
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!