Because we've been stuck with the teaching that "capitalism" is when you are allowed to buy what you want, own stuff, and get paid money for work.
That's it, that's the working definition of what capitalism is for most of us USA folks.
How many folks have even heard of the word 'capitalism'? I suspect people don't even identify a system much less place a name on it. Stuff like money, business, ownership is just taken for granted.
When I was a small child I was so frustrated because I kept trying to understand the origin and purpose of money, and why we had richer and poorer people, and adults could not answer my questions. My teachers never once used the word "capitalism." I knew I was living in some sort of system but I had no context for it. I fixated for a long time on this quote about fish not knowing what water is because it was the closest I could get to articulating the nameless frustration I was feeling.
I first heard of "system" in relation to climate change and the word "capitalism" at the very start of my radicalization well into my late teen years. In my history classes, socialism/communism was always juxtaposed not with capitalism but with democracy.
I had a similar frustration after being told "that's just life" to any questions I had about clear injustices
Most people I know would identify the American civic/economic system as something nebulous like democracy, freedom, liberty, etc and would only identify it as capitalism if specifically talking about large businesses or the use of money.
Well, in the 80's/90's when I was going through public education in the USA history text books and civics classes have sections that talk about it.
Maybe things have changed since then. :shrug-outta-hecks:
Capitalism is when you have two cows and you sell one to buy a bull!!!11!! :che-laugh:
Capitalism is when there is food and iPhone. Communism is when there is no food or iPhone.
Socialism is when there is one iPhone everyone has to share.
capitalism is when you buy things, the more you buy the more capitalist it gets
outsourcing labor to other countries to keep prices lower domestically
ok well that's one way to describe imperialism and colonialism
Yes I've seen people argue that capitalism is responsible for zero deaths because it's merely the exchange of goods and services (which even if that were the case would still be ridiculous to claim that it caused zero deaths)
That's neo-liberalism.
It's also convenient that the liberal so-called "left" in the U.S. supports neoliberal imperialism and global capitalism...and one group they never talk about is the American working class. The essence of globalization is: labor is commoditized as mobile capital is free to roam the globe for the lowest cost labor. In contrast, labor is far less mobile, and unable to shift as fluidly and frictionlessly as capital to exploit scarcities and opportunities. Neoliberalism--the opening of markets and borders--enables capital to effortlessly crush labor. The social democrats, in embracing open borders, have institutionalized an open immigration that shreds the scarcity value of domestic labor in favor of lower cost immigrant/overseas labor that serves capital's desire for lower costs.
See, the problem for the capitalist ruling classes is that global neoliberalism (i.e., globalism) is a really tough sell to regular folks. They can't just come out and explain to people that national sovereignty is essentially dead, and that political power now resides among a network of global corporations (which couldn't care less about their "nationality") exploiting a globalized labor market (which is why their "good jobs" are not coming back) and a globalized financial market (which is why almost everything is being privatized and their families are being debt-enslaved). Nor can they admit that the "War on Terror" and the European refugee crisis it has caused, and the chaos and slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, et cetera, is the predictable result of neo-liberalism aggressively restructuring the Greater Middle East, which it started doing more or less immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union (i.e., as soon as the final impediment to its pursuit of global hegemony was removed). This kind of thing doesn't go over very well, not with most regular working class people.
That’s neo-liberalism.
Which is capitalism. Neoliberalism is a really stupid term used by those leftists who want to contrast modern day capitalism to some past capitalism where things were much better. The tendency for increased pauperization and crises is inbuilt in capitalism, neoliberalism is not some new philosophy that is causing things(idealism), but the ideological justification for capitalism's current state.
Neoliberalism–the opening of markets and borders–enables capital to effortlessly crush labor. The social democrats, in embracing open borders, have institutionalized an open immigration that shreds the scarcity value of domestic labor in favor of lower cost immigrant/overseas labor that serves capital’s desire for lower costs.
This has been going on for 200 years, once again you are using neoliberalism to explain what capitalists normally do and have always done. It is not that "neoliberalism" suddenly became popular among the ruling class.
They can’t just come out and explain to people that national sovereignty is essentially dead, and that political power now resides among a network of global corporations (which couldn’t care less about their “nationality”) exploiting a globalized labor market (which is why their “good jobs” are not coming back) and a globalized financial market (which is why almost everything is being privatized and their families are being debt-enslaved).
You are completely clueless if you think "national sovereignity is dead". Not only are nation-states the primary holders of political power, but imperialism literally is about nation-states constantly using all means possible to gain advantages for their national capitalists.
exploiting a globalized labor market (which is why their “good jobs” are not coming back)
What reactionary nonsense is this? Declining real wages and the precarity of the proletariat in the West is not just because of globalization, but mainly from the lack of class struggle on the side of the working class, and from the natural dynamics of capitalism.
If you consider the international proletariat, then "neoliberalism" has resulted in massive improvements in the wages and conditions of the working class in China and India. China would not have developed as it has if the West didnt export its manufacturing and if it remained protectionist. Same goes for India which only began developing with the liberalization of its economy. So if you were consistent about the logical path you are taking, you would conclude the the neoliberal phase since the 80s resulted in massive improvement in living standards of 2.7 billion people.
globalized financial market (which is why almost everything is being privatized and their families are being debt-enslaved).
What does "globalization of finance" have to do with privatization and debt-slavery? You are not explaining anything by using buzzwords and pretending you're making a point. Nationalization of certain industries is done only if it favors the capitalist class as a whole, like national healthcare or national railways etc. The privatization of these, is also done if the capitalist class wants to do so, for increased private profits for example. Nationalization vs privatization is what social democrats and other petit-bourgs worry about, for communists and for the working class in general, it doesn't really matter. Debt-slavery can be the result of many things like declining wages and inflation, not just "globalized finance".
Nor can they admit that the “War on Terror” and the European refugee crisis it has caused, and the chaos and slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, et cetera, is the predictable result of neo-liberalism aggressively restructuring the Greater Middle East, which it started doing more or less immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union
Why are you using this stupid term to explain different things? The wars in the Middle East are standard imperialist wars, that have been going on for centuries, to replace uncooperative states with states that are more pliant to the imperialist interests.
I suggest you read Marx to understand basic facts about the nature of capitalism and class society, instead of regurgitating whatever nonsense you have learnt from other leftist idiots who probably explained what you know to you.
Buying power and cost of living was kept at a high-low level in the imperial core through imperialist expansion even before neoliberalism (Reagan onwards) took hold. Yeah that took it to another level but it was a major part before it, even during the new deal , even for the post war european social democracies. Saying "its neoliberalism" is wrong and kinda shifts the focus very heavily on "the newer more bad capitalism mode" while these all happened at a massive scale at any era of imperialism. Its a foundmental goal and innevitable outcome outcome of the western imperial core-third world imperialist exploitative relationship since both of these things were a thing.
Got any recommendations to read about how national sovereignty is essentially dead?
It's complete nonsense, it's only true for smaller nations that are dominated by imperialists, but the poster is talking about the Western imperialist states, which very much have national sovereignty.
Capitalism is when you own large farms with cheap illegal labor but you vote for Trump. The American confusion in regards to capitalism is only surpassed by their confused fealty to the flag
That's globalism. Capitalism is when your payday lender sells your debt to Dog the Bounty Hunter.
No that's moneylending. capitalism is when you pay someone a wage to produce commodities for the purposes of exchange
This is why the whole globalist/nationalist dichotomy had to be invented out of thin air about 5 years ago. International commerce is globalist and actually bad so all nations need to have full autarky to be real capitalism. Or something.
It's not an entirely invented thing. It matters so little for workers it feels made up, but there are a lot of shortsighted small business types that buy into it. There is a growing group of people with some limited power that believe it.
Oh yeah, it could be regional bourgeoisie (domestic manufacturing, fracking, agriculture, etc) struggling against the dominant power of international financial interests. So the only real globalist ideological stance there is just to make money with the cheapest labor available.
capitalism is when good things happen, communism is when bad things happen - like its not complicated, when will you people learn??!? :wojak-nooo:
socialism is when brown people
capitalism is when white people
