sir, you have just committed the true-scotsman fallacy, i'm afraid we have to take away your posting privileges until further notice. thank you for your cooperation.
True Scotsman is when you keep moving the goal posts. I just have one clearly stated goal post of a definition and have stuck with it.
What most in this thread are committing is the strawman fallacy. Setting up a bad definition for capitalism and then saying all capitalism is bad when there are virtually no proponents of capitalism as defined by people in this thread (or the video)
Capitalism requires a central authoritarian government that forces its people, through violence, to allow the enclosure of the commons by the capitalist class, and to then continue protecting the capitalist class's absentee property claims. Any definition that doesn't acknowledge that is nonsense.
I can help you, kid. You seem to be quite lost. ‘Round these parts, we define capitalism as a political and economic system in which society is organized around the private ownership of the means of production (capital) and profit.
Now, I getcha wanna understand the world and how you might feel free buying a quart of milk instead of a cow. We all get it. But pardner’ money has existed much longer than capitalism, and in other economic modes some individuals have had tremendous latitude to use money in different ways. But in each system there have been restrictions about the use of money, even under capitalism. That is why your definition is so utopian and useless. Its not real.
Now pardner’ … how one individual relates to production within their economic system? Well, shucks, that thar is class. A serf was tied to the land to produce surplus food (value) for his lord, jus’ like the workin’ man is tied to his job. For the workin joe, he must rent his labor and time for less than the value it produces in order to make ends meat. The guy he is workin’ for? That guy is that capitalist. Now see, that thar sets them up fixin’ for a brawl, or what you might call an antagonistic class relationship. What is more, that poor workin’ joe might like his work, but as the boss man makes him worm harder and harder it robs him of his joy and connection to others. ‘Round these parts we call that alienation, pardner.
Fascism is a type of govenrment. Theoretically a benevolent fascism could possibly have a capitalism, but that would require the fascism to not interfere in the economy at all.
For America, we are a mix of capitalism and socialism. Compared to the rest of the world were more on the side of capitalism, but these days, I think Canada might be more capitalist than we are.
How fascist are we? Again that's a scale, but there are definitely some aspects of fascism that we exhibit. We also exhibit socialism in some ways too.
But that's not capitalism under any definition.
That's someone applying pure authoritarianism and fascism and naming it 'capitalism'. But it doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalism.
jesus fucking christ
sir, you have just committed the true-scotsman fallacy, i'm afraid we have to take away your posting privileges until further notice. thank you for your cooperation.
True Scotsman is when you keep moving the goal posts. I just have one clearly stated goal post of a definition and have stuck with it.
What most in this thread are committing is the strawman fallacy. Setting up a bad definition for capitalism and then saying all capitalism is bad when there are virtually no proponents of capitalism as defined by people in this thread (or the video)
Capitalism requires a central authoritarian government that forces its people, through violence, to allow the enclosure of the commons by the capitalist class, and to then continue protecting the capitalist class's absentee property claims. Any definition that doesn't acknowledge that is nonsense.
Do you have like, any understanding of anything at all? Not that liberal historical illiteracy is anything new.
I can help you, kid. You seem to be quite lost. ‘Round these parts, we define capitalism as a political and economic system in which society is organized around the private ownership of the means of production (capital) and profit.
Now, I getcha wanna understand the world and how you might feel free buying a quart of milk instead of a cow. We all get it. But pardner’ money has existed much longer than capitalism, and in other economic modes some individuals have had tremendous latitude to use money in different ways. But in each system there have been restrictions about the use of money, even under capitalism. That is why your definition is so utopian and useless. Its not real.
Now pardner’ … how one individual relates to production within their economic system? Well, shucks, that thar is class. A serf was tied to the land to produce surplus food (value) for his lord, jus’ like the workin’ man is tied to his job. For the workin joe, he must rent his labor and time for less than the value it produces in order to make ends meat. The guy he is workin’ for? That guy is that capitalist. Now see, that thar sets them up fixin’ for a brawl, or what you might call an antagonistic class relationship. What is more, that poor workin’ joe might like his work, but as the boss man makes him worm harder and harder it robs him of his joy and connection to others. ‘Round these parts we call that alienation, pardner.
This site needs more cowboy theory!
Out of curiosity, would you describe today's America as capitalist or fascist?
Capitalism to Socialism is an economic scale.
Fascism is a type of govenrment. Theoretically a benevolent fascism could possibly have a capitalism, but that would require the fascism to not interfere in the economy at all.
For America, we are a mix of capitalism and socialism. Compared to the rest of the world were more on the side of capitalism, but these days, I think Canada might be more capitalist than we are.
How fascist are we? Again that's a scale, but there are definitely some aspects of fascism that we exhibit. We also exhibit socialism in some ways too.
Benevolent fascism is by definition an oxymoron.
No, America is all capitalism; the workers do not own the means of production.
You exhibit no signs of socialism that I can see.
How do you manage to be so confident in your nonsense take when you clearly have done zero reading on the subject?