aidan comments on Tis a silly place

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (11 children)

But it does not meet the definition of capitalism you gave. I agree its also not entirely socialist. It's almost like its not a binary, most economies are mixed. The US is also not purely capitalist.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Capitalism and socialism are determined by what's principle. All economies have elements of private and public property, what matters is which is principle, and which class is in control. The US is capitalist, "purity" has nothing to do with that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

Except that is not the principle in either country. There are plenty of cases where the state is in principle in control, or actually in control. Russia, similar to other economies, such as fascist Italy or China is structured in such away where you can exist as a "private" company as long as you ultimately bow to the state. You could also put many of the gulf states into that club. If socialism is not "when government does stuff" then capitalism is not "when rich people"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

In China, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and the working class is in control of the state. I never once said capitalism is "when rich people" or that socialism is "when the government does stuff."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned

To not too dissimilar an extent as modern Russia

the working class is in control of the state.

Do you believe this for North Korea? If so, why not Russia?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

To a very dissimilar extent. The capitalists are in charge of the Russian state, and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Russia has more state-owned firms than some other capitalist countries, but that's about it, capitalists are thoroughly in control and private ownership is dominant.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

If the capitalists are in charge of the state, they are the state. So it is not privately owned, it is state owned, the state just doesn't serve the populace. That's not capitalism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

It's absolutely capitalism. All capitalist countries have capitalist power over the state.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Then is an absolute monarch capitalist? It is fundamentally a different system to have a state merged with corporation as compared to have them divorced. To deny that is to be intentionally obtuse.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Feudalism is its own mode of production.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

I didn't say feudalism. Though I agree, but why is it different from capitalism?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Feudalism is based on lordship of land, and peasantry paying rent in kind, ie agricultural produce and a portion of their production. Capitalism is based on wage labor and flow of commodities, industrialized production, etc. Feudal farming vs capitalist farming is quite stark, as an example.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent