Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.[6][7]
Yes and we have none of that because the government interferes with everything. Look I am not going to debate capitalism here, it's a bit offtopic to this article. But we could debate it elsewhere. Right now we have a common goal to make Steemit succeed, and we should work on that.
I'm simply resopnding to the claim that I don't know the definition of real capitalism, a preposterous claim that I easily refuted, because the definition is public and universal.
Changing the language is a bad way to try to drive home your point.
And capitalism is not evil, but it is a system of structural oppression, where those who are not born into privilege have a very hard time to get anywhere, let alone reach a decent living standard.
Property is not "natural" it is a modern invention ,and it's the basis of capitalist structural oppression.
We have one world, and we have certain resources, acutally we have abundant resources, and they need to be shared.
Not sharing enforced by a governments, but sharing as an inherent part of the structure of society, of how we govern our communities.
The obvious ideal is that the decisions and the control over resources should be local, and benficial to all within the local community.
This is the basis of the communalist ideal.
Local "democracy" (real democracy) mutual aid, collaboration , and stewardship over the eartth following ecological principles.
The idea that you can "own" something beyond neccesary personal property like a house or a guitar, is an abstraction, and destructive to the whole of society.
Considering nature to be property that can be exploited for profits, and people as workers that can be exploited for profits , is the essence of capitalism, whether or not this capitalism is supported by state violence, or in some anarcho-capitalist dystopia, where capitalist structural oppression over the planet and the people would be enforcced by private "security" firms.
The idea that you can "own" something beyond neccesary personal property like a house...
So you can legitimately "own" a house? Then that means you can legitimately "own" the land on which the house sits. And you can likewise "own" the wood - and thus, the trees - from which the house was made. You're admitting that exclusive claims of land resources for the benefit of one individual is legitimate - and even "necessary." This contradicts your anti-property theories.
And capitalism is not evil, but it is a system of structural oppression...
I suppose if you see property as evil (which you obviously do not, since you think private ownership of land resources is "necessary"), then you'll naturally think that using such property for financial gain is "structural oppression." Does it matter to you if this "capitalism" actually improves the living conditions of those who participate in the economic system? Or do you only see the relative "poorness" of certain people as proof of its shortcomings, regardless of why those people are relatively poor compared to others? Do you only fault "capitalism" for all of the poorness, or do you look at other factors that may be causing it?
Property is not "natural" it is a modern invention ,and it's the basis of capitalist structural oppression.
Modern, as in, just the last couple of centuries? Or modern, as in, since the dawn of "modern" civilization? And are we talking about "property," or are we talking about the nonsensical attempt to distinguish "personal" property from "private" property? I'm not a communist, so I don't make such absurd distinctions about claims of ownership.
My toothbrush is mine, whether I only use it myself, or let my friend use it for a nickel per brush when needed. I don't instantly become an evil oppressor when they need to clean their teeth and don't have any other way to do it, do I? Or should I just let everyone who needs a toothbrush use mine until its destroyed, then use my own time and labor to acquire a new one for myself to use - and for everyone else who needs to use it as well? Maybe they should get their own toothbrush or fairly compensate me for using and wearing down mine?
My idea is 100% capitalist. What we have today in the world is not capitalism. I think you don't know the definition of real capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.[6][7]
Yes and we have none of that because the government interferes with everything. Look I am not going to debate capitalism here, it's a bit offtopic to this article. But we could debate it elsewhere. Right now we have a common goal to make Steemit succeed, and we should work on that.
That doesn't sound evil to me. What's wrong with property and property owners managing it? Seems to be the natural state of things.
I'm simply resopnding to the claim that I don't know the definition of real capitalism, a preposterous claim that I easily refuted, because the definition is public and universal.
Changing the language is a bad way to try to drive home your point.
And capitalism is not evil, but it is a system of structural oppression, where those who are not born into privilege have a very hard time to get anywhere, let alone reach a decent living standard.
Property is not "natural" it is a modern invention ,and it's the basis of capitalist structural oppression.
We have one world, and we have certain resources, acutally we have abundant resources, and they need to be shared.
Not sharing enforced by a governments, but sharing as an inherent part of the structure of society, of how we govern our communities.
The obvious ideal is that the decisions and the control over resources should be local, and benficial to all within the local community.
This is the basis of the communalist ideal.
Local "democracy" (real democracy) mutual aid, collaboration , and stewardship over the eartth following ecological principles.
The idea that you can "own" something beyond neccesary personal property like a house or a guitar, is an abstraction, and destructive to the whole of society.
Considering nature to be property that can be exploited for profits, and people as workers that can be exploited for profits , is the essence of capitalism, whether or not this capitalism is supported by state violence, or in some anarcho-capitalist dystopia, where capitalist structural oppression over the planet and the people would be enforcced by private "security" firms.
So you can legitimately "own" a house? Then that means you can legitimately "own" the land on which the house sits. And you can likewise "own" the wood - and thus, the trees - from which the house was made. You're admitting that exclusive claims of land resources for the benefit of one individual is legitimate - and even "necessary." This contradicts your anti-property theories.
I suppose if you see property as evil (which you obviously do not, since you think private ownership of land resources is "necessary"), then you'll naturally think that using such property for financial gain is "structural oppression." Does it matter to you if this "capitalism" actually improves the living conditions of those who participate in the economic system? Or do you only see the relative "poorness" of certain people as proof of its shortcomings, regardless of why those people are relatively poor compared to others? Do you only fault "capitalism" for all of the poorness, or do you look at other factors that may be causing it?
Modern, as in, just the last couple of centuries? Or modern, as in, since the dawn of "modern" civilization? And are we talking about "property," or are we talking about the nonsensical attempt to distinguish "personal" property from "private" property? I'm not a communist, so I don't make such absurd distinctions about claims of ownership.
My toothbrush is mine, whether I only use it myself, or let my friend use it for a nickel per brush when needed. I don't instantly become an evil oppressor when they need to clean their teeth and don't have any other way to do it, do I? Or should I just let everyone who needs a toothbrush use mine until its destroyed, then use my own time and labor to acquire a new one for myself to use - and for everyone else who needs to use it as well? Maybe they should get their own toothbrush or fairly compensate me for using and wearing down mine?