About Socialism

Actually, it's about both. That's why modern capitalism emerged via enclosures, which involve takeover of public land, and then the use of state power to legitimize private property ownership.

Also, capitalism is not just about markets. You will have to figure out by yourself why that is so.

 

You're not getting the point. Even bartering involves a market. That means capitalism means more than just trading in a market. The clue lies in the word used to form it: capital.

Do you know what that means?

 

Again you can not have any sort of human organization, without some form of governance. Governance in and of itself is not socialism.

 

The former uses principles from the latter via public corporations.

Capitalism does not refer to markets but to profits earned from trade or funds borrowed to expand production.

Government is needed to legitimize the private ownership of the means of production, to allow businesses to use fiat currencies, to allow the same to receive limited liability, to use shared infrastructure, etc.

 

Yes I know what capital is, money, a medium of exchange throughout human history there have been various mediums of exchange some of rather dubious utility. Rome had money. One of the little known details of WWII was a German attempt to flood Britain with counterfeit currency. The counterfeit was of such high quality that the brits simply outsourced their currency production for a limited time to German counterfeiters.

 

You're getting confused. I didn't argue that capitalism doesn't exist if precious metals are used. Rather, capitalist systems could no longer rely on them because the level of credit needed was far larger than the amount of metals available.

 

From there, do you understand what was done with the money earned from trade? That's the only way you will be able to define "capitalism" correctly.

 

Credit does not require money. Credit is just a loan. The money gets paid back later.

There was credit in 1963, you know.

 

Far to complicated you don't need government to legitimize private ownership of the means of production which has existed since the first caveman produced the first flint tipped spear.

 

What i find interesting is that so many complain about the American way, yet it's the Country that has had the highest influx of immigrants over decades. Why aren't all these people flocking to Finland? something about the American way that mysteriously pulls in all these immigrants...

and to your point, socialism works fine when it's managed by highly educated and productive people. It works quite well in Finland, Denmark but these Countries have the less diverse, more educated, much smaller populations. When you try socialism in a country with a huge population of uneducated, ignorant, lazy bums... you turn into Venezuela. The difference between Finland and Venezuela is simply the people, Venezuela has the masses of violent, uneducated, thugs who don't know how to run a Country or make socialism work, socialism empowers these people. You get chaos... You try socialism in a country inhabited by educated, law abiding citizens who are mostly well off, and you get something rather well organized and well run. The issue in U.S is that the uneducated, ignorant, lazy, poor people who want to live off others has increased dramatically in past decades (thanks to bad trade policies, huge influx of immigrants, bad public education system, badly managed welfare which has destroyed culture in inner cities etc..) that it would be hard to make socialism work at this point. Put 50 educated, rich dudes in an island and ask them to work it out amongst themselves, they will. Now put 35 lazy, ignorant, uneducated dudes with 15 well off, productive people and you will most likely observe violence and chaos as these 35 try to forcibly take from the 15 and run the system.

Zimbabwe used to be prosperous Country, ruled mainly by educated, white people. The blacks decided that they wanted to take what the whites had by force and rule the Country themselves, share all the wealth and resources. How did that turn out? a f cluster f. Ignorant, uneducated people cannot run a Country and cannot make socialism work... pretty simple stuff. A friend of mine once visited Zimbabwe and as he was driving in a taxi, he asked about economy and the taxi driver (who was black) told him - 'ah, you see, we forced all the white people out but we didn't know how to run a country'.

 

I already gave the correct definition of capitalism. Any definition that assumes profits are wrong is idiotic.

 

Money is essentially part of credit because it's a promissory note.

 

"Legitimize" means legalizing ownership, and that requires legal systems. The same applies to fiat currencies to standardize engage, limited liabilities to protect owners of corporations, corporate by-laws, etc.

Cavemen had none of these. Instead, ownership was protected through physical force.

 

Sorry nope ownership is conferred by production. You might need government to enforce your claim but you have no need of government to make it.

 

um, no. money is money. a promissory note is a promissory note. they are two different things entirely.

 

Your definition is lacking. Let me help you out: capitalism refers to capital accumulation involving production and exchange of goods and services. So, you see, you only gave a fraction of the definition.

Would you like to give the rest of the definition? There are around four to six more factors to point out.

 

I wasn't referring to production.

In the past, enforcement of claim was made by the self given disputes. Today, it is done through legal systems, at least in countries that are stable.

 

"Money is money" is a circular definition.

Money is a promissory note because it's a medium of exchange, and it's a store of value only as long as authorities can enforce such. Otherwise, it loses purchasing power dramatically.

 

Money is a promissory note because it's a medium of exchange? Interesting. Is that what a promissory note means, according to you? A promissory note is something that is a medium of exchange?

 

That's the point government enforce claims but you don't need a huge bureaucracy to do that.

 

Public libraries are not socialism because there was never any private library industry to be nationalized. Only those changes to society where the government takes over a private industry and nationalizes it count as socialism. Some other areas that don't count as socialism: national defense (duty of government); civil justice system (cannot be entrusted to private sector); criminal justice system, including police and jails (same story).

Finland isn't that far off from the US in terms of economic freedom/socialism. Italy, France, and Spain are much more socialistic than any of the northern European countries, with Greece now below Russia and even China in terms of economic freedom. Finland is a capitalist country with only a few socialistic elements. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

That has never happened. Even in ultra-capitalistic America circa 1789, the poor and aged were provided for at public expense, just on a local level, not a federal level. Later, the states provided support for the cities and towns and then later provided more direct support. Now it's about half and half federal and state support.

While there are plenty of bad actors in business, as in any field, they generally don't last long before their crimes catch up to them. A true laissez-faire system doesn't allow for crimes, it allows for unregulated competition between people and organizations. That means no government imposed barriers to entry like licenses and fees. It means existing organizations can't use the government to limit the number of competitors in the marketplace. It means no subsidies or price supports. Outfits that cheat the customer, cut corners in production, engage in unfair trade practices, commit false advertising, and run slave shops should be exposed and put out of business. That's not laissez-faire, that's criminality.

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. So yes, public health care counts as socialism.

Asinine claim. In a fully socialistic system, property rights disappear and free trade is nonexistent.

 

Actually, it's not the government that enforces claims but owners using the government.

Also, it's not the only thing that capitalists require from government. Read my previous posts to find out.

 

In this case, yes.

 

What does it promise?

 

The government guarantees that you can use it to buy something with a value indicated in the note or coin.