If you ask what is "capitalism" -well, that is only a concept and concepts only exist in relation to their context. So, conceptually, capitalism is simply the application of capital. Capital is the legitimization of any action by social agreement. Social agreement means investment by a communities shareholders. Finally, the success of one's actions is judged by the creation of greater capital and failure by the diminishment of all shareholder's capital. — ASmallTalentForWar

All of this is wrong. People do not live under "concepts". People live in realities, of which capitalism is one. If you keep trying to understand capitalism as an idea and not a reality, you will not understand it, and confuse the issue in perpetuity.

All of this is wrong. — Streetlight

Oh - I thought you wanted an actual answer. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Capitalism provides simply a progression of comfort for those that engage in it in real terms. Other than that, it is conceptual.

The vision of the free society is about social roles. No one is locked into a particular role. — frank

I agree, but what role is separate from the labor associated with it? In aristocracy or rentier economies, ther are roles without labor, but what do you think Lincoln was talking about?

I mean, you can read what he said. Some of it is engraved on the wall behind that big statue of him in Washington.

You can also read what he said in his many speeches and letters in his life but I guess since they weren't carved in stone, they don't matter. He was a human being, not a statue.

Hmm. Are we arriving at the reason they banned you?

Is there a kernel of truth in my thinking the state taking on private risk is least talked about (albeit most consequential) because it is a critical phase of the economic life of a mature capitalist state wherein it starts to move toward socialism strategically?

Moreover, have you seen this movement towards state-run economy attributes in other mature capitalist economies that are nearing market saturation (in the absence of wars of conquest), thus suggesting as capitalism matures, it's compelled to move away from free market purity towards a complex, mixed capitalist-socialist economy? — ucarr

There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by taxpayers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree such that private enterprise parasitizes on public finances. The socialization of risk place more burdens on society, to the benefit of capital. It cannot in any possible way be understood as socialism.

Hmm. Are we arriving at the reason they banned you? — frank

I don't understand. Do you have anything more interesting to add or is this the extent of your contribution? So far, it seems fairly traditional with nothing unique in the historical perspective.

There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by workers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree. — Streetlight

Agreed. The "bail out" comes at the cost of the taxpayer which is heavily weighted toward the working class -- and fiat money production which ends up as an implied tax via inflation laying more heavily on working class positions.

It can be more productive to expand the discussion of contemporary capitalism beyond the framework of “the exchange/production distinction so that production becomes production-for-market.” — Number2018

To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation. As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity. — Number2018

I think such discussions have their place, but are they ultimately consequences of capitalism. Yet people cannot even get their head around basic principles, and so confuse markets, interest, finance, and profit with the existence of capitalism. There is interest in talking about individuation and so on, but at some point this stuff is mystifying rather than clarifying if our basic concepts are not fixed.

Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well. — Xtrix

Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? To be clear, I'm all for this in a strategic sense. So long as capitalism is ascendant, sure, let's make everyone, every worker, a capitalist. This would immeasurably improve life of everyone on Earth.

But to pick up on public transport: if the condition of reproduction (survival) of say, a worker-owned public transport system is still, say, its ability to make profits (and it still would be, even if if it is worker owned), its still not clear that they would not eliminate, say, necessary but little used routes. Or buy cheaper, but more polluting buses to keep costs down. Or build train tracks that geographically cater to other corporate (but worker-owned) interests, rather than social need? Like, I'm not saying all this stuff will happen, and it is almost certainly less likely to happen than under current circumstances.

But so long as the damoclean sword of market-dependency - and as I understand it, capitalism - hangs over it all, these temptations will be structural and not individual. It's less about intentions than just survival. But really, my interest here is using this as something like a litmus test for what counts and does not count as capitalism. I think it's important to see exactly where its limits and borders are, if only to understand better what might or can lie beyond them. It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip.

There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by taxpayers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree such that private enterprise parasitizes on public finances. — Streetlight

When a state underwrites private risk with taxpayer money, do we speak truthfully when we say that taxpayer money is queer venture capital via which the state participates in the market, except, however, the venture capitalists i.e., the taxpayer-investors, down the line, are excluded from profit participation in the event of private risk ultimately turning a profit?

Do we speak truthfully when we say that the state, in deciding to invest in private risk with public money, acts the role of a queer stockholder on behalf of a corporation, and thus the risk portion of the venture exemplifies a state-run business?

Do we speak truthfully when we say that the taxpayers, in raising the public money that underwrites corporate ventures, does the work of financing production for the market, but receives zero payment for its work?

Do we speak truthfully when we say that conventional underwriting of private ventures with public money as with, for example, the public underwriting of potentially lucrative research & development programs conducted at universities, exemplifies taxpayer-funded welfare for the corporations?

Do we speak truthfully when we say that public underwriting of private ventures exemplifies a queer conjunction of private_public enterprise i.e., a complex mixture of capitalism_socialism?

None of this has to do with states investing in private enterprise. It has to do with the state bailing out private enterprises when then fail of their own accord; or else guaranteeing their profits even in the face of market failure; or even lack of markets, for that matter.

Just a thumbs up from me. A great threat and analysis and I would love to jump in, but I am unfortunately too short of time to focus on the really serious threats on this forum :chin: However, I applaud the analyis of our leading light.

Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? — Streetlight

I think of worker control as public control. It’s simply putting the power in the hands of the community (represented by the workers) rather than a handful of wealthy owners. It’s not public in the sense of being state-owned, but it skips over the state in that respect and goes directly under community control.

But on the other hand, you’re right — a co-op corporation that’s worker owned can also become national or multinational in scale and so disconnected from local communities. Production for profit is still there as well, even if not the sole motivating force — and this can turn into a problem as well. And I can anticipate a flaw in my argument you probably notice: workers controlling a factory or business isn’t the ENTIRE community. Not everyone gets a vote or input into how the company functions. But since I’m assuming the workers represent the community, that this will work itself out. Plus other channels for public input can be created by governments or companies themselves.

Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism.

But let me assume market-dependency is the primary problem. I’m interested in hearing potential solutions.

It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip. — Streetlight

Absolutely. Which is why it's important to have these conversations. As I said at the beginning, I don't pretend to know exactly what will happen. It's largely speculative. But we do know how it's currently organized, and we can see very clearly how that's turning out. So some new goals need to be talked about either way.

But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix

I think one of the problems here is that the issue is with the material constraints certain systems impose on decisions. Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them.

All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints.

Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them. — Isaac

Certainly...but again, we're talking about capitalism. If one argues that private property is the defining feature of capitalism, then to talk of dismantling capitalism would have to be a discussion about how to abolish private property. That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism.

But ultimately yes, I think the entire idea of private property should eventually be phased out. It's just that private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making.

All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints. — Isaac

With the above being said, my response would be that while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction.

If I could snap my fingers and make the system of private ownership and private property disappear, I would. But we're a long way from that in my view. Cooperatives already exist, unions are (weak, but) around, our state legislatures and local governments are there to experiment with, etc.

Also, China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). Huawei is an example; Alibaba, etc.

I largely disagree, but none of this has much to do with what you originally wrote, nor what I was replying to. — Streetlight

Everything I have written has to do with what I originally wrote, if not with the OP itself. I wouldn't expect you to agree, in any case, since we obviously come from very different sets of presuppositions about the human condition.

Everything I have written has to do with what I originally wrote, if not with the OP itself. — Janus

Then no doubt you can spell out the connection between treating capitalism wrongly as an abstract matter of profit growth and two paragraphs of wallowing defeatism.

Then no doubt you can spell out the connection between treating capitalism wrongly as an abstract matter of profit growth and two paragraphs of "there's no hope to change it". — Streetlight

I haven't claimed that capitalism is merely an "abstract matter", so I have no idea what you're driving at. I also haven't claimed that there is no hope that it will change; I think it will change eventually, either through some catastrophe, supply of resources hitting a wall or enough people realizing that spinning money out of nothing is a flawed notion that will ultimately bite us in the arse.

If you believe you can bring it down by "throwing spitballs at Mt Everest", then go right ahead; I will applaud if you succeed.

Still not answering my question.

(And no, you didn't claim capitalism is an abstract matter, but that is what your claim comes down to; in any case it doesn't matter. You made an assertion. I'm asking you to account for it.)

Sorry, I didn't notice a question; you'll have to spell out the question in clear terms that my simple mind can understand.

Sure. What is the connection between this?:

I agree with you that capitalism has become more and more widespread, nearly universal, as a socio-economic model and practice; and I haven't said otherwise. This is now so deeply entrenched that I think there is little hope it will change; not as we might want it to and certainly not rapidly. This is because there is no clear figurehead which represents it which could be overthrown, as was possible with feudalism.

So, as I see it, sweeping, rapid change is unthinkable and not worth wasting any intellectual effort on. The only way to effect any (modest) change at all will be from within the system itself. The system is now a juggernaut which cannot willfully be stopped, although it could indeed collapse, and inevitably will, if we don't address the problems of overpopulation, environmental pollution and destruction, resource depletion, impoverishment and destruction of soils, global warming, etc, etc. Problem is we can't predict when or how that will happen, so for the time being it is possible to remain in general denial — Janus

And you being wrong about this?:

The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus

Which is what I was responding to.

To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation. As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity.
— Number2018

I think such discussions have their place, but are they ultimately consequences of capitalism. Yet people cannot even get their head around basic principles, and so confuse markets, interest, finance, and profit with the existence of capitalism. There is interest in talking about individuation and so on, but at some point this stuff is mystifying rather than clarifying if our basic concepts are not fixed. — Streetlight

It looked like the purpose of this thread is not just to fixate the basic concepts but also to show why the critique of capitalism is still productive and applicable. That is indeed mystifying! Likely, what keeps all discussions about capitalism alive is that our society operates the founding capitalistic principle of benefiting from the interplay of various heterogenic levels. Yes, there have been a variety of dominating economic and financial concepts. Still, the system has survived all crises and developed further due to its continuous grounding in a private, individual, and intimate field. The spheres of production and exchange have been mediated, maintained, and animated by the most individual desires. And that is what Marx meant when he said that the true difference is not the difference between the two sexes but the difference between the human sex and the ‘nonhuman’ sex. So, we invest in our economy not just when we work, bye goods, stocks, bitcoins, play games, or consume. Our deepest, intimate desires: to live a social life (and thus life), have an identity or realize our moral aspirations have been interconnected with the impersonal movements of the monetized neoliberal processes. The foremost task of critique today should be to explore this metamorphosis of exploitation. How can the system neutralize, appropriate, and utilize even the most potent protest movements and sentiments?

being wrong about this?:

The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus


Which is what I was responding to. — Streetlight

I don't acknowledge that I was wrong about that. You haven't explained why you think I am wrong other than to claim that I was saying that capitalism is merely an abstract matter; which I have already corrected you on.

So no answer then. OK.

No answer to no question seems appropriate.

Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix

Mm, but that's why I've argued that the employer/employee distinction follows from, or arises under the conditions in which, capitalism has already begun in institute itself. To condense the question, what is the differentia specifica of capitalism? It is market-dependency (which in turn undergirds the pursuit of profit, which is the other pole of capitalism?), or is it the class relation of capitalist and worker, employer and employee?

Two points to make: first, that employer-employee relations predated capitalism: contractual obligations between workers and employers can be found all through antiquity and the middle ages, even if not the predominant form of labour; second, while I agree that the predominance of capitalist-worker relations do track with the advent of capitalism, they, again, follow from the dispossession of the means of production (farms, looms, equipment, institutions of learning and apprenticeship), and only once they are taken possession of by capitalists who turn it all into pure capital: means of profit making. Again, the market-dependence comes first.

That all said! These distinctions are primarily analytic before they are strategic. Regarding what you said might count as a 'flaw' in your reasoning, that worker-control never represents 'the entire community', believe it or not I don't think that's a flaw. Primarily because I don't think 'the entire community' is something totalizable: politics and community take shape in their working themselves out. People and communities are not little pre-made packages of interests and desires! Which brings me to the question of what you call solutions: how mitigate market-dependency?

Well, some very basic socialist principles!: enable and institute a robust thriving baseline from which people can participate in their communities: this means housing for all (and if this means abolishing housing rent, then so be it), deep and well oiled healthcare systems not subject to profit, expansive and accessible public transport systems (which means eliminating car dependency and vastly mitigating oil dependency!), the absolute commitment to food and water security, which would in turn mean agricultural production that itself is not dictated by market imperatives and so on. None of this is particularly original, and you among other will have heard it all before.

But what's important about these things is not that they're just, as it were, goods in themselves - although they are that - but because they count as the minimal conditions from freeing ourselves from market-dependency. If there is a place for markets in the future where the planet is not dead - i.e not our current future - it's going to be as a stratified layer on top of, not our 'basic' needs, but our incredibly well-met wants. Markets will be luxuries, side-projects, art-affairs. And of course, worker control will be key to all this too.

Just a thumbs up from me. A great threat and analysis and I would love to jump in, but I am unfortunately too short of time to focus on the really serious threats on this forum :chin: However, I applaud the analyis of our leading light. — Tobias

Thanks Toby - I appreciate it.

That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism. — Xtrix

I see what you mean, though what you'd need here is stakeholder ownership, rather than just worker ownership... but I suppose if you define capitalism that way, then yes, eliminating the owning class would eliminate capitalism. I'm just not sure capitalism is sensibly defined that way.

private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making. — Xtrix

Well... with limits. It's not the mere existence of private property that's a problem, but the effect of private property in constraining the decisions people make to those dictated by a market. One only need remove that private property which is effecting that constraint.

while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction. — Xtrix

Interesting. I kind of see the two as quite separate (although I agree that worker control is a great thing). How do you see them as linked?

China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). — Xtrix

Well, yeah. The question is to what extent the state acts as a private property owner there. The possibility of state control over private property is largely why I phrased my answer in terms of constraints, rather than actual possession.