Originally Posted by
Endus
I see a lot of people making some pretty basic errors. The primary one is about basic definitions; "Capitalism", as a concept, is not about free market activity as a price-setting and distributory system. Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, and specifically, the ability to profit off said means of production. Market activity predates capitalism, and capitalism has no ownership of the concept.
Another seems to be an inconsistent application of principles. How would you pro-capitalist types feel if, say, the local mayor took 5% of the gross tax revenue in your city, and pocketed it? He's taking a "profit", no? That's the system you like. But when it's an elected official, you don't? He's corrupt and a snake and he's stealing from you? Why isn't the same argument applied to private ownership? Note that I'm asking about basic principles, here. I fully understand that private vs public is legally different, but that's a justification after the fact for the inconsistency on the principle.
People also seem to think the choice is about free markets (capitalism) vs central planning (socialism). That's really not the case. It's not that this framing isn't an ideological battle, it's just not "capitalism vs socialism". It's "liberalism vs totalitarianism".
Just as an example, consider a hypothetical Liberal Market Socialist nation, for a moment. "Hypothetical" because market socialism is entirely feasible, it just hasn't been used in practice, because the above conflict has swamped all discussion, from all sides.
A liberal market socialist system would see;
1> Companies owned by citizens, not the State. Said ownership would (in this argument) be employee-based; all employees own some number of shares in the company, with some restrictions on how wide the spread can be (25:1 as the widest gap from executives to janitors/clerks, say, to provide an example). Salaries also exist; this is separate. These are voting shares, not just ones that pay dividends, too.
2> The market is allowed to run as freely as any in the modern era. Some necessary checks and controls by the State would exist, because without them abuse tanks the economy, but no more than exist in any modern Western nation.
3> No shareholders/stock markets/etc. Profits are shared among those who work to produce them. Yes, this creates a lot of complex differences that I'm glossing over, because I'm not writing a comprehensive book; let's just note that I acknowledge that they would exist, but am generally in favor of the end result.
Free markets. Focus on individual freedom, to a greater extent than modern capitalist systems can (by ensuring individual profits from your own labor, providing greater economic freedom to workers). Not a drop of "capitalism" in the concept; it's 100% socialist.