If greed and selfishness are apart of human nature, it stands to reason that corporatism is just capitalism evolving
You can't have corporatism without first having capitalism, it's basically HIV to AIDS
Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix
- Thread starter Medicate
- Start date
You can't have corporatism without first having capitalism, it's basically HIV to AIDS
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
And who determines the value of their work?
Are you saying to me that a fat b*stard punching his clock at the DMV or the post office, but me as an entrepreneur , working sometimes 60-70-80 hrs a week putting my ass on the line, signing massive liabilities for 10s of thousand of dollars to keep payroll going for a couple of weeks til the money comes in, that this fukktard govt. employee, he is the working class and i'm not? Are you kidding me?
How do you people say this sh*t with a straight face?
Is the assumption that all capitalist are in the 1%?
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
So you're creating you're own definition of capitalism to fit your assumptions/narrative?
- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Capitalism intertwined with the state isnt capitalism. I think what you're referring to is really just the profit motive itself.
...and I think those insecurities you speak of come from market competition being artificially stifled, keeping the ball in the employers hands.
An employee may contribute $100,000 in value to a firm, but their salary is only $40,000. Through wages, the employer determines the value of an employee's labor.
The term "working class" doesn't have much to do directly with the idea of person X works hard while person Y doesn't. Understanding the class composition of society comes from a scientific analysis of social structure, based on the relationship to the means of production. Income levels are a separate issue and don't always correspond neatly to people's relationship to the means of production. It is perfectly within the realm of possibility for a working class person to make more money (salary) than a petit bourgeois small business-owner, for example.
If you are a full-time entrepreneur and run your own enterprise and don't work for anyone else, you are a member of the petite bourgeoisie, especially if you have employees. The guy at the DMV may be considered working class because he is selling his labor power, and probably has to do so in order to survive. Personally I would probably consider him to be "middle class" - not in the sense of income, but as an intermediary class between the working class and the petite bourgeoisie. I think those who staff the state apparatus generally have slightly different material interests from the working class, just by nature of their jobs, and also don't identify with the working class.
What class means is that your material interests are different. You probably do work harder than the DMV employee, but you would likely view communalized/socialized production as a threat to your interests. Your employees (if you have any) operating your firm and cutting you out would probably be perceived as a threat by you. Basically all petite bourgeois people aspire to become large business owners and members of the haute bourgeoisie.
I'm not creating my own definition of capitalism, I'm recognizing that the state as we know it is an instrument of class rule. It is necessary for the bourgeoisie to maintain its dominance in society. Hence why all laws privilege those with property over those without; why the primary function of police is to protect private property; state forces subvert every movement that is a potential threat to capital; etc. I will expand on this later when I get a chance.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
If greed and selfishness are apart of human nature, it stands to reason that corporatism is just capitalism evolving
You can't have corporatism without first having capitalism, it's basically HIV to AIDS
With a large enough state, sure. But this is merely an argument for little or no state intervention, or no state at all. Value is best determined by the market mechanism, and resources are best allocated by the same mechanism. Any suggestion to move away from them must show a superior model implemented and sustained successfully on a large scale before being taken seriously.edit: and
@ capitalism being HIV independent of the state.
Last edited:
Again an argument for a free market
Not a move from capitalism.In order for your assertion to hold, the state must be present and active in supporting "capitalism". Capitalism however does not require a state in any capacity...
To lay blame at the foot of capitalism itself would mean demonstrating how it, independent of the state, has created and maintained a system of oppression around the globe.
I look forward to you demonstrating how this is the case.
You're talking about theory & definition more than you're talking about how Capitalism has actually been applied and worked throughout history
PikaDaDon
Thunderbolt Them Suckers
Thought this was relevant: http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top...urce=more&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=direct
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” ― ConfuciusYou're talking about theory & definition more than you're talking about how Capitalism has actually been applied and worked throughout history
I would like to first define terms... but I suppose we can skip all that.
IMO corporatism is a function of government intervention in the function of capitalism
and it is corporatism that we have been dealing with.Historically capitalism has been more successful than any other economic system at generating wealth and power. Advancing technology, and enabling man to do good*. What do you attribute(historically) to capitalism.
I'd have to ask what they are comparing it to
Since we must choose from the available(viable) options...It could be terrible and still be the best option.
PikaDaDon
Thunderbolt Them Suckers
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” ― Confucius
I would like to first define terms... but I suppose we can skip all that.
IMO corporatism is a function of government intervention in the function of capitalism
Historically capitalism has been more successful than any other economic system at generating wealth and power. Advancing technology, and enabling man to do good*. What do you attribute(historically) to capitalism.
What's the difference between crony capitalism and corporatism? Are they the same thing?
In America yes, and crony capitalism is more appropriate than corporatism(as corporatism is a broad term).
Still no example and/or evidence I see...
I see where this is going.
The ills caused by capitalism() are beyond scrutiny, and to be accepted axiomatically.
Welp, have fun fellas.
You have to be literally retarded to think there are no ills of capitalism. Imperialism, colonization, poverty are all facets of capitalism.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
I implore anyone to read Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa". I've read it and Eric Willimas "Capitalism And Slavery". It crushes any defense.
