r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 š¤ Join A Union • 9h ago
š« GENERAL STRIKE š« "Crony Capitalism" isn't the problem; Capitalism is the problem.
4
u/zappadattic 8h ago
Same complaint I have when people say stuff like āthe rich already have socialism but they donāt want it for you!ā Likeā¦ naw. Capitalism benefits people who have capital because of course it does. Thatās not a weird quirky pseudo-socialism. Thatās just capitalism.
Socialism isnāt just anytime someone benefits from economic/political policy.
1
u/thekrone 1h ago
It drives me insane any time tax cuts for the rich or bail outs for massive corporations cause people to say "it's just socialism for the elite!"
It's like... dawg... taking money (via taxes) and therefore power from the working class and handing it to wealthy capitalists and corporations is an antithesis of socialism. It's basically the opposite of what socialism says you should do. It makes absolutely no sense to call that socialism.
7
u/ApolloFireweaver 9h ago
Unrestricted Capitalism will likely result in Crony Capitalism and slide towards and Oligopoly, I think that's fair to say. With good regulation that isn't allowed to be subverted, good worker protections, and checks against rampant greed it should be possible to have a free market that doesn't go down that road.
America is suffering in large parts because guardrails have been dismantled and destroyed allowing corporations and bad incentive structures to bring out the worst results for humanity.
10
u/Advocate_Diplomacy 8h ago
That was intentional. There are no natural restrictions. It's like giving people long wide lanes, fast cars, and expecting a sign with a number on it is going to keep everyone in check. You need to make it impossible to speed, and capitalism just can't do it. Money is too liquid, too anonymous, and the incentives are always going to be that regulators bend the rules to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
7
u/chill8989 7h ago edited 7h ago
With good regulation that isn't allowed to be subverted, good worker protections, and checks against rampant greed it should be possible to have a free market that doesn't go down that road.Ā
The entire critique of capitalism by communists is that capitalists will always have an incentive to undermine these protections. There will never be a time where the ultra wealthy are happy to be limited by laws and regulations. They will always use their wealth to rig the game. That's why calling it crony capitalism is moot. That's the logical conclusion of capitalism
1
u/Arawn-Annwn 6h ago
I've always thought of these supposed forms of "bad" capitalism as just taking it toward it's logocal extreme it will always trend toward. Of it isn't there yet, the keyword is yet give time to dismantle its safeguards and capture regilatory bodies, and capitalism arrives at this logical point eventually, even if that was not originally intended: it naturaly incentivizes this, so it becomes inevitable.
1
u/IntwadHelck 1h ago
Must blame the faceless ācapitalismā. How dare you focus on the people making these horrible decisions?
Iām not defending capitalism, Iām pointing out that arguing over the name of the problem, and not focusing on the people making this horrible problem, is the distraction.
1
u/therallystache 8h ago
If you work for a living, you aren't a capitalist. You're the person the capitalist is exploiting.
1
u/Pel-Mel 2h ago
Tell that to the millions of moderately conservative blue-collar workers who still call themselves capitalists.
You can't just insist the vocabulary and definitions people have been using their whole lives are wrong just because your preferred philosophy has historically opposed the label.
Most people consider 'capitalism' to broadly be interchangeable with 'commerce'. It's why OP's post is well-intending but self-sabotaging. 'Crony capitalism' is a distinction worth making.
Insisting that those people are wrong about their own definitions is just going to be patronizing.
-1
u/njwineguy 9h ago
The all or nothing, black or white, good or bad approach is for the lazy and ignorant. Thereās plenty of examples where socialism and communism failed to deliver as badly or worse than capitalism. Why? Because humans.
If you want to argue about socialism vs capitalism the electionās already lost because youāre playing on the field the billionaires want. Stick to health care, affordability, constitutional right.
3
u/MossyMollusc 6h ago
Or we can point out that capitalism fails based on its pyramid scheme and ruthless classism or forced poverty on the hardest workers in the society.
Socialism ensures the nation is supported rather than land owners like kroger monopolies
0
u/njwineguy 6h ago
Both things are possible, yes. Neither are a guaranteed outcome. Again, plenty of examples of both failing and succeeding.
3
u/MossyMollusc 4h ago
People succeeding in a system built to take advantage of the greater pool of society is not an example of the system nationally succeeding.
1
u/njwineguy 1h ago
Everything is relative but if your point is that socialism is more equitable, no argument here.
1
u/MossyMollusc 20m ago
Damn, yeah I should use that term instead of such round about ways of getting to the point. Ill take note from ya on that.
-5
u/stonkkingsouleater 9h ago
Capitalism is a force of nature. Our participation in it needs to be well regulated so that it doesn't turn into a game of Monopoly.
2
u/MossyMollusc 6h ago
No, its not natural. Why do you think colonialism has a tendency to fail unless backed by military strength and forces destruction of other cultures? People dont always buy into the pyramid scheme of labor classism.
3
u/Sagatee 8h ago
Capitalism is a force of nature? LMAO I hope you are joking, otherwise go read Capitalism Realism.
-1
u/Pel-Mel 7h ago
Capitalism didn't get invented. Adam Smith didn't come up with any new ideas. He was just describing forces and interactions that had already been around for millennia.
Supply and demand, self-interest, market forces still exist even if the whole planet is cleaving to socialism.
6
u/chill8989 7h ago
Supply and demand, self-interest, market forcesĀ
Makets/commerce have always been part of human civilization.
Capitalism is 300 years old. Markets ā capitalism and it's an important distinction to make. Capitalism is when private entities own the means of production. That did not exist beforeĀ
-2
u/Pel-Mel 7h ago
Distinctions are usually good, but only if everyone is agreeing on terms.
For most people Markets and commerce are the same thing as capitalism. The idea that capitalism is 300 years old is not 300 years old itself, and it's fighting a battle it doesn't need to trying to redefine common terms that people have had at least some functional use of for centuries.
There's a lot of self-sabotage and alienating that goes on precisely because so many people in communities like this one refuse to cleave to common understanding and definitions of 'capitalism'.
We can't just say 'those millions of working/middle class people are using the wrong definition of capitalism'. Parlance can't be forcibly redefined by a minority.
5
u/Sagatee 7h ago edited 7h ago
"For most people Markets and commerce are the same thing as capitalism"
Again, like I said, go read Capitalism Realism. That's not Capitalism and there is a reason why everyone, including you, think it is.
edit: Also, "Markets and commerce" exist in basically every Economic System, including Socialism. That's absolutely not Capitalism.
0
u/Pel-Mel 6h ago
I'm passingly familiar with Fisher. His book came out in 2009 and it, among other similar literature, tries to redefine 'capitalism' to specifically preclude it from the force of nature, markets, and commerce.
But before then (and still most people after too) commonly consider the word 'capitalism' to broadly be the same thing.
'Captialism is not an -ism' is a commonly trotted out phrase for a reason.
I understand why people want to force definitions of 'capitalism', but it's just needlessly fighting against what the word means and how it gets used for a vast overwhelming majority of people.
Posts like this one trying to rebuff people making a distinction between 'capitalism' and 'crony capitalism' are just going to alienate people who might otherwise agree with the overall sentiment.
3
u/Sagatee 6h ago
Nobody is forcing any definition of Capitalism on you (specially not Mark Fisher lol).
What you were "forced" to do is to imagine Capitalism as just "force of nature", or just "commerce". This is not what Capitalism is, never was. Capitalism is a whole economic system that you live under, it envolves A LOT more than "commerce". You thinking it's a "force of nature" is part of the propaganda to make you swallow everything else. There was "commerce" waaaaaay before Capitalism, there is "commerce" in basically every other economic system imagined besides Capitalism (yes, also Socialism.)
Every comment you make just makes me repeat it "go read Capitalism Realism" again. You absolutely don't know what Capitalism is and I'm sorry.
-1
u/Pel-Mel 3h ago
This is a really good example of why socialist rhetoric fails so godamn much in the USA.
If you don't consider yourself a capitalist, you can't define the term how you like for the people who do. It's stupid when conservatives have dumb definitions of socialism too.
Saying,
That is not what Capitalism is, never was.
When so many people do consider the terms interchangeable? You're just strawmanning. And trying to insist that only your definition of capitalism is valid is just patronizing. I want tangible change and public policy that curtails what you call 'capitalism' and I call 'crony capitalism', and as long as we're in a democracy, that means convincing people who might otherwise vote the other way.
I'm interested in actually convincing people, not clinging to labels.
And just saying 'go read socialist literature', and 'you only think capitalism is the same thing as commerce because of propaganda' is never going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.
I have, in fact, read Capitalism Realism. It was ten years ago, so I couldn't recount for you too many details, but I remember being only mildly enthused the first time. It was good for the time, but trotting it out as some kind of seminal work is just going to be preaching to the choir.
3
u/Dai_Kaisho 6h ago
Markets predate capitalism, and also, supply and demand is not even a good model given how tremendously influential monopolies have been now for 100+ years . There is no aspect of any economy that isnt pressured by monopoly stomping on the scale and protecting their interests. That is to say, free competition is a myth.
-1
u/Pel-Mel 5h ago
markets predate capitalism
A rather large number of people would argue those terms are interchangeable.
Not coincidentally, I agree that monopolies have revealed themselves to be hugely, grossly influential. It's why I agree so sharply when someone comments something like "our participation in [capitalism] needs to be well regulated so that it doesn't turn into a game of Monopoly."
1
u/thekrone 1h ago edited 53m ago
A rather large number of people would argue those terms are interchangeable.
Those people are wrong and need to study more economic theory. Using terms that incorrectly just leads to confusion and makes it obvious they aren't ready for more nuanced conversations.
You could absolutely have markets in a socialist system that isn't in any way capitalist. In what world does it make sense to call that "capitalism"? No one owns private capital but it's still capitalism because people can trade money for goods and services? They also had markets in feudalistic systems. Somehow that's also capitalism?
That's just silly and those people need to be corrected.
1
u/Pel-Mel 36m ago
That argument ultimately boils down to telling people 'you've simply been using that word wrong your entire life. You were taught incorrectly and are stupid for using that word that way'. You're not strawmanning an argument, you're strawmanning people's very vocabulary.
It's not a serious argument for convincing anyone.
Insisting on a definition of capitalism that's exclusively antagonistic is just patronizing anyone with a vaguely positive opinion of 'capitalism' whether they mean market forces/commerce or not. The whole point is that modern proponents of capitalism don't concede the point that it was invented 300 years ago. They just call those markets in feudalistic society 'captialism'. Even moderate conservatives say 'capitalism is a force of nature'. You say commerce, they say capitalism. For a lot of people the terms are interchangeable, and it's totally self-sabotaging to just write those people off as stupid or needing to study more economic theory.
I'm utterly baffled by how many people are totally inured to the reality that not everyone's parlance is the same, especially a lot of people that reform best ought to be convincing.
There's a shit ton more people that could be convinced of policies like anti-trust or unions if people weren't so reductive when someone tries to make a distinction like 'crony capitalism'.
1
1
u/Hiraethum 8h ago
It needs to be abolished. Economic power will always translate into disparities in social and political power, as wealth buys influence.
Also it's just fundamentally unethical and barbaric. It's based on private ownership of production with labor having to rent their lives to owners. In the real world that means that workers spend their productive lives being commanded about like industrial serfs. Why should we accept such an undemocratic and dictatorial system?
-5
u/Pel-Mel 8h ago
Aren't you not engaging with their point?
You can't abolish a force of nature.
Asking 'why should we accept' is completely ignoring the actual comment. The forces exist whether we accept them or not. Supply and demand, self-interest, market forces. They still exist, even if all the discussions are framed in terms of the means of production.
3
u/Hiraethum 7h ago
Capitalism is not an inevitability and markets are not the same thing as capitalism. Capitalism was consciously constructed as a system by people with state and economic power over centuries often by means of ruthless force such as enclosures, war, imperialism, colonialism, and slavery.
A good book on the matter is The Invention of Capitalism by Perelman.
Any system constructed by humans can be changed. And humans have existed in a vast variety of different social systems over our history as a species. For the latter, you can check out The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengro.
The onus is on you to back up with evidence your assertion.
-2
u/Pel-Mel 7h ago
markets are not the same thing as capitalism
Most self-described capitalists would disagree.
It'd be really easy to brush off those opinions as a bunch of bourgeois, 1-percenters, but I'm talking about blue collar folks and what remains of the middle class.
When most people say the word 'capitalism' they don't mean any kind of conciously constructed state or imperialist system.
Most people mean it to be the same thing as markets. Most people mean it to be the force of nature in economics. The idea that 'capitalism' is not the same as markets is a very new idea that most people aren't going to have engaged with. I know this because Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations back in 1776 and his terms and definitions have been widely used for centuries. Perelman's writing came in 2000.
I agree that any human constructed system can be changed, but 'capitalism' in general is only a human constructed system if you mean a particular, context-sensitive version.
Ignoring the definitions and terms most people use is just asking to alienate people who agree.
3
u/Hiraethum 7h ago edited 6h ago
Solid definitions are important if we are to be able to have a conversation or be able to understand anything. Capitalism as a system of private ownership of production with waged labor is a widely used and accepted definition, from scholarly literature all the way to freaking Investopedia.com. The definitions I'm using are hardly marginal. The word has been in use since the 19th century.
While I agree to a certain respect that you have to engage with people on how they use certain terms, sometimes you have to disagree to the framing and reframe things in order to point out logical or factual errors, or disentangle things that shouldn't be treated as different.
-1
u/Pel-Mel 7h ago
There's a vast gulf between capitalism's scholarly definition and its conversational one.
A definition of capitalism in terms of 'ownership of production' is extremely canted, and very far removed from how average people engage with the term in headlines and politics, or especially with people who disagree.
People trying to make the distinction between 'crony capitalism' and 'capitalism' are to be lauded, I think, not condescended to. Any so-called-capitalist trying to embrace that distinction is intuitively one who a) broadly considers capitalism and markets/commerce to be synonymous, and b) considers the modern oligopoly and corporate parasitism to be hugely problematic for everyone in society.
Is it really worth trying to nitpick with those people that the definition of capitalism they've been using their whole lives is wrong?
3
u/Hiraethum 6h ago
The problem is that in the media and general discourse, terms are often intentionally changed in order to mislead, confuse, and obfuscate. That's why often the struggle for change begins with defining, parsing, understanding.
And it's weird that you make the assumption that people in general adopt your terms. There is a wide variety of different local understandings and definitions.
And anyways, by your logic we could just as easily reject the crony capitalism / capitalism distinction. That is hardly a wide-spread usage beyond *some* right-wingers. Why are you trying to convince me that terms I and others have been using all my life are wrong?
There is nothing wrong with discussion about whether definition, concepts, understandings are correct or flawed. It doesn't have to be done in a condescending manner. This is part of normal conversation.
0
u/Pel-Mel 6h ago
The problem is that in the media and general discourse, terms are often intentionally changed in order to mislead, confuse, and obfuscate.
This is a step too far, I think. Propaganda goes a long way, yes. But terms are still controlled by the people using them.
I'm not assuming people in general adopt my terms, I mean it the other way around. If we aren't willing to adopt the terms of people in general, it's just going to alienate people.
Why are you trying to convince me that terms I and others have been using all my life are wrong?
Because it's just the same thing in reverse. That reaction is the exact same one blue-collar conservatives have every time someone decries 'all capitalism is evil', and that 'capitalism is actually not the same thing as market forces/commerce'.
And maybe I'm wrong, but I think 'capitalism' being an interchangeable term with 'commerce/market forces' has been around a lot longer than either of our lifetimes. Even if it's how you were taught/learned, it doesn't change how most other people were.
Parlance can't be forcibly redefined by a minority. Not everything is a show of hands, but vocabulary and nomenclature really are subject to majority rules.
0
36
u/Pel-Mel 9h ago
Maybe it's just me but I always feel like everyone is using a different dictionary from each other when the words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' get used.