RE: This is Just Fucking Perfect....
July 18, 2011 at 7:49 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2011 at 7:57 am by theVOID.)
(July 18, 2011 at 7:11 am)Napoleon Wrote: I agree. I thought that's exactly what capitalism was all about.
Because you've been listening to pig headed goons like Min who just take a position they don't like and barely understand and then proceed to associate it with everything else they dislike.
Capitalism is the idea that the means of production should be privately owned, that if you see a demand for a product and then produce that thing to sell it YOU own the business, if you agree to work for someone else by trading your time and productivity for a fixed wage or commission then you DO NOT own the business, you are simply employed/contracted by it - This is in contrast to the idea presented in socialism that the means of production should be collectively owned by all persons employed by that organisation - Communism is a step further in that every productive means should be owned equally by everyone - Progressives and Libertarians are both capitalists, one advocates free markets and the other controlled markets.
The idea of subsidising businesses is an entirely political agenda, designed to further the picture of society that the politicians believe will be approved of by the public, it is more commonly called Keynesianism amongst economists, though given it's extent it can also be called corporatism in the instances where the beneficiaries are large private entities - For instance; a small business that is subsidised to compete with a big business who provides goods and services more cheaply wouldn't be corporatism because the subsidies are going to a large number of small businesses rather than a core of elite private interests.
Capitalism is compatible with corporatism in that the means of production can be privately owned and subsidies by taxpayers, Socialism is somewhat compatible with corporatism in that certain industries are given the revenues collected from other industries, businesses and individuals to further an agenda, for instance if a government decides that it should have a bigger oil industry so it subsidises it's oil industries with revenues gained elsewhere.
In either case, if someone simply attacks "capitalism" you should be aware that they are being intentionally and disingenuously vague, it allows them to avoid telling you that when they attack capitalism they are actually referring explicitly to a corrupt political situation of which capitalism can be part, however there is a massive difference between the so called "Cronie capitalism", "free market capitalism", "social capitalism" and "democratic capitalism" - I advocate free market capitalism, where there should be a separation of industry and state, similar to the conceptual church state separation.
I hope that's cleared a few things up for you.
.
