Questions for "real" socialists

In a conversation I was having earlier, I said that working for a comune in exchange for goods was capitalism. One of you disagree that it was capitalism, so now I have this new question for you. Is capitalism an economic system in which a country's are controlled by private owners, rather than the state? And would working for a comune in exchange for goods and services be capitalism? If not, they what exactly is the difference?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_commodity_production#From_simple_commodity_production_to_capitalist_production
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Capitalism is not people buying and selling stuff. Capitalism is a system in which means of production (workplaces and tools) are owned by private owners who buy labor from the working class and sell commodities made with the means of production and said labor for a profit. People can buy and sell stuff (except for labor and MoP) to each other in a socialist society, although many ideologies prefer a planned economy.

There are two key differences between socialism and capitalism:

-private ownership of the means of production.
-commodity production

The first is easy to understand: all productive infrastructure (farms, factories, mines, etc.) is in the hands of privates, while in socialism it is ownerless and managed directly by the people working on it.
The second concerns the production targets, if you want, of the two systems. Capitalism makes by its nature necessary to make use of the market for pretty much everything. Especially in this late phase it seems there's little of the human condition that can escape the market's claws. Of course this was not always the case, in ancient Rome and medieval Europe the market was a fairly minor if not insignificant part of the everyday life of the community. Of course there were merchants, but the vast majority of production was aimed at satisfying directly the needs of the community.

This is what commodity production is: products created exclusively for the market and not for self consumption and it is a unique phenomenon of capitalism.

This is usually where people would start saying that "markets always existed, therefore capitalism always existed", but the truth is that the market was as uninfluential as monarchies are today and socialism proposes to return it to this state.

When are you finally going to ban this fucking shitposter, mods

We seem to come to another difference in definitions here.
I believe all exchange for goods or services to be capitalistic by it's very nature.
You guys seem to believe all employment to a private owner to be capitalism.
I believe a doctor working for a comune or a government, for goods and services to be capitalist, were you folks seem to disagree.
Another question.
Is he oppressing the nurse and/or the janitors?

Maybe if I ask again if I can be a mod, they'd ban me.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_commodity_production#From_simple_commodity_production_to_capitalist_production

May I ask this question:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

What?

Then you don't understand capitalism.

Exploiting I guess but not oppressing in the traditional sense.

Both?

aye lad

So he's exploiting the nurse, who's only job his to cart him around, how?

Well of course if you change the definition then it is I guess.
The problem here is private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor by means of extracting surplus value, which is what we call capitalism.
If you call any voluntary trade of goods and services capitalism then, yes, I guess free exchange of goods and services is capitalism. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the name game here.

Does she have the same access to resources or luxuries he has? No? But he needs her to cart him around.
Seems unfair to me.

I disagree, she's not doing something any other person can easily do. So she should get equal pay for equal work.

No name game, I was just pointing out the diverge in beliefs on this topic.

So? She's vital to this man going to this meeting.
Hiring someone just to push you around is fucking stupid anyway.

The point is that we are opposed to, like I said, private ownership of the means of production and the resultant exploitation of surplus value.

You have a different definition of capitalism, which you are advertising here, and it feels like you're attempting to get us to agree with capitalism by it.
We have a divergence of definition here, yes, but that only means we're discussing different things here, not that we're wrong in opposing what we define as capitalism (which had been the working definition for centuries).

To put it another way: If what you define as capitalism is free exchange of labor and goods, then you still potentially oppose what we describe as capitalism. You are not defending the system we oppose, merely advertising something else with the same name as the thing we oppose.

Capitalism restricts freedom of labor and healthy labor relations via the profit maxim.

Only as vital as getting a new nurse would be. Which for a CEO shouldn't be very hard.

Hey man it’s nice that but that is NOT the definition of capitalism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
So I mean believe whatever you want but you are fundamentally incorrect.

Mate I'm not trying to play word games. I'm just trying to state how I, an outsider, see all of this. If you ask a random person off the streets what capitalism means, they'd probably say something similar to what I said.
Gee, I'm trying to find common ground that we agree on, I'm such a horrid person.
And by any chance are you a woman?
You might want to fix up that line of thought there.
It really depends on the company and state that country is in.

*To work for you, for profit, is wrong

That's fine fam, I'm just saying your definition is incorrect. I'm not trying to be condescending, but if you can't even define something, its likely you don't understand it.
I am a biochemist, I could walk up to strangers on the street and ask them to define crazy processes like hematopoeisis, or axogenesis. Regardless of what definitions they give me there is a correct answer, or spectrum of answers that are increasingly valid based on what we know.
In the same way I am getting at what you call "capitalism" isn't really the core characteristics of capitalism, as some of those things predate capitalism and can be found in other systems (such as feudal mercantilism). Which I get is word salad and semantical in nature, but this is why you see people memeing here
READ MARX
or
READ BREAD BOOK
all the time. To be a leftist and to understand these systems you actually need to read, there's not a lot of room for feels and reaction in a materialistic political philosophy.

You're trying to find common ground by doggedly defending a definition contrary to the literal dictionary definition of the term? Interesting.
I didn't say you were a bad person nor am I a woman (don't see how it's relevant).

Capitalism doesn't effect the free exchange of labor. If you're working under capitalism you're effectively selling your labor to the highest bidder which dramatically limits the available range of options. You're also being coerced by the threat of starvation to partake in a system which tries to extract maximum surplus value from your labor, which is exploitation objectively speaking.
When, under capitalism, you are employed, a free and independent trade is not occuring typically. Unless you actually *want* to have your surplus value taken, which is the highest form of cuckoldry. If you do $100 dollars of work and you get paid $25 you are inarguably being exploited.

Well call it whatever the fuck you want, if you just want to be a confusing cunt.
That doesn't make any sense. Imagine if this was done in literally any scientific field.

I conced that that my definition of capitalism isn't the official definition, and I did define my personal definition it.
I agree, but most of us don't deal with biochemistry on a day to day bassis, unlike capitalism.
I consider feudalism to be partly capitalistic, like how some of you folks consider controlled capitalism to still be partly capitalistic.
I have read Marx and The Conquest For Bread.

Stop responding to it, report and move on.

It's people like you who would turn us into an echo chamber.

I'M NOT TRYING TO DOGE A DEFINITION.

Your gender is in no way relevant, I just thought there was a chance you were because of the word "feel" you used, instead of thought.

Are these screenshots supposed to make you look smart?

This
All are welcome if they aren't jackasses. This is a chance to educate someone. Someone who genuinely seems curious, I might add.

I'm fully willing to use your definition of the word capitalism because I summit to your appeal to authority.
But I would like to point you to the book Frindle. It goes over how words have different connotations, and may even change over time. For example the word Fuck used to mean rape, and the word Gay used to mean happy.

It is supposed to provide exposer toward my thought processes, and what I was thinking at the time. To make you folks better understand my questions.

This faggot has been asking the same kind of questions and misrepresenting/misunderstanding socialism and communism for the past 2 to 3 months nothing has changed nothing will change. There is no point to keep humoring him its useless.

I'll have you know, I don't ask the same header questions. And I've learned a lot more about your branch of collectivism and principles.

...

Jokes on you fagot.

More or less true. it isn't explicit slavery but almost every act you do will serve one capital holder or the other, it's possible to own your own labour to some degree however.
Assuming you're talking about america this is all true, a contradiction in the function of the system. Poor americans need to work multiple jobs to be able to feed their family while the cheapest food is severely unhealthy and will lead to overweight, these kinds of foods are known to cause over eating. meanwhile vast amounts of the food we farm is thrown away while perefectly edible.
No. This is a strawman, you should however get more out of your labour than your owner who do not labour at all.
The ones who made the food should get their share, you should be a part owner of the bussiness if you labour there, the marketing should get their share
Says no one.

Ok. Please understand that being compensated in proportion to the skill/communal value of your labor is not exclusive to capitalism, which is what you seem to be implying in your screenshots. In fact, the late stage of capitalism goes away from that tendency, as automation of important work forces the creation of bullshit unnecessary jobs to keep the ball rolling.