Capitalism is an Economic structure, Fascism is a Political ideology. Fascism does not benefit a Capitalist because it imposes heavy regulation on the free market to benefit themselves which is anti Capitalist.
They’re talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It’s only in theory that capitalism is about “free markets,” in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that’s more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).
“Free market capitalism” is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone’s always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.
Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.
Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.
I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.
Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.
The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:
1854, “condition of having capital;” from capital (n.1) + -ism. The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists. The meaning “concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital” is from 1877.
It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you’re using, where it’s supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it’s impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.
Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.
Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren’t you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, “always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?”
Not only do capitalists benefit from fascism, as history has consistently shown, but fascism is the end result of capitalism.
Capitalism is an Economic structure, Fascism is a Political ideology. Fascism does not benefit a Capitalist because it imposes heavy regulation on the free market to benefit themselves which is anti Capitalist.
You are coming at this with econ 101 level understandings.
The people you’re arguing against here know the text book definition of capitalism.
The issue is you are talking about some kind of “Adam Smith capitalism” but everyone else is using the term to mean what it actually is in practice.
If you want to understand this point of view, the quickest way is to read Marx.
Who on earth told you the free market had anything to do with capitalism? LOL.
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of good faith early.
Sure buddy.
Feel free to explain how this is a good faith comment.
They’re talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It’s only in theory that capitalism is about “free markets,” in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that’s more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).
“Free market capitalism” is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone’s always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.
Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.
Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.
I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.
The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:
It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you’re using, where it’s supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it’s impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.
Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren’t you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, “always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?”