Believe me, I'm not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.

Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.

Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of "human-centric" Capitalism.

You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You're wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.

Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.

[+] Dasus@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I did define Capitalism, it's a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.

Please read any Socialist literature, you've gotten completely twisted into thinking Socialism is a nice form of Capitalism.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.

I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.

You seriously think you've "defined capitalism"? And to think you're doing it in the exact way that shows I'm correct in that you've conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can't fucking believe this.

I'd like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you're like a 14-year old yank or something and I don't want to be that mean to kids.

Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that's what the "capital" in "capitalism" means.) FOR PROFIT*. That's the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with "trading commodities and paying workers". I... honestly I'm just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.

Here in Finland our railroads aren't private. Hell, there's not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don't even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn't even needed.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Capital does not mean "for profit," Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you'd read Capital, you would have known that.

Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that's just one part.

Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That's wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.

So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you're admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?

You're one of the most incoherent right-wingers I've encountered, I'll tell you that much.

[+] Dasus@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it's a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.

I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven't read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.

I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it's stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.

That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.

Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.

You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.