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.