Well, having been a wage laborer for 25 years, and a business owner for 7 years I'd have to say, simply, that your definition is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
I don't see a definition of Capitalism in here, only tripartist corporatism and bastardzied and abused capitalist system. Which isn't even all that capitalistic what with the State's metaphorical nutsack all up in the bitch.
All it says is "pervasive". The vast majority of capitalism proponents do not believe that ALL property should be owned privately, just that private property should be PERMITTED.
You made a more accurate definition than the dictionary? You have the mind of a 6 year old. Just write a new definition for any word you wish meant something else...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's circular. All you did was give the definition of wage labor, not of capitalism. Wage labor IS paying people to operate the means of production that you own.
Capitalism is not identical to wage labor. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of capital or means of production. Wage labor is a natural consequence of that, along with other things.
Or third definition, even simpler "The pervasiveness of wage labor in the interdependent social class context of non labor income derived from impersonal property".
thanks. The problem is that precisely because of the ideological effects of a society based on impersonal property, most ppl don't know what "impersonal property" means!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's personal property until you let someone else use it. Then it becomes impersonal property. If you pay them to let them use it, god forbid, then it's exploitation. Ludicrous.
I'm getting really confused. I own a business and I want to make sure I'm not a capitalist. People that work for me want to rent their time to me, I guess they like wage slavery. Should I encourage them to become owners in the business with me, or just give it to them. Am I exploiting them? It would help if you could do a series of videos on how entrepreneurs can create value and increase prosperity without exploiting others so that we don't fall into capitalist traps.
The "interdependent social class context" results in an involuntary "work for a boss or else" status quo (wage labor) i.e. a coercive set of choices. So if you want to produce material or intellectual content of some sort (i.e. open up a production unit) and "increase prosperity without exploiting others", a good step forward might be to start a democratic business or collective. Of course, the aforementioned context means it would still function in a less than ideal societal environment.
Yes, you & your fellow capitalists do exploit the workers under your employ, by paying them less than the value of what they produce. A capitalist who paid a fair wage would eliminate his own role as extractor of profit. (This is why arguments over the minimum wage are absurd; the wage system is contingent on theft; capitalists can't offer a fair wage. Workers are due the entirety of the global product; capitalism must be replaced by socialism.)
Can you define 'profit'. Is any prosperity above mere subsistence considered 'profit'? As an entrepreneur I consider myself a worker. I worked hard to create something of value to others that did not previously exist so maybe I'm a worker by your definition. People that work with me certainly have more prosperity than before I created what I did. Maybe you could explain how you personally create value for others and I could use that as a guideline.
The remuneration & attribution of value to ideas & actions changes depending on social relations. So, if the economy was run differently (e.g. democratically, by a King, the Church or whatever) the value attributed to ur contributions may be different. Given the destruction of the ecosystem, I don't think most businesses (or workers) do much of value to humans (or other life-forms) in the long term. Yet we all need to survive & thus live under tremendous pressures to reproduce our current system
I completely agree with most of what you say, and I'm all for eliminating coercive institutions starting with my family and my business. What I'm looking for is less criticism and cynicism of the institutions, and more advice about how to influence systems towards a positive tomorrow. I've come to view anarcho-socialism as a natural by-product of anarcho-capitalism. The more I examine what I rightfully own in my business the more I make others owners of the means of production.
This whole rhetoric of characterizing capitalists as "exploiters" and workers as "exploited" is tiring. It seems like really binary and simplistic language. NamelessCommenter calls me a capitalist, so I guess I'm an exploiter, I'm assuming then that he is a 'victim'. What do we do? How do we apply this philosophy to our own life? How does emancipation occur?
I'm sure it's tiring; your role is being attacked. We don't like to hear we're doing wrong when we believe we're doing right & the people we believe we're doing right by are in agreement. But belief isn't truth. Capitalism is directly analogous to serfdom and slavery, only with tweaks to mask what were once transparent injustices. To accept this you'd have to change roles or suffer cognitive dissonance. You're more likely to display confirmation bias and accept arguments that bolster your role.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Confirmation bias is a concern. So are you recommending then that I become a slave? It seems like in your world there are 2 choices slave or master. Is this the case, or, is there another option?
Well, anarchism has as a goal the elimination of slaves and masters. As I said, a sensible, but difficult option is to start a collective or a democratically run business.
Only a strong, democratic labor movement has the potential to bring about significant emancipation. This doesn't mean employers can't fight to end the war, or women's rights etc However, due to institutional pressures (privilege, market competition/collusion etc), business (&particularly big business) has an interest in the status quo. I cant blame the business owner for not wanting to be a wage slave. The system doesn't make it easy for collectives to thrive. But I cant deny wage slavery either
"I'm looking for...less criticism and cynicism of...institutions" - Look elsewhere. Anti-capitalists are stubborn like the anti-feudalist founders of capitalism. We continue the tradition of your forefathers.
"how to influence systems towards a positive tomorrow" - Abolish 'em.
"what I rightfully own" - Unsubstantiated.
"I make others owners" - Capitalists = thieves not benefactors.
If I create something and then give it away I'm a thief?!? Can you define theft please? Other than theft is capitalism and capitalism is theft. You aren't answering any questions here. How do I put food on my table if I stop working? How is my work capitalism and your work not capitalism, or, are you a capitalist by virtue of being in a capitalist system? Am I a 'bad guy' and if so tell me how to stop without dying?
Yes I own a business. I work providing services for other people who give me money, they are my boss, I do what they say 'or else'. I don't see this as entirely different than you working for a 'boss' who gives you money. I have a number of friends who work part-time for me and share the profits for the work that they do. I also get money for work they do because I pay for advertising and equipment, the profit sharing is negotiated on the value we perceive we bring to each other.
Your employees don't "share the profits"; profit is what is realized by you on the market above and beyond what you've paid them for what they've produced.
(I'm operating under the assumption that your role is simply that of a capitalist; if you also work alongside your employees, in a similar capacity, then you play a mixed role, obviously.)
Rather than continue our repetitious exchange, I suggest you browse the "brendanmcooney" channel.
I don't have employees. I have friends who make money along with me. I work alongside them and I also function additionally as an organizer, advertiser, creative mentor, equipment provider. I consider them as much owners as I am. I work for them, they work for me... isn't this socialism/communism. If its not how could I structure my relationship with my friends differently to reflect non-exploitative values?
Since your story keeps changing, I need to ask what you're looking for: 1) a discussion about capitalism qua capitalism; 2) my opinion about your individual situation? I've been engaging in (1); I've been doing it through the lens of your individual situation only because I was under the impression that you fit that description. If you don't fit that description, then I'm not particularly interested in your individual situation.
You're welcome for the suggestion. His featured 2-parter is great!
In hierarchical systems hard work by ppl with illegitimate power may take place & improvements in standards of living as well e.g. some slave owners worked hard and in say, the American south, a slave in 1850 was better off than in 1750 (& materially better off than wage laborers not only the US but also in Europe). This doesnt justify the slave system nor the authority of the slave owner. Similar arguments can be given for the "work for a boss or else" status quo capitalists collectively impose
David Schweickart, more usefully I think, defined capitalism as a socioeconomic system characterized by three features:
1) the means of production are, for the most part, privately owned
2) the bulk of economic activity is directed toward the production of goods and services for sale on a market
3) labor power is a commodity, i.e., a large percentage of the population sells its capacity to labor to those who can provide it with tools, raw materials, and a place to work.
Yes, that's basically the standard Marxist definition, which seems to be the most useful one. Capitalists prefer much looser definitions that equate capitalism with simple exchange & extend it back through time to make it appear as an eternal law of the universe.
What's most important, of course, is the process that is made possible by those cornerstones: the extraction of profit by the exploitation of labor.
Thanks, this is helpful. If you could further clarify labor and personal use it would be helpful as well. For example is providing a management function to increase organizational and individual prosperity considered labor? Does lending my lawn-mower to a friend in exchange for a future favor mean that I'm not entitled to the favor because it is considered 'income' derived from my lawn mower which is not being used at the time for my own active personal use? What does personal use mean?
If you read carefully, you'll see the definition already answers your questions:
1) The manager functions as a wage laborer & furthermore contributes to the capitalist's nonlabor income.
2) If "lending the lawn mover" doesn't contribute to "the pervasiveness of wage labor" & the aforementioned "interdependent social class context..." then it does not qualify.
3) Active personal use refers to the opposite of exploitative non-active use e.g. owning a home to live in vs. owning the Holiday Inn.
I think there is two pervasive meanings of capital when people talk about capitalism.
When a capitalist says "capital" they mean anything you need or use to earn money. So a fruit stand owned and run by one man is capitalist in their eyes and his table and fruit are his capital.
When a socialist says "capital" they mean something you use to make more money to use as capital. So that one-man fruit stand is not capitalist in their eyes because he consumes all his profit.
"a fruit stand owned and run by one man is capitalist"
No, he isn't a capitalist by anyone's definition. Unless you want to say that the Renaissance, feudal Europe, The Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt etc were all "capitalist". They all had fruit vendors
This made me look up kapitalism. I'm in Denmark, and here my dictionary says: "A political ideology which has the goal of having the means of production be privately owned".
It would be interesting to make a comparison of terms related to politics in dictionaries from different countries.
Well, having been a wage laborer for 25 years, and a business owner for 7 years I'd have to say, simply, that your definition is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
That is all.
mikemat3307 4 months ago
"Human rental". Right.
Non-active personal use. You mean savings? Do you consider savings hoarding?
JoeKopsick4Congress 10 months ago
Suppose, I'm an idiot, new to english. Can you put these definitions into understandable terms
spliffizzle 1 year ago
Best video ever.
saxonkirwan 1 year ago
You defined fascism. Yay.
Capitalism= A Political democracy and economic freedom with decentralized decision-making
TheSAMathematician 1 year ago
I don't see a definition of Capitalism in here, only tripartist corporatism and bastardzied and abused capitalist system. Which isn't even all that capitalistic what with the State's metaphorical nutsack all up in the bitch.
EpicDude86 1 year ago
@EpicDude86 bastardization*
EpicDude86 1 year ago
@EpicDude86
All it says is "pervasive". The vast majority of capitalism proponents do not believe that ALL property should be owned privately, just that private property should be PERMITTED.
JoeKopsick4Congress 10 months ago
or another definition would be "slavery"
adiosucks123 1 year ago
You made a more accurate definition than the dictionary? You have the mind of a 6 year old. Just write a new definition for any word you wish meant something else...
coaster61 1 year ago
you're defintions intrigue me
MaoistRebelNews 2 years ago 4
lol In English. : D
Kiddolinfen09 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's circular. All you did was give the definition of wage labor, not of capitalism. Wage labor IS paying people to operate the means of production that you own.
Capitalism is not identical to wage labor. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of capital or means of production. Wage labor is a natural consequence of that, along with other things.
DackBev 2 years ago
Or third definition, even simpler "The pervasiveness of wage labor in the interdependent social class context of non labor income derived from impersonal property".
PolemicalCommentary 2 years ago 7
thanks. The problem is that precisely because of the ideological effects of a society based on impersonal property, most ppl don't know what "impersonal property" means!
mr1001nights 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's personal property until you let someone else use it. Then it becomes impersonal property. If you pay them to let them use it, god forbid, then it's exploitation. Ludicrous.
DackBev 2 years ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair-
crud4 2 years ago 2
Where did that CG animation of the guy touching his face sore to make money appear come from? It first appears in this video around 0:16. Thanks
amadeusb4 2 years ago 2
Yes, and?
NoMorFear 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pure dribble.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
I agree with you, however you can say that much more simply. It's unnecessarily convoluted.
notque 2 years ago
I feel "more simply" requires an extra paragraph. Do you think you can express it more clearly in the same number of words?
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Amazing vid the definition made me lol literally
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago 4
You should create a leftist dictionary.
ZakeD3 2 years ago 3
Too contrived - an over complex way of describing the political definition's manifestation.
ginganz13 2 years ago
I think the definition is pretty accurate... that's kind of what I think of when I'm thinking of capitalism
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
I'm getting really confused. I own a business and I want to make sure I'm not a capitalist. People that work for me want to rent their time to me, I guess they like wage slavery. Should I encourage them to become owners in the business with me, or just give it to them. Am I exploiting them? It would help if you could do a series of videos on how entrepreneurs can create value and increase prosperity without exploiting others so that we don't fall into capitalist traps.
proffesor02 2 years ago
The "interdependent social class context" results in an involuntary "work for a boss or else" status quo (wage labor) i.e. a coercive set of choices. So if you want to produce material or intellectual content of some sort (i.e. open up a production unit) and "increase prosperity without exploiting others", a good step forward might be to start a democratic business or collective. Of course, the aforementioned context means it would still function in a less than ideal societal environment.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Entrepreneurs don't create value; workers do.
Yes, you & your fellow capitalists do exploit the workers under your employ, by paying them less than the value of what they produce. A capitalist who paid a fair wage would eliminate his own role as extractor of profit. (This is why arguments over the minimum wage are absurd; the wage system is contingent on theft; capitalists can't offer a fair wage. Workers are due the entirety of the global product; capitalism must be replaced by socialism.)
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Can you define 'profit'. Is any prosperity above mere subsistence considered 'profit'? As an entrepreneur I consider myself a worker. I worked hard to create something of value to others that did not previously exist so maybe I'm a worker by your definition. People that work with me certainly have more prosperity than before I created what I did. Maybe you could explain how you personally create value for others and I could use that as a guideline.
proffesor02 2 years ago
Simply put, profit is theft.
Having an idea doesn't create value; it must be brought to fruition.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Can you define theft then? I'm assuming its taking property that doesn't belong to you. If so can tell me what property is?
Have I created value by bringing my idea to fruition, or, should I close up shop because I'm exploiting and stealing?
proffesor02 2 years ago
The remuneration & attribution of value to ideas & actions changes depending on social relations. So, if the economy was run differently (e.g. democratically, by a King, the Church or whatever) the value attributed to ur contributions may be different. Given the destruction of the ecosystem, I don't think most businesses (or workers) do much of value to humans (or other life-forms) in the long term. Yet we all need to survive & thus live under tremendous pressures to reproduce our current system
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I completely agree with most of what you say, and I'm all for eliminating coercive institutions starting with my family and my business. What I'm looking for is less criticism and cynicism of the institutions, and more advice about how to influence systems towards a positive tomorrow. I've come to view anarcho-socialism as a natural by-product of anarcho-capitalism. The more I examine what I rightfully own in my business the more I make others owners of the means of production.
proffesor02 2 years ago
This whole rhetoric of characterizing capitalists as "exploiters" and workers as "exploited" is tiring. It seems like really binary and simplistic language. NamelessCommenter calls me a capitalist, so I guess I'm an exploiter, I'm assuming then that he is a 'victim'. What do we do? How do we apply this philosophy to our own life? How does emancipation occur?
proffesor02 2 years ago
"How does emancipation occur?"
By abolishing capitalism, just as we abolished slavery, and serfdom, and for the same morally imperative reasons.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 2
I'm sure it's tiring; your role is being attacked. We don't like to hear we're doing wrong when we believe we're doing right & the people we believe we're doing right by are in agreement. But belief isn't truth. Capitalism is directly analogous to serfdom and slavery, only with tweaks to mask what were once transparent injustices. To accept this you'd have to change roles or suffer cognitive dissonance. You're more likely to display confirmation bias and accept arguments that bolster your role.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Confirmation bias is a concern. So are you recommending then that I become a slave? It seems like in your world there are 2 choices slave or master. Is this the case, or, is there another option?
proffesor02 2 years ago
Well, anarchism has as a goal the elimination of slaves and masters. As I said, a sensible, but difficult option is to start a collective or a democratically run business.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
You're a moron. Hierarchy is everywhere.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Only a strong, democratic labor movement has the potential to bring about significant emancipation. This doesn't mean employers can't fight to end the war, or women's rights etc However, due to institutional pressures (privilege, market competition/collusion etc), business (&particularly big business) has an interest in the status quo. I cant blame the business owner for not wanting to be a wage slave. The system doesn't make it easy for collectives to thrive. But I cant deny wage slavery either
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Don't you mean "can't"?
JPalto 2 years ago
"eliminating coercive institutions starting with...my business" - Impossible if it's capitalist.
"I'm looking for...less criticism and cynicism of...institutions" - Look elsewhere. Anti-capitalists are stubborn like the anti-feudalist founders of capitalism. We continue the tradition of your forefathers.
"how to influence systems towards a positive tomorrow" - Abolish 'em.
"what I rightfully own" - Unsubstantiated.
"I make others owners" - Capitalists = thieves not benefactors.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 3
If I create something and then give it away I'm a thief?!? Can you define theft please? Other than theft is capitalism and capitalism is theft. You aren't answering any questions here. How do I put food on my table if I stop working? How is my work capitalism and your work not capitalism, or, are you a capitalist by virtue of being in a capitalist system? Am I a 'bad guy' and if so tell me how to stop without dying?
proffesor02 2 years ago
"How is my work capitalism...?"
You said: "I own a business..." and "People...work for me...."
I've been operating under the assumption that you were telling the truth.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 2
Yes I own a business. I work providing services for other people who give me money, they are my boss, I do what they say 'or else'. I don't see this as entirely different than you working for a 'boss' who gives you money. I have a number of friends who work part-time for me and share the profits for the work that they do. I also get money for work they do because I pay for advertising and equipment, the profit sharing is negotiated on the value we perceive we bring to each other.
proffesor02 2 years ago
Your employees don't "share the profits"; profit is what is realized by you on the market above and beyond what you've paid them for what they've produced.
(I'm operating under the assumption that your role is simply that of a capitalist; if you also work alongside your employees, in a similar capacity, then you play a mixed role, obviously.)
Rather than continue our repetitious exchange, I suggest you browse the "brendanmcooney" channel.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
I don't have employees. I have friends who make money along with me. I work alongside them and I also function additionally as an organizer, advertiser, creative mentor, equipment provider. I consider them as much owners as I am. I work for them, they work for me... isn't this socialism/communism. If its not how could I structure my relationship with my friends differently to reflect non-exploitative values?
Thanks for the channel suggestion.
proffesor02 2 years ago
Since your story keeps changing, I need to ask what you're looking for: 1) a discussion about capitalism qua capitalism; 2) my opinion about your individual situation? I've been engaging in (1); I've been doing it through the lens of your individual situation only because I was under the impression that you fit that description. If you don't fit that description, then I'm not particularly interested in your individual situation.
You're welcome for the suggestion. His featured 2-parter is great!
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
In hierarchical systems hard work by ppl with illegitimate power may take place & improvements in standards of living as well e.g. some slave owners worked hard and in say, the American south, a slave in 1850 was better off than in 1750 (& materially better off than wage laborers not only the US but also in Europe). This doesnt justify the slave system nor the authority of the slave owner. Similar arguments can be given for the "work for a boss or else" status quo capitalists collectively impose
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I do have to admit this is an accurate definition, even if it is skewed to bring a certain bias to the reader's thoughts.
KathyGurl14 2 years ago
David Schweickart, more usefully I think, defined capitalism as a socioeconomic system characterized by three features:
1) the means of production are, for the most part, privately owned
2) the bulk of economic activity is directed toward the production of goods and services for sale on a market
3) labor power is a commodity, i.e., a large percentage of the population sells its capacity to labor to those who can provide it with tools, raw materials, and a place to work.
jianenohashi 2 years ago 2
Yes, that's basically the standard Marxist definition, which seems to be the most useful one. Capitalists prefer much looser definitions that equate capitalism with simple exchange & extend it back through time to make it appear as an eternal law of the universe.
What's most important, of course, is the process that is made possible by those cornerstones: the extraction of profit by the exploitation of labor.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 2
Thanks, this is helpful. If you could further clarify labor and personal use it would be helpful as well. For example is providing a management function to increase organizational and individual prosperity considered labor? Does lending my lawn-mower to a friend in exchange for a future favor mean that I'm not entitled to the favor because it is considered 'income' derived from my lawn mower which is not being used at the time for my own active personal use? What does personal use mean?
proffesor02 2 years ago
If you read carefully, you'll see the definition already answers your questions:
1) The manager functions as a wage laborer & furthermore contributes to the capitalist's nonlabor income.
2) If "lending the lawn mover" doesn't contribute to "the pervasiveness of wage labor" & the aforementioned "interdependent social class context..." then it does not qualify.
3) Active personal use refers to the opposite of exploitative non-active use e.g. owning a home to live in vs. owning the Holiday Inn.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
The biggest hurdle to humanity overcoming capitalism is convincing those who are most exploited.
a0eoj 2 years ago 3
Excellent definitions!
MentalEclipse 2 years ago
Loving it. I'll have to memorise that. Somehow.
Probably going to find a lot of resistance amongst the "Class doesn't exist! It's an arbitrary concept blah blah" crew.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
What is the zit clip about and from?
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Well thought out.
SocialAnarchism 2 years ago
I think there is two pervasive meanings of capital when people talk about capitalism.
When a capitalist says "capital" they mean anything you need or use to earn money. So a fruit stand owned and run by one man is capitalist in their eyes and his table and fruit are his capital.
When a socialist says "capital" they mean something you use to make more money to use as capital. So that one-man fruit stand is not capitalist in their eyes because he consumes all his profit.
Yours is the 2nd one.
metalorg 2 years ago
"a fruit stand owned and run by one man is capitalist"
No, he isn't a capitalist by anyone's definition. Unless you want to say that the Renaissance, feudal Europe, The Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt etc were all "capitalist". They all had fruit vendors
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I bet you could find a capitalist who would think the fruit vendors in feudal Europe and other archaic political constructs were capitalist.
It will let them feel like the victim.
metalorg 2 years ago
Great definition
TauBroadside 2 years ago
Thanks, I added it to wiki's capitalism entry....let's see how long it lasts before it's pulled...
mr1001nights 2 years ago
hahahaha :D
Cran1988 2 years ago
This made me look up kapitalism. I'm in Denmark, and here my dictionary says: "A political ideology which has the goal of having the means of production be privately owned".
It would be interesting to make a comparison of terms related to politics in dictionaries from different countries.
draaguaD 2 years ago
google is your friend, don't be surprised if you find copyright removed results in there, though.
gratex 2 years ago