North Korea has markets nowadays where currency is traded for goods, even if they also have government rationing and almost total government control of the economy. China does not only have markets where currency is traded for goods but also has the whole stock exchanges and billionaires thing. The democratic socialist states of northern Europe also follow capitalism, even if the government is heavily involved in both the economy and is giving out large amounts of welfare. Capitalism is very broad. You can absolutely be left wing if you live in the USA and want capitalism to work more as capitalism works in the Nordic countries. In a way you can therefore be pro capitalist and left wing. However I kinda get what the guy in the post means but I still want to be clear that you can be left wing and not want to abolish currency at the same time.
Currency, and this is going to be astonishing to hear, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the system of economics where owners of capital control the profits from that capital, even if they can’t get those profits without the labor of others. It has fuck-all to do with literal currency which has existed since far before Capitalism and will exist far after it as well.
Neither socialism nor communism are incompatible with currency cause that’s just a way of expediting the exchanging of goods. Instead of social debt, people exchange currency instead for goods or services. Makes keeping everything straight quite a bit easier. Hoarding it is problematic in any system, since the whole point of currency is to, again, aid in the exchange of things.
Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.
And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?
It’s not his definition that’s the definition. Your definition is so absurdly broad as to be meaningless. No since the dawn of Agriculture capitalism has not existed.
Hell since dawn of agriculture it’s been very rare that farmers have owned their own land so your entire premise is absurd.
Yes I’ll admit I was thinking of market economy. Nevertheless both the Nordic countries and modern day China are places where having money makes money. That’s still capitalism. Only north Korea would be out.
China is a capitalist state in all ways but officially now. It’s closer to fascist than it is communist at this point. Enterprises are not owned by the people, capital is owned by individuals who are beholden to the state.
North Korea has markets nowadays where currency is traded for goods, even if they also have government rationing and almost total government control of the economy. China does not only have markets where currency is traded for goods but also has the whole stock exchanges and billionaires thing. The democratic socialist states of northern Europe also follow capitalism, even if the government is heavily involved in both the economy and is giving out large amounts of welfare. Capitalism is very broad. You can absolutely be left wing if you live in the USA and want capitalism to work more as capitalism works in the Nordic countries. In a way you can therefore be pro capitalist and left wing. However I kinda get what the guy in the post means but I still want to be clear that you can be left wing and not want to abolish currency at the same time.
Currency, and this is going to be astonishing to hear, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the system of economics where owners of capital control the profits from that capital, even if they can’t get those profits without the labor of others. It has fuck-all to do with literal currency which has existed since far before Capitalism and will exist far after it as well.
Neither socialism nor communism are incompatible with currency cause that’s just a way of expediting the exchanging of goods. Instead of social debt, people exchange currency instead for goods or services. Makes keeping everything straight quite a bit easier. Hoarding it is problematic in any system, since the whole point of currency is to, again, aid in the exchange of things.
Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.
And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?
It’s not his definition that’s the definition. Your definition is so absurdly broad as to be meaningless. No since the dawn of Agriculture capitalism has not existed.
Hell since dawn of agriculture it’s been very rare that farmers have owned their own land so your entire premise is absurd.
Capitalism is the part where having money makes money. Markets are a different thing.
Yes I’ll admit I was thinking of market economy. Nevertheless both the Nordic countries and modern day China are places where having money makes money. That’s still capitalism. Only north Korea would be out.
China is a capitalist state in all ways but officially now. It’s closer to fascist than it is communist at this point. Enterprises are not owned by the people, capital is owned by individuals who are beholden to the state.