• EhList@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is because it is not a political system. It does not describe where legitimacy is derived from nor how the government should be structured.

    Capitalism is an economic system with as little government intervention possible.

    • Platomus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism is an economic system with as little government intervention possible.

      Doesn’t the bolded part make it a political system then?

      • uberkalden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d say no. It doesn’t really describe how a political system works other than commenting on the regulation part.

        • Platomus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Same as any other economic political system.

          You’re just describing a political system.

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What do you mean by one policy?

              Capitalism influences many areas of government directly.

              It’s not just economics. It’s foreign policy, company regulations, individual protections, land ownership rights, etc. It’s an ongoing list. Even cultural rights are directly impacted by Capitalism.

              It is one policy of a larger system.

              Right, it’s an economic system that directly influences many parts of government.

      • EhList@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it does not because it does not dictate what kind of government should regulate or to what degree.

        • Platomus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lobbiest that work for companies do that constantly because of Capitalism. It’s an entire field of work.

          • EhList@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lobbyists exist because of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech laws. The strongest lobby in the USA without question is the AARP because their voter list is the most likely group of voters and they are nowhere near the largest donors. Anyone talking about lobbying in the context of capitalism is unfamiliar with either concept in any level.

            For pete’s sake most capitalist nations do not have lobbying.

            Capitalism is not a political system. You can have monarchal capitalist systems, fascist capitalist systems, oligarchic authoritarian capitalist systems, heck plutocratic democratic republics like the USA can be capitalist. Socialism is both political and economic but not all ideologies are both.

            • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              fascist capitalist systems

              Pedantic man to the rescue! Fascism was a “third way” from “capitalism” and “communism”. Fascism means state control (if not ownership) of “the means of production”.

            • markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              most socialist systems participated in the capitalist economic system. The USSR, for example, attempted to create the capitalist mode of production that was almost entirely lacking when the revolution overthrew the czarist regime. They had to, according to their marxist theories, in order to develop a proletariat with a revolutionary consciousness. Similarly China was faced with an economic system that was the shambles left over from the long degeneration and colonial exploitation of the ancient regime, and proceeded to attempt to build a modern capitalist economy under the control of the party, as the USSR was doing. In both the USSR (except for the brief period of the NEP) and the initial attempt during Mao’s lifetime, the market exchange was not used to set prices or drive production and planning, but instead top down ‘5 year plans’ were used. They didn’t work well, why is a complicated discussion, they actually might work a lot better now using the vast compute, information and communication tech available. The USSR under Gorbachev attempted to reform both their political and economic systems and collapsed. China looked at that and reformed their economic system, allowing much of the economy to be market based rather than planned, while keeping political control under the party. Their reform has been spectacularly successful in modernizing their economy, so successful that the USA at this point is determined to sabotage their system and, if necessary, destroy them militarily rather than allow them to dominate the global system.

              • EhList@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s no reason to suspect we have become good enough at prestidigitation to make a strictly controlled and planned economy a logical choice. It might be less of a mistake than in the past but that dies not mean it is a good idea.

                • markr@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Information about economic activity and external events are routinely input into sophisticated economic modeling systems and analyzed accurately for their effects within seconds. To a certain extent, more and more so as this monopolistic era unfolds, we have top down central planning, just the kind neoliberals like.

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              None of that changes that the capitalist system and capitalism have a direct impact on other areas of government.

              • EhList@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes but that us still different than being a political system or philosophy as there are no specific recommendations or directives that stem from capitalism.

                • Platomus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But there are.

                  That’s what I listed in my comment above. That was the point I was trying to make.

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      that is the ideology of classic liberal and neoliberal governments in the history of capitalism, capitalism itself is simply investing ‘money’ (aka capital) to produce commodities that are then exchanged for more money that is then fed right back into the loop to produce even more commodities to make even more money. The term commodity can refer to things that are intangible, like financial instruments - stocks, bonds, derivatives of stocks and bonds, derivatives of derivatives of stocks and bonds etc. Capitalism is the core of the global economic system. It is not an ideology. There are many countries (but fewer than there used to be) that are either socialist or social democracies where capitalism is highly regulated.

      • EhList@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The vast majority of those social democracies would describe their systems as mostly capitalistic for example all of Scandinavia refers to their systems as primarily capitalist.

      • EhList@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it does not. It neither describes how resources are allocated nor how force is used. It merely posits less government intrusion in private business actions. It is in no way a political system and can be applied to very different systems.

    • viliam@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Government intervention goes the other way: capitalists like intervening into government.

      • EhList@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All business likes intervening in policy that is by no means unique to capitalism.