Real world examples of capitalism/socialism

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,517
Dispargum
#22
Two words about "Capitalist" countries.

Since "Capitalism" is not an ideology, but a scientific description of the development of market economies [mercantilism was the grandfather of Capitalism], we cannot expect that a political system applies it as an economic - political theory [like it has been happening with Socialism]. So that a totally capitalist country has never existed and no one has never imagined to create it ...
JFC Fuller said that Facsism was the only 20th century political theory that did not assume that money was the glue that held society together. Facsism was based on the theory that society was held together by hero worship, specifically worship of the leader. In other words, Fuller said that Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism were political theories based on the assumption that society was held together by economics. So there is a link between politics and economics, except possibly in Facsist countries.
 
May 2015
1,018
The Netherlands
#23
Here's the definition of capitalism that I'm kinda working with in my head: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

By that definition, I think the kid selling lemonade on the corner fits just fine as an example.

And again, using the above definition (unless you've got a different one?) capitalism must be one of the oldest concepts in human history; how or what predates it? When was capitalism "invented?"
I understand your confusion. I think the missing link here is the capitalist mode of production, or the profit made from extracting the surplus value that is generated by wage labour and used for capital accumulation. The surplus value doesn't go to the workers - who are paid less than the worth of their productivity - but to the capitalists owning the means of production, allowing them to employ the workers and make money on their capital investments. Under socialism/communism there are no capitalist owners and the workers would be paid the full worth of their productivity, as they themselves would be the owners of the means of production and their wages would no longer be dictated by the market.

The advent of capitalism is often tied to protestantism, which wasn't as restrictive regarding private money-making (i.e. making interest on money).
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,233
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#24
JFC Fuller said that Facsism was the only 20th century political theory that did not assume that money was the glue that held society together. Facsism was based on the theory that society was held together by hero worship, specifically worship of the leader. In other words, Fuller said that Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism were political theories based on the assumption that society was held together by economics. So there is a link between politics and economics, except possibly in Facsist countries.
OK, but while we can indicate who wrote down the theories at the base of Communism and Socialism, it's quite difficult to find in history a work carrying the title "The Capital", may be written by Karl Kapital in the XVI century.

There have been and there are economic theory about Capitalism, but this is not the result of the application of theories, it's a development.

This said, about Fascism, it wasn't an economic ideology only as facade. Reality is that it suggested and endorsed a third way between Socialism and Capitalism: the "Social Economy" with the introduction of the "corporations" [not the wide societies]. A corporation was a particular entity where all the subjects or an economic sector [from the workers to the owners of the firsm] stayed together, with embedded labor unions depending on the Fascist Party. The classes existed, private property existed but they were together, with the duty to make the interest of the state [not exactly of the people].
 

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,720
Western Eurasia
#25
On the other hand the best examples of approximations to socialism are to my knowledge the ones that I pointed previously, the Soviet Kolkhoz and the Israeli Kibutz. Those were communal and social experiences.
.
Maybe not only these two then, but cooperatives in general ("an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise" Cooperative - Wikipedia
The commie kolhoz was just a subtype of the already existing coops that time, and many of them still operate around the world. I think Marx himself considered them exemplary, at least for a while
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,079
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#26
Can you provide an example of a situation where society owned a commodity or service and someone other than the state acted as society's executive agent to manage that commodity or service?
Communal wells in rural and third world villages? (I know we don't use the term "third world£ any more bit it's easier than writing "villages in developing nations")
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,517
Dispargum
#27
OK, but while we can indicate who wrote down the theories at the base of Communism and Socialism, it's quite difficult to find in history a work carrying the title "The Capital", may be written by Karl Kapital in the XVI century.

There have been and there are economic theory about Capitalism, but this is not the result of the application of theories, it's a development.
So you don't consider Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" from the 1770s to be the Bible of Capitalism? I know he wasn't the first to express many those ideas. Plato was familiar with lending money at interest and was opposed to it. Jesus in the Parable of the Talents said that wealth was to be invested and circulated so that all of society could benefit from it. Hoarding money was therefore a sin. Ancient and Medieval merchants understood the Law of Supply and Demand and frequently tried to raise prices by restricting the supply of certain goods. I once read a piece of Early Medieval hagiography that described a merchant as buying what was common (and cheap) at one place and transporting it someplace else where that good was scarce (and expensive). Capitalism has been described as the natural economy since it only systematizes what people do anyway.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,517
Dispargum
#28
Communal wells in rural and third world villages? (I know we don't use the term "third world£ any more bit it's easier than writing "villages in developing nations")
Even there I suspect there has to be someone who can decide who has access to the water and who does not, what the water can be used for and what it can't be used for. I suppose if there was a seemingly infinite resource, like a forest, and the common understanding is that anyone can go into the forest and cut down as many trees as they like, then there would be no state management or regulation, but is that socialism or any other kind of ism or is that just anarchy?

The reason I ask is an earlier poster drew a distinction between state capitalism and socialism saying that state ownership of a commodity was state capitalism and socialism was when the people or society owned the commodity. But I don't see the point to making such a distinction. I don't see a practical difference between the state owning the commodity or the people owning the commodity and having the state manage it on their behalf. I'm starting to think that definition of socialism can only exist if there is no regulation or state at all. The complete absence of regulation has not existed in a very long time.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,888
Portugal
#29
Maybe not only these two then, but cooperatives in general ("an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise" Cooperative - Wikipedia

The commie kolhoz was just a subtype of the already existing coops that time, and many of them still operate around the world. I think Marx himself considered them exemplary, at least for a while
Yes, maybe. I confess that about cooperatives my first idea are the ones that we have in Portugal that today are almost private companies, owned by the “cooperants”. But in 1974/5 there were attempts to make them more socialist. Most failed.

I mentioned those two examples because I have the idea that besides the ownership and the common work, all the life was quite communal, they lived in shared barracks, not owning personal houses or rooms, they eat together in canteens… and all the production was not to the individuals but to the cooperative. So even in cooperatives some can be more “socialist” than others.

Communal wells in rural and third world villages? (I know we don't use the term "third world£ any more bit it's easier than writing "villages in developing nations")
In that line of tough we also have examples in Europe, of the communal lands (called “baldios” in Portugal) that were owned by a community, usually a small village, and could be used by the cattle of all, sometimes in a system of rotation or lottery (“sortes”).
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,888
Portugal
#30
Even there I suspect there has to be someone who can decide who has access to the water and who does not, what the water can be used for and what it can't be used for. I suppose if there was a seemingly infinite resource, like a forest, and the common understanding is that anyone can go into the forest and cut down as many trees as they like, then there would be no state management or regulation, but is that socialism or any other kind of ism or is that just anarchy?
There are cases that the management was communal, and the “assets” were used by days, sometimes in a lottery system to achieve who worked the land or who could use the land in what days.

By the way, wasn’t anarchism a evolution of the Marxism? :D

The reason I ask is an earlier poster drew a distinction between state capitalism and socialism saying that state ownership of a commodity was state capitalism and socialism was when the people or society owned the commodity. But I don't see the point to making such a distinction. I don't see a practical difference between the state owning the commodity or the people owning the commodity and having the state manage it on their behalf.
Maybe the better is to read some introduction about the Marxism, it can explain that better than I that read all this ages ago. Anyway there is a clear distinction between the state owning the means of production and the community owning it. Being the state the sum of several communities. When the state owns, the stage manages, when the community owns the community manages.

I'm starting to think that definition of socialism can only exist if there is no regulation or state at all. The complete absence of regulation has not existed in a very long time.
It is a Utopia. It can’t be fully reached.
 

Similar History Discussions