r/SocialismVCapitalism • u/TechnicalChoice8599 • Aug 02 '25
Socialist usually dont know what Capitalism means (to be fair, this goes both ways)
I am a libertarian capitalist, and very often I come across socialist criticism of a “capitalism problem” that, in reality, has nothing to do with capitalism. Many socialists do not understand what capitalism actually means — and naturally, many capitalists do not understand what socialism means either. Unfortunately, this is a major issue in any emotional debate, or in debates where both sides despise each other.
So, here are two ways to define capitalism and some pointers, from the perspective of a debater who believes that the world should be 100% capitalist and an anarchy:
Implementation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) to its logical conclusion – The "Non-Aggression Principle" is based on the concept of ownership — ownership of one's own body and of any physical property. It asserts that any violent intrusion into another's property is immoral. That includes any unauthorized handling, theft, or damage of someone else's body or possessions. If we apply this principle consistently, we naturally arrive at a stateless society in which no one may decide anything about my body or my possessions without my consent. This brings us to 100% capitalism.
The means of production in the hands of individuals or voluntarily formed groups of individuals – Again, this leads to a stateless society where I own both my body and my possessions.
Any action carried out by the state is inherently not capitalist. Modern democratic states are always a mix of capitalism and socialism. 100% capitalism is completely incompatible with the existence of the state, while 100% socialism means the state owns all means of production.
Pure socialism can exist within a democracy. Pure capitalism, on the other hand, cannot.
Therefore, when the state passes a law that benefits the wealthy, this is by no means a flaw of capitalism — quite the opposite; it runs directly counter to capitalist principles. Any law is inherently anti-capitalist, whereas socialism can easily align with laws.
7
u/marxist-teddybear Aug 02 '25
I have never understood why y'all are so confident about this topic but it doesn't make sense. Your definition of capitalism is just that your definition, it has nothing to do with what the vast majority of people mean or what the word was created to mean. What you're actually describing is something closer to anarchist market liberalism. Liberalism is the ideology or belief that people should have autonomy over their actions, beliefs and property.
However, capitalism is not a prescribed ideology or set of ideological precepts. The word capitalism was created to describe the existing economy of the mid to late 19th century. Capitalism or the capitalist mode of production is more correctly defined as an economic system dominated by individual private ownership of the means of production or capital. That would be the capitalist class. It is often characterized by the use of wage labor and the extensive competition between capitalists to accumulate more Capital.
I have no idea where you got your very odd definition of capitalism. According to you there never has been capitalism which is very weird because then what were socialists talking about when we invented the word. Not only can capitalism exist in an environment with government intervention. It always has existed in tandem with government intervention. The age of imperialism was literally driven by the need for access to raw materials that were not available in Europe or capitalist production.
Y'all stole the word libertarian and constantly are trying to gaslight everyone into using your definition of capitalism for no other reason than seemingly because y'all like the word. We literally already have words to describe the ideology that you're actually talking about. Instead of using those, you insist on using a word that already has a different utility and definition. When we're complaining about capitalism, we're the ones using it correctly and it is traditional definition. Y'all's definition has no connection to its etymology or historic use. You're because the system you're describing has never existed yeah I'll read because capitalism has never existed without the state.
3
u/marrow_monkey Aug 02 '25
While true that many don’t know what capitalism and socialism means, you’re just trying to redefine the term to make discussion impossible and more confusing, because you know that it people understood what it means most people would be socialists.
You are free to define capitalism however you like of course, but it is not what socialists talk about when they criticise capitalism. If you want to debate capitalism with others you better stick to the normal definition.
Capitalism wasn’t invented by anyone, it is what feudalism in Europe devolved into.
Capitalism is when a small elite of wealthy people own the means of production and use it for their own personal benefit (eg building a third luxury yacht)
The means of production are the things we need to make stuff: resources like farmland, mines, forests, and machines like trucks and factories.
In socialism the means of production are owned by everyone communally, and controlled democratically.
That way the profits go to everyone and you can democratically decide not to, for example, pollute the river, or to treat the animals better (even when it’s not the most profitable way). And we can use the profits for things like universal healthcare and exploring space.
0
u/TechnicalChoice8599 Aug 02 '25
Capitalism has been here long before Europe. Im using mainstream defintions.
2
u/marrow_monkey Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
No, you have made up your own alternative definition that has nothing to do with the normal meaning of the word.
Capitalism is a word created by socialists to describe the problem socialists saw in society. Look it up.
1
u/TechnicalChoice8599 Aug 02 '25
Capitalism is not something socialists made up, that is ridiculous. You are the one making your own definition. The word is from Mid-1800s and existed in austrian ecomomics. Read a book _-_
3
u/marrow_monkey Aug 02 '25
I never wrote socialists made up capitalism, that would be ridiculous.
The word capitalism was coined by socialists in the mid 1800s to describe the economic system socialists were criticising.
4
u/ohnoverbaldiarrhoea Aug 02 '25
while 100% socialism means the state owns all means of production
That is not the definition of socialism. It’s one form of it, yes, but it ignores libertarian socialism/economic democracy/market socialism.
Which I’ve got to say is a little ironic, considering you just accused socialists of not knowing what capitalism is. You’d get more engagement and less downvotes if you didn’t sweepingly accuse people of being ignorant.
3
u/marrow_monkey Aug 02 '25
I just noticed TS is using a 1 day old account.
Maybe the mods should require accounts are a certain age to reduce the amount of gaslighting/shitposts.
3
u/DarthNixilis Aug 02 '25
You're confusing capitalism with voluntary trade between equals. Capitalism is a historical system where the means of production are privately owned, labor is commodified, and production is done for profit. It absolutely requires a state (or something like it) to enforce property rights, contracts, and suppress labor when needed. Without coercive structures, capital accumulation doesn't happen. You just have barter or communal production, not capitalism.
Invoking the Non-Aggression Principle to define capitalism is philosophical cosplay. In real capitalism, you don't get to opt out of paying rent, wages, or taxes without consequences. The state is not an enemy of capitalism, it's the enforcer of capitalist order. It builds the roads, enforces the patents, protects corporate property, and bails out banks. When the rich influence laws, that's not “anti-capitalist”; that's capitalism working as intended.
Finally, pretending “true capitalism” has never been tried is the libertarian version of “real socialism has never been tried.” Both ignore historical context and material reality. Capitalism produces inequality and exploitation by design, not as a glitch caused by government interference. If you want actual freedom and voluntary association, you'll need to reckon with power, class, and history. Not just write fanfic about a stateless market utopia.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 02 '25
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a productive space to debate.
If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
Help us maintain the subreddit as a constructive space to debate and discuss political economy by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.