Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Capitalism has no force initiation. It's all consensual.
Says who?
It's a misconception of course ( as much as American/European capitalism has evolved.)
However the bottom line of capitalism is still the same - there is enough of hungry people around, being ready to sell their labor.
It's a misconception of course ( as much as American/European capitalism has evolved.)
However the bottom line of capitalism is still the same - there is enough of hungry people around, being ready to sell their labor.
Says logic.
You are probably thinking capitalism has ever existed. It hasn't.
You can't have capitalism under an involuntary statist paradigm.
To add more on this confusion, a quote attributed to Lenin
Had to look this one up.
So here it goes - "... in his work "State and Revolution" Lenin wrote;" What is usually referred to as "Socialism," Marx identified as the "first" or lowest stage of Communism.""
You are probably thinking capitalism has ever existed. It hasn't.
You can't have capitalism under an involuntary statist paradigm.
Oh but it did, if to believe this particular definition -
Capitalism
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.
Oh but it did, if to believe this particular definition -
Capitalism
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.
I don't know how an involuntary State would stay out of the affairs of private citizens as they form contractual agreements but I'd be open to hearing your theory. Plus that State could never own any property either.
I don't know how an involuntary State would stay out of the affairs of private citizens as they form contractual agreements but I'd be open to hearing your theory.
Elaborate your statement please, so that you'd hear my theory)))
Quote:
Plus that State could never own any property either.
Looking at you *location,* I am utterly surprised to hear that)))
I said a capitalist system can exist within a brutal regime as they are independent of each other. But of course the argument would come down to about how capitalist the system was, but still will be about who owns the means of production.
Name one please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
