How is capitalism a monetary policy? I haven’t seen any definition claim that before, can you please explain?
For a standard typical counterexample, Wikipedia’s introduction:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.
The power structure is necessary to enforce said private property (not to be confused with personal property!!) and extract profit. It’s not some wild coincidence, it’s the foundation which capitalism is built on.
After years of the GOP attacking regulation, we have an oligarchy.
While the GOP attacking regulation is absolutely a phenomenon, it’s not useful to frame oligarchy as a result of the GOP.
Firstly, we know that oligarchy is not a US-specific problem. Other Western countries are run by oligarchs too, look at who owns their media companies and who has captured the bulk of their politicians. Every time, it’s their own mega-millionaires and billionaires, who capitalism has pushed to operate their profitable businesses for more profit until they become an elite olígos capable of ruling. The only difference in those countries is that workers have usually struggled more successfully against them and lessened their power, but the ruling class are clearly still calling the shots. And of course, we see oligarchy arising outside of the West too, like the obvious case of the Russian Federation.
Another issue is that the Democratic Party in the US haven’t significantly countered them, they’re not innocent of this, they’re simply not as aggressive as the GOP. Capitalist ideology is a shared feature of both parties, and they’re both propped up by rich donors who can lobby and provide high-paying positions to politicians once they retire. I am not saying both parties are the same or equal, but we must understand that they’re both an active part of this situation, and neither has any desire or capability to solve oligarchy.
The power structure is necessary to enforce said private property
Other than pure forms of anarchism, don’t all systems require a power structure for enforcement?
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement. But that’s mostly semantics… I don’t mind much what you wanna call them.
(not to be confused with personal property!!)
Do you not need power to enforce personal property? What happens if someone takes and hoards the personal property of others?
I feel every change in the status of property (even if what you want is to abolish some form of property) requires some level of enforcement, and then in order to maintain that established status (or abolishment) you’d need at least some form of agreement with the community to enforce it, disagreement will end up causing disruption.
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement.
You’re correct. I don’t agree with the original claim that capitalism (itself) is a power structure, nor do I think that power and power structures are inherently bad. But like you said, it’s mostly semantics - my position is that capitalism can’t exist without a power structure of class domination, where the private-property owning class subjugate the rest of society.
As for power structures, these can be surprising flexible. To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your claim, just exploring assumptions about power structures, like if they’re necessarily hierarchical (anarchists often specify that their objection is to hierarchy, rather than institutions themselves). Consider cases where a militia of citizens, rather than a dominant police force, is used for law enforcement, such as Cherán after they kicked out their corrupt police and cartels. Like jurors in a jury - they have lots of authority and therefore power, but they aren’t a distinct, dominant class.
Do you not need power to enforce personal property?
Absolutely, and further than that, I think it will be necessary for a society with a socialist mode of production* to use power to prevent anyone from forcefully turning public property into private property.
* Unfortunately “a socialist society” is too vague, so enjoy that mouthful.
How is capitalism a monetary policy? I haven’t seen any definition claim that before, can you please explain?
For a standard typical counterexample, Wikipedia’s introduction:
The power structure is necessary to enforce said private property (not to be confused with personal property!!) and extract profit. It’s not some wild coincidence, it’s the foundation which capitalism is built on.
While the GOP attacking regulation is absolutely a phenomenon, it’s not useful to frame oligarchy as a result of the GOP.
Firstly, we know that oligarchy is not a US-specific problem. Other Western countries are run by oligarchs too, look at who owns their media companies and who has captured the bulk of their politicians. Every time, it’s their own mega-millionaires and billionaires, who capitalism has pushed to operate their profitable businesses for more profit until they become an elite olígos capable of ruling. The only difference in those countries is that workers have usually struggled more successfully against them and lessened their power, but the ruling class are clearly still calling the shots. And of course, we see oligarchy arising outside of the West too, like the obvious case of the Russian Federation.
Another issue is that the Democratic Party in the US haven’t significantly countered them, they’re not innocent of this, they’re simply not as aggressive as the GOP. Capitalist ideology is a shared feature of both parties, and they’re both propped up by rich donors who can lobby and provide high-paying positions to politicians once they retire. I am not saying both parties are the same or equal, but we must understand that they’re both an active part of this situation, and neither has any desire or capability to solve oligarchy.
Other than pure forms of anarchism, don’t all systems require a power structure for enforcement?
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement. But that’s mostly semantics… I don’t mind much what you wanna call them.
Do you not need power to enforce personal property? What happens if someone takes and hoards the personal property of others?
I feel every change in the status of property (even if what you want is to abolish some form of property) requires some level of enforcement, and then in order to maintain that established status (or abolishment) you’d need at least some form of agreement with the community to enforce it, disagreement will end up causing disruption.
You’re correct. I don’t agree with the original claim that capitalism (itself) is a power structure, nor do I think that power and power structures are inherently bad. But like you said, it’s mostly semantics - my position is that capitalism can’t exist without a power structure of class domination, where the private-property owning class subjugate the rest of society.
As for power structures, these can be surprising flexible. To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your claim, just exploring assumptions about power structures, like if they’re necessarily hierarchical (anarchists often specify that their objection is to hierarchy, rather than institutions themselves). Consider cases where a militia of citizens, rather than a dominant police force, is used for law enforcement, such as Cherán after they kicked out their corrupt police and cartels. Like jurors in a jury - they have lots of authority and therefore power, but they aren’t a distinct, dominant class.
Absolutely, and further than that, I think it will be necessary for a society with a socialist mode of production* to use power to prevent anyone from forcefully turning public property into private property.
* Unfortunately “a socialist society” is too vague, so enjoy that mouthful.