🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@jlou

Thats not in line with any of the normal language used. Someone owning the companyt hey work for along side other people doesnt stop that entity from being an employer.

All the companies I run have a stock-options program where my employees are part owners int he company. Despite the fact that they are owners there is still the same employee-employer relationship.

@jeffowski

@jlou

> Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?

It may be, it may not. As long as people have the options to privately own means of production, then its capitalism. If no one exercised that right and everyone choose to only operate as co-ops as long as they have the option then it is still capitalism.

@jeffowski

@jlou

Employer-employee relationships is the norm in both capitalist and non-capitalist society. You still have jobs in non-capitalist economies and if you have a job there is an employee employer relationship. It just so happens sometimes the employer is the government or a co-op.

@jeffowski

@log

There are plenty of issues regarding wealth and equal oppertunities. Companies are under no obligation to pay out its extras to its employees. But doing so to some extent is often int he best interest of the company.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

> One doesn't get to be a ten-millionaire without being a capitalist business manager.

No only is this not true, we have plenty of counter examples. The dictators that have run many of the worlds most oppressive non-capitalist countries have been far richer than event he richest billionairs.

Stalin was massively rich, Kim Jong as well. Neither of whom did so through capitalism.

It is quite clear capitalism is not needed, nor the most effective way to get insanely rich.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@log

Wealth inequality is not an issue, what is an issue is the quality of life of those with nothing. This difference is huge.

@AdrianRiskin @jeffowski

@jlou

I prefer to stick with the accepted definition than to try to make up our own.

Employer-employee relationship is not remotely unique to capitalism, and markets in general can exist in non-capitalist countries, it is not wholly unique to capitalism. what defines capitalism is **free** market, not simply having a market. Even private ownership is only capitalism when it is private ownership of the means of production. Being able to own a pocket watch doesnt make something capitalist.

@jeffowski

@WoodSharpening

I cant say for sure, but one would hope.

Regardless of if she did or not, I wouldnt have any desire to be friends with someone who abuses little children.

@niclas @AmpBenzScientist

@KingShawn

Maybe biden should consider actually earning our vote then rather than just relying on him being not trump.

@SkepticalScience Its almost like you describe the same thing with more than the same pair of words all the time... weird how that works.

@freepeoplesfreepress

Its not as simple as forgetfulness.. .it is full on senility. He can no longer speak clearly, sometimes looks confused, there is a video out there showing him constantly trying to shake hands with people who arent there... Whatever experience he has his fine, but the man clearly is in severe mental decline and no longer able to call on that experience effectively.

@TruthSandwich

@AdrianRiskin

I shouldnt need to tell you, these terms are well defined. So it isnt something I or you get to have an opinion on.

Capitalism is where both the means and distribution of production can be privately owned, and free-markets are enforced.

There is of course some room for interpritation of what "free market" means, but generally its accepted as either unregulated, or regulated to ensure all players have equal opportunity in negotiating trade.

Since soviet russia had the means of production as state-owned it is not by definition a capitalism.

> I'm only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.

Still not true by the definition of capitalism. It is enclosed in all societies to some degree whether capitalist or not because it is a good thing for society, something we generally all agree on. But no there is nothing inherent about capitalism that would require it. Land ownership is **not** a requirement of capitalism by definition.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

You say you understand it, then your explanation proves you dont. Since you dont seem willing to learn ill just leave it there. Thanks for the conversation, best of luck to you.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

> Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.

Again, wrong. You only need money, not capitalism, for billionairs.

> Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.

Either you really dont understand what enclosure of the commons means or you dont understand what capitalism means.

For starters there has never been **any** form of government that didnt have some degree of enclosure of the commons, capitalism or otherwise.

Second even if you didnt have a closer of the common, you'd still need a labour force. In fact the idea that you wouldnt seems highly ignorant of even the most basic considerations, as if access to land were the only reason people work.

@jeffowski

@TruthSandwich I mean his mental decline is very apparent, that one is very absurd to deny.

@AdrianRiskin

Also not true.. i am sensing some pretty fundemental misunderstanding of how wealth works. It sounds like you probably beleive the common fallacy that wealth is a zero sum game. That someone can only have wealth by taking it from someone else.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

Wrong on literally all accounts...

> You can't have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.

you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.

Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society.

> You can't have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.

There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing.

> You can't have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.

You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).

@jeffowski