It’s a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren’t Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren’t the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren’t the owners.
The gov officials set their own salaries and control the means of production. In that way it seems capitalist but in a way where everyone decides to become a single capitalist collectively rather than having individual capitalists wielding disproportionate power.
That’s like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That’s not really accurate in reality.
The reason you’re running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you’re basically using it as a catch-all term for “economics.”
You’re getting farther and farther away from your original point.
I’m well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.
Every time it’s gotten to this point in the past, I’ve regretted having the convo and felt dumber for getting bogged down in it.
I could use a refresh as while I went to college for politics, I started smoking weed because of how viciously Bernie was shit on and how that directly led to a Trump win. Everything political since then has been a brown haze of shit.
It’s a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren’t Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren’t the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren’t the owners.
The gov officials set their own salaries and control the means of production. In that way it seems capitalist but in a way where everyone decides to become a single capitalist collectively rather than having individual capitalists wielding disproportionate power.
That’s like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That’s not really accurate in reality.
The reason you’re running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you’re basically using it as a catch-all term for “economics.”
No it’s like saying CEOs set their own salaries.
Not at all, government officials don’t work that way.
What do you think Capitalism is? Roughly when did it first appear? What’s Socialism?
Not all officials but some.
Right now, I’m not because I don’t want to and you can research it too.
You’re getting farther and farther away from your original point.
I’m well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.
Every time it’s gotten to this point in the past, I’ve regretted having the convo and felt dumber for getting bogged down in it.
I could use a refresh as while I went to college for politics, I started smoking weed because of how viciously Bernie was shit on and how that directly led to a Trump win. Everything political since then has been a brown haze of shit.
If you want a recommendation, Nia Frome’s An Extremely Condensed Summary of Capital can put you on the right path in about 20 minutes.