Capitalism influences many areas of government directly.
It’s not just economics. It’s foreign policy, company regulations, individual protections, land ownership rights, etc. It’s an ongoing list. Even cultural rights are directly impacted by Capitalism.
It is one policy of a larger system.
Right, it’s an economic system that directly influences many parts of government.
Lobbyists exist because of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech laws. The strongest lobby in the USA without question is the AARP because their voter list is the most likely group of voters and they are nowhere near the largest donors. Anyone talking about lobbying in the context of capitalism is unfamiliar with either concept in any level.
For pete’s sake most capitalist nations do not have lobbying.
Capitalism is not a political system. You can have monarchal capitalist systems, fascist capitalist systems, oligarchic authoritarian capitalist systems, heck plutocratic democratic republics like the USA can be capitalist. Socialism is both political and economic but not all ideologies are both.
Pedantic man to the rescue! Fascism was a “third way” from “capitalism” and “communism”. Fascism means state control (if not ownership) of “the means of production”.
most socialist systems participated in the capitalist economic system. The USSR, for example, attempted to create the capitalist mode of production that was almost entirely lacking when the revolution overthrew the czarist regime. They had to, according to their marxist theories, in order to develop a proletariat with a revolutionary consciousness. Similarly China was faced with an economic system that was the shambles left over from the long degeneration and colonial exploitation of the ancient regime, and proceeded to attempt to build a modern capitalist economy under the control of the party, as the USSR was doing. In both the USSR (except for the brief period of the NEP) and the initial attempt during Mao’s lifetime, the market exchange was not used to set prices or drive production and planning, but instead top down ‘5 year plans’ were used. They didn’t work well, why is a complicated discussion, they actually might work a lot better now using the vast compute, information and communication tech available. The USSR under Gorbachev attempted to reform both their political and economic systems and collapsed. China looked at that and reformed their economic system, allowing much of the economy to be market based rather than planned, while keeping political control under the party. Their reform has been spectacularly successful in modernizing their economy, so successful that the USA at this point is determined to sabotage their system and, if necessary, destroy them militarily rather than allow them to dominate the global system.
There’s no reason to suspect we have become good enough at prestidigitation to make a strictly controlled and planned economy a logical choice. It might be less of a mistake than in the past but that dies not mean it is a good idea.
Information about economic activity and external events are routinely input into sophisticated economic modeling systems and analyzed accurately for their effects within seconds. To a certain extent, more and more so as this monopolistic era unfolds, we have top down central planning, just the kind neoliberals like.
Yes but that us still different than being a political system or philosophy as there are no specific recommendations or directives that stem from capitalism.
that is the ideology of classic liberal and neoliberal governments in the history of capitalism, capitalism itself is simply investing ‘money’ (aka capital) to produce commodities that are then exchanged for more money that is then fed right back into the loop to produce even more commodities to make even more money. The term commodity can refer to things that are intangible, like financial instruments - stocks, bonds, derivatives of stocks and bonds, derivatives of derivatives of stocks and bonds etc. Capitalism is the core of the global economic system. It is not an ideology. There are many countries (but fewer than there used to be) that are either socialist or social democracies where capitalism is highly regulated.
The vast majority of those social democracies would describe their systems as mostly capitalistic for example all of Scandinavia refers to their systems as primarily capitalist.
No it does not. It neither describes how resources are allocated nor how force is used. It merely posits less government intrusion in private business actions. It is in no way a political system and can be applied to very different systems.
I don’t think people actually agree on the definition of capitalism itself, I just looked it up and was a little surprised how definitive it is:
If you asked whether capitalism is a political system, at least in my random polling, 2 out of 9 respondents said No.
That is because it is not a political system. It does not describe where legitimacy is derived from nor how the government should be structured.
Capitalism is an economic system with as little government intervention possible.
Doesn’t the bolded part make it a political system then?
I’d say no. It doesn’t really describe how a political system works other than commenting on the regulation part.
Same as any other economic political system.
You’re just describing a political system.
It is one policy of a larger system.
What do you mean by one policy?
Capitalism influences many areas of government directly.
It’s not just economics. It’s foreign policy, company regulations, individual protections, land ownership rights, etc. It’s an ongoing list. Even cultural rights are directly impacted by Capitalism.
Right, it’s an economic system that directly influences many parts of government.
No it does not because it does not dictate what kind of government should regulate or to what degree.
Lobbiest that work for companies do that constantly because of Capitalism. It’s an entire field of work.
Lobbyists exist because of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech laws. The strongest lobby in the USA without question is the AARP because their voter list is the most likely group of voters and they are nowhere near the largest donors. Anyone talking about lobbying in the context of capitalism is unfamiliar with either concept in any level.
For pete’s sake most capitalist nations do not have lobbying.
Capitalism is not a political system. You can have monarchal capitalist systems, fascist capitalist systems, oligarchic authoritarian capitalist systems, heck plutocratic democratic republics like the USA can be capitalist. Socialism is both political and economic but not all ideologies are both.
Pedantic man to the rescue! Fascism was a “third way” from “capitalism” and “communism”. Fascism means state control (if not ownership) of “the means of production”.
most socialist systems participated in the capitalist economic system. The USSR, for example, attempted to create the capitalist mode of production that was almost entirely lacking when the revolution overthrew the czarist regime. They had to, according to their marxist theories, in order to develop a proletariat with a revolutionary consciousness. Similarly China was faced with an economic system that was the shambles left over from the long degeneration and colonial exploitation of the ancient regime, and proceeded to attempt to build a modern capitalist economy under the control of the party, as the USSR was doing. In both the USSR (except for the brief period of the NEP) and the initial attempt during Mao’s lifetime, the market exchange was not used to set prices or drive production and planning, but instead top down ‘5 year plans’ were used. They didn’t work well, why is a complicated discussion, they actually might work a lot better now using the vast compute, information and communication tech available. The USSR under Gorbachev attempted to reform both their political and economic systems and collapsed. China looked at that and reformed their economic system, allowing much of the economy to be market based rather than planned, while keeping political control under the party. Their reform has been spectacularly successful in modernizing their economy, so successful that the USA at this point is determined to sabotage their system and, if necessary, destroy them militarily rather than allow them to dominate the global system.
There’s no reason to suspect we have become good enough at prestidigitation to make a strictly controlled and planned economy a logical choice. It might be less of a mistake than in the past but that dies not mean it is a good idea.
Information about economic activity and external events are routinely input into sophisticated economic modeling systems and analyzed accurately for their effects within seconds. To a certain extent, more and more so as this monopolistic era unfolds, we have top down central planning, just the kind neoliberals like.
None of that changes that the capitalist system and capitalism have a direct impact on other areas of government.
Yes but that us still different than being a political system or philosophy as there are no specific recommendations or directives that stem from capitalism.
But there are.
That’s what I listed in my comment above. That was the point I was trying to make.
that is the ideology of classic liberal and neoliberal governments in the history of capitalism, capitalism itself is simply investing ‘money’ (aka capital) to produce commodities that are then exchanged for more money that is then fed right back into the loop to produce even more commodities to make even more money. The term commodity can refer to things that are intangible, like financial instruments - stocks, bonds, derivatives of stocks and bonds, derivatives of derivatives of stocks and bonds etc. Capitalism is the core of the global economic system. It is not an ideology. There are many countries (but fewer than there used to be) that are either socialist or social democracies where capitalism is highly regulated.
The vast majority of those social democracies would describe their systems as mostly capitalistic for example all of Scandinavia refers to their systems as primarily capitalist.
But it does describe the control of resources and to an extent force, which is “political” in addition to economic.
No it does not. It neither describes how resources are allocated nor how force is used. It merely posits less government intrusion in private business actions. It is in no way a political system and can be applied to very different systems.
Government intervention goes the other way: capitalists like intervening into government.
All business likes intervening in policy that is by no means unique to capitalism.