• Mallspice@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That’s actually a good point but I would argue when power is in the hands of the public as you say, the gov officials become the capitalists.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • Mallspice@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.”