No.98415
Are major corporations really private businesses? E.g., is it more accurate to consider Google to be a private corporation, or just another agency of the U.S. federal government–with some PR dressing to make it seem like they aren't? Does the U.S. federal government use the FBI and it's impossible-to-comply legal code to essentially blackball any remotely useful private agency to become another wing of the U.S. federal government?
Does private business even exist in the U.S. anymore, aside from maybe some plumbers in the Midwest?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98418
>>98415
A business that would not be solvent without any form government assistance or is a major accomplice in the government’s crimes, willing or not, can be considered an extension of the state. For example, most every social media company complies with the government when asked, therefore they are all branches of the government.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98510
>>98418
Are there any non-socialist countries, then?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98514
>>98415
If a business would be insolvent without- Ah wait, >>98418 already basically said what I would have said.
>>98510
Capitalism/Socialism is a dial and anon didn't say anything about socialism you nigger.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98530
>>98514
>and anon didn't say anything about socialism you nigger.
I'm so sorry that I thought that lack of private enterprise was socialistic, you faggot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98533
economically, capitalism and socialism are two ways to think about the economy.
capitalism thinks about things as owned by people, socialism thinks about people that own things. both, in their respective senses, have their uses.
morally, socialism is the prescription to think about how ones acts effect others. this is as apposed to individualism, where it is sufficient to think about how ones acts effect oneself. in these senses, socialism and individualism can be found in each other.
>>98530
>a lack of private enterprise [is] socialistic
politically, socialism is the system where having more peoples agreement gives you disproportionately more control. this is also called (for obvious reasons) preferencial socialism. this is opposed to preferencial capitalism, where owning more capital gives you disproportionately more control.
government democracies tend to use preferencial socialism (citizens vote proportionately to their citizenship status (noncitizens get no vote, many proponents of democracy would like each citizens to get the same amount of vote as any other citizen, though some tend to get more vote than others), yet majority rules). corporations tend to be preferencial capitalist (shareholders vote proportionately to their ownership, yet majority rules).
>>98510
>Are there any non-socialist countries, then?
capitalist monarchies
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98534
Yes.
large conglomerates like Google do operate under a model private enterprise and capitalist production so they are "Private Buisness"
Claiming a Buisness is not operating under a capitalist mode of production because it receives subsidies from a goverment is simply "Not Real Capitalism!!'111!!'" Tier
The reason why the state under capitalism will eventually start to subsidise large business is because of the threat of them collapsing and triggering a crisis of capitalism
We saw / see this with the banking industry
>>98418
Im going to ask for a citation here that Google and some of these other tech giants wouldn't be solvent without goverment bailout (Not necessarily to say i don't believe it)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98536
>>98534
>Claiming a Buisness is not operating under a capitalist mode of production because it receives subsidies from a goverment is simply "Not Real Capitalism!!'111!!'
It is not capiltalistic due to central planning:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
>The reason why the state under capitalism will eventually start to subsidise large business is because of the threat of them collapsing and triggering a crisis of capitalism
It is the state that caused the crisis.
>Im going to ask for a citation here that Google and some of these other tech giants wouldn't be solvent without government bailout
Under their current model, I doubt they would be solvent. However, I am sure they would adopt a different model in the free market..
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98537
>>98534
>Claiming a Buisness is not operating under a capitalist mode of production because it receives subsidies from a goverment is simply "Not Real Capitalism!!'111!!'" Tier
I doubt you'll find a capitalist that will claim companies like Google and Intel Processors are "not real Capitalism." They are an apparatus of the state, but they are much closer to capitalism than say, a nationalized economy, and we will defend to the death the statement that "while these organizations are inherently anti-capitalist, they are closer to capitalism than alternatives."
That is to say, no, they aren't "real" Capitalism, but we recognize that they are closer to a capitalist mode of production and in fact provide more value than the "socialist-leaning" alternatives.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98538
>>98534
>>98537
Ah right,
>The reason why the state under capitalism will eventually start to subsidise large business is because of the threat of them collapsing and triggering a crisis of capitalism
Which "true capitalists" would agree that a collapsing/triggering of crisis is necessary for the business cycle. True "capitalism" has more in common with socialism when left in a natural environment, it's just we don't see a need to artificially inflate bad policy in order to create a fake utopia that will harm itself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98539
>>98533
>capitalism thinks about things as owned by people, socialism thinks about people that own things
This is semantics play and says nothing of consequence.
>socialism is the prescription to think about how ones acts effect others
No it isn't, it's the opposite of that. Socialist policies serve primarily to diffuse consequences and responsibility for actions away from their perpetrators, while distributing earnings away from its owners.
>this is as apposed to individualism, where it is sufficient to think about how ones acts effect oneself
For starters, you're conflating "individualism" (a sufficiently vague term that no one can be completely clear on what you mean by it) with free enterprise in order to make your point, which is in itself fallacious. Second, individualism does not imply you can ignore how your actions affect others, because your actions will have consequences and responses made to them, and those consequences will affect you personally.
>politically, socialism is the system where having more peoples agreement gives you disproportionately more control. this is also called (for obvious reasons) preferencial socialism. this is opposed to preferencial capitalism, where owning more capital gives you disproportionately more control.
Not quite. The difference is having a majority in a socialist country gives you control over anything and everything, whereas a man who owns a disproportionate amount of capital controls nothing except for the capital he owns. It might give him prestige and other sorts of soft power, but nothing beyond that.
>>98534
>be bank
>be forced to more loans than market implies due to Fed setting interest rates artificially lo
>be told there's no penalty for risky loans because FDIC will cover you if you fail, encouraging giving out bad loans
>be promised kickbacks from gov in exchange for handing out risky loans to "disadvantaged" people by Community Reinvestment Act
>be aware through lobbyism that you will be bailed by gov out in case of insolvency because "lel too big too fail"
<all of these government actions are the bank's fault
>Im going to ask for a citation here that Google and some of these other tech giants wouldn't be solvent without goverment bailout (Not necessarily to say i don't believe it)
It's rather difficult to find peer-reviewed citations of under-the-table deals for obvious reasons. Suffice it to say, Google, Faceberg et al get a good chunk of their money from selling the data they collect to alphabet soup. Facebook specically was revealed to have been payed to do censorship work regarding refugees by the German government a few years back.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98541
>>98536
>Central planning
These companies and the economy they operate under is not centrally planned
>>98537
You're arguing from the "Capitlaism-Socialism is on a scale" angle while most Marxists angle from a more binary "It's either one or the other" angle depending on which mode of production the system more accurately can be described
Like a Marxist won't look at Australia and say it's "More Socialist" because it's Social-Security net is more extensive
The point is that it lacks goverment control / Directorship of the economy and a dictatorship of the working class
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98542
>>98541
>You're arguing from the "Capitlaism-Socialism is on a scale" angle while most Marxists angle from a more binary "It's either one or the other" angle depending on which mode of production the system more accurately can be described
I mean, I can argue from a binary angle, but then more than half the world is already socialist and I sound like a jackass.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98544
>>98541
>These companies and the economy they operate under is not centrally planned
Well, it is not a market economy since economic decisions and the pricing of goods and services are not "guided solely by the aggregate interactions of a country's individual citizens and businesses." So what can it be?
> most Marxists angle from a more binary angle
That is because they fell for a false dilemma and have not considered alternative modes of production.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98561
>>98544
I don't see what your talking about here
Price controls and similar methods of price limitation are pretty limited in western countries like the USA and prices are allowed to float / inflate / fluctuate etc on a market
And price controls only disqualify a state from being capitalist using the definition of capitalism you lifted from this website
Up until the post-war age and the dawn of Neo-Liberalism most capitalist states did employ some methods of Tarif and price control
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98562
>>98415
If its stocks are publicly traded, it's not a private business.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98588
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98592
Fancy word for "we don't disclose our government funding."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98594
>>98588
Stock is a share in ownership and productivity of a certain business. The option to trade said shares publicly is quite literally a trade-off of private control for a (usually significant) cash influx.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98596
>>98561
>Price controls and similar methods of price limitation are pretty limited in western countries like the USA and prices are allowed to float / inflate / fluctuate etc on a market
Prices inflate primarily via quantitative easing, quotas, subsidies, and various other regulatory controls. Hardly market forces.
>most capitalist states did employ some methods of Tarif and price control
Why do you consider these states capitalistic?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98605
A publicly traded corporation by definition is socialistic, it's not a privately owned business, it's publicly owned.
Socialism: workers own means of production
Corporatism: workers own shares in the means of production
Corporatism is just Marxism that someone sat down and actually figured out the details of how it would work.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98615
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98645
>>98534
Learn to read first.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98651
>>98605
>A publicly traded corporation by definition is socialistic, it's not a privately owned business, it's publicly owned.
That has to be the most retarded thing I've read all week.
Publicly traded just means anyone can buy shares of a company you nonce.
Are most forms of investment socialism now?
>Corporatism: workers own shares in the means of production
No, that's a cooperative. A corporation is a legal entity used to absolve CEOs and investors from the responsability of their actions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98680
>>98651
That's basically what socialism is all about, the key gripe with socialists is that an "elite" owns everything and no one else has access. Corporatism as a philosophy is paying workers in shares and letting random people buy shares, then redistributing the profits of the corporation (dividends).
>o, that's a cooperative
Uh… buddy… cooperatives are literally corporations. They are incorporated, they file corporate tax returns, they are subject to the same rules and have the same government protections.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98709
>>98615
>fair society, that other may only demand restituion up to equal to that negative consequenc
is ancap not fair then?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98730
>>98594
That's still a private business, it's just a shared private business. You're selling part of the company in exchange for immediate cash flow.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98744
>>98680
>That's basically what socialism is all about, the key gripe with socialists is that an "elite" owns everything and no one else has access. Corporatism as a philosophy is paying workers in shares and letting random people buy shares, then redistributing the profits of the corporation (dividends).
That has nothing to do with corporatism. Corporatism is the organisation of production into corporations with delineated, mutually exclusive areas of interest with the aim of reducing competition and increasing productivity by eliminating parallel efforts. The East India Company was a corporatist entity (as well as a corporation). So were medieval guilds. Worker ownership of the means of production does not enter into the equation at all.
>Uh… buddy… cooperatives are literally corporations. They are incorporated, they file corporate tax returns, they are subject to the same rules and have the same government protections.
Of course they're often corporations. So are virtually all companies nowadays. That doesn't mean they operate under corporatist principles because corporations and corporatist ideology aren't the same thing.
>A corporation is an organization, usually a group of people or a company, authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
>Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.
<them words sound the same, so they must mean the same!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98773
>>98596
>Why do you consider these states capitalist
Because they employ the capitalist mode of production (Working class sells labor for wages to a capitalist class who profits from the sale of the commodities produced by said working classes labor)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98775
>>98744
>Worker ownership of the means of production does not enter into the equation at all.
How do you explain a worker for example being paid in shares (such as almost all corporations do) where the shares let them actually vote in how the corporation is run, any profits are paid to them as dividends, and they literally own the means of production (the machines that do the work).
>So are virtually all companies nowadays.
There's like a 100:1 ratio for privately owned companies to corporations. Dude have you ever been in an accounting office? We have about 650 privately owned companies (sole proprietors) and 40 corporations, and we bust our ass getting the corporations every day because they pay us more for less work.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98785
>>98775
>How do you explain a worker for example being paid in shares (such as almost all corporations do) where the shares let them actually vote in how the corporation is run, any profits are paid to them as dividends, and they literally own the means of production (the machines that do the work).
It's a means of payment like any other, and an excellent way of getting your employees involved in the well being of the corporation ( and often avoiding taxes), but by no means is it a requirement for all corporations.
I dont understand why you keep claiming corporations are required to do all this arbitrary shit when all they are is legal entities.
>there are way more conpanies than corporations
Well, okay, but that wasn't my point. As far as I can tell, you're claiming:
>all cooperatives are corporations
>therefore corporations are cooperatives
>therefore corporations are socialism
>therefore corporatism is socialism
I'm telling you cooperative elements are not required for something to be a corporation, most corporations aren't cooperatives, some cooperatives aren't corporations, publicly traded stocks have fuck all to do with cooperatives or socialism and corporatism and corporations only share etymological similarities.
>he works in an accounting office
Woe betide your clients
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98818
>>98773
Do you mean the businesses employ the capitalist mode of production and not the state? How do you determine who are in which class? For instance I am paid a wage and own stocks and property.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.