I don’t completely buy your argument that if the government forgives a $180,000 loan that it’s money from the Federal Reserve that covers it and thus inflates the economy by $180k. Like if you wanted $100 for food and I gave it to you and I decided to forgive it. I don’t consider it paying myself $100 to account for it. I view it more “I gave up the opportunity to make $100”. Remind me of that joke about two economist in the forest.

That’s because you’re not the federal reserve, and no money was added in that transaction. Also, in this example, you are out 100 dollars. Whether you forgive it or not, the money came from you, and now that’s money you don’t have. Your example is actually 1-to-1 with my first example (where Sallie Mae gets screwed over), but scaled down. If America decides on your behalf that the debt is forgiven, then America is now $100 in debt to you that it has to immediately repay.

Maybe you missed this part of my comment, but that’s why i mentioned how important it is that it’s billions of dollars. Sallie Mae would never accept that billion of dollars just came out of their pocket without their consent. It has to be regenerated.

So, if you give a friend $100, and the government forgives it without committing an obvious crime against you. then you and your friend now have a total of $200 even tho you started with $100.

It’s also partly why I started talking about the historical component. If you study how these things played out in history, this shouldn’t surprise you or give any doubt. Generating more currency has been standard practice in so many corrupt governments, and it always leads to further economic trouble. It shouldn’t surprise you to find out that if the people who can generate money need to pay billions of dollars they’ll just generate it.

How is the government nefarious for forgiving loans? You claim it’s about gaining greater control over the populous. However your own argument is forgiving loans would basically cause inflation to go up. Causing people to buy and save less. Hurting businesses in the process. Possibly causing a recession or even worse a depression.

I’m sorry, I feel like you need to read my comment again. I think you’re missing a lot of what I’m saying. You mentioned you were tired, were you just skimming my comment? Genuinely, not throwing shade.

What you are describing is exactly what I was describing. We are in agreement here, the general populace all lose, private businesses lose, it’s bad for the economy, it’s bad for the people. So, everybody loses, at least, assuming people have good intentions, right? So, the only people who are potential winners, are those who see advantage in people’s misfortune. Does that make sense? I’m saying the only people who find this to be advantageous are those who are nefarious in nature, because to find advantage in people’s misfortune is nefarious.

As for control, consider this. If you make $100,000, you get to decide what to do with it. If someone loans you $100,000, you have to play by their rules. Furthermore, if you’re so in debt and the economy is weak, you would have to rely on what they’re willing to loan you money for to maintain liquidity and stay afloat. The more that the government and public corporations decide what to fund, the more they’re controlling you.

Historically, governments have their most control when populations are fat and happy. Most civil unrest are in uncertain times, such as recessions and depressions. If anything it’s more nefarious for the government to keep the loans and jack up the interest rates where people have no ability to pay it off and can’t bankrupt out of it.

This is an interesting way to look at it. The problem I see with it, is that the times that people are most fat and happy, are when they were most free (least controlled). I mean, you’re kinda not wrong, but also totally are? I’ll try to explain, you’re right that a happier population is generally more compliant and effective - but that’s not the same thing as control. I repeat: Stability of the nation, effectiveness of the people, and compliance to the state’s wishes, are not synonymous with controlling the population.

Let’s look at some historical examples again.

• I talked about Caesar and Diocletian before, so I’ll use their eras as an example again. Caesar lived in a period of time where the people were generally wealthy and well fed, and the senate was both still in power, and highly incentivized to veto legislation that restricts freedoms of the people. Free trade prospered, the people were happy (generally), and the population was growing. Caesar’s veterans were loyal followers, that believed in him, his abilities, and his promises almost as much as they feared him. Diocletian, however, ruled over a period of decline in population and economy, and yet the power of the state grew exponentially. His control over the people was massive, in fact, this is one of the first historical examples of wide scale price fixing by the state. People lost so much freedom under Diocletian that historians tend to call it the beginning of Feudalism - plebeian rights began to much more resemble those of medieval peasants.

• A more concise example from Rome that illustrates control, is when the early Republic forgave debts if you provided labor to the state. “We paid your debt, now you have to work for us to make it worth it”.

• Maybe consider what the word totalitarian means to you in more recent history. A state that controls everything within it. What states have been totalitarian in the past? We don’t typically correlate “totalitarianism” with a fat, happy, and compliant population, but it’s the epitome of “control”. Stalin’s Soviet State had total control over his population. The most control is total control, and total control is totalitarianism. I don’t know about you, but when I think totalitarianism, I think people like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jung-Il… All of these people exert(ed) maximum control over their people, and it came at the cost of the people every time.

Plus I think it’s rich to give upset at people for making dumb choices before going to the place that makes them smart enough to realize how dumb they there.

I never suggested I was upset at students who made bad choices. I said we need a cultural shift that discourages young students from seeing it as a default choice. Where did you get that I was upset at them for that? I think it’s tragic that society guides them towards such as risky choice - I’m specifically not putting blame on them and suggesting something that has nothing to do with their personal choice. How could you think I was mad at them

This was the last sentence in my first comment, please read it again: “as long as you know that it comes from a place of genuine concern for everyone including students with debt”.

I really appreciate the conversation, I appreciate that you took the time to type your thoughts out when sleep was calling you, but I do take issue with unfavorable assumptions like this, especially when I can see it coming a mile away and try really hard to nip it in the bud but it just doesn’t seem to work. I appreciate you but please don’t ever do that to me anymore.

Anyways, sorry for the long comment again, let me just try and get back to a point of agreement. I’m okay with 0 interest loans for students, but that’s also a service that I think is worth paying for. The circumstance I laid out before, where some interest is paid so the loaner can profit, while the student still pays less in total for school, does seem like an ideal case, but I don’t see a need for the education department of the state to profit, so maybe state given loans could be 0 interest? For private loans, the best case is for the individual to establish an interest rate and cap that’s reasonable for them (this can and does already happen sometimes). But, if you want to treat student like a protected class (probably warranted these days), establishing an interest cap by law for student loans specifically might be a good idea.

Sure! So for starters, I’m going to guess our working definitions of inflation are a little different. Inflation, in the general sense, refers to an expansion. When you inflate a balloon, it is expanding because the supply of air increases. This expansion can cause a rise (if it’s helium), but the rise and the inflation are separate things. Likewise, if the supply of money increases, that would refer to an inflation or expansion of the currency, and the prices would rise in response, because greater supply of something makes it less valuable. They’re linked, for sure, but not the same conceptual thing.

I understand if you don’t want to accept that into your nomenclature but I do find it’s the more workable - and historically consistent, for that matter - definition of the word. Just as long as you understand how I use the word is all :)

So, to the loans. There’s a few ways to get a loan, let’s say you sign a deal with Sallie Mae. To keep it simple, let’s say they have $100,000 to give, so that’s the loan you get. Under normal circumstances, you would get your education, and then sometime later pay it back by your own means, after interest has accumulated. So, let’s say you pay $180,000 back in total, so $80,000 in interest. Technically, you paid $80,000 for SLM to pay $100,000 on your behalf, and you got you education in the process. SLM makes a big profit, you get educated for cheaper, and the school still gets their tuition fees. This benefits the shareholders of SLM who then have more revenue to participate more in the economy.

These numbers may seem idealistic to you, depending on where you’re from, who you sign with, etc… I’ll address that in a sec, but they’re not real numbers anyway haha. The important part to point out about this process is that the additional $80,000 comes from a private individual - meaning it most likely came from the supply of money that already exists amongst the general public (you worked for it). Same goes for the loaned money in this case, and as it’s payed off all that revenue is recirculated in the process

Now let’s say, for whatever reason, you don’t or can’t pay it off at all. So, you’re given $100,000 and ten years later they’re expecting $180,000 back. If the government decides on SLM’s behalf to forgive your loan, then it has effectively taken $180,000 of revenue away from the organization. Not only do I find this wrong personally (I don’t think the government should interfere with business like that), and that I’m pretty sure it would be massively illegal, but it would also certainly put that organization out of business if it’s done at scale, which means that service disappears for everyone else. But, like I said, I’m certain this isn’t how they’d do it, and that’s probably why.

What has to happen is for the government to pay it off themselves. Given that America’s national debt is still trending up (last i checked anyway), I would say it does not have the spare funds to pay off student’s loans. The way America solves that problem these days is the federal reserve generates more money, which means that forgiving $180,000 in debt will directly inflate the currency by $180,000. That’s not a lot by itself, but I think Biden’s forgiving billions of dollars altogether, which means the supply of American dollars will inflate by billions, which will greatly decrease its value. This, of course, means that the students whose loans were just forgiven will have way less buying power.

This basically means that the entire working class, including those who had their loans forgiven, will have way less buying power, struggle to build savings, and have less means to move themselves up economically. Having such a large portion of the consumer market struggling to get by will hurt businesses, more loans given, more loans forgiven… The only potential winner is a nefarious government who just gained greater control over its population. The reason I say nefarious is because a non-nefarious government would see no advantage here.

TL;DR: forgiving billions of dollars inflates the currency by billions of dollars which totally fucks over the people it was trying to help.

As for what the government can do, is perhaps institute laws that reduce or cap interest on student loans, but I think that already exists (it does where I live anyway). That would help out those who’ve been exploited by high interest student loans (or prevent it).

But, the best way to solve the student loan crises is a massive cultural shift in how we approach education. I don’t think art school should be worth as much as it costs, but people are willing to pay for it so it’ll never change. I think a lot of people go to school out of a sort of obligation, or an assumption that it’ll lead somewhere good, without considering what a massive investment it is. People don’t really see it as an investment, but it is. If you’re thinking about going to school, you have to be able to judge whether or not it’ll be worth it, just like every other big risky investment. If you’re gonna pay that much to go to school, you better have the money and really want to go to school or expect to make returns on the investment.

The NEXT best way to solve it is to have a strong enough economy that those who do get fucked over (generally, not just by loans) or make mistakes can easily recover and make up for it if they try to. That’s the only factor the government is actually responsible for, and I would say forgiving loans actively works against it. So, as far as the government is concerned, it should be in its best interest to never forgive loans.

I’m sorry, I know this is a long comment, but there plenty of historical example of good and bad debt relief efforts. We have so much to learn from!

• Julius Caesar instituted reforms that reduced interest owed on outstanding debts. He also personally provided relief in extreme cases. Yet, when debt cancellation came up in the senate, he strongly opposed the method. So much so, that he personally took out such a massive loan the he became the most indebted man in Rome, and thus the primary benefactor for such a bill that was meant to help the common folk. Suddenly it wasn’t such a popular idea anymore lol. Since he did so much to help Rome economically, I think I’ll trust his judgement on that one.

• Okay not exactly a debt forgiveness example but it’s worth mentioning that the emperor Aurelian literally SOLVED inflation by physically stopping all currency printing operations within reach of the political power base. One of the only times in history that’s been achieved.

• Diocletian’s reign began less than ten years later and was incredibly heavy handed in his economic reforms, including debt cancellation efforts, and also happened to rule over one of the greatest inflationary periods in history. Just ten years later. Granted, that was way more than just the debt cancellation.

• King Henry III was fiscally irresponsible and reigned over a time of economic hardship. Many of his Baron’s were indebted to Jewish money-lenders, so he just issue the Statute of Jewry and cancelled a ton of debt at the expensive at the cost of economic hardship for the Jewish community.

I could go on but I don’t feel like typing this comment anymore lol

Has anyone ever told you why they think it’s a bad idea to cancel debt that wasn’t just about unfairness that other people get stuff? Because honestly, I hear that argument straw manned on the left way more often than I hear it used on the right, and I feel that those who support this decision and condescend on those who don’t haven’t actually heard the more legitimate concerns with it.

Simply put, this - in my opinion and most economists - is a horribly irresponsible economic decision that will genuinely cause real problems. If you’re interested in hearing why, I’d love to explain my stance from it, as long as you know that it comes from a place of genuine concern for everyone including students with debt

I think you missed the point.

I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.

Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.

It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?

I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.

Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.

One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.

Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.

Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.

had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture

which implies that non-collectivized agriculture was doing a good job considering the significant upswing in the 20s. After the civil war, non-collectivized farms were doing a good job.

All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.

This response makes me think you didn’t really read my comment very closely considering I literally explain the etymology of the word “public”. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, and there’s good reason to consider that state ownership given the history of the word and its use over time. I don’t think I’m incoherent, I just think you don’t understand, otherwise you’d actually address my comment instead of restating your position and implying I’m stupid for not agreeing. I honest to god do recommend taking my comment a bit more seriously and rereading it. Really try to look at what I’m telling you, and if you disagree, I’d love to see you actually point out what’s wrong with my comment.

You’re never going to convince me I’m out of line here unless I can tell from your response you actually took in what I was saying, because honestly, you really didn’t have to read much of what I said to generate the response you made.

I wasn’t referring to 30s and 70s as time periods, but the actual life expectancies.

Oh, I must have assumed you meant otherwise because the USSR never reached that high of a life expectancy. They peaked in 1970 at 68 years old, at which point it trended down again. Russians never reached a life expectancy of 70 until 2015. You should also consider how volatile that graph has been in general, it simply isn’t good for a state to have that much influence over the life expectancy of all of its people.

That little bump in 1985-1990 correlates with the reign of Gorbachev. He implemented policy that gave more autonomy to enterprises (less state control), and allowed for foreign trade (opening the market, again less state control). This included giving way more autonomy to the collectivized farms, as well as allowing for private farms for both personal use and for sale on the market - in other words, he de-collectivized. Given that the central authority in the USSR was the state, you could also say the central authority has less control, and thus they decentralized.

Compare this the the US life expectancy of time. It’s much less volatile for one thing, it’s a very steady incline. They also actually did reach a life expectancy of 70 by 1970, they had it by 1965 in fact.

.

Honestly, we totally agree on quite a bit here. We obviously both don’t advocate for Stalin himself, and we totally agree decentralization is a good thing. It’s just strange to me that in the case of the USSR you don’t see how the act of decentralization was literally being less strict on collective control and more lenient on private control - in other words, being less strict on socialist policy and being a little more lenient on private ownership.

it’s also important to acknowledge that many parts of the USSR did work

It’s also important to acknowledge which parts worked, it’s also important to acknowledge why they worked. When farmers were given private ownership, they had more freedom of choice in how to manage it, which is really important to have on farms for a myriad of reasons I can get into if you want. But in any case, they were better able to feed themselves as well as bring more product to market. Surplus on food and freedom of distribution means less hunger.

However, this cannot be meaningfully achieved in a top-down system like Capitalism.

Take farming as an example since it’s on topic. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. In 1985-1990 USSR most privately owned farms were small scale and personally managed. What’s more top down, a guy owning a plot of land and doing what he wants with it, or being assigned to work a plot by the regional agriculture authority, who answers to the ministry of agriculture, who answered to the council of ministers, who answered to the Communist Party leadership?

.

Private Property Rights require a state while public property does not

Public Property: something owned by the city, town, or state.

I understand that the line is blurry on whether public means “of the state” or “of the people”. For example, the Romans saw the state to be in service of the people, so “public works” were state works for the people. They also saw the republic as a government of the people, so state projects were of the people either way you take it. This is exactly the same in our democracy, public spaces are managed by the state, on behalf of the people, but the democratic state is also a government of the people, so it’s effectively redundant in the modern context.

In any case, I don’t exactly think the distinction matters. As soon as a large group of people (the public) see the need to come together and make decisions and how to manage certain things and/or how to cooperate to get something done, a government is formed. When the Romans did this, they literally didn’t have a distinctive word for it, which is why they basically just called it the “public thing”, the group that handled public decision making. The nature of the Roman “public thing” swayed in and out of meaning of for the people, by the people, in service of the people, in command of the people, and it was never exclusive to one of those things.

Private property demonstrably does not require a state to exist, because that’s not always how property rights are handled. In this early period of Rome, the state could purchase and grant rights, but so could private citizens. If the people of Rome wanted a plot of land to themselves, the legal way to do so would be through a legitimate exchange with a private owner. Property rights are granted by whoever holds the property rights, private or public. Modern nations technically own the land they claim, which is why they grant access.

.

The far more important distinction are the things that which the people don’t decide need collective cooperation. That’s what we call “private”. To be privately controlled, you can’t be under the control of the collective or the control of the state, which is precisely why “private” is the antithesis of “public”. In the context of Rome, centralization would be to make it part of the “public thing”. So, if the people and senate of Rome decided to bring the whole market under the control of the people the way they did the army and roads, they would have been both centralizing control of the market and technically socialist, as the means of production would been publicly controlled. The USSR was socialist for exactly that reason.

I didn’t say the workers decided things, I said they had a right to, and then alluded to the diplomatic issues that creates… In fact, I heavily implied they can’t realistically make decisions when I said the group decides things on their behalf.

Central Planned Economy: an economy where decisions on what to produce, how to produce and for whom are taken by the government in a centrally managed bureaucracy.

In socialism, the market is controlled by the state. This fits the definition of central planning perfectly.

In capitalism, the market is not controlled by a centralized bureaucracy.

Okay I see what you mean. You agree attempted, but never achieved, I see that now. I’m sorry for misconstruing your argument, but I still take issue with your assertion that things got drastically better. That’s a big red flag to me and tends to be a sign that someone is having a big misunderstanding.

.

The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s

While true, it is essentially a lie by omission to leave out other key details. For one thing, if you think about it, what kind of conditions would one have to be in initially to make doubling the life expectancy even possible?

The Russians were in horribly dire straits. Life expectancy fell from 37 to 32 from 1930-1935. The chief cause was forced collectivization of farming by Stalin. Privately owned farms were confiscated by the state, and were horribly mismanaged which resulted in famine. Socialist policy directly caused that famine.

Life expectancy started going up again in 1935 after they relaxed grain procurement quotas, decentralized, and opened up private plots. This is the scaling back of socialist policy, and the implementation of capitalist policy. Capitalism policy is to thank for stopping the famine.

had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed

The US has had exponential growth, rather than linear, along with many of its allies. Russia also supplies a large percentage of the world’s oil, you’d have to make fucking up an art to make your GDP go down with a supply like that.

guaranteed free Healthcare and education,

Both were an improvement considering I don’t think much was their for either before, so I’ll give ya that.

and had mass housing initiatives

These came in response to a housing crisis caused by inadequate supply of houses when the USSR nationalized it under the Central Board of Architecture. The housing initiatives did help, but the housing problem was never solved, and it was a problem created by them.

It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence

Because he killed the rich people, and no one had anything. Equality is not an intrinsically good quality, especially when it means everybody is equally impoverished.

.

I guess this is why I find the observation that communism has never existed pretty naive. Socialism, in its most honest representation, is really the state ownership of the means of production. The way Stalin held ownership in common, was to collectivize it under the state that all citizens are part of. If we are trying to achieve a stateless society, then holding ownership in common is an antithetical goal. Every step the USSR took away from common ownership was a step towards private ownership, and therefor a step towards capitalism.

Socialism means workers collectively own the means of production, and it isn’t synonymous with central planning.

This can only be true if you stop thinking at the end of the sentence, without reading into any of the implications, or any circumstantial cause and effect.

If the workers collectively own everything, then that means that every worker has just as much right as anyone else to make decisions on how the process plays out. This means that the group has to come up with a way to make decisions. Since the group has to make a decision, and everybody has a right to make decisions, the group is effectively making decisions on behalf of those in the group.

If the workers collectively own everything, then that means they have to work together and organize to get things done. This means that the group has to come up with a way to organize. This means that the group will be deciding on behalf of those in the group what work is done by who.

If the workers collectively own everything, that means the workers have to decide what rules or laws to follow, and how to enforce them. So now the group has to decide by what convention it’ll hold its members accountable. If it wants to hold members accountable, it implicitly has the power to do so.

A group with decision making power that enforces law among its members is a central authority.

A central authority with power over the market and all decision making is central planning.

Your description of capitalism legitimately sounds like mental gymnastics. You can call anything centralized if you reduce the context to only itself. That is dishonest, the context here is the market. If a market is centrally planned, then all aspects of the market need to be centrally planned by the same unit. That’s what central planning means. A disunited group of private entities all planning things for themselves is absolutely not an example of central planning.

Heracles

Sure, and capitalism has never existed either, only specific forms of libertarian-constitutionalism 🤷‍♂️

Now, if you can see how silly what I just typed is, you should be able to see how silly it is to claim communism has never been tried. You say yourself that Marxist-Leninism is a communist ideology, so if it’s being attempted, then it’s valid to say a form of communism is being attempted.

Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure?

All of the citation needed. Don’t make the mistake of including the goals of outcome as part of the definition, that’s just cheating. Op obviously rejects the idea that it makes things better, you can’t just assume it a priori.

Might be a regional thing, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a new church built in my lifetime. The only churches I see closing down are the ones in small towns that don’t have the population to maintain it anymore.

I’m curious, do you see a trend in the denomination of these pop-up churches?

I appreciate your comment and defense a lot. You seem like a very kind person and you’re very straightforward with your words, I like that. I’m telling you that not just because I believe it’s true and you deserve to hear it, but also so you don’t take it the wrong way when I tell you that, well, I’m sorry but I found your comment a bit condescending too. And I don’t blame you for it! Truly, I get it. You are referencing the fact that I’m on the hunt for the truth on Google, and it’s fair enough that it paints the picture in your head of a young, maybe naive, person on the hunt for the truth of this nebulous area of private and public ownership. I guess it’s not really far from the truth either lol. But, the context I haven’t shared is that I actually am very educated on this. I studied economics, history, philosophy and political science in post-secondary for two years before graduating (with a different major) and a minor in philosophy. Outside of school I’ve actually read heaps of books pertaining to the general theories the revolve around the distinction between public and private, from anarcho-capitalists to totalitarian-communists and everything in between.

The reason I don’t share this context and why I choose to reference google, is because after all this studying I’ve come to see that most conclusions drawn by these intellectuals can be demonstrated very easily by using commonly accepted definitions. Most misunderstandings can be contradicted by people’s own language or easily accessible sources, so that’s what I try to do. It seems a lot more favorable to do a simple “premise -> premise -> conclusion”. Besides, it just seems like a waste of time to open up a physical copy of some philosopher and manually re type something to quote them, just to come off as as grand standy, or just get told they don’t like who I quoted, or have the comment not even post to begin with because Lemmy has issues with long comments.

I’m sorry, that’s enough about my frustrations for one comment lol. I just wanted you to know I don’t come from a place of naivety or ignorance on the topic before I respond to your insights, because I think the assumption of ignorance has prevented some people in this thread from reading what I’m saying in good faith. I also do think you’re mostly spot on in what you say. The only exception might be that while I am familiar the distinction between public traded and private organization before, I don’t think that distinction applies here. After all, you’re totally right, things do change based on context :) I’ll try and show you what I mean.

My original comment’s purpose was to show the flaw in using capitalism as a catch all term, especially when it comes to medicine. The most commonly used definition of capitalism refers to private ownership. You’re absolutely right that private can refer to not being publicly traded, but private ownership refers to “being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body”.

Regarding the term public, when things are open to the public, they are open to us because we are members of the public. Public places are open to members of the public. We are members of the public, public refers to the state, and we live in a democracy and are thus members of the state. People who are exiled are not free to trade in stocks because they no longer are a member of the state that holds them. Exiled folk are not free in public places because they are no longer a member of their public, and are banned from visitation so they’re sent elsewhere.

Recall the definition of Corporation I provided before, specifically that it’s “chartered by the state”. This means the government and the government alone establishes corporations as legal entities, and sets the parameters by which they can do so. They exist as part of the state, but operate separately from the government, under parameters set by the government. That’s the distinction that’s made when you call Microsoft a private organization, the business isn’t controlled by the state directly, but government and corporations are both part of the state, and they certainly influence each other a lot right now.

This can also be seen in the etymology of the word itself, along with the history of how modern corporations came to be. “Corporation” comes from latin corpus, meaning corpse, or “body”. A body that’s chartered by the state, a body of the state. The reason the etymology took this path can be seen in how corporations evolved with time. The publicani of Rome is sometimes considered the first corporation to exist, which were independent contractors that performed government services. The Dutch East India Company found the first stock exchange, and was a corporation owned and controlled by the Dutch senate as well as others.

Now, considering where corporations evolved from, and the amount of easily identifiable government-corporate collusion today, I think corporations land far closer to being an independent arm of the state, and publicly owned than representing the private ownership represented by capitalism.

Now, just to nip it in the bud, you might infer that this means that corporations are socialist. Well, kinda, but also no. Characteristics of corporations can be seen all over early modern socialist philosophy, including syndicalism and trade unionism. But, if socialism is the public control of the means of production, and corporations are controlled independently, it doesn’t quite fit, right?

The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we’re terrible at naming things.

You and I couldn’t agree more. I guess it would really help if people incorporated (heh) the word corporatism into their vocabulary. We could freely disagree on the nature of corporations and their relationship with public and private ownership and control, while still distinguishing companies like Microsoft from ma and pop shops with clearer language.

At the very least, I wonder if you can agree that there’s enough reason to take issue with blaming all issues on capitalism alone, when there’s so much more to it. Feel free to let me know what you think :) I know it was still a really big comment but, yeah, like I said, there’s a lot to it lol I really appreciate it if you’ve even read this far

I’m well aware it’s popular to believe public corporations are capitalistic, in fact I used to believe it myself as well. Getting educated is why I no longer believe it. Actually, not getting educated is a great way to believe that public corporations, precisely because it’s a popular belief now.

I also happen to know this belief was popularized by early 1900s socialist propaganda, which characterized capitalists as greedy. They created the association between greed, wealth, markets, and capitalism right out the gate. Because this association was so heavily propagandized, people now use it to define capitalism. This is absolutely incorrect, because greed is a human flaw independent of capitalism, and markets can exist without private control of the means of production. In fact, markets and greed existed in every noteworthy socialist state that ever existed. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to hold the opinion that capitalists are greedy, but to use greed as an indicator for whether someone is a capitalist is absolutely wrong.

So, back to Johnson & Johnson. They are publicly owned, they appeal to their shareholders, the shareholders vote democratically on certain decisions, CEOs are appointed by shareholders, and the CEOs - the people with most control over the system - can be ousted by the shareholders. This is not private control, and you admitted public corporations are not public business. I would prefer not to appeal to popular belief to base my decisions, especially when I’m familiar with how that popular opinion was swayed.

You repeatedly take issue with my terminology, but that’s what we’re debating. Please tell me why my terminology is wrong.

If I need to get educated, please do me a favor. By what metric do you define Johnson & Johnson capitalist? That’s all I need. Just that one thing, that’s all you have to do.

Okay so public corporations are not private companies. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Public corporations are not private, so they’re not capitalist either. I dunno why you had to ask, that was my original point to begin with, it’s silly to see a non-capitalist entity like Johnson & Johnson do something bad and blame capitalism for it.

You throwing in the word “collective” is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist?

You’re really reading way too much into things. Just take out the word collective from my comment if it upsets you so much, it makes sense without it.

The conclusion I got to was that public corporations are not private companies. Looks like you’re longer disputing that I guess, so you agree with that now?

The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.

If a corporation is publicly traded, then its ownership is held by the public collective that chooses to invest. The ownership in question is not your specific ownership of a share individually, the ownership in question is the ownership of the means of production, which a public collective invested in. It is not true that you buying one share privately implies the whole thing is private. That’s like saying the fact that you voted in private means the government is privately controlled. Yes, private individuals can vote and buy stock, that does not make either private. It makes them public.

The definitions also agree with me btw

Private Ownership:

• the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled “define private ownership”)
• Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion.

Public Ownership:

• A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company’s assets and profits. (Same source)
• ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled “define public ownership”)

So, if it’s owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it’s not owned by the state or public body, it’s private.

Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.

I don’t know what to tell you when it comes to farms. Where I’m from, farmers have been able to buy land pretty damn freely. In my small town, there are hundreds of private farms, and it’s thanks to the fact that government isn’t stopping us, and it’s only slowed recently since corporations and government have taken an interest in buying land themselves. Private is the farmers, public is the corporations and government. Farming should stay private, to prevent the misuse of land that comes with government and corporate ownership. The fact the it remains arable and plentiful is thanks to private ownership in fact, because the owners have a vested interest in not depleting the value and use of their land. Farming is their way of life, they don’t want to lose it.

You tend to see land misuse and resource depletion in corporate and government farms, not private ones.

Are you suggesting we have a more powerful government to limit incorporation?

The government currently regulates private entities really heavily while also doing things that benefit themselves and corporations. I would suggest that they both stop working with corporations like that (enforcing patents on helpful medicine for example) which would make the government and corporations both less powerful.

Empowering the government in a way that hurt corporations is tempting, but I’m not sure if it’s possible since corporations are charted by the state itself. It would be really hard to have the state create them in a way that doesn’t in some way help them, and thus it would be hard to stop them from empowering the corporations because they’ll always benefit from it. They set it up, house always wins.

If you are suggesting the government abolish the right to incorporate, I’d entertain that notion with you.

That might be the answer, just get rid of them. It’ll be hard to get done, for the reasons I described, but yeah, I think it might have to be done. Let’s enthusiastically agree on this one :)

And just for clarity, when we’re talking about regulations, are you also suggesting we dismantle things like the FDA?

Hmm, great question honestly. Really hits the heart of the medicine issue. I think it serves a public good, because big corporations had the freedom to sell some awful stuff, but with corporations gone… maybe not necessary right? My position is that it’s currently regulating far too much. A lot of potential medical innovation has been stifled for dubious “safety reasons”, while there’s also been a lot of dangerous things stopped, so the balance is hard. Reduced regulation is where I stand for now