More than that, we’re capable of ignoring the personal attacks and push the point further. Capitalism is sociopolitical so dismissing comparisons to other political arrangements is silly
Capitalism is not sociopolitical, it’s an economic system. You don’t even have a point to push because you clearly don’t even understand what capitalism is, let alone make valid comparisons for it. Comparing capitalism to monarchy is like comparing luggage to airplanes, it’s just not the same thing.
You pointed out how capitalism depends on private property, that is a social relationship that is backed by political power to enforce said property rights. You can try to redefine economics but you can’t escape observed reality. But please continue to insist I don’t know what i am talking about, it truly adds value to the debate. You should actually require payment before making such statements
You keep making one ignorant statement after another while doubling down on being a smug pseudointellectual. All economic systems are backed by their government, and all governments have a monopoly on violence to maintain order. That’s not a revelation of anything but your ignorance. All societies in history with a socialist system have the same exact dynamic. This doesn’t change the fact that monarchy and capitalism aren’t comparable because they’re fundamentally different concepts. If you’re going to double down again on such a painfully false notion, then this conversation is not worth continuing.
Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.
More than that, we’re capable of ignoring the personal attacks and push the point further. Capitalism is sociopolitical so dismissing comparisons to other political arrangements is silly
Capitalism is not sociopolitical, it’s an economic system. You don’t even have a point to push because you clearly don’t even understand what capitalism is, let alone make valid comparisons for it. Comparing capitalism to monarchy is like comparing luggage to airplanes, it’s just not the same thing.
You pointed out how capitalism depends on private property, that is a social relationship that is backed by political power to enforce said property rights. You can try to redefine economics but you can’t escape observed reality. But please continue to insist I don’t know what i am talking about, it truly adds value to the debate. You should actually require payment before making such statements
You keep making one ignorant statement after another while doubling down on being a smug pseudointellectual. All economic systems are backed by their government, and all governments have a monopoly on violence to maintain order. That’s not a revelation of anything but your ignorance. All societies in history with a socialist system have the same exact dynamic. This doesn’t change the fact that monarchy and capitalism aren’t comparable because they’re fundamentally different concepts. If you’re going to double down again on such a painfully false notion, then this conversation is not worth continuing.
Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.