What does it mean to be "anti-capitalist?"?

It means to be against exploitation and oppression of workers, against cheating of customers, against unsustainable growth and depletion of resources, against environmental destruction justified by profits, against giving corporation more rights than actual people.

It means you are a Socialist.

Does it truly mean your a socialist @Jaxk ,or just against what @ragingloli said?
Most people want to earn a fair living for them and their families without being exploited and mistreated by the corporate world,does that make them anti-capitalist?

A small addition:
Being anti-capitalist also requires the realisation, that the aforementioned negative aspects are all intrinsic inevitabilities of the capitalist system.

@SQUEEKY2 – Yes, it means you are a socialist. All the thing @ragingloli rails against are not inherent in capitalism but are rather monopolistic practices. They will occur if left unchecked in any economic system. Most socialsts believe the government will inherently do the right thing. How’s that working for them in Venezuela.

@Jaxk NO, being anti-Capitalistic-abuses does not mean being pro-Socialist, except in the crippled imaginations of people stuck thinking that a binary argument between the two is somehow the only possible way of thinking of things.

Why is Venezuela always the target for pointing out why Capitalism is so much better, why not point out one of the many countries that socialism does work if done properly?

How can it mean anything other than “Anti-” “Capitalist” It means you’re opposed to capitalism. That’s it.

…and you can completely agree with @ragingloli yet still be a capitalist.

@SQUEEKY2: “Why is Venezuela always the target ”

Because capitalists think that if global capitalism has been successful at crushing any true alternative, then it must be the best we can do. I refuse to entertain any “but what about [some country that they assume must be the definition of an alternative]?” questions. For starters, it’s a strange framing. I’m more interested in why, if capitalism is obviously the best choice, does global capitalism require the perpetual crushing of any anti-capitalist movements? We can’t judge the success or failure of an individual group/state’s effort to move beyond capitalism if said country has the foot of global capitalist power crushing it every time.

I identify as anti-capitalist or socialist or left. It doesn’t really matter to me. They are loose categories that at least point to my objections to capitalism as a complete moral and environmental failure that’s incompatible with democracy in any meaningful sense. Capitalism is what @ragingloli described – a system that is untenable in any real sense. It would take a lifetime of exposure to capitalist media to be able to say that this is the best we can do. Every aspect of it is indefensible.

And as an aside, while I identify as anti-capitalist, I support efforts to help minimize capitalism’s evil. I support social democratic proposals, such as M4A. These would make immediate improvements in the lives of millions of people. But the rift between the left and liberals (in the US) is that liberals tend to think incremental change and restrictions/regulations of brutal capitalism is sufficient, and will eventually result in a more gentle capitalism. The left disagrees with this premise because it sees a gentle capitalism as both kicking the can down the road, still quite brutal and exploitative, unsustainable, full of contradictions, etc. and is antithetical to any proposed goals and principles.

Additionally, as @ARE_you_kidding_me points out, I suspect @Caravanfan knows what the term means.

Capitalism is inescapable. Whatever system you come up with there will always be a capitalistic component to it, black market, favors, bribery and other ways people get themselves ahead or get what their families need to survive. It’s our natural state.
To completely squash capitalism is to completely strip an individual or group of their personal autonomy. On the flip side, to completely let it run free, unchecked will likely do the same. There is a tender balance between regulation, control and free run that needs to be maintained. To be anti-capitalist is actually IMO to be against personal freedom. I’m pro capitalism but anti-laissez faire capitalism. Distinctions are important here.

I’m with @ARE_you_kidding_me .

Take away capitalism from America, and it is no longer America. I am in favor of a hybrid system though where social systems and capitalism co-exist.

I never use the term anti-capitalist, so I am very interested in this Q, and how people define the term.

@ARE_you_kidding_me
There is no distinction.
True capitalism can only ever be laissez faire.
Any restrictions from the outside alters it into something else.

@ragingloli So does that mean “true socialism” is authoritarian?

@SQUEEKY2 Capitalism is about exploitation plain and simple. There’s no avoiding that the setup is about the maximization and concentration of profits as the primary directive. Apologists claim that evils inherent in loli’s spot on list are mere failures in regulation, rather than the very nature of the beast itself. It amounts to the claim that a tiger will subsist on cabbage if you keep it on a leash.

@Demosthenes
true socialism is economic direct democracy.

@Demosthenes Of course it’s authoritarian to insist that EVERYONE should eat.

There is nothing much wrong with capitalism when the scale is small. Individuals should have the freedom to get together to create new businesses without undue interference from the state. That leads to innovation and economic growth.

Problems arise as businesses grow ever larger and the workforce becomes detached from management, pay inequalities increase, markets become monopolised and the financial power of huge corporations begins to distort the politics of the country. Some oversight and control by government is then necessary to ensure workers are treated fairly and have a safe place in which to work, that pollution and environmental destruction is minimised and that consumer rights are protected. So I am both capitalist and anti capitalist.

I agree with everything @ragingloli says. I also agree with @notnotnotnot regaring medicare for all. And no, @notnotnotnot I don’t know what the terms means—that’s why I asked the question. @ragingloli‘s answers does not immediately mean someone is against capitalism. It means that they don’t want capitalists who are assholes.

What I’m trying to figure out is what an anti-capitalist society would look like. Give me a for example.

Can’t a society have both??
Like universal health care for everyone, and for the conservatives NO that doesn’t mean free,just affordable.
WE need regulations in place so corporations don’t exploit the working class, or pollute to their hearts content .
We need corporations to pay their share of the tax burden,not dump it on the working slob.
Is any of that going to happen,probably not corporations if regulated ,or taxed their share,corporations always use the threat of pulling up stakes and heading off shore,so governments cave and let the corporations get away with continued exploitation of the working slob,and not paying their share of the tax burden.
And people still wonder why I never wanted to bring another wage slave into this fucking planet.

See I see Medicare for All as a bonus for capitalism (which is one reason why I strongly support it). If everybody had Medicare then businesses who now provide health coverage as a benifit wouldn’t have to pay for health coverage and that money could go into improving worker salaries.

@Caravanfan. It’s the overall threat to a system that believes the role of government should be restricted to enabling and protecting profits. All else should ideally be left in the hands of the private sector to buy and sell with the efficiencies of the “markets.” Overall Jaxk is right in that adherents of both socialism and capitalism prefer to assign such characteristics as greed and avarice to their opposing systems. But only one of the 2 operations leaves the gate wearing the colors of greed and avarice openly from the outset.

@stanleybmanly I’m still confused as to what a society as @notnotnotnot and @ragingloli and others would look like. How are goods manufactured? Let’s say you want to buy a widget. Who makes the widget and how do you, as a consumer, pick? In Communism, the widget is created or funded by the government. In capitalism, it’s made and funded by a private entity.

So far I’m not seeing anything in this thread that is anti-capitalist.

@Caravanfan: ”@ragingloli‘s answers does not immediately mean someone is against capitalism. It means that they don’t want capitalists who are assholes.”

Please expand on this, and how it would be implemented. In this theoretical economic system, how would non-assholeness be achieved?

@Caravanfan: “See I see Medicare for All as a bonus for capitalism (which is one reason why I strongly support it). If everybody had Medicare then businesses who now provide health coverage as a benifit wouldn’t have to pay for health coverage and that money could go into improving worker salaries.”

It seems that most advocates would see the advantage to those who would actually gain access to healthcare – not to capitalists who no longer would provide partial premium to some of their employees.

But in practice, what types of regulations would make your friendly capitalism require that reduced expenses would find their way into increased worker salaries? Because currently, that doesn’t happen. Unless you are advocating a strict regulation where management can’t make more than 2x lowest paid worker or something. Is this what you mean?

@flutherother “Little” is not what capitalism is about. The Chamber of Commerce would prefer you to believe your corner bakery or mom & pop grocery the basis of “American Business” as though the laughable idea of “Main Street” manipulation of the levers of power is a valid reality.

@notnotnotnot I’m not entirely sure how to answer your question without having you answer mine. What would your ideal society look like? See my respone to @stanleybmanly.

@Caravanfan None of us here (I don’t believe) preach absolute socialism, where you don’t own the very shoes on your feet. Buying, selling and ownership are indespensible to any functioning society. Let’s agree that socialism has its place in our society, particularly when it comes to regulating the evils involved with the package. Now the capitalists tell us that the nation’s problems are about the excesses of socialism, and the evils of regulation. All this at a time of universal agreement that the rich grow richer and the poor proliferate. From a personal standpoint, I would be happier with a society reflecting the Scandinavian models, but I can tell you that selling such a development is a daunting prospect in a nation visibly dumbing down. Which of the 2 concepts do you suppose easier to grasp by the average American. “I too have a shot at winning the lottery and owning a Ferrari” or “I might be better off if the guy next door isn’t starving.”

@Caravanfan: “I’m not entirely sure how to answer your question without having you answer mine. What would your ideal society look like?”

Not going to happen. Why?

1. I don’t know. I don’t have a cohesive, detailed socialist utopia in mind. And that is ok. Why? because…

2. The current system is an atrocity, and has yet to be justified.

3. Every single conservative who approaches critiques to capitalism uses the same technique: If you can’t define the specifics of an alternative, then your critiques are invalid.

4. You and others have expressed some anti-capitalist ideas in a thread about anti-capitalism. I suspect that many people really do have deep problems with capitalism, but feel that somehow it can be saved. But they never – as 0% – have details on what that version of capitalism would look like, how it could be achieved, and how it would be maintained. In other words, they insist on a perfect vision of an anti-capitalist future, while holding vague fantastical visions of a capitalism built upon niceness.

@notnotnotnot to be clear I am not critiquing your point of view. I’m trying to understand it. For someone to self identify as anti-something then they must be pro-something else. (Or maybe not). It’s the “something else” I’m trying to understand. I’m trying to understand how goods get manufactured and traded from one place to another in an anti-capitalist system.

But that’s fine if you don’t have a cohesive answer. No problem.

@Caravanfan: “to be clear I am not critiquing your point of view. I’m trying to understand it.”

I think if you answer my questions on what type of economic system you would like to see, you would understand my position a lot more than you do now.

@Caravanfan: “For someone to self identify as anti-something then they must be pro-something else. (Or maybe not). It’s the “something else” I’m trying to understand.”

Then my questions to you should definitely help. You have expressed being anti-something, yet were unable to express exactly what your “pro” position would be. In other words. And that isn’t necessarily a critique either. Rather, there is utility in being a critic even if you don’t have the exact details worked out on what the alternative would be.

See, the status quo works often has a defense mechanism built in that demands that critiques that are not met with details on how to fix it are invalid. You have actually internalized this rule – or at lease enough to express it. But you probably don’t express this rule in other aspects of your life.

If capitalism has features that I find objectionable, I can certainly outline features that would be more in line with a better system. For example, if I object to the theft of surplus labor, the lack of democracy in the workplace, inequality, etc, then I can support features of a system that would be far better than our current system without having to have a detailed path and vision. Anti-capitalism, socialism, and “the left” might be shorthand for how I view the world (while not a class reductionist, class is definitely a part of every “issue” that I see).

To summarize, you are free to make your critiques of capitalism (which you are doing). But you might not realize that you do not have any idea why or how your critiques fit into a capitalist system. They most likely don’t. And here is where we have an opportunity – to make something better.

I don’t think you meant to post that twice.
You write: “You have expressed being anti-something, yet were unable to express exactly what your “pro” position would be.”

I have not expressed an anti of anything. You’re the one who wrote that you were anti-capitalist—I’m just trying to understand what that means. I have no problems with many things that would be considered socialistic (welfare state, M4A, low cost college education for those who have difficulty affording it, labor protections, strong environmental regulations, strict gun control, etc).

What I have trouble understanding is that in an anti-capitalist system, I’m just not sure how goods are produced. For example, I’m typing this on a laptop. Why did I pick this particular laptop? Well, at the time I purchased it when I compared it to all the other laptops (of which there are many) this one had the price and features that I wanted. Similarly, I bought a car and made a parallel group of decisions. But I had choice, and that choice is driven by a capitalist system.

What I’m trying to understand is let’s say we had an anti-capitalist sytem, whatever that is, how would I have made that choice?

@Caravanfan: “anti-capitalist sytem”

I suggest you read my response again. Also, read your response again.

Additionally…

@Caravanfan: “I have no problems with many things that would be considered socialistic (welfare state, M4A, low cost college education for those who have difficulty affording it, labor protections, strong environmental regulations, strict gun control, etc).”

“Socialistic” is an interesting term when used to describe those things you list. Not sure any of these would apply. But I think you should consider that what it is that you feel that these “socialistic” things are attempting to solve. In other words, what is it about capitalism that makes the things you describe necessary (in your opinion)? What are the inherent problems with capitalism? You may find that your “socialistic” solutions might be insufficient to solve these problems. And if they are not, you likely have some ideal in your mind. If you can still call this capitalism, I’d be interested in your response. Maybe I’ll have to ask a question tomorrow.

Note: being anti-capitalist or anti-racist or anti-Nazi or anti-imperialism is not a system. Just a tip. But we all have ideas about ways that we can solve these. And how not to.

And finally, I understand it’s not a particular interest of your’s, but I find it difficult to believe that you have not heard that there are a countless versions of economic systems, including ones that have markets, ones that don’t, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist communism, libertarian socialism, etc. I’m not a theory wonk – it doesn’t interest me. I’d rather we come up with a solution together that eliminates the problems with capitalism.

@notnotnotnot Of course I’ve heard of different economic systems. But I haven’t heard of “anti-capitalism”. Hence my question. I went to wikipedia and it was a mish-mash of socialism, fascism, Marxism, and barterism. I’m wondering what it meant to you. I’m going to assume you’re not a fascist.

Never mind, thanks for trying.

There’s a lot here to spark debate. Let me at least address the “why Venezuela” issue. Venezuela had a thriving economy and looked to remain so for the foreseeable future. As government took more and more control, more and more taxes, and provided more and more free services the economy began to decline. The story of Venezuela is strikingly similar to the road we are on and the road @ragingloli is advocating. Venezuela is used because it is the most recent and the most dramatic of the socialist failures. Here is a short but decent description of what happened

I have noticed that very frequently (on Fluther and other internet forums) when I or someone else does suggest alternatives to status quo economic practices, or even measures to limit corporate excesses, that if there are people in the discussion stuck in the “Capitalism versus Socialism (or Communism) is the only fundamental way to look at economics and/or politics” mindset, that such attempts to share new ideas quickly get labelled as Communist and/or Socialist.

When I take a survey that tries to pigeon-hole my political beliefs and map them on a Left/Right axis, I tend to get rated as ultra-left, but I really don’t think that’s accurate. I don’t identify as Socialist or Communist or even anti-Capitalist per se – in fact I think that many aspects of trade and business and personal wealth accumulation and some for-profit enterprises are fine.

What I object to are things like:
* the excesses of massive corporations and their all-for-profit agendas
* money-obsessed billionaires who use their power for the obsession to increase their wealth to the detriment of others
* industrial practices that destroy the health of the planet, cause extinctions, destroy ecosystems, threaten life as we know it, cause poverty and famine and war, etc.
* governments being effectively run by pawns of corporations and investors
* exploitation of third-world countries so international corporations can rob their natural resources and become indebted to the World Bank
* denying basic needs to people so corporations can make more profits
* and so on – it never ends, because the most powerful agents on earth are a network or inter-owned banks, and other mega-wealthy corporations and their stakeholders, and their thinking is all about a very destructive and ultimately stupid game of who owns what, that collectively they’ve already won long ago.

What I think the solution looks like, is the conversations that people around the world have about economy and industry, will transform. At some point, it will become more and more obvious that the situation described above is broken and undesirable and leading to many forms of disaster. And then those conversations will shift and change. The only question is how much and exactly what kind of suffering and destruction and extinctions will occur before those conversations and our practices change.

Unfortunately, it may be a “too late” conversation shift.

@Jaxk A major reason for the disastrous situation we see in Venezuela today was the election of Hugo Chavez as president back in 1999. He was a charismatic, populist leader who appealed directly to his base but who wouldn’t listen to anyone who opposed his unrealistic plans. His power base was the poor of Venezuela and he ignored the middle classes.

Chavez disliked the media and had a contempt for democratic institutions and processes. He abolished the Venezuelan congress and the judiciary and created a parallel government of his cronies and family members.

He had his own Sunday morning radio show, Aló Presidente (Hello, President) in which he spoke directly to his people. Chavez was of the left, and he took his ideas to greater extremes, but the similarities with Trump are quite striking.

The thing about Venezuela is the poverty rate is very high. It’s probably near double the US during most years. Someone like Chávez gets voted in because the masses can’t catch a break, their economic struggle is intolerable, or feels so unjust there is sort of a revolt.

In Western Europe the countries that are more socialized go towards socialism, not so much in desperation, but with a goal for a better life with safety for everyone. Even many of the people with money vote for the social systems, because they still see it as a safety net even for themselves, although pretty much everyone I know around the world doesn’t want to be taxed 90%, or to lose their ability to create business through entrepreneurialism.

If you don’t want a social system like Cuba or Venezuela, then I recommend making sure America doesn’t treat the working class like crap. Pay them a decent wage, and don’t over-work them. Give them healthcare (everyone) so people can become entrepreneurs without that concern. I can’t tell you how many people I know that at least one spouse works in a regular job to get health insurance for the family while they also own a business. Someone else could use that job probably.

I think no matter how you define anti-capitalist, it sounds like being anti-autonomy, and anti-entrepreneurial, and so I don’t like the term. Not that my opinion matters.

Moreover, you can look at capitalist, democratic, countries like Mexico, and there is a lot of poverty there too. It seems to me one very important factor in how a country does economically is whether the leadership has integrity, or if it is primarily power seeking and corrupt.

I think it’s colloquial use is generally referring to broadly democratic socialist policies that are the norm around the world and extremely popular in the US such as socialized police, fire, education, roads, healthcare, social security, etc. I think many people self-identify as anti-capatialist in this sense as an explicit rejection of extremist laissez faire capitalism that has taken hold of both parties.

That said, a strict literal interpretation of anti-capitalism would mean that one supports the abolition of private ownership of production and that we would all be employees of the state. I don’t think many people actually support this position (despite endless straw-manning by the right wing).

Don’t be tricked by the shoddy Dick & Jane explanations on the socialist bogeyman destroying Venezuela. The onset of fracking collapsed the oil market, and the country followed the market down the drain. There are those who claim that the country would be thriving had they allowed the standard model of allowing corporate multinationals to extract the oil and supplant the profits to needy billionaires. THAT’s the way it works world wide. THAT’s the way it ALWAYS works everywhere including places like Kentucky and West Virginia where despite the extraction of untold billions in coal, the standard of living would approximate that of Nigeria were it not for the largesse of the Federal government.

“Supplant” isn’t what I remember typing.

@gorillapaws Thanks! You answered my question better than most. I agree with you.