[_0ffh]

> The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me.

In a system of voluntary exchange ("capitalism") they can only become wealthier if they are freely given their wealth by someone, even if that someone's not you.

> I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs.

I hold with Kropotkin, we are a social species. As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. The best way to make sure that is the case is to maximize that wealth. That's what free, voluntary exchange does. It's not a zero-sum game but it's always win-win. Only the economically illiterate would claim otherwise.

> Capitalists thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalism made tons of profits out of it.

Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct.

> There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence.

Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"?

> It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.

That was not the argument. You got it exactly backwards.

[pastacacioepepe]

> Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct.

This is just refuting historical truth without providing any evidence. It doesn't matter that Hitler used a kind of anticapitalis rethoric before getting in power. What happened once he did, is that the capitalist of the country got cheap and obedient labor force provided by the nazist police. They got rich out the war and the extermination of Jews as well.

> Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"?

No, not really. You argue for the possibility of becoming wealthy. I tell you that I don't think a right to become wealthier than others should exist, nor that people being wealthy is a guaranteed benefit for society, as shown in my examples.

You also keep mixing capitalism and voluntary exchange, and again as I've proven you those are not necessarily linked. I restate this, capitalists thrived during nazi germany due to the subjugation of the labor force.

> As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for.

This has been disproven time and time again, you're ignoring the matter of wealth inequality. The existence of wealth improves the general life conditions of the people only if such wealth is properly distributed. All the reductions in poverty we've seen in recent times are due to the conquests of the social movements, taking from the wealthy things like healthcare, retirement, decent working hours, safety on the job, unemployment benefits, public education, etc.

[_0ffh]

That you do not agree with the definition of capitalism that was given at the origin of this exchange does not mean that I have to abide by yours.

You can argue against your strawman-capitalism all you want, I do not care. If you insist that capitalism is not about protecting everyone's right to their property, I see no point in carrying on.

[pastacacioepepe]

That's not my definition, it's the Wikipedia definition. Where does yours come from?

Also would you answer to my initial request to explain how transactions can be voluntary in a capitalist system where most people dont own property, the means of production.

[_0ffh]

Even the very same Wikipedia article you quote admits that central characteristics of capitalism include competitive markets, private property, property rights recognition, and voluntary exchange.

Neither National Socialism nor Fascist corporatism had strong protection of

- competitive markets: markets where heavily regulated and great parts of national production and ressources where directed and allocated by the government, preventing competition and free exchange

- property rights: lots of property was outright stolen from their rightful owners, the means of production were ultimately controlled by the government

- voluntary exchange: lots of people where forced into slave labor, which is decidedly involuntary

So yes, these were state socialist societies, not capitalist ones.

[mftrhu]

Oh, you probably meant "state capitalist". The definition of that fits to a tee.

> State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor). [...] Other examples include Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew and Turkey, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany.

[_0ffh]

Lol, "Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state".

Excuse me, when I respectfully decline that definition. What makes or breaks capitalism is private property, including and specifically of the "means of production", also called "capital goods".

"Engels argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism", that's like saying that eating your steak well done gives you the tools for slaughtering the cow.

OTOH, "It is not commonly realized that State Capitalism covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the classic ideal of egalitarian Socialism". At least one can find some sensible definitions in the article.