[aceazzameen]

B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.

[CapstanRoller]

>socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor.

That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it.

Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.

[yamtaddle]

It's literally in the name. Capital-ism. I'm not sure how it could be clearer. It'd be weird if a system so-named didn't favor capital owners.

[hellojesus]

No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.

[CapstanRoller]

No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests.

Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.

[hellojesus]

I disagree with you.

[CapstanRoller]

OK, disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that specific words still have specific meanings.

[hellojesus]

Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...

[bumby]

Please give your definition of capitalism because it feels a little muddled itself.

[CapstanRoller]

Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

[bumby]

It probably doesn't need to be said, but it's pretty obvious the bias in that definition.

There is no singular definition of capitalism, but many others would differ on the distinction you've drawn from earlier posts. E.g., a system based on the reinvestment of excess profits does not necessarily equate to crony-capitalism. It seems your issue is with the person using the word "socialism" to describe a social ill of crony capitalism. But there is a distinction there that is being muddled in the conversation.