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.

What a weird question. No one specifically owns and dictates the feminist movement, and op didn’t imply that there was. The answer you’re demanding is at the core of cultural movements evolve, which is an incredibly complicated topic and I think it’s kind of shitty to ask this pose this question like some obvious truth they’re missing or something.

Modern feminist culture is incredibly poisonous, because its values were gradually eroded from bad actors. The people who dictate movements are simply the more passionate and convincing people that choose to try to. If a movement happens to have pretty vague ideas about its goals, it’s actually very easy to undermine its greater purpose to more nefarious specific goals. Or rather, it’s hard to keep from happening, because often the more selfish and destructive people are the ones who seem most passionate.

I took a look at your comments purely because his reply made me curious. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your comments. The only downvoted comment of yours I saw was that Trudeau has the worst approval rating ever, which is a matter of record, not opinion.

It’s not on you, you’re fine. I’ve had a similar experience here, people just don’t seem to be able to take disagreement as anything less than personal

This doesn’t really address what he said.

Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part

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?

No, disunited private actors are not a concentration of power

The very nature of capitalism facilitates concentrations of power

No. Capitalism is one thing and one thing only: the private ownership of the means of production. The very nature of private ownership, means private citizens have the freedom to own what’s theirs, and trade it with whoever. The nature of capitalism, meaning its logical end state, is a free market in the truest sense. This is the opposite of concentrating power, because the means of power are completely disunited. In less favorable terms, the logical end state of capitalism is anarchy or chaos

Socialism is the common/public/collective ownership of the means of production. Holding the means of power in a collective is another way of saying it’s being concentrated. The logical end of socialism is the concentration of everything.

Of course, I don’t think we need to take either extreme too seriously. They both have faults, clearly, and they both devolve into something that more resembles the other with time. Capitalism adopts regulations or develop a state to concentrate their power against and enemy. Socialism reduces state power when civilians want more freedoms.

Point is, your characterizing of Capitalism seems misinformed, and it’s incredibly silly to think a fundamental replacement of our current system is in order, as if there’s some perfect ideology we can obviously replace it with

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

yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion.

Focus on what capitalism means when you say this, and focus on the context you’re saying this in. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and we are discussing medicine. So, what you’re saying, is that the private control of medicine created the conditions for government collusion with a public corporation, This does not make sense, because public corporations are not private. This is corporatism, not capitalism.

removing the government doesn’t reduce that corruption

Then it’s the governments job to allow private entities some avenue to produce medicine. They can do so by not enforcing patents on helpful medicine that empowers corporations.

You literally directly quoted me saying that it seemed like you thought I was advocating for pure capitalism, and now you are directly asking me to defend pure capitalism. You are trying incredibly hard to straw man me into something I’m not, and I would like you to stop that.

This conversion will go no where unless you actually want to respond to things I’m saying, so please let me ask you directly about what I was actually saying: is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?

That’s a popular belief, sure. But, limited resources aren’t the only thing that exist in markets (art, ideas, services, consultation, etc…). In fact, much of the necessary resource market is entirely renewable (most food certainly is).

Limiting government regulations over fiscal entities just trades governmental tyranny for corporate tyranny over the working-class.

It’s just kinda funny that this is your response when I demonstrated state-corporate cooperation inflicting that tyranny. Corporations are chartered by the state, and the are currently also empowered by the state. Lowering regulations for private entities would empower them against corporations. It would also just make sense considering they are more regulated than corporations are currently, and the market is already completely captured by corporations.

I agree government needs to be involved to an extent. My comment was still correct, the issues of medicine do not stem from capitalism. This does not mean capitalism is without flaw