Are We in Late Stage Capitalism?

[Left Coast]

My point is that in this arrangement, we're still operating a profit oriented company on the free market. The sole difference in that case would be that the owner of said profit oriented company on the free market just so happens to be a public institution rather than a private individual.

That's why I struggle to define Volkswagen as a "socialist" institution, for example.

Well in Volkswagen's case I believe it is only a minority of its shares that are owned by Germany. It's majority owned and controlled privately, by the Porsche family. So I'd agree, it's not really "socialist." But I hear your point.

I work in a similar grey area. My workplace is a technically private company, though ut is a non-profit (so although we do technically make some profit, it has a limit), and most of our revenue comes from public sources (Medicare and Medicaid). So are we a "socialist" organization?

This speaks again to the point that I made earlier that in the real world, the sharp distinctions between capitalism and socialism are overly simplistic. The world is messier and more complicated.

 

[Left Coast]

However we want to do it. The idea would be that a single owner/CEO wouldn't be making decision on behalf of his own interests, or that of his investors, but instead would have to gain the agreement of some entities representing everyone else that is going to be effected by those decisions: labor, consumer, and community. Who those entities are and how they are accountable to those they represent would have to be worked out according to the proclivities of the society involved. But it's not rocket science. We are quite capable of managing it.

"The proclivities of the society involved" in socialist nations tends to ultimately involve state ownership of industry. You're talking about a lower level of basically cooperative ownership locally, which is fine as far as it goes, and which already exist in nations with a capitalistic framework.

"Ownership" is a meaningless title. What this is about is control. Capitalism assumes that ownership = control. Period. And so are you. You must be a capitalist.

Socialism does not equate ownership with control. It wants to put control in the hands of the society, community, or the segments of the these that are being effected by the decisions being made. REGARDLESS of who "owns" what. Socialism does not take "ownership" away from you. It's simply takes away your ability to unilaterally make decisions based on ownership that would negatively impact everyone around you.

Bull****.

If that's your understanding of "True Socialism," please alert the DSA and the Socialist Equality Party that they're doing it wrong. Because they're very much concerned with ownership. As socialism has been since its inception.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The global pandemic, the class struggle, and the tasks of the Socialist Equality Party

Moreover, as I've already explained to you, business owners in capitalist societies do not just "unilaterally make decisions" about any and all aspects their business. Laws and regulations constrain their behavior, as do the demands of their customer base and their employees.

 

[Kooky]

Well in Volkswagen's case I believe it is only a minority of its shares that are owned by Germany. It's majority owned and controlled privately, by the Porsche family. So I'd agree, it's not really "socialist." But I hear your point.

I work in a similar grey area. My workplace is a technically private company, though ut is a non-profit (so although we do technically make some profit, it has a limit), and most of our revenue comes from public sources (Medicare and Medicaid). So are we a "socialist" organization?

This speaks again to the point that I made earlier that in the real world, the sharp distinctions between capitalism and socialism are overly simplistic. The world is messier and more complicated.

The structures of a private for-profit company, a nominally non-profit private company, and a publically owned for-profit company are virtually identical, they are run using identical methods of management and leadership, and even their goals are effectively the same (with the caveat that not-for-profits are typically obliged to re-invest their profits back into their operations).

None of these structures include collective ownership by either the general population or company employees, nor are they co-operatively run to a significant degree. This version of "socialism" is effectively identical to capitalism, with the same issues and drawbacks.

 

[Kooky]

"The proclivities of the society involved" in socialist nations tends to ultimately involve state ownership of industry. You're talking about a lower level of basically cooperative ownership locally, which is fine as far as it goes, and which already exist in nations with a capitalistic framework.

Can you name a single major company that is collectively owned by its workers?

 

[Left Coast]

Can you name a single major company that is collectively owned by its workers?

Major company, on the level of Google or Facebook? No. Many smaller local cooperatives exist which I'm aware of.

 

[Left Coast]

The structures of a private for-profit company, a nominally non-profit private company, and a publically owned for-profit company are virtually identical, they are run using identical methods of management and leadership, and even their goals are effectively the same (with the caveat that not-for-profits are typically obliged to re-invest their profits back into their operations).

In the case of not-for-profits, they fall on a spectrum between being more or less "for profit"-like. They are required to re-invest profits back not just to "operations" internally, but also what is essentially charitable work for the public good.

 

[PureX]

"The proclivities of the society involved" in socialist nations tends to ultimately involve state ownership of industry. You're talking about a lower level of basically cooperative ownership locally, which is fine as far as it goes, and which already exist in nations with a capitalistic framework.

What do you see as a "capitalist framework"? When control is in the hands of the owner/investor, it's capitalism. When control is in the hands of the society in which the business operates, it's socialism. "Ownership" is not the determining factor. Control is.

If that's your understanding of "True Socialism," please alert the DSA and the Socialist Equality Party that they're doing it wrong. Because they're very much concerned with ownership. As socialism has been since its inception.

You have been drinking the capitalist AND the totalitarian dictator's coolaid for far too long. Just because some totalitarian dictator and his henchmen say "the people" own everything in their country doesn't mean they control anything. And without control, the "ownership" is just a meaningless facade. If the dictatorship has all the control their system is NOT 'socialist'. It's a dictatorship. Regardless of who they claim "owns" what. That's why the capitalists want you to focus so intently on their claims of social "ownership"; because under capitalism, ownership = control. And they want you to see social control as a horrible, dictatorial result, so they can convince you to let them hold onto their unilateral control.

Moreover, as I've already explained to you, business owners in capitalist societies do not just "unilaterally make decisions" about any and all aspects their business. Laws and regulations constrain their behavior, as do the demands of their customer base and their employees.

And business owners and investors fight that governmental oversight tooth and nail. So much so that it spends BILLIONS of dollars bribing up legislators and corrupting the government to eliminate any laws or policies that would effectively take control away from them. They've gotten so good at it that our government is now almost completely useless at representing the needs and desires of the people it's supposed to serve, and instead serves almost exclusively the needs and desires of the wealthy conglomerates and their lobbyist 'bagmen' that pay the bribe money they all have to have to get and keep their political power.

The truth is that capitalism is fundamentally anti-social. And it is therefor fundamentally anti-democratic. The capitalists do not want to share their control of commerce with anyone else, and they do not act with that control for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

 

[Left Coast]

What do you see as a "capitalist framework"? When control is in the hands of the owner/investor, it's capitalism. When control is in the hands of the society in which the business operates, it's socialism. "Ownership" is not the determining factor. Control is.

Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you take a case to court over who legitimately controls what resource, the owner will generally win. I'm sure you understand what theft is? Ownership/property rights are legally relevant.

By capitalist framework I mean one in which private industry exists but it is regulated by government, meaning business owners/investors do not have unlimited control of their business. Moreover they are at the mercy of consumers whose demands shape the marketplace within which business owners operate.

You have been drinking the capitalist AND the totalitarian dictator's coolaid for far too long. Just because some totalitarian dictator and his henchmen say "the people" own everything in their country doesn't mean they control anything. And without control, the "ownership" is just a meaningless facade. If the dictatorship has all the control their system is NOT 'socialist'. It's a dictatorship. Regardless of who they claim "owns" what. That's why the capitalists want you to focus so intently on their claims of social "ownership"; because under capitalism, ownership = control. And they want you to see social control as a horrible, dictatorial result, so they can convince you to let them hold onto their unilateral control.

So are the DSA and SEP capitalist or totalitarian in the world in your head?

There is a reason that socialist countries so often end up being authoritarian. The utopian socialism imagined on paper by folks like yourself does not so smoothly pan out in real world situations. Once you scale up collective ownership (sorry, "control") of industry to the national level, that becomes state ownership/control. And just like the greedy capitalists you are so upset with, government officials too are power hungry and usually unwilling to give give an inch of it back once it is given to them. Which typically leads to authoritarian control...control they have because the resources are owned by the state, so people have no recourse outside of elections to dispute improper control or use of "collectively" owned resources.

And business owners and investors fight that governmental oversight tooth and nail.

You don't think different factions in socialist societies fight for control? Where are these idyllic places where no conflicts over power exist?

So much so that it spends BILLIONS of dollars bribing up legislators and corrupting the government to eliminate any laws or policies that would effectively take control away from them. They've gotten so good at it that our government is now almost completely useless at representing the needs and desires of the people it's supposed to serve, and instead serves almost exclusively the needs and desires of the wealthy conglomerates and their lobbyist 'bagmen' that pay the bribe money they all have to have to get and keep their political power.

That has more to do with the fact that we allow de facto unlimited sums of money to be spent on election campaigns, which we shouldn't.

The truth is that capitalism is fundamentally anti-social. And it is therefor fundamentally anti-democratic.

The truth is that you have a very dogmatic, binary, black-and-white view of this issue, which is clouding your judgment in evaluating a world that is extremely complicated and grey.

The capitalists do not want to share their control of commerce with anyone else, and they do not act with that control for the benefit of anyone but themselves.

Nor, again, does anyone want to share control once it's been given: individuals, businesses, unions, governments, or any other group.

 

[PureX]

Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you take a case to court over who legitimately controls what resource, the owner will generally win.

Well, of course! We are living in a clearly capitalist culture; where ownership equates to control. Under the capitalist ideology, if you 'own' it, you control it. If you own the water hole, you control the water in it. And it doesn't matter who dies of thirst down stream. Unless the government, representing the will of ALL the citizens, and not just the will of "the owner", forces you to let the water pass on downstream to the others. And when that happens: when the government, on behalf of the people being effected by these kinds of selfish "ownership decisions" take control away from the owners on behalf of the people, that's called "socialism".

I'm sure you understand what theft is? Ownership/property rights are legally relevant.

"Theft" according to whom? Theft is different things to different people. The "owner" of that water hole thinks the government is "stealing" his water. The folks living down stream think the "owner" is stealing it. So who is really stealing what?

By capitalist framework I mean one in which private industry exists but it is regulated by government, meaning business owners/investors do not have unlimited control of their business.

No human has "unlimited control" over anything. So let's leave the absolutes to the side, and focus on the generalities. All societies have to have a rule of law, or they are an abject anarchy. So all economic systems will have to comport with the rules of law that hold the society intact. But other then that, under our capitalist system, the owner/investors pretty much get to do whatever they want. They can hire whomever they want, fire whomever they want, pay whatever they want, charge whatever they want. Open whatever business they want, close whatever business they want, and do so for whatever reason they want. And all the people they effect as they make all these decisions have almost no say in any of these decisions. And what say they do have has to be rendered by force of law, and/or extreme social revolt, because the capitalists will not share their control any other way.

Moreover they are at the mercy of consumers whose demands shape the marketplace within which business owners operate.

Only in the very few actual free markets that are left in the world, can the buyer still refuse to buy, and control the capitalists, to some degree, in that way. In all the other markets: the captive markets, the capitalists are only being controlled by their mutual collective greed, and by the limited wealth in the hands of their captive buyers.

This "free market capitalism" BS is exactly that, BS! Unless we're talking about the market for private yachts, and private airplanes, and multiple mansions.

There is a reason that socialist countries so often end up being authoritarian.

Yes, and the reason is that they were never socialists in the first place, They were authoritarian dictatorships from the start, masquerading as socialists. A lie that the capitalists have been been echoing ad nauseam for decades to benefit their own selfish cause. And that you are now echoing for the same purpose.

The utopian socialism imagined on paper by folks like yourself does not so smoothly pan out in real world situations.

Ah, yes, the old "utopian socialism" schtick.: ... failure by imperfection. If it doesn't create heaven on Earth (as was supposedly promised by someone, somewhere, at some time), then why bother with it at all? Right?

Once you scale up collective ownership (sorry, "control") of industry to the national level, that becomes state ownership/control.

No, it remains under societal control so long as the government remains a valid representational government. (Something the capitalists will work very hard to thwart.) Also, there is no reason that most business enterprise ever needs to become "national". They function far more healthily, and equitably, and responsively when they remain localized. Something that should be an important consideration when any society creates their laws governing business enterprise. Something OUR society should have considered long ago, before our business corporations and conglomerates became so powerful and wealthy that they became the equivalent of rival nations within our borders.

And just like the greedy capitalists you are so upset with, government officials too are power hungry and usually unwilling to give give an inch of it back once it is given to them. Which typically leads to authoritarian control...control they have because the resources are owned by the state, so people have no recourse outside of elections to dispute improper control or use of "collectively" owned resources.

We get the government that we deserve. The poisonous greed of capitalist culture has poisoned us all to the point that we routinely elect known criminals just because we think they will serve our own selfish agendas. Greed and corruption are contagious. We may be beyond rescue at this point. But that doesn't change the truth that got us in the mess.

 

[MikeF]

Well, of course! We are living in a clearly capitalist culture; where ownership equates to control. Under the capitalist ideology, if you 'own' it, you control it. If you own the water hole, you control the water in it. And it doesn't matter who dies of thirst down stream. Unless the government, representing the will of ALL the citizens, and not just the will of "the owner", forces you to let the water pass on downstream to the others. And when that happens: when the government, on behalf of the people being effected by these kinds of selfish "ownership decisions" take control away from the owners on behalf of the people, that's called "socialism".
"Theft" according to whom? Theft is different things to different people. The "owner" of that water hole thinks the government is "stealing" his water. The folks living down stream think the "owner" is stealing it. So who is really stealing what?
No human has "unlimited control" over anything. So let's leave the absolutes to the side, and focus on the generalities. All societies have to have a rule of law, or they are an abject anarchy. So all economic systems will have to comport with the rules of law that hold the society intact. But other then that, under our capitalist system, the owner/investors pretty much get to do whatever they want. They can hire whomever they want, fire whomever they want, pay whatever they want, charge whatever they want. Open whatever business they want, close whatever business they want, and do so for whatever reason they want. And all the people they effect as they make all these decisions have almost no say in any of these decisions. And what say they do have has to be rendered by force of law, and/or extreme social revolt, because the capitalists will not share their control any other way.
Only in the very few actual free markets that are left in the world, can the buyer still refuse to buy, and control the capitalists, to some degree, in that way. In all the other markets: the captive markets, the capitalists are only being controlled by their mutual collective greed, and by the limited wealth in the hands of their captive buyers.

This "free market capitalism" BS is exactly that, BS! Unless we're talking about the market for private yachts, and private airplanes, and multiple mansions.
Yes, and the reason is that they were never socialists in the first place, They were authoritarian dictatorships from the start, masquerading as socialists. A lie that the capitalists have been been echoing ad nauseam for decades to benefit their own selfish cause. And that you are now echoing for the same purpose.
Ah, yes, the old "utopian socialism" schtick.: ... failure by imperfection. If it doesn't create heaven on Earth (as was supposedly promised by someone, somewhere, at some time), then why bother with it at all? Right?
No, it remains under societal control so long as the government remains a valid representational government. (Something the capitalists will work very hard to thwart.) Also, there is no reason that most business enterprise ever needs to become "national". They function far more healthily, and equitably, and responsively when they remain localized. Something that should be an important consideration when any society creates their laws governing business enterprise. Something OUR society should have considered long ago, before our business corporations and conglomerates became so powerful and wealthy that they became the equivalent of rival nations within our borders.
We get the government that we deserve. The poisonous greed of capitalist culture has poisoned us all to the point that we routinely elect known criminals just because we think they will serve our own selfish agendas. Greed and corruption are contagious. We may be beyond rescue at this point. But that doesn't change the truth that got us in the mess.

You have inadvertently used my tag to reference posts or comments that I did not make. Is it possible to make corrections on your post #89?

Thanks!

 

[Kooky]

@Left Coast
I know you did not adress these points at me, but if it's okay with you, I would like to chime in and give my own thoughts. I fear that you guys' conversation has deadlocked to an extent and I'd like to raise a few points that might hopefully keep this discussion alive a little longer.

If this is unwanted or annoying, then please feel free to ignore me.

Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you take a case to court over who legitimately controls what resource, the owner will generally win. I'm sure you understand what theft is? Ownership/property rights are legally relevant.

For me, this is the key issue with capitalism - whoever owns the capital controls all aspects of an economic operation, including any proceeds from the product that was produced by labor rather than the owner. Marxism highlights the profound inequality and unfairness of this setup - an employee typically has no choice but to forfeit all rights to the finished product or service that they helped create. They are compensated for the time and effort they put into it, but, crucially, cannot control even a single aspect of production or service; any work they do is at the capitalist's behest; their product is, fundamentally, not theirs, and can never be.

So are the DSA and SEP capitalist or totalitarian in the world in your head?

If they rely on central or national control over economics then they will likely be one or the other, I would argue.

We cannot achieve economic freedom unless we wrest control from central institutions and national governments and return it to the local level, as close to the people who are actually affected as we possibly can.

There is a reason that socialist countries so often end up being authoritarian. The utopian socialism imagined on paper by folks like yourself does not so smoothly pan out in real world situations. Once you scale up collective ownership (sorry, "control") of industry to the national level, that becomes state ownership/control.

This should be a hint that upscaling collective ownership to a national, centralized model is a bad idea that should not be repeated. This is, I think, one think that all socialists should have learned from the tragedy of the USSR (and it was a tragedy, for both socialists and non-socialists).

And just like the greedy capitalists you are so upset with, government officials too are power hungry and usually unwilling to give give an inch of it back once it is given to them. Which typically leads to authoritarian control...control they have because the resources are owned by the state, so people have no recourse outside of elections to dispute improper control or use of "collectively" owned resources.

And this in turn is a hint that relying on electorialism to fix problems inherent to governance is a bad idea that shouldn't be done, either. There is a reason why the early attempts at socialism were originally founded on local worker's councils and similar immediately democratic and co-operative forms of governance. Governments are fundamentally unresponsive and tend to have the tendency to work according to their own logic, which can often be at odds with what people actually want or even need.

You don't think different factions in socialist societies fight for control? Where are these idyllic places where no conflicts over power exist?

And this is a hint that we should minimize the amount of power wielded by any group or individual in any possible socialist society. This is why - while I do agree that a properly governed state can do a lot of good - I am fundamentally a libertarian at heart: People will always attempt to exert the power they have, for good or ill, so if we want to mitigate the drawbacks of exerting power, we absolutely need to be able to limit that power to the absolutely necessary amount, and no more.

That has more to do with the fact that we allow de facto unlimited sums of money to be spent on election campaigns, which we shouldn't.

I'd argue that this is a problem that will remain for as long as having more money to spend on a campaign confers a significant advantage to one candidate; I know from experience with my own country's electoral process that legal limits of spending can and will be circumvented if the candidates in question believe their money can confer such an advantage.

 

[Left Coast]

"Theft" according to whom? Theft is different things to different people. The "owner" of that water hole thinks the government is "stealing" his water. The folks living down stream think the "owner" is stealing it. So who is really stealing what?

Theft according to courts that have authority vested in them by societies to actually impose legal and financial decisions on parties in a dispute.

No human has "unlimited control" over anything. So let's leave the absolutes to the side, and focus on the generalities.

Throughout this conversation your perspective has been one of absolutes. So physician, please, heal thyself.

All societies have to have a rule of law, or they are an abject anarchy. So all economic systems will have to comport with the rules of law that hold the society intact. But other then that, under our capitalist system, the owner/investors pretty much get to do whatever they want. They can hire whomever they want, fire whomever they want, pay whatever they want, charge whatever they want. Open whatever business they want, close whatever business they want, and do so for whatever reason they want.

This is likely an issue of semantics, as to me almost none of that is true, even as a generality. The laws and regulations in place governing business practices, including employment, govern what types of businesses may be opened, under what conditions they may operate, what procedures they may or may not use to hire or terminate people, minimum wage and overtime laws that place boundaries on what people are paid and how much they work, and on, and on, and on.

And all the people they effect as they make all these decisions have almost no say in any of these decisions. And what say they do have has to be rendered by force of law, and/or extreme social revolt, because the capitalists will not share their control any other way.

This is true nearly everywhere, including in socialist countries. As we've already covered, people rarely surrender power willingly, whether they hold that power in a socialist or capitalist economy.

Yes, and the reason is that they were never socialists in the first place, They were authoritarian dictatorships from the start, masquerading as socialists. A lie that the capitalists have been been echoing ad nauseam for decades to benefit their own selfish cause. And that you are now echoing for the same purpose.

Yeah, the No True Socialist excuse doesn't fly with me. You don't get to pretend that all the people waving the same flag you are who then go and do horrible things once they are given power are not part of your club.

Ah, yes, the old "utopian socialism" schtick.: ... failure by imperfection. If it doesn't create heaven on Earth (as was supposedly promised by someone, somewhere, at some time), then why bother with it at all? Right?

By that logic you should be fine adjusting capitalism instead of throwing the entire baby out with the bathwater.

If you don't want to be accused of advocating something utopian, then guess what? Real world results matter. Yet throughout this conversation, you have distanced yourself from all the real world examples of people attempting to implement they system you're advocating. Socialist countries? Not Real Socialists. DSA? Not Real Socialists. SEP? Not Real Socialists. The only Real Socialism appears to be one you've invented in your head.

No, it remains under societal control so long as the government remains a valid representational government. (Something the capitalists will work very hard to thwart.)

National control is societal control, in the minds of socialists. It is control executed by elected representatives of ALL the people in the society...which you've repeatedly advocated in this thread. This is why socialists have frequently nationalized various industries in their countries when they've been given the power to do so.

Also, there is no reason that most business enterprise ever needs to become "national". They function far more healthily, and equitably, and responsively when they remain localized. Something that should be an important consideration when any society creates their laws governing business enterprise. Something OUR society should have considered long ago, before our business corporations and conglomerates became so powerful and wealthy that they became the equivalent of rival nations within our borders.

I actually agree with you here, for the most part. Unfortunately most socialists globally and historically do not.

We get the government that we deserve. The poisonous greed of capitalist culture has poisoned us all to the point that we routinely elect known criminals just because we think they will serve our own selfish agendas. Greed and corruption are contagious. We may be beyond rescue at this point. But that doesn't change the truth that got us in the mess.

If you don't think socialist societies elect criminals and corrupt power-hungry people to office...I'm not sure what to tell you. They do.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

- To create a "worked" culture of artificial nomadism, since a lifestyle that likely fits human physiology should be a human right. Whatever that looks like to you, it probably should be a right. But in modern culture you are made to deal with numbers, equations, spreadsheets. You calculate value on yourself, and other things, a worship of thingfulness

- As resources tighten, the first thing it eats away at is the concept of the individual. An individual, is often inefficient. I think we all know this, but no one wants to risk such conditions as they experience in North Korea for example. But the individual is still inefficient, and often selfish. Maybe construct giant longhouses with interior space that is largely public. It kind of forces people to know one another

-Look up daniel schmachtenberger's material on game theory

-I on the other hand, think UBI is a great idea, coupled with birth control, to control population, and reduce it that way, peaceably. Not everyone needs to have kids, and not everyone should have kids. When mars is up and running, people can go do that again. I am an environmentalist left-winger, when many nowadays have become pro-growth. That's just not going to work anymore, unfortunately

-Every time a robot does work for us, that should be considered a victory for the species, instead of creating a new employment scramble

 

[PureX]

This is likely an issue of semantics, as to me almost none of that is true, even as a generality. The laws and regulations in place governing business practices, including employment, govern what types of businesses may be opened, under what conditions they may operate, what procedures they may or may not use to hire or terminate people, minimum wage and overtime laws that place boundaries on what people are paid and how much they work, and on, and on, and on.

All those laws are based on the necessity of protecting the citizenry from the abuses on unfair trade. Unfair trade being the ideal goal of capitalism, since the ideal goal of the capitalist is to gain a maximum return on the capital he's invested. Specifically, to trade (unfairly) for the advantage of the investor, at the expense of anyone else involved in the trade.

This is true nearly everywhere, including in socialist countries. As we've already covered, people rarely surrender power willingly, whether they hold that power in a socialist or capitalist economy.

Which is exactly why capitalism is an abject failure. Not only will people who gain some power want more of it, but they will abuse what power they have, to get more of it. And capitalism as a system rewards this. It gives those with wealth and power the uncontested ability to gain even greater wealth and power.

Yeah, the No True Socialist excuse doesn't fly with me. You don't get to pretend that all the people waving the same flag you are who then go and do horrible things once they are given power are not part of your club.

Any fool can wave a flag. And any dictator can claim to be a "socialist". All you gotta do is identify who's making the decisions, and you will see plain as day whether or not they are socialists of dictatorships. I mean, if you WANTED to see, that is.

By that logic you should be fine adjusting capitalism instead of throwing the entire baby out with the bathwater.[/QUOTE}There is no "adjusting capitalism". It is what it is, and it's not anything else. I've already stated that capitalism is NOT capital investment. There is nothing bad about capital investment, nor in capital investors gaining a profit from the capital they've invested. None of this, however, is 'capitalism'. Because capitalism is defined by the capital investor having control over the business enterprise invested in. The definition of capitalism, AND the problem with capitalism, are both the result of this excessive and myopic control.