Granted. My entire understanding of the topic is specifically the 'Anglo-American' model in both respects.

The 'Continent' has always seemed to have been substantially different on these issues. Except the Dutch of course - the only ones that can play it either way it seems. Indeed, the true origin of 'Anglo-American' capitalism (either the technical economic process or the socio-political culture) is in all reality, an 'Anglo-Dutch' one (with an assist from the Genoese & the ancient Athenians).

Correct. The difference is very small and purely theoretical.

Indeed, most people of my viewpoint have always called the Soviets, the Red Chinese, the Cubans, etc., Authoritarian-State-Capitalists. The State attempts to assert a monopoly on capital. The irony of Soviet Five-Year-Plans bragging about how they've increased the capital base of the economy... while the only 'real socialism' is the common poverty of the people.

Funny how the world works sometimes...


Um... France, Ukraine and Russia tend to show some of the strongest 'feudal' tendencies in Europe. Authoritarianism is feudal. Worship/cult of the 'leader' is feudal.

Again, another irony. Britain has the most obvious and overt feudal system in present existence. Yet it means nothing. Britain is the LEAST 'feudal' nation in Europe when you look at actual corporate behaviour, economic trends, pop culture, social norms, etc.

It would appear that you and I might not be on the same page with a common definition of 'feudalism'. I can assure you my definitions are as strict as those for capitalism.

Nothing about any utopian delusions of the three classes of society working in common harmony... just a specific "military-service for land" relationship (and all that entails).

It is a username that I've used on many of my older gaming forum sites - though I don't use it any more.

And, as you well ought to know, I started my political life as a rightwing fascist (of the Platonic variety) and have only slowly moved to the moderate middle with age. In the true spirit of Socrates, I would decline the honour - and in the true spirit of Plato, pine for it!

It is radical for the reason that Malvolio states (knowingly or not).

Capitalism is both a technically defined 'mode of production' (see OP) and a socio-political system (see the discussion between Malvolio and myself). The logic of the definitions follows from themselves. Radical is only an expression of the human element.

Yes, it would bore me. French medieval guilds I have studied long.

In US/Canada (but oddly, not UK), doctors incorporate their own private practice.

Agreed. These types have never been held to be capitalistic. I'm just fishing a bit to see if I can drag anyone else in here, indeed, all my attempts to use one of good old Socrates' tricks always seems to fail...

How about a CEO? Is he or she a capitalist? I'm assuming they have a pocket full of stock options for the purpose of speculation here. (My answer is of course, "extremely rarely", but for all intents and purposes, "no".)

I assume you're not talking about contemporary Holland but about the time of naval preeminence and colonial expansion with the East Indian company and such. Present day Netherlands has an immense welfare system called WAO.

The viewpoint of 'your people' is similar to that of 'my people' but my people saw it coming even before it was established. Indeed, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Voline et al decried authoritarian communism as a contradiction in terms and never hesitated to challenge respectively Marx, Lenin and Trotsky about it. As a consequence, the anarchists were as ferociously attacked as the Whites were.
But what do you mean with: ?

Does the following paper suit you for further discussion and the above points ?:
http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/vinogradoff/feudal

I thought it was rather the Rand variety. We'll see if you are slideable even further away from this youthful sin towards the real enlightened state: anarchism.

I'll leave those finesses to you two.

I wasn't thinking of them. There are contemporary non-commercial doctors collectives in Europe. They are much cheaper than the organized, institutionalized medical profession.

Well, I'm volunteering for the role of Trasymachus, and I could think of a fitting Cephalus and Polemarchus but they'll have to show up spontaneously.

That's no fun, when you give the answer in advance. You've mentioned in the OP, point 2 of the NOT-part, that those stock options are irrelevant, so it was no real challenge anyway. How about skipping to the real interesting questions ?

__________________
"Putain putain, c'est vachement bien, nous sommes quand même tous des Européens"

Factoring out for the subjective externality of morals, does anyone think that a subsidy that pays people to not participate in the labor market, could be used to eliminate poverty (in the form of a lack of income)?

No. That just institutionalises poverty and makes it almost permanent. North America and Europe supply enormous amount of data to show this.

It also appears to reduce social mobility at the low end.

I am not sure how that conclusion was reached. How does receiving an income institutionalize poverty? If we consider (for the sake of this discussion), poverty to be a lack of income, then paying the less productive market participants an income would eliminate that form of poverty.

I am of the opinion that it always depends on implementation. In the hypothetical case of an at-will subsidy, there would be no drag on mobility. A person would be able to live anywhere they choose and receive an at-will subsidy.

As I've noted previously, your definition of poverty is entirely designed to produce the conclusion you wish to make. It is circular.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself.

Your "income" is nothing more than giving away a fish. You feed him for a day (and make him dependent upon your fish-a-day).

How is receiving an income from the public sector any different than receiving an income from a private sector source? In my view, an income is an income, regardless of source.

Your analogy only works in a market without a perfectly competivie medium of exchange (money). In the hypothetical case of a state called FishTopia, one fish equals one monetary unit. Thus, give a man one monetary unit per day or let him provide labor input to the economy for his monetay unit is an equivalent.

What do you think of the concept of at-will unemployment compensation in states that have at-will employment laws?

As a form of objective metrics, reducing or eliminating a form of poverty (i.e a lack of income), can be easily solved in a more cost effective manner by a welfare-state's promotion of the general welfare by providing access to an income; thus, eliminating a specific form of poverty (a lack of income).

In a market economy, lack of income can be a form of poverty.

As I've noted previously, "income" is self-defining. And that is NOT what poor people lack.

Poor people lack the skills, talents, education, abilities and/or wherewithal to be productively employed. Giving them a 'paycheck' doesn't solve anything.

I repeat:

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself.

Your policy involves giving away fish. It solves nothing.

In a market economy, what would a poor person lack, if not an income? Would you consider that same person with a million dollar income poor?

Are you implying that a person who receives an income cannot go to school, pursue market friendly forms of happiness, or teach themselves to fish with a store bought fishing rod?

A person receiving a (public sector) subsidy income can do all of the things anyone else who has access to a (private sector) income can do. It is up to the individual to pursue happiness in a manner that is most conducive to their own equilibrium seeking tendencies.

How does subsidizing poverty, for free; teach a man to fish?

The public sector can use scale economies to reduce costs, to the private sector, by providing for catastrophic insurance. A complementary use of those economies, would be to fund public sector research and development ventures; based on any metrics provided by any other public sector entity.

A goal of this type of welfare-state public sector venture could eventually reduce the tax burden to the individual consumer of statism.