Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
This is more hogwash, really. I mean... I can assume that you have a point, but why do you make me pull it out of you?

Capitalism is not economics. I have already described many examples of economic exchange which are not capitalistic.

Tell me how me sharing things with my family is capitalism. We don't charge anything for the sharing, we don't expect anything in return, not even future sharing. There is trust between us which holds this bond in balance. This is a very micro-scale example, obviously, but I have explored less micro examples of market exchanges which are not based on the direct exchange of capital. Ergo, they are not capitalistic in nature, even though they are made by capitalists.
I was just mostly trying to show you how frustrating I can be. I'm not sure I would want to argue that capitalism is economics even though I think I would make that case if I was pushed into a corner. I would do so by claiming that capitalism is the only branch that successfully describes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods. I think markets are the philosophy behind it all and are the best known framework to deal with when it comes to economic behavior.

Don't read too much into this. It would mean I've been way too successful with my arguments and I'm pushing the edge as much as I can.

***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.

If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.

What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?
There is less nuance to the concepts than it may seem. Socialism and communism have the same philosophic framework. Communism differs only in that it's more rigorous and an extreme version of the philosophy. Since the USSR fell, socialism has sprouted up in redefined ways by people who benefit from their capitalist roots yet don't seem to realize they're trying to give their socialistic emperor new clothes. The claim that socialism is not forced sharing arises out of the capitalist view, where capitalists would be free to share communally. Socialism is by definition forced sharing. Capitalism allows communal sharing.

I think a mistake people make is saying that instances where communal sharing is chosen is socialism. You can technically get away with this if you wish to disregard everything else at play. The reason is that markets are the reason why there can be choice for communal sharing, and markets are not a product of enacted socialism. I think it is disingenuous to argue for socialism by such a myopic definition. Historically it has been an entirely different thing. The world split in two because of it, and we're the progeny that lives to tell the tale of which side lost and which side won.