Iโd call it corporatism. Capitalism would not subsidize losses.
EDIT: to anyone disagreeing, having a central bank printing money to let banks not get bankrupt is the exact opposite of capitalism. It's literally communism in the sense of having a planned economy in the most important market of all: money. And then abusing that to socialize losses of private companies.
There is no such thing as a single, transhistorical "economic law" that applies to all societies.
What exists are laws of motion specific to each mode of production.
Feudalism had its own internal logic (land tenure, tribute, serfdom); ancient slavery had its own; and capitalism has its own (the law of value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, accumulation).
To say "capitalism is economic law" is like saying "feudalism is political law". It erases history and treats a very recent, specific system (only a few centuries old) as a natural, eternal fact of human existence. Capitalism is proven to be historically specific in that it had a beginning and will have an end.
its present in any economy
This confuses commodity production (making things to exchange) with capitalist production (making things to extract surplus value/profit). Yes, almost all societies have had some form of trade, markets, or exchange. But capitalism is not markets. Capitalism is a specific social relation in which:
The means of production (factories, land, machinery) are privately owned by a capitalist class.
The majority of people are propertyless and must sell their labour-power as a commodity just to survive.
The entire purpose of production is not to satisfy human needs, but to generate profit (surplus value) through the endless accumulation of capital.
A peasant selling a chicken at a medieval market is not "capitalism." A state-run factory in a planned economy that produces for social use, not profit, is not "capitalism." Markets can exist within socialism or communism; capitalism cannot exist without wage-labour and private ownership of the productive apparatus.
including communism.
No, just no.
We explicitly define communism as the abolition of capitalism's foundational pillars:
Abolition of private property in the means of production (replaced by social or common ownership).
Abolition of wage-labour (labour becomes freely associated activity, not a commodity sold to a boss).
Abolition of the law of value (production is organised according to human need and rational planning, not according to exchange-value, profit, or market fluctuations).
In a communist society, there is no capitalist class, no exploitation of labour for surplus value, no stock markets, no CEOs extracting unearned wealth, and no "fiduciary duty" to maximise profit. You will still have distribution of goods, even exchange of some items, but that is not capitalism โ just as having a knife does not make you a surgeon. The social relations are what define the system, not the mere presence of money or trade.
276
u/Hashsum88 7h ago edited 5h ago
capitalize profits, socialize losses. Welcome to modern era capitalism
edit: i meant โprivatizeโ profits!