In response to the YouTube video created by Russel Brand 18 July 2021:
My only problem here is semantics… what I consider the misuse of the term ‘Capitalism’. The proper understanding of the meaning of words is important in order to avoid confusion.
Capitalism is not what you are describing in this video. Capitalism is simply a set of rules that under ideal circumstances creates a fair and free system for people to work and compete within. Of course there are never true ideal circumstances, but Capitalism comes closest to liberating the creative spirit and humanity of the individual.
I think what you are justly criticizing is closer to Oligarchic Fascism or Corporate Fascism (or just Corporatism) which grew out of classic Marxism/Socialism and is the opposite of Capitalism. Corporatism was designed to unify the ‘means of production’ under government control by imagining/creating distinct autonomous classes which are then integrated into the state. You have the investor class, the manager class, and the workers all separate but equal under the firm guidance of the government apparatus. However, even in the 19th and early 20th centuries these separate classes were largely contrivances, and now they are wholly artificial having to be maintained by the heavy hand of authoritarianism in order to prop up an unnatural system. Marxism on the other hand seeks to wholly eliminate such classes and in so doing people become dehumanized cogs in a grand authoritarian scheme.
Corporatism is not Capitalism. Nor is it even a natural reality… at least not a reality as it would exist in a non-contrived and artificial system. Does a worker who saves some money to invest cease being a worker because he is now also an investor? And if the worker/investor decides to invest his savings into his own business rather than another business, does he cease acting as a worker/investor and instead becomes a manager? These separate classes, if they were ever historically real, were artificially imposed by a rigid social system that needed or needs to keep people in certain roles in order to preserve the authority of the rulers.
By using the term Capitalism to describe Corporatism you encourage the false dichotomy of Left vs Right (Socialism vs Capitalism). You say this is not your intention, and I believe you, but it is still a risk of misusing such inappropriate semantics.
Corporatism is not Capitalism. It is instead a soft form of Socialism. Instead of wholly destroying the various roles that people have within the ‘means of production’ under Socialism, and thus wholly destroying the humanity of the people involved, Corporatism gives people a contrived community role within the system while depriving them of their individual agency.
Under the ideal Capitalist system the individual would be free to participate in whatever role he chose at a given place and time. Since not everyone is identical there will of course be inequalities of outcome. But these inequalities of outcome would result from the natural interaction of free and independent people making their own choices, and not imposed upon people by a rigid authoritarian system that deprives individuals of their humanity and agency.
Well said! ◄Dave►