Neither is a modern fast food worker. What's your point?
The fast food worker is an employee, a peasant farmer may hire employees (typically temporarly, e.g. in harvest time).
My point was: An economy without capitalists is no capitalism.
Someone who understands economics.
No. A fast-food worker who understands economy is no capitalist. The word capitalist is (surprise!) derived from capital. Without capital, you are no capitalist.
And your implication that only supporters of capitalism (this seems to be the meaning of your term »capitalist«) understand economy is wrong.
BTW, anarchism says nothing about economy, it is all about politics and absence of power.
No market, no currency, no trade, no economy.
I studied social anthropology, there economy is not restricted to market economy.
Oh I see....revisionist anthropology that claims everyone was a communistic multi-gendered pansexual pile on prior to the white man's arrival.
I see - you are full of prejudice. I did not speak about »everyone«, I mentioned an economy with was documented by research. As to sexual rules in northwestern Indian society I know nothing - and Wikipedia says nothing.
And why you connect that to communism is unclear. The original meaning of that term was »having all things in common«, cf. the so-called »love-communism« of the first Christians (Acts 4:32ff). This sounds somewhat similar to potlatch, but while the first Christians stressed humbleness as an ideal, the exchange from wealth to prestige in these societies can be described as the contrary to the Christian ideal.
The chieftain would often have far more than any other men in the tribe.
In the Northwestern tribes, there typically were several competing chiefs, not just one chieftain. And I did not say that there was egalitarianism in that culture - I pointed to an economy (flow/exchange of ressources) was not based on a market, let alone a market with a currency.
While there may have been such ceremonies....in reality, the vast majority of native Americans were patriarchal hierarchical monarchies for all intents and purposes. The chieftain would often have far more than any other men in the tribe.
This is too much simplified. And mark, I did not speak of the majority of Indians (regardless how the majority is calculated), I mentioned an identifiable culture.
I replied to your remark that a Lord would just by an estate - which is ridiculous (we spoke about middle-ages, not 19th century or the like!).
It protected the rights of the profession by running off any competition that wasn't part of the guild. A monopoly.
A competition that was not part of the guild meant a craftsman without education in that craft.
So, Universities can be described as a monopoly - without academic legitimation you cannot become professor.
My concept of monopoly is somewhat different.
No, monopoly is derived from monos (one, only) and polis (town). If there is more than one actor, it is not a monopoly. Maybe an oligopoly, or a syndicate.
When I think of the northwest Indians I think of the Nez Pearce. A slave owning/sacrificing tribe. Is that who you mean?
I looked after that tribe - I suppose you mean the
Nez Perce, which are part of the
Plateau culture. I meant the
North-western tribes.
There's multiple ways to improve one's situation.
But rich ones have more opportunities that poor ones.
Sweden is a capitalist economy.
I tell you a detail: in The 1970's the famous author Astrid Lindgren hat to pay 98% income tax. being a socialist, she did not object - the 2% left to her was enough to live a modest comfortable life. But then she had to pay 102% - that was too much, even for her. She published a series of satiric articles in a newspaper, this and other reasons had the effect that the social democrats lost the next election. This ended the socialist's rule in Sweden.
So you really think that socialist is the wrong term for a country where rich people had to pay up to 100% income tax (even if we disregard the 102%)? WEhich was the financial base for a strong welfare system?
What's the difference between a socialist economy and communist economy in your mind?
The difference between socialism and communism is politics, not economy.
Within Marx's scheme, socialism was the first phase after a successful world revolution, when the victorious majority oppressed the dangerous old ruling class (dictatorship of the proletariat), but when the need for this ended, the society would develop into a peaceful anarchy, called communism.
In the late 19th century, it turned out that the prediction of Marx were wrong. Many socialist leaders apprehended that a turn into a socialist society might be come through reforms, not violent revolution. One of the opponents to such »revisionism« was Lenin, who presented a quite different revision of Marx: The social reforms in modern states like UK or Germany were explained as a sort of bribe to a privileged skilled labor class, financed by imperialism, so there was still a need for a world revolution. To ensure this revolution would be successful, Lenin propagated the leading role of the worker's party - Trotsky called this »dictatorship
over the proletariat«.
During WWI, Lenin and Trotsky became allies, in 1917 they established this dictatorship of a minority over the majority in Russia - the first communist state. This marked the break between communists - aka Marxist-Leninist - and socialists. The socialists revived the
International organization (Second International), the communists founded the Third International (aka Comintern), later the Trotskiists founded the Fourth International.
So a communist state is ruled by a communist party, always by dictatorship, while socialist parties typically ruled as a result of won elections - either alone (as the labour party in the UK) or in a coalition (e.g. SPD in Germany). Almost (or literally?) every country in western Europe had some socialist government for some time.
Economically, both socialists and communists showed different approaches. Lenin in the USSR and Deng in China allowed private economy, Stalin, or Mao, enforced collectivism. In the UK, there was socialization of large industry sectors, this never was theme in Western Germany (apart from small leftist groups). So it is hard to describe an economic difference.
I cannot read anything of progressive tax there, but rather about proportional tax, i.e. the same relation (say, 10%) for rich and poor.
Much of Marx is ripped right off the pages of the Wealth of Nations...and frankly even Smith's mistakes are copied. Where do think the concept of the "value of labor" came from? Socialists?
It would be more interesting whether the concept of »additional value« (cf. VAT) was taken from Smith.
Marx did not claim to have coined the term
value of labor, but said that he was the first who could define and calculate that worth.
Why do capitalists argue against taxes for the wealthy? Probably because they don't understand capitalism.
More probably that they look o9nly for their own benefit, in other words: They are greedy.
