Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

The Confederacy was simply a plantocracy near oligarchy, not to mention slavery which is incompatible with capitalism(already explained in another comment, but a brief breeze over it- slave masters act as entities of the state by the very nature of them having a monopoly on regulation of other humans)

This is extremely "wasn't real capitalism," and I could use this argument to say that the United States still isn't capitalist, as slave labor remains a cornerstone of multiple state economies and present in most of them, to say nothing of international trade.

No, the Confederacy was not some maximalist libertarian fantasy land (check the company towns of the Gilded Age for something closer to that), but that is not all that capitalism is, for a slew of reasons not the least of which being that capitalism is not a philosophical framework, it's an objective mode of production, and secondly capitalism is what invented and executed the establishment of chattel slavery to begin with!

As for the KKK, much of what it and other racist organizations of its era did was try to “protect white jobs”, and lobbied heavily for state intervention to that effect-

Again, you're appealing to a maximalist libertarian fantasy, not looking at it from the standpoint of private ownership and commodity production. I'm not trying to pin the KKK on libertarianism, obviously their approaches to fucking over minorities are pretty different.

Fundamentally though, the KKK viewed their goals of white-protestant supremacy as greater than an economic system, and were more than happy to destroy private property and private individuals- or use private property when it benefited them.

"They killed people, which isn't part of capitalism" and "They destroyed other people's stuff, which isn't part of capitalism" are just silly statements. See what I already said.

The KKK weren't trying to go back to feudalism, to classical slavery, to ancient agrarianism, or to hunter-gatherer society, and they weren't trying to invent some new mode of production like, say, utopian socialists liked to write about. They were quite happy with the existing mode of production and (as you narrated) smashed labor organization against the capitalists. The fact that that they didn't follow John Locke's writings like the Holy Bible and indeed the fact that they insisted on the domination of white capitalists do not contradict that.

Capitalism doesn’t require private profit from the means of production, it requires private control of it- and if it can be seized if not following exactly what the state wants, that’s not private control.

Then capitalism has never existed. In all liberal-inspired (what a normal person would call "liberal") societies, asset forfeiture has existed as one of the penalties of breaking the laws that everyone lives under. In some cases, that law is even that you can't own something, the classic joke example being a nuclear bomb, but much lower-grade military equipment is another set of easy examples. Turns out if what you own doesn't fall exactly within what the state permits, it can be taken from you and more besides for the state's trouble.

From a Marxist perspective (if you'll allow me), a capitalist society is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, that is to say the capitalist class collectively steers the state, which means outliers even among the capitalist class can be punished if the majority want that to pass. That doesn't change the essential nature of society as operating practically along the lines of private ownership -- even if capitalists are not individually gods of their domain -- and commodity production.

That’s what unions are to some people. To other people unions are a convenient organization of people with similar and/or parallel goals on a specific matter(and not necessarily others) so that by collaborating they can achieve their individual goals.

I don't care what's in your heart, what I care about is what actually transpires, and what actually transpires in a union is collective bargaining. You might be surprised to find that the Marxist position is one of supporting what some people refer to as "enlightened self-interest," i.e. "what is best for me is collaboration for these specific reasons" rather than psychically subsuming yourself to the collective at your own expense and with no benefit. That's part of why I think the "individualist/collectivist" framework is silly, and probably the product of liberals who were so atomized that they didn't have the right tools in their mind to conceptualize of something other than atomization except as some monstrosity of being enslaved to society itself. Just my personal theory, though.

No, that’s not true. Capitalism doesn’t ascribe the distribution or organization of labor, just that it is privately controlled. A society of independent agrarian farmers could still be capitalist,

You know that capitalism is named after capital, right? Yeoman subsistence is not capitalism, there is no commodity production, no vector for capital.

or a commune of people who voluntarily donate their labor to each other.

It's not something that Locke wrote down as a necessary element, but beyond whatever libertarian utopia you might imagine, what capitalism has actually done all over the world is create those classes and make production increasingly centralized and socialized (!! in the sense of involving many hands to make a single commodity !!). This gravity towards monopoly through the couple of centuries capitalism has existed is undeniable. We might imagine it otherwise, but we have no reason to believe that it is particularly capable of behaving differently, much less ever will.

Yeah no doubt, though I think it is a little perverse to use “capitalist” to refer to owners/employers when they themselves are often not ideological capitalists, although it is still a correct use of the word I think it leads to intentional confusion(though not by you, just in general).

"Ideological capitalist" is some bizarre joke invented by economists and their ilk. I only care for what the capitalist does, and if he pursues making money through commodity production, reinvests some of that money into developing or broadening his production, and begins again, that's capital and he's the one manipulating it. I personally think that has about as much of a claim to the title of "ideological capitalist" too, as compared to someone who just wants the world to run on private ownership, because we call those "libertarians" already (or, if you insist, "ancaps").

Anyway, I don't want to quibble over words, I can use the ones you prefer, just my two cents.

I don’t think business owners are that generally competent to have orchestrated the total destruction of black and jewish owned businesses, I think the Nazis and KKK were both more than motivated enough to do that themselves, but I agree there definitely were some to supported it when they saw it happening and benefited from it.

As far as I'm concerned, business owners across the west supporting Nazi Germany financially (often for deliberate ideological reasons, hi Ford!, though not always) means they can take credit for what the Nazis did with that benefit. Business owners typically don't directly manage the execution of serious violence (except Coca Cola), but they've been paying, for example, the American government to go and topple this government or that for a very long time ("Banana republic"). When I look at Hitler running on a platform of eradicating the Jews and the Bolsheviks and capitalists give him money, and then he does what he said he would, how should I interpret that? Should I say those companies were anything less than deliberate benefactors to what he perpetrated?