Sure, I agreed with you. A few remarks.
You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society. As long as the government exists the government will be doing something: they must get some money somehow. It may not impose tariffs or trade restrictions but you can argue that any kind of taxation breaks the free trade in one way or another.

I feel the Oxford dictionary definition covers capitalism quite well and in a short sentence "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

I would not use plutocracy as a synonym of capitalism at all. That would imply that you cannot have a democratic state with a capitalist economy. Sure, democracy is strongly influenced by the rich in capitalism, but they don't necessarily have government powers and their interests can be disregarded by politicians.

I would not include state capitalism as a subtype of capitalism. It is in fact very different from capitalism, since individual people do not own the means of production and you don't organise production to generate profit but rather to supply the population with certain things. The decision process of which things to produce is very different from capitalism, you don't have a bunch of people deciding what the economy should produce according to how much profit they can make, but rather politicians and economists taking decisions according to what they feel is better for the nation.

@rastinza
> You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society.

You could, but no one should want that. As I said this goes back to my comment about pure ideologies, they are almost always bad. Ideologies are meant to be principles, default ideas that work **most** of the time, but no ideaology should ever be applied in the absolute.

Nor does capitalism (or any ideology) require itself to be applied absolutely. Capitalism as a principle applied most of the time, and other principles used where they apply is completely in line with capitalism, and should be the goal of a capitalist.

> I feel the Oxford dictionary definition...

as I said words dont have a single definition, that is certainly one of them. It is distinctly different than free-market which is another definition. Since private ownership and free market are two halves of the same coin I find the distinction largely irrelevant. If the market isnt free then you dont truly completely own your products since someone else can force you to sell it as a price other than what it is worth. You dont truly own a thing if you cant choose when and how to sell it.

I don't receive notifications for your replies nor I see your toot you now refer to for some reason.

> Free trade definition

Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.

> Capitalism cannot exist if not in a free market

I strongly disagree. If I own a brick factory I decide which kinds of bricks we produce every year and how many of each type. I decide that according to how much profit I expect to make. I own the factory, I shape the economy. The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done. The tariffs are just a restriction which may as well be modelled as a different production/demand curve. Production limits also do not remove my freedom to decide what to do, but rather limit it in certain aspects. Minimum and maximum prices imposed by the government also do not affect my ability to choose what to do according to my expected returns, they just change the kinds of choices I will take. Taking different choices according to external influences is normal, otherwise the capitalist economy couldn't adapt to the market anyway.

@rastinza
> Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.

The existent of, or lack of tariffs, if applied equally to all members (usually not the case) is still free market. When you have tariffs the market is no longer internationally free (some countries are at a disadvantage others are) but locally/internally is a free market. In other words, all the players in the market in the country have equal footing.

So the mere existence of tariffs doesnt make a country a capitalism or not, it depends on how it is applied. In fact if tariffs are meant to offset an unfair advantage one party has at the table then it would be against the principles of capitalism to not have tariffs. For example if china had a monopoly on cell phones then putting a tariffs on cell phones would be a requirement to follow capitalist ideals.

> The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done.

Then to my original point you dont fully own those bricks. If someone is **forcing** me to sell those bricks at some price that isnt the market price then I dont **fully** own the bricks. Someone else is telling me what I can or cant do with my bricks, and therefore someone else has some level of joint ownership over those bricks. Now again im not saying this is a bad thing, or even that it should or can be avoided entirely, capitalisms (along with any other ideal) does not exist in a pure sense so that would be nonsense anyway. But absolutely if there is a tariff exclusive to a category of goods, and that tariff is **not** designed to make the markets free (that is, everyone having equal power), then it is contrary to capitalism since it makes markets less free (brick sellers are at a disadvantage due to price fixing).

We have a clearly distinct vision of what capitalism is.
In my opinion capitalism exists when I can own the brick factory and decide what the brick factory should do and make money off of it. That is the capital. If I can have the factory, employ people and make money off the work of those people, whether I work or not, that is capitalism.
I don't see the complete freedom of trade as a prerequisite of capitalism. I'm allowed to have the capital, and profit off of it, even if restrictions are applied to prices.
If goods prices and quantities cannot be manipulated by the government, that is what I'd refer to as free trade.

Someone may be forcing me to sell bricks at a price within 5$ and 100$, but I still have the factory, I can decide what to do with the factory and I profit with the bricks produced by the factory.

The distinction here in my opinion is with other economic systems in which you are not allowed to own the factory, or if you are allowed to own it you are not allowed to make profit off the factory.
For example, you may "own" an association, but you cannot profit off of it; you can pay yourself a salary.
In a communist economy, nobody is allowed to own a company, you may be in the position to decide what the company should produce, but the company is not yours and you don't make profit off the company but rather receive a salary from the government.

@rastinza WOW this is most intriguing and pleasantly disturbing... the average person has little-to-no chance other than umbrella term but I feel a bit of progress was made... and will put some comments below most for Rastinza:

1/ capitalism and free market can or cannot be the same thing?

➡️ I would say yes when merged and even if separate to start with becomes capitalism by nature of bringing together and if they are not mutually exclusive together and not very far being able to inter-operate together.

2/ Free Market variant is hard to achieve on it's own?

➡️ I agree it may be unachievable unless a lot of things are not present. And if they are present ruins Free Market and only flavours a bit whatever you try add it to.

3/ Oxford dictionary definition seems what the average person and most would agree with...

➡️ it mentions "for profit" but not all short definitions elsewhere mention profit and interestingly can be "...private ownership of capital" so using the word "capital" itself and no mention of profit... not sure if this is a clue but I'm guessing ownership of capital (which is wealth, money, business, human resources, economic value) perhaps always leads to profit even if occasionally you don't have to or don't have it in mind as the main thing. You kinda have to make profit / shift surpluses to yourself of some kind even if it's not money.

❓ Can you have capitalism without profit... I guess depending on which flavour but most are for-profit it seems and YOU MUST profit else you don't have most types of capitalism or any capital.

❓ If above is true, does it suggest all #equality is ruined by capitalism itself - directly or eventually from the system forcing or being of nature towards profit as the main (hoarding / accumulating wealth, suckign energy of the people, controlling things, power-struggles, dog-eat-dog companies / states etc even if not distinctly mentioned in short descriptions).

2/ #Plutocracy might not be the best from all this - true, but does achieve two things!

🔴 Gets people to look up the word!
🔴 Makes it simple as 'rich' even though any democratic part in the world takes a hit usnig this word and assumes it's almost *all* rich people (which actually I think it *almost* is !!!!)

⬆️ It would be about the rich almost from way back in time if a few almost-aesthic things collapsed again (which were only a faceade of 'democracy perhaps). Since all existence of life may be based on those things of Kings etc, it seems history is overwhelmingly more than people "understanding" things or doing any democratic process (until things get too extreme and then something is done about it, but that's not democratic always either).
So I feel it's more top level / wealthy again and aesthetics of which rich person or which liar you get 'democratically'... today is all built on those things and just becoming mini-games within that? ❓
Not trying to ruin your version but coming from kings, families with wealth, land, strong bonds, technology being decisive... not sure how we can undo all that or not continue it in genuine "democratic" way. Honestly most people couldn't do it even if their life depended on it and that's part of why we're here I'm very very sure of that having tried / tested people personally! Just like working with dud people when you come down to talking 10+minutes and though they live and seem normal / able people. Just towing the line mainly. (which is why I want to change people's communication ability more than code or increase tech for the same things to happen between unhappy / uneducated . unloving people).

⚫ But true the rich don't have direct political power I guess, though even today it's seemingly proving even less needed, so perhaps they still indirectly buy power, talk betwee themselves, buy people of various kinds and that almost super-seeds / overwrites public and gets re-labelled at various points down the line even after any public or democraticc victory (gets er-done or undone later and we see it's just encroaching suffocating life). Even if for a while seems public gets there way, it's done behind back again or reworked later, oil pipeline is re-opened or just made where protest will be less.

And the hand can be put on should on anyone in hierarchy ...
And we see people / parents / teachers doing it despite the logic of that decision made by their supervisor, higher rank- unless they want to die by the sword of morality / staying true to themselves.

4/ Rastinza you mentioned "state capitalism" but I mentioned "state monopoly" capitalism - so just making sure because I think you *can* have capitalism in the popular sense where states govern it as a monopoly or main controlling party but it's not free market - just a kind of revolving door or meme picture of choice of doors leading back to the same things. Limited choice let's say.

5/ Absolutely disagree with this paragraph below

You said "you don't have a bunch of people deciding what the economy should produce according to how much profit they can make, but rather politicians and economists taking decisions according to what they feel is better for the nation."

⬆️ That sounds really naive - it's almost all for profit!! And seems ignoring everything is State controlled and regulated, to the extent that yes I feel and see by design State decides where they are going, NOT the politician and economist ➡️ "for the better of the nation" ⬅️ 😃

Because they might not know what's best, and anyway not able to overrule it even if they tried or had all the evidence otherwise.
Politicians and economists are seemingly purely there to follow the main stream of thought / wil from top and provide commentary like an employee - to follow mostly - yes a few rogues out there but nothing at all for changing the #system.
Systems are not there to change themselves generally 😃 but cut out all that caring or detail stuff and get the booty / cash !

We see how often even the truth gets them / us, how far all the evidence out there gets.
State has final say (even if wrong - they determine the logic and often it's not logical and cruel actually to maintain power!). It owns all the puppets by nature of keeping them 'alive', and changes those values to kill them / die them off, or incentivizes the bullies and stronger folks (even academics and brains), punishes according to whatever thinking suits them more NOT PEOPLE!
So probably talks between themselves happen a lot and likely is that they are there to their self-given jobs alive ETC! NOT FOR BENEFIT OF ANY "NATION" feeling of that's long gone, BUT TO EXTRACT FROM IT! (that's their "business" model and not there to provide even people things to do and have a "pleasant life" among themselves!). No way.

And if you didn't see how disposable and crushing all that is / has been then I'm not sure how to say more. We're only there because they might need us and as soon as we're not we'll be cut off / phased out / exterminated, replaced by a machine. Why pay for excess humans?

That whole nation thing gives me the idea that people are doing it because they care or care more about nation than taking care of themselves.

Pretty sure also every nation has lost it's identity and culture also and it's just like similar sports teams that come together like #gladiators and gladiator-it-out leaving not much useful at the end but profits of one or the other.

Hope you can give me the arrow where I'm wrong but people doing it for people when on team "State" is like you think the job of politicians and economists (to do things almost *to* other rather than with them) is going to really take into consideration what they think and restore this world into cat-loving nature place with less money and not-for-profit give-it-to-the-children's-future ways!

Ok that's long and perhaps a bit of a sub-point but it's still about those ruling us... are if they going to actually give it back to us.. lol...

Is interesting. Thanks in advance.

about the last point. In a communist economy the state decides how production is organised, how many people should be making bricks, how many people should be building cars and so on.
It is not for profit in the sense that there is no individual gaining the profits of those factories. The factories may make a profit, it could then be decided whether to reinvest that in the same factory or somewhere else.
It is the state to decide what the economy does, this means politicians, since they generally represent the state. Of course you can organise it in different ways: you don't necessarily need the prime minister to be there every day saying alright, the next week we need 50k bricks. You'll have comitees studying the economy and taking decisions along those lines.
Then you may have factory directors who'll be tasked with executing those things. We need your factory to produce 50k bricks a month, here is some money employ the necessary people and buy necessary machinery. The factory director will receive a salary, it may be increased if the factory works efficiently but he won't be directly profiting off the factory production.

Do politicians and economists know what is the better for the nation and are very good at organising production? No, not at all; that is not to be expected. On the other hand: are capitalists very good at the same? I would argue also no. Capitalism is a good system because it requires no bureaucracy to function, it functions automatically. It however also has plenty drawbacks for the people.

In communism do people at the top really make no profits? Well, there always will be corruption and power grabbing. But that is not really the point. The economy is organised in a different way. It is not capitalists deciding what a nation should produce in order to make profit for themselves. It is rather the government deciding what should be made on a national level.
Communism is one example of an economy type in which production is not controlled by capitalists for profit. It is not the only one.

The Soviet Union has failed under many fronts, but a 5 years plan appears like a wonderful way to organise the expansion of production. In capitalism you get that freely, but you also get a bunch of stupid people messing things up: 1929 crisis, dot com bubble, 2008 crisis these are all directly related to capitalism. Such a crisis can happen only in a capitalist economy, as it happens due to the expectations of profits of the people.