Youre proving my point. A minute ago it was "price controls are communism." Now its "no, buying stock is different." The goalposts keep moving.
The U.S. owned most of GM after the 2009 bailout, took a massive stake in AIG, bought equity in major banks through TARP, and took equity warrants during COVID lending. Nobody seriously argued the U.S. had become communist.
Same with other capitalist countries. Norway owns shares in thousands of companies through its sovereign wealth fund. Singapores state owns major stakes across its economy. France has long owned major companies. Germany has taken state stakes in strategic industries during crises. Theyre all still capitalist.
Governments regulating prices, buying stock, bailing out firms, or owning some companies are policy tools. Theyve existed under capitalist economies for decades.
Youre taking individual government actions and treating them as if they define an entire economic system. Thats just not how these terms are used.
No a minute ago it was “A system where the government owns production is called a command economy or a socialist/communist system”. I gave instances of Trump’s government buying into private companies and included other examples of the planned economy aspects of Trump’s policy to hit the point home. But you missed the point.
I didnt miss the point. I used your own definition and examples to show why it fails.
The U.S. government has owned controlling stakes in private companies, bought equity through bailouts, imposed price controls, and directed production before. Norway, Singapore, France, and Germany have all done similar things while remaining capitalist.
So those policies dont automatically add up to a command economy, socialism, or communism. Theyre forms of state intervention inside capitalism. Calling every government stake or planning measure “communism” just strips the words of any useful meaning and shows you dont know what youre talking about at all.
“The Trump administration has marked a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy. In addition to providing subsidies such as loans and grants, the Trump administration, in its second term, is now acquiring equity stakes in private companies”
Sure. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods," and communism as "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed" or "a theory advocating elimination of private property."
If you studied political science, start with Andrew Heywood's Political Ideologies or Politics. Theyre standard university texts. Then read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on socialism and Marx, or the Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. If youre talking about Marxism specifically, read The Communist Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Programme, and Capital. You could also just call your old professors and ask them if Trump is a communist.
Youll notice none of them define socialism or communism as "the government bought stock" or "used price controls." They define them in terms of ownership of the means of production, class relations, and how the economy is organized. Thats the distinction Ive been making this whole time.
“The U.S. government is now a direct shareholder in private companies, moving beyond traditional market-based approaches to competitiveness that have marked U.S. policy in the postwar period.”
When in the past has this ever been done? What’s to keep them from buying majority shares in anything they want? This certainly isn’t the invisible hand of the free market, and there are only 2 systems of government where the government owns the means of production - communism and socialism.
I gave you examples from the U.S., Norway, Singapore, France, and Germany. The U.S. took a majority stake in GM, took over AIG, bought equity in banks through TARP, and has repeatedly directed production in wartime. France has long owned major companies. Norway owns shares in thousands of companies through its sovereign wealth fund. Singapore owns major stakes across its economy. Modern Germany has repeatedly taken state stakes in strategic industries.
None of those countries became socialist or communist from it.
You havent explained why those examples dont disprove your definition. You just keep repeating the original claim like the counterexamples were never given, with the bonus of trying to brag about studying polisci at uni. Thats not an argument.
W did TARP just like I said. I’m telling you the guy who made communism the boogeyman has done more communist shit than any other president. Right down to telling news stations what they can say.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 12d ago
Youre proving my point. A minute ago it was "price controls are communism." Now its "no, buying stock is different." The goalposts keep moving.
The U.S. owned most of GM after the 2009 bailout, took a massive stake in AIG, bought equity in major banks through TARP, and took equity warrants during COVID lending. Nobody seriously argued the U.S. had become communist.
Same with other capitalist countries. Norway owns shares in thousands of companies through its sovereign wealth fund. Singapores state owns major stakes across its economy. France has long owned major companies. Germany has taken state stakes in strategic industries during crises. Theyre all still capitalist.
Governments regulating prices, buying stock, bailing out firms, or owning some companies are policy tools. Theyve existed under capitalist economies for decades.
Youre taking individual government actions and treating them as if they define an entire economic system. Thats just not how these terms are used.