Types of Capitalism

[Nolan]

Just an image I made in a few minutes in Paint.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5363

Kinda hard to see, and pointless, I know...

I made my own categorization.

Any suggestions for improvements? Critiques?

[Richard Nixon]

I assume Roosevelt's New Deal economics goes under liberal progressivism?

[Nolan]

I assume Roosevelt's New Deal economics goes under liberal progressivism?

Yes, something like that. It should probably also include the "new left" like Clinton and Obama.

[Agnapostate]

Capitalism can be effectively divided into three categories, revolving around Anglo-Saxon capitalism (based on the rightist economic policies of Reagan and Thatcher, particularly the latter), liberal democratic capitalism, advocated by the more "leftist" political elements of the U.S., and social democratic capitalism and the related "Rhine capitalism" of Western Europe, which might be a hybrid of liberal and social democratic capitalism.

I don't see much point to even addressing "minarchist" or "anarchist" capitalism. Their existence is an impossibility due to the demand for substantial state intervention for the purpose of macroeconomic stabilization in the capitalist economy. Instability would creep in more and more as the economy shifted rightward, until a complete lack of intervention in the capitalist economy bred social breakdown.

[Sendo]

Sorry, but I don't like it all. It seems silly and bourgeois to put statism on a scale like that. As if a social democracy + even more state intervention = fascism.

You also spelled "Dependent" as "Dependant". A pendant is something you wear. I'm not sure why people mix these up. Is it pronounced like "ant" in some parts of America? This has bothered me for years. I always thought "dependent" was more phonetic.

[Dean]

Yes, something like that. It should probably also include the "new left" like Clinton and Obama.

They aren't "new left." They're neoliberal.

[Richard Nixon]

They aren't "new left." They're neoliberal.

And liberal is "left"-very mild left compared to communists, anarchists, socialists, or even social democrats but "left" still at least centre-left.

[Nolan]

You also spelled "Dependent" as "Dependant". A pendant is something you wear. I'm not sure why people mix these up. Is it pronounced like "ant" in some parts of America? This has bothered me for years. I always thought "dependent" was more phonetic.

God fucking damnit

[Nolan]

Sorry, but I don't like it all. It seems silly and bourgeois to put statism on a scale like that. As if a social democracy + even more state intervention = fascism.

No, that's not really what I meant to imply. But obviously social democracy is more dependent on public programs than others, for example, and corporatism is the ultimate statist capitalism, whereas ancaps want to implement the law of the jungle.

[Sendo]

No, that's not really what I meant to imply. But obviously social democracy is more dependent on public programs than others, for example, and corporatism is the ultimate statist capitalism, whereas ancaps want to implement the law of the jungle.

I understand. It just seems like Beck or someone could swipe it, say it was written by a communist, and present it as an argument that the goal of communism is easing from social democracy to fascism. Maybe a two-dimensional scale? Or a line with some parallel branches...a la those evolution-species timelines?

[Nolan]

I understand. It just seems like Beck or someone could swipe it, say it was written by a communist, and present it as an argument that the goal of communism is easing from social democracy to fascism. Maybe a two-dimensional scale? Or a line with some parallel branches...a la those evolution-species timelines?

Yikes thats a real possibility! And he'll point out my typo! :scared:

But then again, his followers are already brain-dead.

I was thinking about something like the political compass, with statism as one of the values.

[Die Rote Fahne]

And liberal is "left"-very mild left compared to communists, anarchists, socialists, or even social democrats but "left" still at least centre-left.

But neo-liberal isn't left wing.

[Common_Means]

But neo-liberal isn't left wing.

Indeed. Neoliberal simply refers to one being "liberal" within an economic context. Thus, they stand for free-trade, deregulation, privatization and so on.

[Left-Reasoning]

Capitalism is impossible without the state. Any capitalist society must have a state to maintain its perverse notion of property rights. It may not be called a state but if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

[Havet]

Lol what's chinese style keynesianism?

[Dimentio]

Lol what's chinese style keynesianism?

He probably talks about the system in China today, which rather should be defined as "neo-industrial chattel slavery".

[AK]

Capitalism is impossible without the state. Any capitalist society must have a state to maintain its perverse notion of property rights. It may not be called a state but if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
Not if you condition people into believing that Anarcho-Capitalism/Libertarianism is the best thing evar. Then people respect property rights and whatnot without questioning it whatsoever.

Oh and er... quack! I'm a duck and I quack, see...

[RGacky3]

Yes, something like that. It should probably also include the "new left" like Clinton and Obama.

Its pretty much reaganism. :P.

[PHUNX]

quack! I'm a duck and I quack, see...

:blink:

[JohnnyC]

@Captain Cuba

In your opening post, your definition of capitalism is faulty because private ownership (or better yet, control) of means of production by exploiter class existed in many forms ever since the end of primitive communism.While it's true that under capitalism there is a class that extract surplus labour/value from workers through the control of MOP that is not specific to only capitalist mode of production.Things such as generalized commodity production and wage labour on the other hand are.(those are, unfortunately, things which existed and still exist in both the so called "socialist countries" and free market, "pure" capitalist society)

[Dean]

And liberal is "left"-very mild left compared to communists, anarchists, socialists, or even social democrats but "left" still at least centre-left.

Not in terms of economics, you know, the material organization of society.

[Wolf Larson]

Just an image I made in a few minutes in Paint.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5363

Kinda hard to see, and pointless, I know...

I made my own categorization.

Any suggestions for improvements? Critiques?

There is only capitalism. In reality wage slavery, rent, interest and usury can not exist without private property to exclude the masses from attaining sustenance without subjecting themselves to wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. Private property [capitalism] cannot exist unless there is a state to legitimize, enforce and protect it [foreign and domestic]. As far as "anarcho" capitalism goes there is no such thing as "anarcho" or non state capitalism. Also, main stream right wing conservatism exists to put a cap on the Keynesian social programs which are necessary to keep the impoverished/unemployed reserve labor force in line. Keynesian capitalism saved capitalism and educated conservatives know it they simply want the people to hate the government [government as social provider] in order to keep the market from becoming completely socialized. Generic conservatism is the yin to the Keynesian Yang [part of one entity] which in reality see's the necessity of Keynesian programs but simply wants to keep them from spiraling out of control. Neo-conservatives are Keynesian capitalists as are liberals. Capitalism is capitalism and a new definition may help simplify my point- whatever it takes to create the stage for private property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury [concentrated wealth] is capitalism. Everything done whether Keynesian or not is to preserve the property owners [capitalists] ability to attain concentrated wealth by excluding the masses from equal access to the means of life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l43yYw2i_yo

Everything in our modern capitalist society is as it should be if a property owner is to employ wage slaves while accumulating concentrated wealth. If Keynesian capitalism wasn't facilitated there would be no more capitalism. Also, for the so called "anarcho" capitalists try reading "The Great Transformation" to understand how the capitalist system and the modern state manifested together as one. Capitalism has never existed without a state and cannot exist without a state. By capitalism I mean property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury cannot exist without a state. It never has and never will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

Your free market is a myth. The only real divisions are in peoples minds. Capitalism is as it should be right now if it is to exist. No Keynesian programs workers will overthrow the system. No state and workers will overthrow the system. No military around the globe and private property [markets[ will not be able to be protected. No massive amount of taxes and no military. No taxes for social programs and the Keynesian system will not exist which means, once gain, workers will overthrow the system. Capitalism is as it should be. The only way it can be.

[Nolan]

your free market is a myth.

Indeed, I placed it on there because the theory and movement exist. In reality a state would soon form out of necessity, putting them at best back to minarchism or something.

I think nation states don't necessarily have to reform from ancap, but de facto states would as groups of firms (essentially pools) and their private defenses establish dominance over an area and agree to keep newcomers out.

[IcarusAngel]

I'd have it more like this:

__________________________________________________ ___
^(Social capitalism)_________^(Conservative capitalism)_____^Fascist capitalism____^Libertarian capitalism


Libertarian capitalism and fascist capitalism are closer together because both assume an automatic protection of private property and property rights. In contract, in social capitalism, Keynes and so on, there can be different forms of property.

Fact is allowing different kinds of property for different industries (applying different regulations to different industries, all while applying some universal regulations) is closer to socialism.

Today's "Liberals" only want universal regulation and today's conservatives are closer to fascist capitalism.

[Richard Nixon]

Indeed. Neoliberal simply refers to one being "liberal" within an economic context. Thus, they stand for free-trade, deregulation, privatization and so on.

The "New Left" has supported (in the US) universal health care, stimulus plans, and now due to the recession a stimulus plan.

[Bob George]

I don't think the different degrees of economic structure can be illustrated on a straight line diagram like that. I'd say it's more like a triangle.

At the tip of the triangle you have free-market capitalism. Then as you add in a little government, the tip of the triangle diverges out into two sides. On one side you have state-controlled capitalism, which is aimed at restricting capital and spreading wealth. On the other side you have state-subsidised capitalism, which is aimed at using tax dollars to grow capital and cooperate/co-conspire between government and corporations to accumulate all the wealth and power.

At the far corners of the triangle, opposite the tip, are communism in left-hand corner, and fascism in the right-hand corner. As you go from the tip of the triangle, to the left-hand corner (communism) you pass social-democracy and socialism. As you go from the tip of the triangle, to the right-hand corner (fascism) you pass crony-capitalism and corporatism.

I could just mock this up quickly to illustrate it. Perhaps I will.

Edit: OK, here's a really dodgy mock-up...

..........................Free-market Capitalism
................................../\
.......Social Democracy/...\Crony Capitalism
.............................../......\
................Socialism/.........\Corporatism
............................/............\
.........Communism/________\Fascism

[Agnapostate]

All "spectrums" that range from the "pure free market" to the "pure command economy" will be flawed, inasmuch as they're reliant on pointless theoretical abstractions and represent the practical value of state intervention as a macroeconomic stabilizer under capitalism as some kind of "impurity."

[Nolan]

All "spectrums" that range from the "pure free market" to the "pure command economy" will be flawed, inasmuch as they're reliant on pointless theoretical abstractions and represent the practical value of state intervention as a macroeconomic stabilizer under capitalism as some kind of "impurity."

That's not what this is.

But obviously we have seen different strains of capitalism at different types and places, so how would you categorize them in relation to one another? The capitalism of Nazi Germany was very different from the capitalism of Chile under Pinochet. They're all fundamentally the same, but there are different strains. That's kinda what I'm getting at here.

[anticap]

There's a reason why the two-dimensional political graph was devised: because these one-dimensional lines don't work when one tries to plot ideologies, composed of multiple dimensions, along them.

What you've basically done here is to take the right-wing half of a typical 2-D graph and laid it on its side, with the line representing decreasing state-pervasiveness as one moves rightward along it.


And liberal is "left"-very mild left compared to communists, anarchists, socialists, or even social democrats but "left" still at least centre-left.

Nonsense.

Without getting into the origins of "Left/Right" (which relates primarily to one's position with respect to the establishment), in the economic sense we would place socialism on the left and capitalism on the right. Now, we can argue over where to peg U$-style liberals along the pro-capitalist side of the line, but there is simply no room for debate over whether or not they belong on that side to begin with. Liberals are decidedly pro-capitalist; the Democratic Party enthusiastically so. Arguing over who, on the right, is to the left of whom, is not a very worthwhile endeavor, from the perspective of an actual leftist; though it gets more interesting once we're talking about the actual (anti-capitalist) Left.

[Bob George]

Without getting into the origins of "Left/Right" (which relates primarily to one's position with respect to the establishment), in the economic sense we would place socialism on the left and capitalism on the right. Now, we can argue over where to peg U$-style liberals along the pro-capitalist side of the line, but there is simply no room for debate over whether or not they belong on that side to begin with. Liberals are decidedly pro-capitalist; the Democratic Party enthusiastically so. The only sense in which they are "left" is if we limit our view to the politics of a given state; but all capitalist states are right-wing by definition, so all we'd be arguing is, again: who, on the right, is to the left of whom. But that's not a very worthwhile endeavor, from the perspective of an actual leftist.
Well if anything slightly capitalist belongs on the right, then that would make the left very small. And in terms of which country are right or left, that would be make every country right-wing. Wouldn't it? There's no nation that doesn't practice capitalism to some extent, is there?

This is why, as you also stated, you can't represent political ideologies or even economic structures on any sort of linear spectrum. Because there is the variable of pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist, but there is also the variable of pro-government and anti-government. A mixture of pro-capitalist and pro-government would be fascism, whereas a mixture of pro-capitalist and anti-government would be free-market capitalism or "anarcho"-capitalism. A mixture of anti-capitalist and anti-government would be pure communism, whereas a mixture of anti-capitalist and pro-government would be state socialism.

[anticap]

Well if anything slightly capitalist belongs on the right, then that would make the left very small. And in terms of which country are right or left, that would be make every country right-wing. Wouldn't it? There's no nation that doesn't practice capitalism to some extent, is there?

Indeed, under global capitalism, there are no leftist states; but does this even need to be said?


This is why, as you also stated, you can't represent political ideologies or even economic structures on any sort of linear spectrum. Because there is the variable of pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist, but there is also the variable of pro-government and anti-government. A mixture of pro-capitalist and pro-government would be fascism, whereas a mixture of pro-capitalist and anti-government would be free-market capitalism or "anarcho"-capitalism. A mixture of anti-capitalist and anti-government would be pure communism, whereas a mixture of anti-capitalist and pro-government would be state socialism.

This notion, that there can be an "anti-government" strain of capitalism, is useful only if we accept the premise that the private courts and defense agencies, which so-called "anarcho-capitalists" [sic] themselves posit as the means by which they will enforce the private property regime on which the capitalist mode of production depends, does not itself amount to a government. I don't accept that premise.

The distinction between capitalism and fascism is necessary but misleading; capitalism is the economic system of fascism, but not all capitalist states are fascist. Fascism entails a bunch of other hideous shit in addition to capitalism. By your reckoning, virtually the entire planet is fascist.

I don't really care for the anti/pro-government scale, because it doesn't account for the nature of the government. A properly democratic government, with "democracy" properly understood, would get no objections even from a confirmed anarchist. At some point, as people gain influence over decisions that affect them, the notion of "government" is less one of an autonomous outside force meddling in people's lives, and more one of people coming together to accomplish common goals. But the anti/pro-government scale doesn't allow for that analysis.

I also don't really care for the anti/pro-capitalist scale, because it assumes that there can be "degrees" of capitalism. It would only make sense, to me, if the left/right scale were very narrow, divided only by the binary "no/yes" with regard to capitalism. But that seems like a wasted scale.

Since what we're ultimately talking about here is degrees of empowerment, I've come up with this alternative. I haven't given it a lot of thought, but it seems to work at least as well as any other:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3309/archongraph.gif

The placement of capitalism isn't precise, but close enough. However the property regime necessary to capitalism is enforced, it will amount to political "archons"; capitalism needs only one point on this graph.

[Bob George]

I don't really care for the anti/pro-government scale, because it doesn't account for the nature of the government. A properly democratic government, with "democracy" properly understood, would get no objections even from a confirmed anarchist. At some point, as people gain influence over decisions that affect them, the notion of "government" is less one of an autonomous outside force meddling in people's lives, and more one of people coming together to accomplish common goals. But the anti/pro-government scale doesn't allow for that analysis.
Well perhaps this is the control, the definition of government (pro or anti). Rather than say pro-government or anti-governement, perhaps it's more accurate to say collectivist or individualist?


I also don't really care for the anti/pro-capitalist scale, because it assumes that there can be "degrees" of capitalism. It would only make sense, to me, if the left/right scale were very narrow, divided only by the binary "no/yes" with regard to capitalism. But that seems like a wasted scale.
So completely free trade between individuals, with no government intervention except for the legal protections of property rights, is no different to trade that is heavily regulated, taxed and subsidised by the government?

[Agnapostate]

That's not what this is.

But obviously we have seen different strains of capitalism at different types and places, so how would you categorize them in relation to one another? The capitalism of Nazi Germany was very different from the capitalism of Chile under Pinochet. They're all fundamentally the same, but there are different strains. That's kinda what I'm getting at here.

Certainly there are different kinds of capitalism, from the Anglo-Saxon capitalism of the U.S. and UK to liberal and social democratic variants and related forms of Rhine capitalism in Western Europe (which includes German corporatism), to the decentralized and more "leftist" variant of capitalism in Japan. I'm just wary of the tendency to represent social democratic capitalism, for example, as "closer" to socialism because it includes a "mixture" of "capitalistic and socialistic principles" when the macroeconomic stabilization that it provides to the capitalist economy hinders the establishment of socialism.

[anticap]

Well perhaps this is the control, the definition of government (pro or anti).

I don't follow. :confused:


Rather than say pro-government or anti-governement, perhaps it's more accurate to say collectivist or individualist?

Not for me, because we're all both individualists and collectivists, despite the fact that some of us deny being one or the other.

Besides, it still doesn't allow for the analysis I described: "anti-government" implies that it is an outside force, like a dragon that must be slain; but that's not necessarily the case, as I explained before. And "pro-government" therefore implies that such people desire to lord over others (this is why the anti/pro-government scale is inherently biased: the subtle implication is that anti- is good, and pro- is bad).

Also, "collectivists" (as you would describe them) believe that individuality can only be fully expressed through "collectivism" (again, as you would describe it).


So completely free trade between individuals, with no government intervention except for the legal protections of property rights, is no different to trade that is heavily regulated, taxed and subsidised by the government?

The problem is that you're looking at it from the perspective of the capitalists, whereas I'm looking at it from the perspective of their victims. So for you, varying degrees of mutually-agreed self-regulation among capitalists* will appear better or worse to individual capitalists depending how successful they are; while for me all that matters is that the system is being imposed (one way or another) on workers by capitalists.

Also, you portray "the legal protections of property rights" as an essentially neutral and default position, when it is not. The private property regime is not the natural state of mankind. It's birth was not foretold in the stars, but is "written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm)."

*The state, being a union of capitalists, is not an autonomous outside force imposing itself on its membership. Though there will always be dissent within the ranks, most will accept the decisions of their union anyway, because they benefit magnificently from it, while a tiny minority of mostly non-capitalists, who nevertheless spend an inordinate amount of time extolling its alleged virtues (e.g., Misesianites, Randroids, Paulbots, etc.), will object loudly on grounds of ideological impurity.

[Havet]

Could we stop making silly Paint drawings now, please?

[anticap]

Could we stop making silly Paint drawings now, please?

Presumably you mean mine, since Captain Cuba's isn't stereotypically Paint-like. In that case, is it silly because it's Paint (in which case I'll happily concede), or because it accurately pegs capitalism miles away from the position of equal human freedom, and doesn't allow pro-capitalists to obfuscate by inventing imaginary distinctions between actual capitalism -- which will depend on political archons in any conceivable guise -- and their mythical archon-free capitalism?

[Havet]

Presumably you mean mine, since Captain Cuba's isn't stereotypically Paint-like. In that case, is it silly because it's Paint (in which case I'll happily concede), or because it accurately pegs capitalism miles away from the position of equal human freedom, and doesn't allow pro-capitalists to obfuscate by inventing imaginary distinctions between actual capitalism -- which will depend on political archons in any conceivable guise -- and their mythical archon-free capitalism?

Actually I meant all of the paintings. Not just yours. They are all silly because they fail at basic rigor.

I mean, I could invent a graphic right now, and it doesn't mean jack shit unless there is evidence to support it:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6765/3axispoliticalmapfinal2.jpg

I made this image like a year ago. Still, it means nothing. Do you thhink its representative of the real world? I don't think so, precisely because I don't support my claims in the graphic.

[Zanthorus]

I honestly don't really think political ideologies can be elaborated in terms of graphs. A lot of the time this kind of thing is just down to laziness and people trying to make it easy for themselves to pigeonhole others.

[anticap]

Actually I meant all of the paintings. Not just yours. They are all silly because they fail at basic rigor.

I mean, I could invent a graphic right now, and it doesn't mean jack shit unless there is evidence to support it:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6765/3axispoliticalmapfinal2.jpg

I made this image like a year ago. Still, it means nothing. Do you thhink its representative of the real world? I don't think so, precisely because I don't support my claims in the graphic.

They're simply proposals, you twit. They're not meant to be "rigorous" or "prove" anything. The point of all such proposals is that the one-dimensional left/right spectrum is grossly inadequate. Hence, the various two-dimensional proposals.

Of course, there could be, and ought to be, many more dimensions, but beyond two it gets difficult to represent on a 2D screen. I've seen a few (serious) attempts to do this, but they're all clumsy (like yours). A cube would be useful, but would have to be done in some medium that would allow one to rotate the cube in space (e.g., Java, or Flash).

Since two dimensions are most convenient, and are reasonably sufficient to address the problem of simple left/right, the problem then becomes one of choosing your axes. Nolan's proposal has been widely accepted, with a few variations, but without much critique. Unsurprisingly, given Nolan's politics, it allows pro-capitalists to pretend that there could ever be such a thing as a "libertarian capitalism" (that is, capitalism sans authoritarian enforcement of the requisite property regime). As I've argued here and elsewhere, this is nonsense. And so-called "anarcho-capitalists" [sic] implicitly agree: that's what their "private courts and defense agencies" are for. Of course, they'll deny that this amounts to enforcement, since in their deluded worldview everyone will happily agree to the private property regime, and the "private courts and defense agencies" will serve as nothing more than reminders of what could happen if one ever did begin to disagree with that regime (which would never happen!). But, to quote Bob Black (http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/libertarian.html), since he put it so well, "Those on the receiving end of coercion don’t quibble over their coercers’ credentials."

My proposal attempts to address this by getting to the core of the issue: who controls your life? Thus, I chose the pervasiveness of "archons" to represent the flatness of the decision-making process. An "archon-free" dimension would be completely flat; the opposite end would represent totalitarian dictatorship. As someone heavily influenced by Marx, I believe that the productive arrangement is the foundation of a society and will determine its structure and the beliefs of the people who compose it. So the economic sphere is vital. And the political sphere represents the flatness of decision-making in that resulting structure.

You don't have to like my proposal, but to dismiss it for lack of "evidence" is to completely misunderstand the purpose of such proposals.

P.S. Your proposal is an insta-fail, as it employs the popular-but-absurd (and vague) "economic freedom" dimension, which will have exactly opposite meanings depending who you ask. Most people would (presumably) agree that "freedom" means "not under the control of others," which my "archon" proposal covers. Of course, pro-capitalists won't like this, because their notion of "freedom" means "free to control others," and thus they will be represented on my chart at the opposite end from where they like to portray themselves.

P.P.S. If it's any consolation, I'd place Stalin's regime somewhere up around fascism and capitalism, since the decision-making process was not at all flat, in either sphere. I'm really sticking my neck out to throw you that bone. :lol: (That's not to say that they're all equivalent, mind you; but I hope that much is clear.)

[Havet]

...to completely misunderstand the purpose of such proposals.

What is it, then?

[anticap]

What is it, then?

To lure trolls out from under their bridges.

+1

[Richard Nixon]

There's a reason why the two-dimensional political graph was devised: because these one-dimensional lines don't work when one tries to plot ideologies, composed of multiple dimensions, along them.

What you've basically done here is to take the right-wing half of a typical 2-D graph and laid it on its side, with the line representing decreasing state-pervasiveness as one moves rightward along it.



Nonsense.

Without getting into the origins of "Left/Right" (which relates primarily to one's position with respect to the establishment), in the economic sense we would place socialism on the left and capitalism on the right. Now, we can argue over where to peg U$-style liberals along the pro-capitalist side of the line, but there is simply no room for debate over whether or not they belong on that side to begin with. Liberals are decidedly pro-capitalist; the Democratic Party enthusiastically so. Arguing over who, on the right, is to the left of whom, is not a very worthwhile endeavor, from the perspective of an actual leftist; though it gets more interesting once we're talking about the actual (anti-capitalist) Left.

Where would social democrats go then? They supports socialism but they don't want to get rid of capitalism completely either.

[Nolan]

Where would social democrats go then? They supports socialism but they don't want to get rid of capitalism completely either.

They don't support socialism. They want more welfare and pensions, not for the workers to expropriate the capitalists.

[Left-Reasoning]

They don't support socialism. They want more welfare and pensions, not for the workers to expropriate the capitalists.

Agreed.