post accomplishments of the organised working class from around the world
keep it before 1990
id say the music is pretty great
Socialists keep saying that shit, but how does it make any sense?
>Guys, if we just keep adding more government and give it more control, we'll eventually need no more government for reasons
How can an ideology that is literally opposed to anarchy, have anarchy as its goal?
If anyone is forced to participate in the system, it is not an anarchy. If everyone is free to do with his body and property as he wants, which includes freely sharing it with others if he likes to do so, that is not communism
>and i would add that communist anarchy is the best way to live
You all don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production.
Communism is a socialist stateless society, that is, the state doesn't exist, so you could say it's an "anarchy" as in rules without rulers (it doesn't mean chaos, you dumb fucks).
Anarchism is attempting to achieve a stateless society (communism) through stateless means.
Marxism-Leninism (known as Communism for you americans) is attempting to achieve a stateless society (communism) through statist means (vanguard state).
This is interesting. All the leftists and /pol/tards have all arrived on scene to try and win over as many people as they can and take over the board.
I say let the Commies win, anything is better than a repeat of /pol/ or /int/.
>Also fuck off to /pol/ this is a history board.
How isn't communism part of history?
>Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production
What does that even mean? If I buy a printing press, doesn't it belong to me?
And if I pay a guy to work on my printing press, how does that make it his property? Because if I pay a plumber to fix my toilet, it doesn't mean he suddenly owns my bathroom
Pressure from a viable socialist alternative forced the Western capitalist powers to make concessions to labor that created the middle class living standard of the post-WWII years which is slowly crumbling today as the capitalists have gotten complacent in the post-Soviet world.
>If I buy a printing press, doesn't it belong to me?
If you are the one using it (personal property), then yes.
If you're not using it at all (private property), then no.
But you don't buy means of production in a communist society since they're public so the question doesn't make sense.
>But you don't buy means of production in a communist society since they're public
So what you're saying is that workers don't actually own shit in your perfect world. Everything belongs to "the public"
Except for your iphone of course, that is somehow different
It's more that you'd have to give rights to your printing press as part of an employment contract. Like you can buy a printing press and do whatever you want with it, but if you want someone else to help you use it, instead of paying them wages you give them a partial share in the business and you split the profits.
Yes but in a capitalist system workers don't have the power to make that happen. It benefits the business owners to keep power in their own hands so they're not just going to let workers make the decisions.
You might want to check out this documentary of Anarcho-syndicalist Spain in 1936. It's pretty good, I'd say it's the closest we've ever been to actual communism.
if it's part of a contract that we both agree to that's fine but you are after a complete communist system where the contract would be pointless since the state is going to give up the private use of my property whether I like it or not
>but if you want someone else to help you use it, instead of paying them wages you give them a partial share in the business and you split the profits.
So you want to take away any incentives from opening a business and go back to the medieval system of individual craftsmen doing their trade?
>occupy wall street made up bullshit
It's been part of capitalist critique and the relationship between the means of production for fucking decades. Fuck off, this board is for people who actually read.
State socialism is just capitalism where the people with all the guns also have a monopoly on everything else. Stalin forced workers off their own farms, separating labor and means of production in the name of the proletariat.
>It's just you getting buttblasted at people attempting to use your hugbox for actual discussion of differing ideologies.
>Complaining about lefty/pol/ shitting up the board than /pol/ in this thread makes the place a hugbox
Literally the entire thread is just the same fucking shit with /pol/ and infographs and youtube videos
Shit != Means of production
A toothbrush or a condom isn't a mean of production. It's fucking yours.
Means of production are a different beast because they're what's used to run the economy.
Yeah, however it's really fallen behind. Stalin did a good job of rapidly industrializing (at great cost) but his successors didn't do a good job of keeping up. I've heard that by the eighties or so Russian goods were actually worth LESS than the raw materials used to make them.
no it's a cop out commies use to justify their luxurious capitalist goods that they can't live without. throw your computer out the window comrade, show these capitalist dogs you don't need them!
The Labour government of 1945-1951 was the most sussesful government of the United Kingdom in the 20th century, with only the Liberal governments at the turn of the century coming close.
The Attlee ministry provided the period of highest economic growth, lowest unemployment, and highest standard of living in British history, at the same time as the abandonment of India and mjxh of the Empire. As well as setting the foundation of the welfare state which is so taken for granted to day, establishing the National health service, as bringing multiple key industries into public ownership including the creation of British Rail.
Not to mention the success on the homefront in WWII comes not just from Churchill's charisma, but from the Labour party too, Clement Attlee of the Labour Party was crested as the first deputy Prime Minister to run the homefront while Churchill and the Conservatives ran the war.
It's a shame what both the Labour party and socialism have become, that the two are now almost inseparable from internationalism and the issue of mass migration, the idea of socialism in one country dead in the water, and the economic policy forever tied to the left wing of social policies
In my opinion you can't say that you understand history completely without having read works like Capital or The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. The way Marx analyzes and dissects history is absolutely brilliant.
> that the two are now almost inseparable from internationalism and the issue of mass migration
Might as well go back to /pol/ with your
>MUH NATIONAL PURITY WE MUST ABANDON ALL CONTACT WITH THE WORLD
>marx never wrote for the common person anyways
the communist manifesto can be read in half an hour and multilingual terminology was common in the day
>Socialist internationalism =/= Mass migration under capitalism
Sorry for my poor phrasing, what I meant to put across that today parties on the left of Politics generally are in support of migration, yes there are exceptions but on the whole the two are generally linked, came across incorrectly as I was stating my disapproval of both internationalism and mass migrationary politics, not that the two are a single issue
The word "socialist" has a lot of meanings, unfortunately.
Marxists call themselves socialists and mean that they want a revolution ending in a vanguard state which will redistribute everything equally, alter society so that people are raised and conditioned to share fairly, and then dissolve.
Democratic socialists call themselves socialists and mean that they want a revolution (or a very strong shift via democratic means) resulting in a democratic (in a more genuine sense than most democracies are today) state that is generally socialist in the sense you think of it.
Anarchists want to abolish the state at the same time as bringing about a situation in which the workers control the means of production. Tactics for this vary, but mostly involve supporting those who are being oppressed by their governments in their struggles, creating alternative ways of doing things, and attempting to make the state redundant using so that it can be safely done away with.
in yurop the history is repeating, if you know what i mean
That's because "today parties on the left of Politics" aren't leftists; they're socialdemocrats aka hippie capitalists who want walfare. Radical leftists are more rare every day, but if you ask any of them they'll tell you they don't agree with mass migratory politics in the current world because they reduce wages, generate tensions between the working class and only benefit the bourgeoisie. You never see factory owners complaining about mass immigration, do you?
you need to escape the idea of benefits for the nation and insitsid start thinking of benefits for the people of the world.
immigration doesn't necessarily help a nation 100% of the time but it does help people 100% of the time
Alterglobalism is a thing too. It's not just pro-globalism or anti-globalism. But it's true that there are too many people who support open borders in conjunction with "limited capitalism" instead of just no capitalism.
That's not the case, I detest /pol/ as much as the next man, I'm in favour of controlled and regulated migration, caps and a points system for those in search of work and employment, exceptions for those with a large enough income and savings to support themselves already. Most importantly no longer settling all prospective migrants into single areas like the mistake of the post WWII-era, the reason such a stigma exists on migration today is that those entering the country were allowed to settle in a single area, father then integrating into preexisting societies, they simply recreated their own in certain areas of the country, where migration is highest to this day
Yes I have a slight nationalist streak but my main objection to mass migration is on an economic level, in the United Kingdom at least the current level is unsustainable, public services are already buckling under their own weight and their is h serious housing crisis, yes those arriving may live a better life, but on a wbole whole conditions are worsening bringing everyone slowly down, as much as some would detest, help others where you can, but your own should come first, others shouldn't be helped at the detriment of your own people, whoever they may be
>you need to escape the idea of benefits for the nation and insitsid start thinking of benefits for the people of the world
This is true.
>but it does help people 100% of the time
This is complete nonsense. Converting the first world into the third world is just fucking everyone over.
Because we live in a global village!
Swedish healthcare, for example, is a human right. Anyone from Iraq or Somalia is welcome to come here and enjoy it. If the money runs out we can always just borrow more.
>father then integrating into preexisting societies, they simply recreated their own in certain areas of the country, where migration is highest to this day
Which wouldn't be an issue if you stopped thinking in arbitrary categories like nationality or ethnicity, and just simply saw people as people, workers as workers.
>in the United Kingdom at least the current level is unsustainable, public services are already buckling under their own weight
Then the state should put more money into them. Simple as that and it's good for the economy too
>help others where you can, but your own should come first, others shouldn't be helped at the detriment of your own people, whoever they may be
"Your own people"? Who might those be? Whatever the capitalist in charge tells you?
>lefties have to run off to this board because they know they'd get BTFO on /pol/
I don't know what the hell you're trying to say here, but with automation eating up low-skill jobs and millions of low-skill laborers flooding in you've got a perfect recipe for disaster. That's not even mentioning crime, ethnic tension, and strained welfare resources. Mass immigration fixes nothing.
>avoiding a toxic hivemind of natsocs in favor of an environment more conducive to discussion is running off
>implying youre so inadiqute that your gf will hook up with a person who barely speaks the native language and has a big dick because shes so unsatisfied
>Which wouldn't be an issue if you stopped thinking in arbitrary categories like nationality or ethnicity, and just simply saw people as people, workers as workers.
In the current state of things that won't change, as long as nations exist, nationalities will exist, language barriers, culture differences, as much as a unified world is a wonderful concept, it isn't there, the workers are not yet united intentionally, if anything the first step should be uniting them within their nations as a stepping stone
>Then the state should put more money into them. Simple as that and it's good for the economy too
That is true, but there is not the money or resources available for such investments, not to mention the current elected party loves small government and has been enacting Austerity measures for the last 5 years, in perfect world this would be the case
>"Your own people"? Who might those be? Whatever the capitalist in charge tells you?
All those who work and contribute to the society, no matter their background, those who pay taxes for what they recieve, who work rather than simply exploit state benefits, those who are are part of the wider national community, not those who form communities of their own inside the nation, not those who are disruptive to the society as a whole.
How do you come to a conclusion that socialists or communists are Sjw? Where's even the fucking logic in that?
They created one of the most interesting places on earth
>sound economic arguments
Oh, the myth of the uneducated, criminal, welfare-leeching immigrant is now a sound argument?
I though that was rightwing-propaganda, guess I was wrong.
Tell me about the jews while you're at it
Because ignoring the cause and not teliing the faggot that he's an unter faggot helps, right?
a. im white
b. porky is a leftypol meme, this is him say hello
c. nationalism is cancer
d. you have a small penis
Its simple logic friend, every job a business brings a migrant in to fill is a job not going to a native. Eliminate foreign competition, local wages rise. And never mind the cultural problems involved.
Once again implying that migration is somehow bad.
The USA are an entire nation of immigrants, all of whom came in huge waves of mass migration. Didn't hurt them in the end, did it?
Did immigrants ruin Canada? Or Australia?
>a. im white
So your a white guilt faggot
>b. porky is a leftypol meme, this is him say hello
Because you are a leftist shill
>c. nationalism is cancer
But you leftists defend the black panthers and zionists
>d. you have a small penis
Typical anti gun argument, discarded
the sage cant get rid of THIS ghost
announceing sages is a bannable offence
also marx was right
I think you misunderstand the situation a bit. The problem isn't in the migration itself. The problem is in the reasoning behind the migration and how the governments are handling the migration. You're looking at seperate cases that had different causes for migration that resulted differently.
I don't think migration is bad per se. But when people are forced to migrate en masse because of wars or economic conditions that's bad. They should migrate because they want to, not because they're forced to.
>But you leftists defend the black panthers and zionists
Some leftists do. What makes you think the person you're arguing with does? That's like assuming anyone right-wing is in favor of the Holocaust.
>Typical anti gun argument, discarded
So you're bringing up guns, a completely unrelated topic, to make yourself feel less inadequate?
Calling the Anglos immigrants misses the point because there was no significant country there to begin with, only roving packs of prehistoric holdovers (who were, I should add, migrants themselves). The Anglos made america, and concordantly its in their interest to keep others out (yes, that does mean the importation of african slaves was a huge mistake).
pls do not make fun of stalin comrade
this is a no bully bored
>One (1) unbiased thread talking about socialism, an important historical development
>/pol/ refugees chimp out because this isn't /history - /pol/ edition/
Scandinavia's high quality of life and high degree of socialism is pretty admirable.
>removing germans and their cocksuckers to build infrastructure for glourios rus making sure they die on the way.
>removing jews to syberia
>containing kebabs in their mountains
>Jumpstarting agrarian feudal society to major international player within negligible time.
Granpa Stalin is best granpa.
>Nigger if this board becomes a hive of Marxists I don't want to be here anyways.
Holy fuck, you're so retarded.
K, I'll shill for Marxist political policies so I can starve to death.
Well, at least I'm not a leftist.
It would be good for others in their own native areas too. For example, one of the chief Barrie's to the self sufficiency of many third world countries is the fact that cheap imports fr the west prevent native businesses from forming, most significantly in agricultural sectors.
Not that I'm implying I actually care about Africans mind you, that's just how it works out. A 'global economy' is a catastrophe, multiple redundancies are much more adaptive wrt making civilizations work for a number of reasons, fulfilling Keynesian functions in less arbitrary ways especially (this can apply just as easily within a country as well).
Great comeback, faggot. Now go back to facebook where you came from.
This is true, but you cannot undermine nation issues. In fact national issues should come before external ones, so that you're in good enough shape to help other countries.
Considering we live in a globalised world, the idea of competition between nations is counter-intuitive, considering how connected economies are these days. So, it is imperative to help those countries that are falling behind, because leaving them as they are will eventually create problem for the ones that are doing well.
2nd wave of Marxist revolutions when
well nobody is perfect he is still best granpa. Sure as hell beats the clusterfuck that was Khrutschev.
Still shame that Makhno's dream of anarcho communism was ruined by EVERYBODY attacking him. That was a good example of anarcho communism working on relatively large scale and without too many problems.
'Wealth creation' is an act of financial alchemy, and it is entirely unnecessary to inflate your *real* dependencies in order to achieve that.
Such a thing is not unlimited in praxis, in any case.
the problem is that outside of academia communism is still identified with the formerly state-capitalist block in the east. There aren't many people who don't consider themselves marxists and still recognize what communism actually aims at.
communism is terrorism
>high level of discourse is expected
Even /leftpol/ argues better than the Communists in this thread.
"take my bait! take my bait please!"
in all seriousness the reason all socialist countries have failed (communism is stateless, there is no such thing as a communist country)
is because of imperialists and bourgeois pressure, a prime example being the iranian communist party that was freely elected and then ousted by american and british agents
also cuba is extreamly successful for a country that has been embargoed for more then half a century
Attempts to achieve democracy also failed a fuck ton of times. Literally hundreds of peasant revolts failed, ended up with everyone dead. Same with the abolition of slavery.
Such a big shift in the societal and economic structure is hard, really hard, it has nothing to do with it being "good" or "bad".
Why does this happen every time in every single thread about Socialism or Communism?
>You don't understand Socialism/Communism!
>No YOU don't understand!
>No, both of you are wrong!
>None of you are actual commies, you understand nothing!
>lol Socialism sux
>lol Murrican thinks Marism/Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism = Socialism
>Socialism is X
> No, Socialism is Y
>lol thinking the State will help ya
>Fuck off hippie
Etc, etc, etc... Seriously, it would help a lot if Socialism wasn't a blanket term for so many things.
Marxism is dead. It has been taken over by capitalists and pro-capitalist governments, corrupted and perverted into a philosophy of pro-slavery. Just look at the people using the language of Marx in order to justify the poor working multiple jobs, over 40 hours a week, more than one adult per household required to make ends meet, demanding open borders to create even more lower class competition, and just look at the beautiful women conditioned to think that the greatest accomplishment in life they can muster is getting a thankless, dead end office job and that careers that actually benefit women (legal prostitution) or society (stay at home mom) are bad, ect. Marxism is dead and there's no bringing it back.
In reality Socialism is the collectivization of the means of production, everything else is red scare.
Liberalism killed the soviet union. Noone had any inclination that the ussr was even *close* to a crisis, east *or* west. A total collapse wasnt even in the realm of consideration, save in an abstract sense of 'communism eventually defeats itself.'
Things were going great until the fire na- I mean until Gorbachev ruined everything by introducing evil 'enlightenment' era memes from the west, the true progenitors of degeneracy.
Rip right lenninism.
that doesn't mean that they aren't bloody liberals
I remember how I mentioned that in socialism there effectively wouldn't be a working class and some were completely shocked by this statement, even though it's basic marxism.
Communism is a final stage of a socialist society where the state, money and social classes have completely dissolved.
There are other forms of socialism that don't end up in communism, like Mutualism which is socialist markets.
>They have one of the most advanced health care sectors in the world
They don't even consider anything under 1 year old to be a person and count it towards child mortality rate.
Cuba is definitely not a country you should be defending as working communism.
definine "civil liberties"
a duel party government is not effective and i dont see how the people who will be spending their winter homeless under a bridge are free while there are a million more livable empty houses then there are homeless people
>my bourgeois assumptions wrong
Sigh... Is this becoming the anti-/pol/?
>Millions of natives die, mostly of disease
>XIX century impreialism
> The fucking holocaust
>A fucking embargo
Do you know what is capitalism?
99% in that meme list has nothing to do with it.
Go back to the l*ftist shithole where you came from.
When it comes to governance, the virtue of a policy and the ease in which it is administrated is pretty much isometric.
If an certain ideal is 'hard to implement', that is often the way for nature or natures god to tell you that its probably not a good idea.
I've got a great article on this.
Had to read it as a part of my critique class:
If you read this, you will understand the Rojava revolution, our 21st century Catalonia.
Nope, discussing gun rights and a gun grabber said there were countries more free than the US. Got his head stomped into a mudhole by facts. Fucking bourgeoisie thinking they can take guns away from the working class.
theyre all directly linked to capitalism
saying that american, european, and israeli imperialism is not related to capitalism is like saying that the deaths caused by the great leap forward in china isnt related to socialism
stay strong defender of individual autonomy
bitcoin is stateless property
>that is often the way for nature or natures god to tell you that its probably not a good idea
It's not nature or Gaia or Jesus or Buddha telling us that communism doesn't work; it's a group of bureaucrats defending their interests and shitting all over revolutions time after time.
>Fucking bourgeoisie thinking they can take guns away from the working class.
nah, that's what jews and leftists do
I've noticed that stormfag's strategies to argue is basically repeating strawman fallacies ad nauseam. They're basically breathing bots.
Anyway, radical leftists are pro-gun and it's the last time I'll bother telling you that.
>TFW /pol/ shits will never shut us down here
Even Leftist think-tanks agree that official Cuban statistics aren't reliable. Pregnant Women's rights are effectively removed to maintain said international rankings; they're outright pressured to abort at any signs of minor abnormalities etc.
Yup, I'm sure muh evil corporations invented smallpox to kill the natives.
Most African colonies were a big resource drain. Nationalism is to be blamed here.
Capitalism means free enterprise. Private ownership of the means of production is merely its consequence.
The shape of contexts, the behavior of humans, and the behavior of humans in those contexts, making contexts, are all contours of being through which the river of history is diverted. Lack of respect for these contours is a leading cause of civilizational failure.
>socialist accomplishments thread
>only commie keks posting
Would you say that it's an issue for Socialism and Anarchism the latest wave of modern leftists and their ideas?
Do you believe Neo-feminists, hippies, SPOOKY SCARY SKELETONS and the like add anything to the left other than numbers, or do you believe they're detrimental to the cause?
I can't wait for the YPG to show it's true colours and start massacring Assyrians. Then all these bandwagoners will abandon the Kurds faster that they abandoned Venezuela once oil prices dropped.
Radical nowadays is any leftist who seeks a socialist revolution.
Because identity politics are stupid, you should base your society on economic theories and systems of production, not on arbitrary definitions of race, imaginary lines, magic Gods and talking snakes.
"Radicalism" comes from the word "root", in other words it means to fix problems from their root; it's the opposite of reformism which tries to fix complex problems with patch solutions (for example welfare). It doesn't mean "extremism".
Pinochet defeated a communist insurgency with 10.000 members killing only 3.000 people.
A lot of people like Tito, who killed 100x that.
if only they had a little longer, german aircraft would have keked everyone over and then germany wouldn't have been occupied for more then half a century
As a leftist, I believe they're completely detrimental to the cause. Sjws often put their petty issues over economic and material issues. They're wealthy whiny kids who grew up in a safe space. You rarely see Sjws in the third world because they're worried about whether they'll be able to eat, instead of the pronouns people should use to address them. They're a complete embarrassment to the left. Black Lives Matter for example, also reeks of Hillary shills.
>you should base your society on economic theories and systems of production
This is naive, I think.
Minimising the importance of culture and identity in society is waiting for it to implode.
Though plenty of people confuse pride with supremacy, the idea of being proud of who/what you are is good for the person and for society.
USSR and Mao's PRC had corporations like these.
From wikipedia: "A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law."
>Though plenty of people confuse pride with supremacy, the idea of being proud of who/what you are is good for the person and for society.
Being proud of your achievements is fine. But things like your race and your nationality aren't things you decided or put an effort in at all. You just were born as it. I'm not minimising the importance of culture, I think it's very important, but I'm saying that building your entire political ideology over identity instead of material conditions is idiotic and leads to an irrational society.
>but I'm saying that building your entire political ideology over identity instead of material conditions is idiotic and leads to an irrational society
I agree political ideologies shouldn't be built based on that.
In fact, had you used the term "political ideology" instead of "society" I wouldn't have even replied to you.
That being said, you're still minimising the importance of people being proud of who they are. I agree identity shouldn't be of highest importance, but it is imperative for any society that its members feel empowered by their identity (involving culture, race, etc...), in order for there to be social cohesion and thus familiarity.
A cohesive society is a good foundation for a society to achieve all those things you listed as important.
Meanwhile many Assyrians are committed to the Rojava radical democracy where they themselves govern in a grass-roots way. Bottom-up. Arabs, and Assyrians are a large part of the PYD. I'm not talking about the YPG, that is merely one of the defense organisations that came out of Rojava's society. Meanwhile everyone is fapping over the military offensives etc, but the political organisation of Rojava is way more interesting and important.
First of all, how can you say that american colonies and the like were capitalist?
Second, that statistic seems pulled off someone's ass.
And finally, if you blameeverything bad that happens in a slightly capitalist country on capitalism then yes, capitalism kills more people.
Unfortunately many people do not know the history of communism. It's always "bottom-up democracy" until either it's crushed by outside forces, then it did nothing wrong and was the perfect communism that never happened (Catalonia) or it's consolidated around a charismatic leader that launches purges against the opposition, then it wasn't true communism (USSR).
There is no third way because this is not Switzerland in the XVIth century where you can just retreat to your mountain and let the rest of the world burn. And specially since the Kurds have decided to uphold women's rights and other bullshit, they need a centralized state to enforce this cultural dispositions amongst the population. There can be anarcho-feminism because feminism always depend upon a centralized state to enforce women's rights.
So yeah, these dumb Assyrians are digging their own graves.
>but it is imperative for any society that its members feel empowered by their identity
It's not imperative; it's just an easy way to make people feel empowered without any real reason. It's an easy way to arbitrarily put groups of people to fight against each other. If you have real motivations behind a fight to achieve real, material and concrete things you don't need identity to make people feel empowered.
>they need a centralized state to enforce this cultural dispositions amongst the population.
I don't see why that should be the case. People naturally want to be free from things like being forced to wear a veil, you don't need a state to make them do it. Of course there will be people who will still want to wear it, but as long as they're not forced to it's ok.
I'd add, that when a fight for material changes begins, people in a side don't join forces because of identity, but because of another thing: common interest.
In a socialist revolution, the worker class join forces because they all share a common interest. No matter their identity/race/country.
colonies are founded with the soul interest of making money how are they anyting but capitalist? and as ive said before in this exact thread all of these numbers are well accounted for and most of them are aknowlaged by the aggressor government or company, though i do wish that the infographic had listed sources
>they need a centralized state to enforce this cultural dispositions amongst the population
I don't agree with this assumption. Through their social contract which was signed by the relevant Rojavan democratically elected institutions and through extreme political decentralisation they actually have managed to uphold this untill now. The people are the sovereigns.
If you don't know history at all and are just a mindless child, then sure.
There are so many things wrong about this drivel you've typed that it's laughable. And I'm not just talking about the horrifying spelling and grammatical errors (which are typical of rabid leftist apologists such as yourself).
Capitalism is a very vaguely defined idea, but consistent qualities of "capitalism" all provide that it is privately owned and industrial in nature. The trading and colonial companies which were fundamental to the mercantile system are anything but privately owned and industrial. Now go away.
>Capitalism is a very vaguely defined idea
Pretty much all economic ideas are vaguely defined and, often when described, can either contradict themselves or interlap with other economical ideas.
>The trading and colonial companies which were fundamental to the mercantile system are anything but privately owned and industrial.
Also, I don't know where you got this idea that these things weren't privately owned.
End of absolute monarchies
The end of slavery
The end of child labor
8 hour working day
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Meal and rest breaks
Better working conditions
Should I keep going?
I believe your reasoning is limited.
You say that all people need to be glued together is a purpose. But not any purpose brings people together - especially a whole society, and the strength of purpose to keep people together only lasts so long.
Not to mention though purpose gives a sense of comradery, it doesn't give much of a sense of familiarity.
Human beings, for better or worse, didn't evolve to see large masses as their own. As you broaden the terms of what makes a society, the more disassociated the individual will become, fostering the proliferation of sub-cultures and you end up with a fragmented society.
I fully agree though, that when you need changes, people don't work together because of identity, but due to common-interest. However, that purpose ends as soon as the battle is won. Even if you say that after that people will have to work together for things to develop well, the main factor that united people (i.e. that which people joined to fight against) is already down, and thus the main factor for cohesion is gone.
There is no better ingredient for social-cohesion than identity.
Mind you, just in case I'm being misunderstood, I don't think societies should be closed systems, completely shut from the rest of the world. Such a thing would be detrimental to development and would foster ignorance. However, you want people to have a sense of belonging. Identity gives you that both in the short and long run. Purpose doesn't.