No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests.
Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism.
That page describes how "crony capitalism" is used colloquially. Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology.
I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.
Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.
Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.
The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.
It probably doesn't need to be said, but it's pretty obvious the bias in that definition.
There is no singular definition of capitalism, but many others would differ on the distinction you've drawn from earlier posts. E.g., a system based on the reinvestment of excess profits does not necessarily equate to crony-capitalism. It seems your issue is with the person using the word "socialism" to describe a social ill of crony capitalism. But there is a distinction there that is being muddled in the conversation.
Can you coherently define "crony capitalism" and explain how it's not a fallacious no-true-Scotsman defense of "real capitalism" (or whatever term you prefer)?
Capitalism disallows private and public collusion beyond what is necessary to ensure public goods, defined by those gods which are nonexcludable and nonrivalous.
How does capitalism "disallow" any of that? Where is your evidence that disallowing this is a stated goal under capitalism?
I think you're confusing "free market" USAmerican right-Libertarian ideology with capitalism itself.
Capitalism, simply put, is defined as private ownership over the means of production, and the people who have that ownership are called the capitalist class. None of that precludes any sort of collusion.
Such collusion (and other things, such as child labor) was commonplace in the Western world recently and is still commonplace elsewhere — capitalists still wail and cry foul when legislation, no matter how toothless or perfunctory, is introduced to curtail such behavior.
You’re confusing what is a central tenet and what may occur as an outcome of a poorly executed version of the principle. By that same logic, tyrannical despots could be argued as a stated goal of socialism.
>You’re confusing what is a central tenet and what may occur as an outcome of a poorly executed version of the principle.
Where does capitalism define "non cronyism" as a central tenet? Can you point to a working example of "non-crony" capitalism?
>By that same logic, tyrannical despots could be argued as a stated goal of socialism.
A central tenet of socialism is that is rejects despotism and tyranny. Supporters of socialism explicitly reject tyrannical behavior and seek to root it out if it appears.
On the other hand, capitalists cheer every time they wield state power to enrich themselves and excuse it as "just business".
Competition is a central tenet of capitalism. Collusion, particularly collusion between govt and private enterprise, aims to modify the system to reduce competition. So it follows that such collusion is a perversion that goes against the central tenets of capitalism. Which is why is gets a separate name, like crony capitalism, to differentiate it.
It’s no different than saying “dictatorial socialism”. The fact that a rather simple distinction has to be explained multiple times by multiple people becomes a chore and a Sisyphean task when it is clear someone doesn’t want to acknowledge the difference.
