@Angilion
Oh and if your going to try some nonsense attempt at playing semantic word games along the line of the
'current circumstances' (as per the post of yours I quoted above) not being the same as the
'current system' as a disingenuous means to try and say that you were not saying that the current circumstances (in the UK) was 'capitalist' and hence would not require mass murder of the peasantry on an unprecedented scale (according to you in a capitalist system) then you can take your argument up with the UK Socialist Worker Party ,The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the UK Communist Party at the heads of a long list of people who describe the 'current circumstances' in the UK and further abroad to be 'capitalist'.
We of course don't live in a 100% capitalist society (much like there has never been a 100% socialist one either) we live in a mixed economy but one that can be accurately described as capitalist as the means of production and distribution are largely in private hands and generally the government doesn't stop private individuals or groups from owning parallel businesses which mirror any activities the state undertakes... i.e. the state owns road and the NHS but private citizens and organisations can still open (private) roads and hospitals so there isn't a state monopoly even in these sectors as the definition of socialism would imply to be necessary.
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)
Pretty clear ....................(although I don't agree that we could call all the countries of the world capitalist but there we go)
Socialist Worker Party
The present system cannot be patched up - it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.
So the 'present system' is the one where the workers create the wealth and this system is capitalism.........
As a side not please not that at least the
SWP are honest about the violence inherent in Socialist philosophy they know they cant likely win via Democracy and so power of the system has to be 'seized' which is an inherently violent action as it would clearly be opposed (and not only by the 'bourgeoisie' class)
UK Communist Party
The aim of the Communist Party is to achieve a socialist Britain in which the means of production, distribution and exchange will be socially owned and utilised in a planned way for the benefit of all. This necessitates a revolutionary transformation of society,
ending the existing capitalist system
Three and out?
So just to recap you did say that a 'Capitalist' system would require the peasantry to be killed by the elites as a 'cost cutting and risk reduction' exercise.
I anticipate that you are now going to make some really silly claim that the UK could not be described as 'Capitalist' (by your standards) as its not 100% anarcho capitalism were absolutely all of the means of production and distribution are solely in private hands (i.e. a system that could not work because there isn't really any 'state' to run anything hence 'anarcho')
Of course if you do assert this then no country either now or in the past could fulfil your definition of 'capitalist' so why bother saying what you did in the first place about the necessity for mass murders given that it was in relation to a system that doesn't, hasn't and won't ever exist (was it a momentary slip where some socialist mass murder style projection slipped)?
[Also ditto for the above on the same reasoning for any point made describing any country as 'socialist' as no country has quite achieved 100% socialism]
So if I am right you have now started a new strawman!
I am used to do disengenuous socialists trying to claim that all the countries that have horrifically failed that called, themselves Socialist/ communist, were not socialist or not 'real' socialism...... (a variation of the 'no true Scotsman logical fallacy) but am I right that you have now made a similar fallacious point Re capitalism?
I. E we haven't yet seen the mass murder of the proles by capitalism because we haven't seen a' true' capitalist country?
And of course at the very least you would be culpable of playing silly word games
