this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50675 readers
253 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USA is not capitalist in the sense most people (e.g. Adam Smith) mean. It is a protectionist oligarchy, that is capitalist only in the sense that it protects those with capital over all else. Monopolies and trade restrictions protect the capital class at the cost of the populace, and most laws are now written by corporations who hand them to their sponsored representatives. It is exactly what Adam Smith warned against.
The US Empire is capitalist in Smith's sense, though. The US still operates on commodity circulation, private ownership of capital, etc. Smith was just wrong in thinking the invisible hand would fix everything (along with other issues like the way he categorized fixed and circulating capital being a step back from Quesnay and the physiocrats).
The "protectionist oligarchy" was in capitalism from the beginning of its formation, what's important to recognize is that systems grow and change through their own compulsions and contradictions. Capitalism necessarily centralizes and expands over time, and the state exists to keep that system going.
It really isn't. Smith argued (I agree wrongly) that the invisible hand of a free market would correct everything, but that monopolies and restrictions distort the market and that the worst thing we could do would be to allow corporations to dictate law. That was my point. The US has set up too many barriers to entry to reasonably claim it is free market, and corporations have absolute control over the current government.
Any reasonable reading of Smith's Wealth of Nations would be socialist anyway. He outright stated that the capital class had a responsibility to entirely pay for the expenses of the state in caring for the populace.
The better discussion of Smith would be what industries could reasonably be capable of sustaining an actually free market. I would argue that housing, communications, agriculture, and healthcare are impossible to de-monopolize due to practical spatial limitations and therefore would have to be under state control, given Smith's statement that capitalism's invisible hand only works in a free market.
Even in Smith's time, the state was already a tool of the capitalist class and centralization was occuring. It wasn't what it looks like today, of course, but today isn't fundamentally different at its core. The US is capitalist today, just at a later stage.
Secondly, capitalists paying for social safety nets isn't socialism. If you want an actual dive on socialism built off of Adam Smith instead of Marx, a fun thought experiment, I recommend the article Adam Smith's Socialism.