@Heitor Well obviously the modern concept of it didn't, but privatization still exist regardless. Business did exist, it extended to traders, blacksmiths, mercanaries, construction, and shops.

*Extended but was not limited to

Infact carthage actually used mercanaries so much, that their empire went into crippling debt in using them against the romans.

tho privitazation still means the acumulation of profits under the hands of an individual so of course its inherently capitalist

@Heitor Wrong, capitalism is done for the sould purpose of collecting money, while in privatization, they only collect money in the process of using their services, not for the soul purpose of getting money.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism

>For profit

>using dictionary definitions

@Heitor That's some weak arguing right there, and you know it.

yes capitalism is made out of profit but profit dosent come out of nowhere

it obviously comes from the exchange of good and services

as well as exploitation of labour

Would you honestly expect me to take your word over a dictionary from an university that has existed since the roman empire?

@Heitor Sure profit does come from the exchange of goods, how does that factor into privatization bekng inherently capitalist?

@Firefly Look at who it is.

@Heitor basis of capitalism is not exchange. But the production of goods for the sake of the exchange. Exchange here is secondary.

@Firefly Not for the sake of exchange, but profit.

*Unless you use exchange as another definition for profit

Anybody else?

No?

@Zircuits You have been typing for 15 minutes straight, this better be good.

I'm struggling to see the difference in privatization making profits via service versus capitalism being a system based on profit

@Zircuits In capitalism, the end goal is to make profit, while in privatization, money will be acquired as they give out their services, but money is not their end goal.

So it plays a major role in the existence of capitalism

Is of not based on profit. It is based on the collective mode of production. The goods made for exchange might not bring profit but be an equal barter and still from it capitalism is born.

@Zircuits Wow, it isn't like I said that at the beginning of the argument.

@Firefly The oxford dictionary would disagree with you.

You can't have capitalism without it. I'd be skeptical if a socialist came into power and privatized the roads, for example

@Zircuits You can have private property without capitalism, nazi germany is a good example.

If you need an example of privatization in socialist countries, just take a look at the later soviet union and occupied europe, and south amerika.

During the rise of economical reformism

Lenin actually allowed private property.

During the reforms on the economy because of the civil war

Nope, he allowed it after the civil war.

Stalin was the one who revoked it, and then it ironically came back very soon after his death.

During another rise of economical reformism

@Zircuits Lenin wasn't the reformer, he was the founder.

He allowed privatization under communism, and stalin was the only one who actually ended it.... temporarily.

One of many criticisms of Lenin is his reforms on the economy, but some socialists defended it because of the civil war

@Zircuits What did I say earlier?

He allowed it to stay after the war.

It only ended under stalin.