My pleasure.

To expand for myself and others on what you said.

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain, and many of the technological innovations were of British origin. By the mid-18th century Britain was the world's leading commercial nation, controlling a global trading empire with colonies in North America and the Caribbean, and with political influence on the Indian subcontinent, particularly Bengal Subah, through the activities of the East India Company. The development of trade and the rise of business were among the major causes of the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. Some economists say that the major effect of the Industrial Revolution was that the standard of living for the general population in the western world began to increase consistently for the first time in history, although others have said that it did not begin to meaningfully improve until the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s and 1800’s, changed the commonly used concept of mercantilism.

• Mercantilism: based on the idea that countries need to export more than they import.
• Class System: set of subjectively defined concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories, the most common being the upper, middle and lower classes. And in economic terms class system is used to explain inequality and distribution of wealth.

Mercantilism and the Class System Mercantilism ideology: Workers do all the labour, yet the government (Kings and Queens) get all the profit.

Mercantilism, economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation’s economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism. Its 17th-century publicists—most notably Thomas Mun in England, Jean-Baptiste Colbert in France, and Antonio Serra in Italy—never, however, used the term themselves; it was given currency by the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776).

What is mercantilism?

• Mercantilism is an economic practice by which governments used their economies to augment state power at the expense of other countries.
• Governments sought to ensure that exports exceeded imports and to accumulate wealth in the form of bullion (mostly gold and silver).
• In mercantilism, wealth is viewed as finite and trade as a zero-sum game.
• Mercantilism was the prevalent economic system in the Western world from the 16th to the 18th century.

Which countries practiced mercantilism?

The primary countries that employed mercantilism were of western Europe—France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Britain, as well as Germany and the Netherlands. Since colonies were regarded as existing for the benefit of their mother countries, the colonized parts of North America, South America, and Africa were involuntarily involved with mercantilism and were required to sell raw materials only to their colonizers and to purchase finished goods only from their mother countries.

What were the effects of mercantilism?

• Mercantilism led to the creation of monopolistic trading companies, such as the East India Company and the French East India Company.

• Restrictions on where finished goods could be purchased led in many cases to burdensome high prices for those goods.

• Commercial rivalry tended to result in military rivalry as well, notably during the Anglo-Dutch Wars.

• Colonists seeking to get around the trade restrictions mandated by mercantilism resorted to widespread smuggling.

• The constraints of mercantilism were a cause of friction between Britain and its American colonies and were arguably among the elements that led to the American Revolution.

Adam Smith in the An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Complaints about mercantilist systems: Complaints about mercantilist systems was that it did not distribute wealth very well. It allowed the King or Queen to play favorites with business and land owners. This created something called monopolies, where a company had exclusive rights on production. Therefore, they can control the output and the pricing. Smith believed that competition was necessary in society.

Later, mercantilism was severely criticized. Advocates of laissez-faire argued that there was really no difference between domestic and foreign trade and that all trade was beneficial both to the trader and to the public. They also maintained that the amount of money or treasure that a state needed would be automatically adjusted and that money, like any other commodity, could exist in excess. They denied the idea that a nation could grow rich only at the expense of another and argued that trade was in reality a two-way street. Laissez-faire, like mercantilism, was challenged by other economic ideas.

Marxism, and from it Communism and others.

Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations.

If people were free to compete, then it would be in their self-interest to improve. Suggested that the individual, or company’s pursuit of self-interest is guided by a “invisible hand”. If people were free to compete, then it would be in their self-interest to improve. Unintentionally improve the prosperity and well- being of society.

The idea of trade and market exchange automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is a central justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics. In this sense, the central disagreement between economic ideologies can be viewed as a disagreement about how powerful the "invisible hand" is. In alternative models, forces which were nascent during Smith's lifetime, such as large-scale industry, finance, and advertising, reduce its effectiveness. Interpretations of the term have been generalized beyond the usage by Smith.

It was against government intervention in society, therefore he was laissez- faire in nature. Smith wanted limited government, saying that the government was important in protecting the individual. Believed that self- improvement was a great motivator to work hard, by which individuals are rewarded based on their abilities and hard work.

I am not sure that what you think Mercantilistic economy is still what we see today. What we have is more of Mixed Economy and Market Socialism, with corresponding corruption and changing in ratio of capitalism vs socialism , depending on the country.

Market socialism and mixed economy are very similar economic models that combine elements of the capitalist and the socialist approaches. As such, in order to understand their main features, we need to identify the primary characteristics of capitalism and socialism – the two theories on which mixed economy and market socialism are based upon.

Socialism is an economic, political and social theory that advocates for collective ownership of the means of production. According to this paradigm, the government should largely interfere in the economic sphere in order to promote the redistribution of goods and to control the production process. In a socialist system, there is no space for private property and none has private control over resources and means of production.

Capitalism is an economic system organized around private property and corporate (or private) ownership of goods and means of production. Within the capitalist system, prices are determined by competition in a free market and the government is not involved in the economic sphere. Capitalism prioritizes individual rights, corporate competition and private property.

If capitalism and socialism are at opposing ends of a continuum, market socialism and mixed economy are situated somewhere in the middle – with market socialism leaning more towards the socialist side and mixed economy more towards the capitalist end.

Mixed economy vs market socialism

Mixed economy and market socialism are very similar economic systems built on a combination of capitalist and socialist policies.

• In both systems, government and private companies are involved in the economic sphere – however, in market socialism the government plays a bigger role;
• In both cases, the government interferes in the economic sphere to promote and achieve social equality – yet, this tendency is stronger in market socialism;
• In both systems, private and public sectors work alongside – although private property is more protected in mixed economies;
• In both cases, the government can interfere with subsidies and can nationalize private enterprises; and
• In both systems, the government can act to protect citizens and prevent the abuse of monopoly power.

Despite the similarities, mixed economy and market socialism mainly differ on the degree of interference of the government in the economic sphere. The government plays a bigger role in market socialism, while it mainly acts as “safety net” in the case of mixed economies. Moreover, private property is protected in mixed economies whereas common/cooperative/public ownership remains one of the main features of market socialism. Both systems allow for competition among enterprises but, in market socialism, firms are not (or in very few cases) privately owned.

Summary

Market socialism and mixed economy are two economic models that combine elements of both capitalism and socialism. The capitalist perspective prioritizes private property and advocates for a free market where the capital can flow freely. Conversely, socialism strives for an economic system entirely controlled by the government. In socialism, the state should own all means of production and should redistribute the wealth among all citizens in order to eliminate inequalities. Which never works.

While market socialism and mixed economy have similar starting points and have many features in common, there are few important differences between the two:

• In market socialism, firms are partially or entirely owned by the state but are allowed to act in a competitive market economy, whereas, in a mixed economy, private property and private firms are protected but work alongside the government; and

• In market socialism, prices are determined by the government and the goal is to achieve market equilibrium while, in a mixed economy, prices are determined by the market’s shifts – although the government can intervene to “protect” citizens and prevent economic inequalities.

The two theories also have many aspects in common:

• They both combine elements of capitalism and socialism;
• They both strive for balance between governmental involvement and free market economy;
• In both cases, the government acts to regulate and limit the expansion of the free market;
• Both theories have been criticized by both capitalists and socialists (for different reasons); and
• In both cases, the government should provide macro-economic stability.

Therefore, the main difference between market socialism and mixed economy lies in the degree of governmental involvement – which remains bigger in market socialism as the government owns many firms, sets the prices, acts to eliminate social inequalities, intervenes to prevent the abuse of monopoly power and monitors the allocation of resources and wealth.

Agree that BLM and Antifa are hard left groups that need to be dealt with an extreme measure. The interesting is that Antifa was formed to stop the spread of Fascism, by a group that is called fascist these days so as not to further damage the Socialist agenda. The German National Socialist Workers Party (that presented themselves as Democratic Socialists) are the ones who created Antifa in the early 1930's I believe to combat the ideology of Fascism that was spreading outside of Italy.

After World War 2 Stalin used the KGB to insure that the West viewed both the Nazi's and Spain's Franco as Fascists (even though the USSR helped prop up Franco for many years). This was to keep the west from truly realizing how destructive and evil Socialism really was and that Communism is even worse."

The troubling part off course is that description and noble names used by many of these lefty political groups are neither descriptive of the values or agenda of the organizations. And so even reading historic records on say wikipedia, its needs supplemental readings to make sure someone hasn't put their contemporary tribal cap and wrote biased article or one rooted in political correctness. For example Natzism and Fascim being labeled right wing is just not true. But its common theme because lefties dominate so much of universities and public discourse they managed to shift the blame to the other side. The only association they could not get rid of was Communism. So even today you hear people calling themselves communists and comrades, as if there is no attachment with millions of horrors on the communists side.

What you wrote , generally seems to be what I have read as well. But off course Antifa of today is not the antifa of old, they are different organization with same name. But their ideology has evolved into adapting various other ideologies along the way, but the idea of "fascism" as accusation and justification for self righteousness is still very much left. It is so useful to them.

Provides both a political disguise and moral high ground in their eyes.

“The further Fascism receded into history and the fewer visible fascists there were on display, the more self-proclaimed anti-fascists needed fascism to retain any semblance of political virtue or purpose. It proved politically useful to describe as fascist people who were not Fascists , just as it proved politically useful to describe as racist people who were not racists.” ― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

“In Italy, Fascists divide themselves into two categories: Fascists and Anti-Fascists.”
— Ennio Flaiano

The term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

Communist states have sometimes been referred to as "fascist", typically as an insult. For example, it has been applied to Marxist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term in "social fascism" ).

In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?". J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of "Red Fascism". The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called "fascist". Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental....[the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system."

Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".

"In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.

@Krunoslav As you pointed out above Mercaniltism is an economic model were Government issues permission to select groups for trading rights and helps control those groups in a limited monopoly fashion. This has been practiced by most countries and government to a different extent over history though the current writers of economics and history tend to place it only in the West (completely ignoring both Japaneses and Chinese practices).

The modern versions of it is in the abuse of patents and the allowed abuse of law by government for the benefit of companies that in turn insure income into that countries coffers. The terms have been changed by those who are as much invested in it as the very monopolies they supposedly strive against. Universities are now mostly directly or indirectly publicly funded and driven by a very high greed factor (the 500% above inflation fee's to attend and adding requirements to insure income). These are forms of monopolies that benefit a specific group and directly or indirectly government for various reasons. That at it's root core is a Mercantile system. what additional dressings put upon it is academic fluff.

@M_MarinoDC I don't know. I think you are trying to fit Mercantile system into new system because you feel Mercantile system was unjust and you see today's models as unjust, so you are forcing the old term to fit a new model, and not judging the new model on its own merit. In a way it is not unsimilar to calling people who are not fascist, fascist, because the term is use as a pejorative term. That is how you seem to be using term Mercantile.

I agree with you that there is a lot that can be criticized of today's system, but if we are not just blowing off steam, we need to judge them on their own merit or lack thereof. Otherwise you are in danger of catching Marxist worldview. The way you talk, is precisely how Marxist start to warm up to a new system.

“The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.” ― George Orwell

So what are you criticizing, system or people inside the system. And what do you offer as alternative? Not Marxism I hope?

@Krunoslav, no just not willing to accept new terms that in reality don't define a "new" economic structure. My dis like of the Mercantile system is much the same a Prof. Adams in that it devalues the labor, which in turn devalues people. It is one of the reasons that I oppose minimum wage as all it does is devalue more folks labor and force up prices and decreases the standard of living for more folks. The modern economic terms being used in academic circles are being defined by the very folks who believe that the majority of individuals are not capable of running their own lives. That does not make their new definitions accurate nor honest it just makes it the new way of describing what is going in markets in a less distasteful method.

@M_MarinoDC "The modern economic terms being used in academic circles are being defined by the very folks who believe that the majority of individuals are not capable of running their own lives."

Are they wrong?

Look for whom the people vote and what they defend. Privileges but not responsibility, which means they are more than happy for the government to provide for them as long as they can claim new gender every week, to hyperbolize. The answer is that too many voters for too long decided to relinquish control over their lives that comes with burden of responsibility, for the wealtfare state and social programs, as long as they could bitch and moan about everything. So I have to agree with these academics. Its true, the majority of individuals are not capable of running their own lives. That does not mean some are not capable, but obviously historic voting trends and growth of socialism would point that majority is happy to trade, knowingly or not, their liberties they love, because it comes with responsibility which they hate.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse ( willingness to give money, or money given to poor people by rich people) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 300 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

“Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.” ― Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

And while you and I might fret about this problem, in democracy its a problem we didn't vote on. We just live here, don't we? Off course we can always choose to live somewhere else, question is where? And what system is better?

@M_MarinoDC

“The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.” ― George Orwell

“Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, printed at New York, 1838

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." ― Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

“What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?

There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.

When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, printed at New York, 1838

Yes.

While they surly are criminals and murderess, but they are not protesters, they are professionally organized and funded neo Marxist organization uses political propaganda, terror tactics, and they rarely protest, they mostly riot hoping it will become a revolution. Other than that, yes indeed they should be handled just as such. They need to be proclaimed and processed as terrorists organization and democrats supporting them need to be prosecuted for treason, support of terrorists and terrorist organization, and aiding and abetting the enemy of the state and endangerment of civilians.

Trouble off course is as Angelo stated in his post "the fact that most people who almost worship Communism and it's slightly lesser incarnation of Socialism were born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, the Leftists has taken control of the places of learning, thereby passing on the idea of utopia if only everyone rejected the very system that pays their bloated salaries: The Capitalist Free market system "

Bottom line, too many useful idiots and those that benefit from them, have managed to secure lot of political and financial power. Unless the other side, managed to organized under a single banner and set of values and determinate capable leadership, they will surly lose. Trump is a good peace president, but he is not a war president. He is a person to make deals, but how do you shake hands with clench fist. And so he is at best a buffer that slows the left down, but not what it takes to stop it.