5 ms·

>Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept This is patently

by ue_ 9y ago

>Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept This is patently (excuse the pun) false. One of the largest economic texts it Capital by Karl Marx; in this book his only objective is to critique classical political economy, and by doing so set out what constitutes capitalism. It's not vague, Marx defines capitalism in very concrete terms. Her refers to the capitalist mode of production, which consists of production to maximise exchange value of commodities, the private ownership of social means of production, and the primacy of wage labour. >and they obviously have no problem with value This is false. Communists do have a problem with value, their qualm is with exchange value ruling production, which is almost a unique quality of capitalism. It results in shoddy goods, goods not made to be used, but to be exchanged in a money-commodity circuit. >end up in the hands of the peasants Not even Communists argue for this; the Communists argue for the means of production to be put into the hands of the people, who can, within themselves, elect leaders who are qualified for the task. This is democratic rule, rather than autocratic rule (which is what there is now) of a particular firm's productive capacity within an industry. >russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production. >which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue. >People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. That doesn't mean that they are not exploited; janitors driving Ferraris has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism.

wayn3 9y ago
You mix marxism and communism, which is not the same thing. Which do you want to argue? I consider Marx a clown, and marxism is a clown fiesta, and "capitalism" is the cause they fight against. Of course it contains "meaning". Communism, on the other hand, is at least a valid idea. Its by no means viable, because its in direct conflict with human nature, survival instincts, intrinsic properties of physics and a bunch of other issues, but as a concept, communism is kinda cool.
wayn3 9y ago
As I said, I do not consider capitalism a "thing". Free Markets generate winners and losers. In nature, in economies, in many different expressions of physical reality. "Capitalism", Marx' big piece, obfuscates that and tries to reason that there is some oppressive force, exhibited by a ruling class, over the peasantry. I am, by the way, only using that "demeaning" term because its the one Marx used. He said "Bauern", which translates directly to "peasants". I'm not contesting that feudal lords were a thing. Certainly not in the middle ages. To what extent that was still the case around 1890 - I'm not sure. I wasn't around back then. I don't think feudalism is a thing in the present, at least not in central europe. If you want to study this whole class system, Nietzsche does a lot better job of explaining is and is way less pathetic about it. "Morals as a concept are installed by rulers to keep their sheep in check, deal with it". - Marxism and Communism may be closer to each other than anarchism and communism, but they are not the same thing. Marx called for a peasant uprising. He's just pissed about the fact that the value created by peasants ends up in the hands of their owners. - There is no autocratic rule in the free world. France elected a "capitalist" in sarkozy because they were pissed with financials. Then they elected a socialist in whoever the current guy is. Now theyre pissed with financials. Next, they are electing either the lunatic Le Pen who claimed that ebola bombs should be dropped on romania because it would give them both valuable scientific data and eliminate a bunch of people that the world doesnt need. - Germany is ruled by the two big parties for a long time now because they are so close to each other in ideas and anyone who deviates from the mainstream is called a nazi or an evil capitalist or some other hate inspiring nonsense that you can only vote for her. - The US was very fucking sure about the fact that they would elect the wall streets darling. Everyone knew it. People didnt even cast their vote because obviously the orange one would not win. Now he did. And people seem to forget that that guy was elected. Hes a fucking moron with the potential for Hitler stardom, but people elected that guy. That was not wall street. That was people who voted for change. Now they dont get change and they get fucked over because the guy is in it for the money but they certainly got whom they voted for. -You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production. It doesn't really matter what you declare this. I know that its not communism. Its never communism. But at what point do people accept that every time a country tried communism, everything went to shit? It clearly doesnt work. I mean it works for no one. No one achieves anything worthwhile in communism experiments. Not a single person. But a whole lot of them end up in gulags. And I'm not saying that communism is bad. But the results that came out of communism are so spectacularly bad, EVERY SINGLE TIME, that trying again is unethical. People think that Hitler was a bad person, but Mao achieved thrice the kill count without even trying. > What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue. I'm talking about the fact that Russia is ruled by a person that was formerly part of the KGB and really wants his big soviet union back - and backs it up by moves like blatantly annexing parts of other countries whenever possible. The baltic states are shitting their pants a lot, these days. I don't feel particularly exploited, btw. We live in a very free world. If you don't want to sell your time, just don't do it. Start your own company. See how that goes. We are all capable of taking chances. Some win, some lose. Some don't even try. Somehow, those who are too weak, or preoccupied with other things, are blaming those who did try, for the fact that they have relatively easy lives. I'm often confronted with the fact that I was "lucky" and only get to have such thoughts because I was lucky. The thing is, I was lucky. I was born in central europe. Thats already jackpot worthy. We constitute way less than 10% of the worlds population and live like gods by default. The worst of the worst hobo in germany is way better off than almost anyone in bangladesh. And I was probably a lot luckier than that. Other circumstances. But we are all really fucking lucky that in the past, some entrepreneurs were fed up with the fact that there was no running water and that water was always infested with mud and bacteria and doctors didnt think it was cool that 5 out of 7 babies died of the common cold. And they solved those problems. And became rich. If there had never been an option to become rich in the first place, how many of those guys would have pulled a Picasso instead and just painted? If you take away just 10% of the useful inventions made by people who only got ambitious because money, where would we be today instead? If you can make the argument that the rich benefit from the peasants getting redistributed funds, you should also be capable to make the argument that the worst of the worst peasant today lives like a god, compared to the richest of the rich just 100 years ago. And thats not hyperbole. Travel back 100 years and tell the still reigning king of Germany just about the bottom tier technologies we have access to. I'm pretty sure they'd consider that blasphemy.

by ue_ 9y ago

wayn3 9y ago

You mix marxism and communism, which is not the same thing. Which do you want to argue? I consider Marx a clown, and marxism is a clown fiesta, and "capitalism" is the cause they fight against. Of course it contains "meaning". Communism, on the other hand, is at least a valid idea. Its by no means viable, because its in direct conflict with human nature, survival instincts, intrinsic properties of physics and a bunch of other issues, but as a concept, communism is kinda cool.

wayn3 9y ago

As I said, I do not consider capitalism a "thing". Free Markets generate winners and losers. In nature, in economies, in many different expressions of physical reality. "Capitalism", Marx' big piece, obfuscates that and tries to reason that there is some oppressive force, exhibited by a ruling class, over the peasantry. I am, by the way, only using that "demeaning" term because its the one Marx used. He said "Bauern", which translates directly to "peasants". I'm not contesting that feudal lords were a thing. Certainly not in the middle ages. To what extent that was still the case around 1890 - I'm not sure. I wasn't around back then. I don't think feudalism is a thing in the present, at least not in central europe. If you want to study this whole class system, Nietzsche does a lot better job of explaining is and is way less pathetic about it. "Morals as a concept are installed by rulers to keep their sheep in check, deal with it". - Marxism and Communism may be closer to each other than anarchism and communism, but they are not the same thing. Marx called for a peasant uprising. He's just pissed about the fact that the value created by peasants ends up in the hands of their owners. - There is no autocratic rule in the free world. France elected a "capitalist" in sarkozy because they were pissed with financials. Then they elected a socialist in whoever the current guy is. Now theyre pissed with financials. Next, they are electing either the lunatic Le Pen who claimed that ebola bombs should be dropped on romania because it would give them both valuable scientific data and eliminate a bunch of people that the world doesnt need. - Germany is ruled by the two big parties for a long time now because they are so close to each other in ideas and anyone who deviates from the mainstream is called a nazi or an evil capitalist or some other hate inspiring nonsense that you can only vote for her. - The US was very fucking sure about the fact that they would elect the wall streets darling. Everyone knew it. People didnt even cast their vote because obviously the orange one would not win. Now he did. And people seem to forget that that guy was elected. Hes a fucking moron with the potential for Hitler stardom, but people elected that guy. That was not wall street. That was people who voted for change. Now they dont get change and they get fucked over because the guy is in it for the money but they certainly got whom they voted for. -You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production. It doesn't really matter what you declare this. I know that its not communism. Its never communism. But at what point do people accept that every time a country tried communism, everything went to shit? It clearly doesnt work. I mean it works for no one. No one achieves anything worthwhile in communism experiments. Not a single person. But a whole lot of them end up in gulags. And I'm not saying that communism is bad. But the results that came out of communism are so spectacularly bad, EVERY SINGLE TIME, that trying again is unethical. People think that Hitler was a bad person, but Mao achieved thrice the kill count without even trying. > What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue. I'm talking about the fact that Russia is ruled by a person that was formerly part of the KGB and really wants his big soviet union back - and backs it up by moves like blatantly annexing parts of other countries whenever possible. The baltic states are shitting their pants a lot, these days. I don't feel particularly exploited, btw. We live in a very free world. If you don't want to sell your time, just don't do it. Start your own company. See how that goes. We are all capable of taking chances. Some win, some lose. Some don't even try. Somehow, those who are too weak, or preoccupied with other things, are blaming those who did try, for the fact that they have relatively easy lives. I'm often confronted with the fact that I was "lucky" and only get to have such thoughts because I was lucky. The thing is, I was lucky. I was born in central europe. Thats already jackpot worthy. We constitute way less than 10% of the worlds population and live like gods by default. The worst of the worst hobo in germany is way better off than almost anyone in bangladesh. And I was probably a lot luckier than that. Other circumstances. But we are all really fucking lucky that in the past, some entrepreneurs were fed up with the fact that there was no running water and that water was always infested with mud and bacteria and doctors didnt think it was cool that 5 out of 7 babies died of the common cold. And they solved those problems. And became rich. If there had never been an option to become rich in the first place, how many of those guys would have pulled a Picasso instead and just painted? If you take away just 10% of the useful inventions made by people who only got ambitious because money, where would we be today instead? If you can make the argument that the rich benefit from the peasants getting redistributed funds, you should also be capable to make the argument that the worst of the worst peasant today lives like a god, compared to the richest of the rich just 100 years ago. And thats not hyperbole. Travel back 100 years and tell the still reigning king of Germany just about the bottom tier technologies we have access to. I'm pretty sure they'd consider that blasphemy.