4 ms·

I don't think you described capitalism as an ideology. You seem to simply be talking about inefficiencies in capitalist execution. Capitalism as ideology is a

I don't think you described capitalism as an ideology. You seem to simply be talking about inefficiencies in capitalist execution. Capitalism as ideology is a bit different. For example, if someone is rich, they are higher status, but not only that - they are assumed to have innate characteristics that make them better, such as discipline and intelligence. We've created, and this predates capitalism and allowed for its spread, a social system that equates wealth with social power. That's a part of capitalism as an ideology. Another part is that people automatically view things in terms of cost. They weigh choices in monetary terms, as opposed to social, moral or physical. I disagree with your example of capitalist inefficiency, as well - you've chosen a price equilibrium inefficiency but you're using that example to illustrate that a product is ill-suited for capitalism. It isn't; if the movie was priced correctly, the inefficiency would disappear. Plus, as you pointed out, there are negligible costs for distribution (it's not really zero, but who cares) so profits on a product like that would be significant. That seems to me to be a better product for capitalist exploitation than wheat.

matt4077 9y ago
> I don't think you described capitalism as an ideology I wasn't trying to. I was saying that it works well as a means of organisation, before pointing out its weaknesses. Ideology is when you ignore those weaknesses, and try to shoehorn everything within the framework of capitalism. > If the movie was priced correctly, the inefficiency would disappear The problem is that it's hard to price it efficiently, because the value is different for different people. You can try price-separation, i. e. by geography, or the cascade of movie theatre to download to broadcast TV. But there's still a loss of welfare. As another example: I will never pay for a subscription to the WSJ, or to Adobe Creative Cloud, or to NGINX Plus. But my life would be marginally better if I had access to these products. And the only reason I don't is because there's no way to allow people like me access, without also allowing those free access that are currently paying.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Ideology isn't when you ignore something's weaknesses and shoehorn everything within its framework. Blind adherence to an ideology can cause that, but it's not what the word means.

matt4077 9y ago

> I don't think you described capitalism as an ideology I wasn't trying to. I was saying that it works well as a means of organisation, before pointing out its weaknesses. Ideology is when you ignore those weaknesses, and try to shoehorn everything within the framework of capitalism. > If the movie was priced correctly, the inefficiency would disappear The problem is that it's hard to price it efficiently, because the value is different for different people. You can try price-separation, i. e. by geography, or the cascade of movie theatre to download to broadcast TV. But there's still a loss of welfare. As another example: I will never pay for a subscription to the WSJ, or to Adobe Creative Cloud, or to NGINX Plus. But my life would be marginally better if I had access to these products. And the only reason I don't is because there's no way to allow people like me access, without also allowing those free access that are currently paying.

ameister14 9y ago
Ideology isn't when you ignore something's weaknesses and shoehorn everything within its framework. Blind adherence to an ideology can cause that, but it's not what the word means.