3 ms·

> First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established concepts

> First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established concepts in history and the social sciences... I agree with the impulse here, but I wouldn't give those words a pass so quickly. Some (all?) of them are poorly understood. Even here on HN, a potential bastion of reason, and presumably populated mostly by products of education in capitalist countries, I routinely come across anti-"capitalist" sentiment that is really complaining about something else: cronyism, regulatory capture, non-violent extortion, etc. From wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism Go google "site:ycombinator.com capitalist". All sorts of nonsense HN comments show up in which people object to capitalism but aren't clearly criticizing wages, prices, private contracts, private property, etc.

spamizbad 9y ago
I disagree. Many complaints about capitalism are often rebuffed with some form of "No True Scottsman" fallacy when people raise this points about capitalism. Defenders of communism fall into the same trap. I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction mechanism for that. If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with. Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  My basic point was that "capitalism" is a term not understood broadly enough to be meaningful. Your (justified) complaint about "No True Scotsman" fallacies supports my point. As does your critique of the shifting feelings about capitalism over the years. My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending it are rarely talking about the same thing. I have seen people defending capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are referring to the canonical definitions. I have seen, though less frequently, people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages, property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).
strangecasts 9y ago
That Google search doesn't really say much about the content of the arguments, or the distribution on any political spectrum except "people have different opinions" - but AFAICT the critiques of capitalism either argue that it inherently leads to inequality and corruption - ultimately dooming efforts to fix "cronyism[...] etc." within the system - or that the neoliberal school of thought enables it by dismantling unions and the government's ability to affect the market. Either way, the issues spring from capitalist systems, and so arguing that they're "really complaining about something else" strikes me as odd.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  To reiterate my earlier point, it seems you're disagreeing with and/or confused about what I'm saying capitalism is. That's basically what I'm getting at. That "capitalism" isn't a safe word to just throw around and assume you're understood and listened to. But I do understand those critiques of "capitalism" though generally they don't go so far as to refute any of the core aspects of capitalism. People aren't generally arguing to centralize the means of production. In fact, most of the critiques of "capitalism" is that production and consumption have become too centralized in the hands of private parties and corrupt officials. So barring government seizure of markets (labor, housing, etc.), the argument is mostly that we don't really have functioning markets. Which means the person who is anti-"capitalism" really wants a working capitalism. Which all are fair points to make. It's just confusing throwing the "capitalism" word around, which is my point here.

spamizbad 9y ago

I disagree. Many complaints about capitalism are often rebuffed with some form of "No True Scottsman" fallacy when people raise this points about capitalism. Defenders of communism fall into the same trap. I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction mechanism for that. If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with. Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.

humanrebar 9y ago
My basic point was that "capitalism" is a term not understood broadly enough to be meaningful. Your (justified) complaint about "No True Scotsman" fallacies supports my point. As does your critique of the shifting feelings about capitalism over the years. My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending it are rarely talking about the same thing. I have seen people defending capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are referring to the canonical definitions. I have seen, though less frequently, people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages, property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).

strangecasts 9y ago

That Google search doesn't really say much about the content of the arguments, or the distribution on any political spectrum except "people have different opinions" - but AFAICT the critiques of capitalism either argue that it inherently leads to inequality and corruption - ultimately dooming efforts to fix "cronyism[...] etc." within the system - or that the neoliberal school of thought enables it by dismantling unions and the government's ability to affect the market. Either way, the issues spring from capitalist systems, and so arguing that they're "really complaining about something else" strikes me as odd.

humanrebar 9y ago
To reiterate my earlier point, it seems you're disagreeing with and/or confused about what I'm saying capitalism is. That's basically what I'm getting at. That "capitalism" isn't a safe word to just throw around and assume you're understood and listened to. But I do understand those critiques of "capitalism" though generally they don't go so far as to refute any of the core aspects of capitalism. People aren't generally arguing to centralize the means of production. In fact, most of the critiques of "capitalism" is that production and consumption have become too centralized in the hands of private parties and corrupt officials. So barring government seizure of markets (labor, housing, etc.), the argument is mostly that we don't really have functioning markets. Which means the person who is anti-"capitalism" really wants a working capitalism. Which all are fair points to make. It's just confusing throwing the "capitalism" word around, which is my point here.