4 ms·

It looks like all of the dictionaries in the world need to be corrected on that point.

KirinDave 8y ago
Weird, because all of them I check say: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Which dictionary do you use that mentions qualitative economic outcomes as part of the definition of adjective-free "capitalism"? Let me just cite a few definitions: Merriam Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Dictionary.com: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." Oxford Dictionary: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." None of these imply the quality of the free markets capitalism operates under. So... maybe we're all safe? Capitalism is about profit, and how only profit-seeking entities have political power in proportion to their capital on hand. If the products are bad but they're profitable, that's just as valid to unqualified capitalism as robust group of roughly equal actors competing vigorously.
frutiger 8y ago
I'm not sure that's quite true. The very first sentence from the wikipedia article on Capitalism[1]: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. I do agree however, that capitalism and free markets are so often confused (much like "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less") that there may well be no point trying to distinguish the two in ordinary discourse. Perhaps we need a new word to represent what "capitalism" was supposed to mean? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Maybe, but I think existing literature has solved this by using qualifying adjectives like "Anarcho-" and "State" and "Mixed". It might be easier to lean on those. I think it's pretty important to make these distinctions because it helps us rise above the level of modern discourse that instantly maps political opposition to, you know, any given Nazi principle. Folks looking to destroy debate and scholarship to make their point hate being required to take concrete positions, because the hallmark of bad faith arguments is changing positions quickly without being noticed to avoid every having to directly challenge a factual argument.
- golemotron 8y ago
  That's different from what you said. You said that capitalism is an a opinion about what should be rather than a description of what is. > Capitalism is the opinion that capital owners should have total and singular control of business.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that Capitalism as a philosophy is objective in some sense that say, monarchism or socialism are not? Of course it is an articulation of an opinion about what should be. There are disagreeing opinions about "what should be."
    - golemotron 8y ago
      It a concept, not an opinion. Most Kings get tired of being monarchs, for what it's worth. But, no matter whether they think it's the right way of doing things, they are kind of stuck with it.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        Your first part? Okay, sure. I'm referring to the notion of capitalists in abstract, not capitalism outside of minds (which doesn't exist). So: my sincere apologies for not being precise there. It didn't damage any point I was making and I seriously doubt this is what you were objecting to originally, but I'll offer the apology all the same. The second part... What? Why? Since when? And no, they're not. Obviously not. I'm confused why you'd say this, why you'd think this and why you'd think OF it in this context.

Weird, because all of them I check say: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Which dictionary do you use that mentions qualitative economic outcomes as part of the definition of adjective-free "capitalism"? Let me just cite a few definitions: Merriam Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Dictionary.com: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." Oxford Dictionary: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." None of these imply the quality of the free markets capitalism operates under. So... maybe we're all safe? Capitalism is about profit, and how only profit-seeking entities have political power in proportion to their capital on hand. If the products are bad but they're profitable, that's just as valid to unqualified capitalism as robust group of roughly equal actors competing vigorously.

frutiger 8y ago

I'm not sure that's quite true. The very first sentence from the wikipedia article on Capitalism[1]: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. I do agree however, that capitalism and free markets are so often confused (much like "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less") that there may well be no point trying to distinguish the two in ordinary discourse. Perhaps we need a new word to represent what "capitalism" was supposed to mean? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

KirinDave 8y ago
Maybe, but I think existing literature has solved this by using qualifying adjectives like "Anarcho-" and "State" and "Mixed". It might be easier to lean on those. I think it's pretty important to make these distinctions because it helps us rise above the level of modern discourse that instantly maps political opposition to, you know, any given Nazi principle. Folks looking to destroy debate and scholarship to make their point hate being required to take concrete positions, because the hallmark of bad faith arguments is changing positions quickly without being noticed to avoid every having to directly challenge a factual argument.
golemotron 8y ago
That's different from what you said. You said that capitalism is an a opinion about what should be rather than a description of what is. > Capitalism is the opinion that capital owners should have total and singular control of business.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that Capitalism as a philosophy is objective in some sense that say, monarchism or socialism are not? Of course it is an articulation of an opinion about what should be. There are disagreeing opinions about "what should be."
  - golemotron 8y ago
    It a concept, not an opinion. Most Kings get tired of being monarchs, for what it's worth. But, no matter whether they think it's the right way of doing things, they are kind of stuck with it.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      Your first part? Okay, sure. I'm referring to the notion of capitalists in abstract, not capitalism outside of minds (which doesn't exist). So: my sincere apologies for not being precise there. It didn't damage any point I was making and I seriously doubt this is what you were objecting to originally, but I'll offer the apology all the same. The second part... What? Why? Since when? And no, they're not. Obviously not. I'm confused why you'd say this, why you'd think this and why you'd think OF it in this context.