4 ms·

There is a tragic connection between capitalism and materialism. Celebrate the former; be wary of the latter.

nsomaru 7y ago
Is there a difference between the two? Capitalist analysis tends to favour material progress as if this is the zenith of human existence. Markets are useful but they only cover a third of human life, the physical (although money is abstract it represents the ability to command material goods and services). The emotional and intellectual are reduced to second class citizens in service of the master munching market.
- iguy 7y ago
  > Is there a difference between the two? Sure: Capitalism is basically the term invented by the socialist movement for the things they wished to replace. But the idea that they could do a better job at delivering material progress (to the average joe) was pretty much their central claim.
  - nsomaru 7y ago
    Why did you assume I was taking a socialist position? I’m commenting on a worldview, call it X if you’d like to invent another term. I’m specifically trying to argue that material progress alone is not sufficient and that is what the current system, whatever you call it, does. Encourage material progress.
    - iguy 7y ago
      I made no such assumption. I only offered a counterexample to the idea that there is no difference between materialism and capitalism. Half the world was ruled by people who loved the former and hated the latter. So they certainly saw a difference. And for the record I completely agree that material progress obviously isn't the only thing which matters.
GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
There is a tragic connection between free-market and capitalism. Celebrate the former; be wary of the latter.
- smitty1e 7y ago
  I've heard "free market capitalism" before. But not any alternatives. Your distinction isn't clear to me; request elaboration.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Not OP, but taking a stab: The distinctions are usually not very clearly presented, because reasons. There are a few dimensions that have become evident to me: - Markets are exchange mechanisms. They are not specific to private capital ownership. - Capital is productive capacity. "Capitalsim" is an economic system in which capital is (putatively) the critical input to production. These are only two of numerous possible elements that an economic system might consider. Among others: - Property is legally-enforcible claims to control, benefit, or exclusion, from defined economic elements. Those might be personal / mobile / chattle property, real (land) property, productive capital, trademarks, copyrights, patents, contracts, specific other legal rights or licences, animals and livestock, mineral and land rights, and in certain times and places, other human beings. - Social welfare is a claim to general rights (healthcare, education, unemployment or disability insurance, retirement pensions) which might be included. - Various social rights or restrictions, including privileges or restrictions / legal sanctions. - Accountability and/or liabilities for various risks or consequences. At various times and places, individuals have held birthright to community capabilities, or been all but wholly restricted from it. Land has been deemed private, or held in common, or subject to temporary lease or bequeathing from a king or other government. Labour has been entirely free to move across international boundaries (where those even existed), or entirely bound to specific feudal lands. Ownership rights in property may be near total, or highly restricted. You can have markets with or without private capital, you can have private property with or without inheritance, you can have market capitalism with or without liberal democracy, you can have liberal democracy without market capitalism. And numerous other variants.

Is there a difference between the two? Capitalist analysis tends to favour material progress as if this is the zenith of human existence. Markets are useful but they only cover a third of human life, the physical (although money is abstract it represents the ability to command material goods and services). The emotional and intellectual are reduced to second class citizens in service of the master munching market.

iguy 7y ago
> Is there a difference between the two? Sure: Capitalism is basically the term invented by the socialist movement for the things they wished to replace. But the idea that they could do a better job at delivering material progress (to the average joe) was pretty much their central claim.
- nsomaru 7y ago
  Why did you assume I was taking a socialist position? I’m commenting on a worldview, call it X if you’d like to invent another term. I’m specifically trying to argue that material progress alone is not sufficient and that is what the current system, whatever you call it, does. Encourage material progress.
  - iguy 7y ago
    I made no such assumption. I only offered a counterexample to the idea that there is no difference between materialism and capitalism. Half the world was ruled by people who loved the former and hated the latter. So they certainly saw a difference. And for the record I completely agree that material progress obviously isn't the only thing which matters.

GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago

There is a tragic connection between free-market and capitalism. Celebrate the former; be wary of the latter.

smitty1e 7y ago
I've heard "free market capitalism" before. But not any alternatives. Your distinction isn't clear to me; request elaboration.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Not OP, but taking a stab: The distinctions are usually not very clearly presented, because reasons. There are a few dimensions that have become evident to me: - Markets are exchange mechanisms. They are not specific to private capital ownership. - Capital is productive capacity. "Capitalsim" is an economic system in which capital is (putatively) the critical input to production. These are only two of numerous possible elements that an economic system might consider. Among others: - Property is legally-enforcible claims to control, benefit, or exclusion, from defined economic elements. Those might be personal / mobile / chattle property, real (land) property, productive capital, trademarks, copyrights, patents, contracts, specific other legal rights or licences, animals and livestock, mineral and land rights, and in certain times and places, other human beings. - Social welfare is a claim to general rights (healthcare, education, unemployment or disability insurance, retirement pensions) which might be included. - Various social rights or restrictions, including privileges or restrictions / legal sanctions. - Accountability and/or liabilities for various risks or consequences. At various times and places, individuals have held birthright to community capabilities, or been all but wholly restricted from it. Land has been deemed private, or held in common, or subject to temporary lease or bequeathing from a king or other government. Labour has been entirely free to move across international boundaries (where those even existed), or entirely bound to specific feudal lands. Ownership rights in property may be near total, or highly restricted. You can have markets with or without private capital, you can have private property with or without inheritance, you can have market capitalism with or without liberal democracy, you can have liberal democracy without market capitalism. And numerous other variants.