4 ms·

There is no such thing as "capitalism". That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people ar

There is no such thing as "capitalism". That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. Commerce isn't a system, it's a human activity that has existed for all of human history. So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist, who "acquire capital" and in doing so "acquire power" as opposed to the (noble and virtuous) workers who are actually the ones that generate all the value, but who suffer at the hands of the evil greedy capitalists who exploit them and steal all that value. Somehow we're meant to believe that despite these noble and virtuous workers generating all the value and far-outnumbering the evil, greedy capitalists, that the fact they haven't revolted and changed the system is because they're so oppressed and powerless (even though apparently they generate all value? what?). It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories. Everyone with retirement savings (vast majority of people) is a "capitalist" and everyone with a job (vast majority of people) is a "worker".

dragonwriter 3y ago
> That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. No, its not, and the “not a system” you describe is neither what we call “capitalism”, nor anything that has ever existed. Restrictions and limits on trade exist in all real-world economic systems and conditions. “Capitalism”, is, at root, a particular structure of property rights. > So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist People who own capital exist, and I never made the moral claim that you make. (Leaving aside whether it has anything to do with socialism or not.) > It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories Actually, the socialist description of the structrue of capitalism does not have two categories; it recognizes a continuum of conditions, in which there are three main broad classes useful for discussion: those whose support is predominantly from renting out labor (proletariat/working class), those whose support has significant contributions from both labor and capital, as by applying their own labor to their own capital, though there are other patterns (petit bourgeois/middle class), and those whose support is predominantly through capital to which rented labor is applied (haut bourgeois/capitalist class).
- ETH_start 3y ago
  You were promoting the socialist narrative, that is premised on the claim that free market exchange whereby a worker sells his labor is not in fact a free market exchange as a result of alleged duress the "system"—enacted by an alleged conspiracy of capitalists—subjects the worker to. That's why you used the word "acquire" instead of "create" to describe the capitalist's acquisition of capital. By framing the worker as the creator of capital, you are trying to lend credence to the Marxist narrative that the act of profiting from employed labor is expropriation of the surplus value generated by the worker.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. No, its not, and the “not a system” you describe is neither what we call “capitalism”, nor anything that has ever existed. Restrictions and limits on trade exist in all real-world economic systems and conditions. “Capitalism”, is, at root, a particular structure of property rights. > So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist People who own capital exist, and I never made the moral claim that you make. (Leaving aside whether it has anything to do with socialism or not.) > It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories Actually, the socialist description of the structrue of capitalism does not have two categories; it recognizes a continuum of conditions, in which there are three main broad classes useful for discussion: those whose support is predominantly from renting out labor (proletariat/working class), those whose support has significant contributions from both labor and capital, as by applying their own labor to their own capital, though there are other patterns (petit bourgeois/middle class), and those whose support is predominantly through capital to which rented labor is applied (haut bourgeois/capitalist class).

ETH_start 3y ago
You were promoting the socialist narrative, that is premised on the claim that free market exchange whereby a worker sells his labor is not in fact a free market exchange as a result of alleged duress the "system"—enacted by an alleged conspiracy of capitalists—subjects the worker to. That's why you used the word "acquire" instead of "create" to describe the capitalist's acquisition of capital. By framing the worker as the creator of capital, you are trying to lend credence to the Marxist narrative that the act of profiting from employed labor is expropriation of the surplus value generated by the worker.