6 ms·

i would argue that capitalism implicitly values... capital? just as socialism values... society also, you're conflating markets with capitalism

robertlagrant 3y ago
Come on. Arguing from names is really silly. I'd say almost everything but capitalism values authoritarianism. E.g. socialism in the end by "society" means "the state". Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools. Not bureaucrats taking your effort and doling it out (or not) as they see fit.
- badpun 3y ago
  In capitalism's case, the name is really informative. At the heart of capitalism lies capital and the ability to invest it, which gives people who own it power to get stuff without doing any work. People without the capital do work for people with capital, so that the may survive (and do more work).
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    The problem is that direct work is not the only way to contribute, which is why Marx's definition of things is too narrow. Taking risk is also something valuable to reward. As is having the right connections. One or more of these things together make value that a company that can then sell to people who want it. Deciding that risking capital is worth nothing is an incomplete view.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools" Are you saying that sports are not profitable in America? That schools and colleges in America are not run for profit? That churches and charities are not formed primarily for financial/tax benefits? Or that people can't play non-profit basketball in their local park under socialism? Or that capitalism hasn't done a work on the 'local community' by replacing third-places with places that require you to spend money to hang out, for example? > "Not bureaucrats taking your effort and doling it out (or not) as they see fit." This is exactly what my employer does? They take value I add, and dole it out (or not) as they see fit.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Are you saying that sports are not profitable in America? That schools and colleges in America are not run for profit? That churches and charities are not formed primarily for financial/tax benefits? Or that people can't play non-profit basketball in their local park under socialism? Or that capitalism hasn't done a work on the 'local community' by replacing third-places with places that require you to spend money to hang out, for example? That's correct; I'm not saying those things. > This is exactly what my employer does? They take value I add, and dole it out (or not) as they see fit. How does your employer dole out your effort?
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      > "That's correct; I'm not saying those things." Then your claim "Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools." has fallen over. Those things are taken over by capitalism-slash-markets because there is profit to be made, above all other concerns (e.g. the health of football players / brain trauma, the constant advertising, the promotion of players to celebtrities and the association of product with celebrity, etc. etc. These things are community-destroying but profit-making.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        This seems highly incomplete. Millions of people play football amongst themselves. Only looking at professional footballers is just the apex fallacy. The fact that a few people are paid to play doesn't negate that cultural reality. Even then they are voluntarily playing football as probably by far their best option in life. Paid for by hundreds of millions of people who want to watch the best football possible, and will pay for it. Finally, people choosing to pay for things isn't capitalism taking over culture. Everything about football requires money: paying for a football to go for a kickaout isn't hideous commercialism.
- pixl97 3y ago
  You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values" Capitalism works best with a non-authoritarian government, but that leaves a lot of different options for implementing how that is handled. Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism as they become more successful because they will seek to minimize competition.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values" How so? > Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism Lots will push the other way, because that keeps the engine running smoothly. This is sometimes called "people thinking they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires", but really it's "people knowing the best way (on average) to invent a better future".

robertlagrant 3y ago

Come on. Arguing from names is really silly. I'd say almost everything but capitalism values authoritarianism. E.g. socialism in the end by "society" means "the state". Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools. Not bureaucrats taking your effort and doling it out (or not) as they see fit.

badpun 3y ago
In capitalism's case, the name is really informative. At the heart of capitalism lies capital and the ability to invest it, which gives people who own it power to get stuff without doing any work. People without the capital do work for people with capital, so that the may survive (and do more work).
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The problem is that direct work is not the only way to contribute, which is why Marx's definition of things is too narrow. Taking risk is also something valuable to reward. As is having the right connections. One or more of these things together make value that a company that can then sell to people who want it. Deciding that risking capital is worth nothing is an incomplete view.
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools" Are you saying that sports are not profitable in America? That schools and colleges in America are not run for profit? That churches and charities are not formed primarily for financial/tax benefits? Or that people can't play non-profit basketball in their local park under socialism? Or that capitalism hasn't done a work on the 'local community' by replacing third-places with places that require you to spend money to hang out, for example? > "Not bureaucrats taking your effort and doling it out (or not) as they see fit." This is exactly what my employer does? They take value I add, and dole it out (or not) as they see fit.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Are you saying that sports are not profitable in America? That schools and colleges in America are not run for profit? That churches and charities are not formed primarily for financial/tax benefits? Or that people can't play non-profit basketball in their local park under socialism? Or that capitalism hasn't done a work on the 'local community' by replacing third-places with places that require you to spend money to hang out, for example? That's correct; I'm not saying those things. > This is exactly what my employer does? They take value I add, and dole it out (or not) as they see fit. How does your employer dole out your effort?
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    > "That's correct; I'm not saying those things." Then your claim "Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools." has fallen over. Those things are taken over by capitalism-slash-markets because there is profit to be made, above all other concerns (e.g. the health of football players / brain trauma, the constant advertising, the promotion of players to celebtrities and the association of product with celebrity, etc. etc. These things are community-destroying but profit-making.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This seems highly incomplete. Millions of people play football amongst themselves. Only looking at professional footballers is just the apex fallacy. The fact that a few people are paid to play doesn't negate that cultural reality. Even then they are voluntarily playing football as probably by far their best option in life. Paid for by hundreds of millions of people who want to watch the best football possible, and will pay for it. Finally, people choosing to pay for things isn't capitalism taking over culture. Everything about football requires money: paying for a football to go for a kickaout isn't hideous commercialism.
pixl97 3y ago
You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values" Capitalism works best with a non-authoritarian government, but that leaves a lot of different options for implementing how that is handled. Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism as they become more successful because they will seek to minimize competition.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values" How so? > Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism Lots will push the other way, because that keeps the engine running smoothly. This is sometimes called "people thinking they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires", but really it's "people knowing the best way (on average) to invent a better future".