4 ms·

Conversations about capitalism have become pointless... I'd rather eat mud. When people start arguing one way or the other about the goods or ills of capitalis

Conversations about capitalism have become pointless... I'd rather eat mud. When people start arguing one way or the other about the goods or ills of capitalism, both sides inject definitional or theoretical aspects that include an entire mountain of pre-supposition, that I barely understand what anyone is talking about. It would take hours to unpick what the hell they mean by the term... which I thought generally should be quite simple: the right to own property, and to trade it without coercion. So when someone claims that capitalism is dead - what the hell do they actually mean? I can still own property and trade it. The vast majority of people in Western countries can. No - they think capitalism is something more, some ideal that we had and lost presumably. What that ideal is I have no clue.

jcranmer 3y ago
I've held for several years now that any -ism term generally does more to obfuscate than it does to elucidate. And capitalism and feudalism are among the worst terms in that regard, as the former can mean anything from "money exists" to very specific ideas about how the government should regulate the economy (or more accurately, how it shouldn't), while the latter is generally a vague reference to Medieval Europe without recognizing that there was actually quite some diversity in political and socioeconomic conditions across time and space in that 1000-year period.
injeolmi_love 3y ago
The term capitalism was invented as a prejorative, and in its original meaning had nothing to do with free markets. Instead it referred to a system of oppression where industrialists partnered with the state to create an underclass of cheap labor. Various policies were used to impoverish peasants, force them off their traditional lands, and legally require them to get a job in a factory or face prison. Something similar happening now is where only big tech companies are able to afford compliance with censorship, money laundering, and other state regulations. This allows big tech to abuse their relationships with their customers, who are a wide group of industrialists, consumers, and labor. Criticism of capitalism is fundamentally criticism of the state.
djrobstep 3y ago
> the right to own property, and to trade it without coercion Trade requires coercion. Without coercion to stop you taking a particular object, there would be no need to trade for it, you would simply take it. Without coercion to stop you living in your house if you stop paying rent or mortgage, why would you keep paying?
- drewcoo 3y ago
  Ownership requires coercion. Threat of violence is used to defend property "rights." Trade requires ownership.
  - djrobstep 3y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.
Exoristos 3y ago
"The right to own property, and to trade it without coercion." Talk about a completely ideological, avoidant, and ineffectual definition.
UtopiaPunk 3y ago
"the right to own property, and to trade it without coercion." I don't think that's a good definition of capitalism. But to your point, that's why having these conversations are difficult - people don't have similar definitions for the same words. I think such conversations can be valuable and meaningful, but when talking to someone who holds very different opinions, I think it's crucial to start with agreeing on clear definitions of words you'll be using. Sometimes that can take a while.

jcranmer 3y ago

I've held for several years now that any -ism term generally does more to obfuscate than it does to elucidate. And capitalism and feudalism are among the worst terms in that regard, as the former can mean anything from "money exists" to very specific ideas about how the government should regulate the economy (or more accurately, how it shouldn't), while the latter is generally a vague reference to Medieval Europe without recognizing that there was actually quite some diversity in political and socioeconomic conditions across time and space in that 1000-year period.

injeolmi_love 3y ago

The term capitalism was invented as a prejorative, and in its original meaning had nothing to do with free markets. Instead it referred to a system of oppression where industrialists partnered with the state to create an underclass of cheap labor. Various policies were used to impoverish peasants, force them off their traditional lands, and legally require them to get a job in a factory or face prison. Something similar happening now is where only big tech companies are able to afford compliance with censorship, money laundering, and other state regulations. This allows big tech to abuse their relationships with their customers, who are a wide group of industrialists, consumers, and labor. Criticism of capitalism is fundamentally criticism of the state.

djrobstep 3y ago

> the right to own property, and to trade it without coercion Trade requires coercion. Without coercion to stop you taking a particular object, there would be no need to trade for it, you would simply take it. Without coercion to stop you living in your house if you stop paying rent or mortgage, why would you keep paying?

drewcoo 3y ago
Ownership requires coercion. Threat of violence is used to defend property "rights." Trade requires ownership.
- djrobstep 3y ago
  That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

Exoristos 3y ago

"The right to own property, and to trade it without coercion." Talk about a completely ideological, avoidant, and ineffectual definition.

UtopiaPunk 3y ago

"the right to own property, and to trade it without coercion." I don't think that's a good definition of capitalism. But to your point, that's why having these conversations are difficult - people don't have similar definitions for the same words. I think such conversations can be valuable and meaningful, but when talking to someone who holds very different opinions, I think it's crucial to start with agreeing on clear definitions of words you'll be using. Sometimes that can take a while.