3 ms·

Capitalism is a word invented by Louis Blanc for the bad thing "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of

Capitalism is a word invented by Louis Blanc for the bad thing "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". You don't actually call yourself a capitalist, because if you say that you actually say "I believe in a hard class system with a difficult to overcome divide between workers and capital owners and that the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others is right". If you believe in a system that you feel is uncomfortably similar to Louis Blanc's bad thing, you say "This won't actually happen, this system is totally dynamic, with no permanent class division or any appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" and you'd say things "I support free markets".

zmgsabst 1y ago
Capitalism is just a term for the concepts that predated Louis Blanc and were discussed by Adam Smith et al. Your definition is nonsense: capitalism is a system in which the invested capital is also rewarded and not collectively owned. But it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  But then it isn't Blanc's Capitalism-- or at least you claim that it isn't, so why use the word?
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  > it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but it would require you many lifetimes of labor to reach the next class, that's for all intents and purposes a hard class system. The argument for class mobility based on initiative doesn't make it a soft class system. > Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party. Doesn't make it malleable, just comparatively more malleable. The problem is with the later stages of capitalism where everything is big and rigid, but you still need growth for the system to work. What we need is a different system that improves on capitalism, but has at its heart a welfare state, doesn't reduce each individual to an economic actor and have incentives set so that each actor (or machine which seeks connections) can converge to the mean, instead of each one trying to reach the top.
- mcv 1y ago
  Adam Smith was not in favour of capitalism, and in fact warned against it. He was in favour of the free market, which is not the same thing. A market is free when it's transparent and accessible for everybody. Extreme discrepancy in wealth and capital leads to powerful parties dominating and controlling the market. Smith recognized that and warned against it, recognizing the need for workers to organize, and to prevent cartels and monopolies. Whether capitalism is distinguishable from traditional feudalism depends entirely on how you regulate it.
- bix6 1y ago
  Is it substantially malleable? If you’re given enough capital to live but not reach the upper levels is it really?
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    That's more about ambition. So many examples of people who started with nothing and became very wealthy. Capitalism enables this, it does not prevent it.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Thousands of people have been made millionaires by government lotteries in the United States.
- pixl97 1y ago
  >as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. And when your labor is not needed because 'capital' itself supplies its own labor?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

zmgsabst 1y ago

Capitalism is just a term for the concepts that predated Louis Blanc and were discussed by Adam Smith et al. Your definition is nonsense: capitalism is a system in which the invested capital is also rewarded and not collectively owned. But it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party.

impossiblefork 1y ago
But then it isn't Blanc's Capitalism-- or at least you claim that it isn't, so why use the word?
gchamonlive 1y ago
> it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but it would require you many lifetimes of labor to reach the next class, that's for all intents and purposes a hard class system. The argument for class mobility based on initiative doesn't make it a soft class system. > Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party. Doesn't make it malleable, just comparatively more malleable. The problem is with the later stages of capitalism where everything is big and rigid, but you still need growth for the system to work. What we need is a different system that improves on capitalism, but has at its heart a welfare state, doesn't reduce each individual to an economic actor and have incentives set so that each actor (or machine which seeks connections) can converge to the mean, instead of each one trying to reach the top.
mcv 1y ago
Adam Smith was not in favour of capitalism, and in fact warned against it. He was in favour of the free market, which is not the same thing. A market is free when it's transparent and accessible for everybody. Extreme discrepancy in wealth and capital leads to powerful parties dominating and controlling the market. Smith recognized that and warned against it, recognizing the need for workers to organize, and to prevent cartels and monopolies. Whether capitalism is distinguishable from traditional feudalism depends entirely on how you regulate it.
bix6 1y ago
Is it substantially malleable? If you’re given enough capital to live but not reach the upper levels is it really?
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  That's more about ambition. So many examples of people who started with nothing and became very wealthy. Capitalism enables this, it does not prevent it.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Thousands of people have been made millionaires by government lotteries in the United States.
pixl97 1y ago
>as you’re given capital in reward for your labor. And when your labor is not needed because 'capital' itself supplies its own labor?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]