Where can I find this arbitrary definition of capitalism? Because barters and lemonade in a free market stands still sounds like capitalism to me, just on a smaller scale. Just because it seems more sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.
Im not saying that what you describe in your first paragraph isn’t bad, but words have meaning. If you intend to spread your thoughts on them, you’d do well to go beyond “capitalism bad mkay” because it makes people take your thoughts less seriously. So you end up preaching to the choir who’s already on your side and we’ve learned from reddit, Twitter and Fox that echo chambers are bad.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Careful with that rhetorical question or they’ll bring out a bunch of nutjobs books and ask you to read through untested and unrealistic theory from the past hundred years and then call you unintellectual for choosing the dictionary and textbook definitions over their pseudoscience.
But not before capital. It was state controlled common economy. Common economy are basically proto communism.
And capitalism and communism both rely on capital. Just the controlling sector changes for the purposes of differentiating a common economy vs a modern capitalistic or communistic economy.
Purchase of the device is Capitalism, because your money IS your vote, and YOU are the Capital of Capitalism!
Capitalism describes the division of labour and profits, not the purchasing of goods. YOU are not theCapital in capitalism unless you are working for the profits of the owner. The root word of Capitalism is Caput, meaning head or cattle. Capitalism’s root definition is basically the ownership of cattle or chattel.
In a planned economy, there are beepers and payphones. No one builds the most expensive commercial endeavor in all of human history – advanced silicon fab nodes
According to? The Soviets made it to space before we did, and China currently fabricates the vast majority of that technology. Technology isn’t native to any economic structure.
I would argue that is a better semantic dispute, but still forced. You can interpret things as political capital, technological capital, or even militaristic capital… But it becomes a little over done pretty quickly. There are better and more accurate ways to describe these claims than to claim everything is capital.
Semantics do not create meaning, they describe it, poorly in most cases as vernacular evolves.
Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.
Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn’t changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system…
Most of the people that worked for William Shockley have been interviewed and recorded, along with their protégés. Bo Lojek of Motorola also wrote History of Semiconductor Engineering (Springer).
Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?
Over a long enough time scale, a different economic system would have pressures towards different goods and services.
Why there would be definitely some similarities. A modern economic system such as capitalism and communism would result in two very invastly different things.
While baseline technology would probably look, if not be the same, what is then used for and developed for would be different.
For example, it’s more likely in a communist system that AI would be developed far more rapidly than we saw under capitalism.
While capitalism pushes towards something like ads and monetizing information. Communism would push towards the acceleration and simplification of outmoding the worker entirely.
For capitalism outmoding the worker is just a side effect of saving money. It’s not the goal. Under communism, it would be the goal since it would create the best possible circumstances for people to be able to live a equal life given the highest benefit of the communal progression.
Different systems have different goals to argue that the same things would be created in the same order is just bad faith. Even arguing that things would be created exactly. The same is bad faith.
A quick jump through the history books and even a service level understanding of History can prove that. The concept of simultaneous invention shows as much. The printing press is a fantastic example.
Invented hundred years apart in two entirely different parts of the world. One barely used and quickly forgotten because their system of governance, economy and society did not see much of a point to it. While the other is what revolutionized the world.
Different systems invent different things because they have different goals. Even when they do invent, the same thing doesn’t mean it’ll be used or even valued and thus never improved on.
do not care to argue with you like this. I come here to hang out with digital neighbors, not to have some angry debate.
I don’t think we’re engaging in an angry argument? At least, I’m not upset. I think I’m just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?
I get nothing out of this, and for a disabled guy in social isolation, these have a disproportionate negative impact. On my original LW account I just blocked everyone that argues or down votes as such toxic negativity is unwelcome, unnecessary, and mildly harmful to everyone.
So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don’t really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.
The trials of physical disability may include a much reduced margin for adversarial encounters and contention. It is a subtle prejudice that is impossible to avoid.
You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.
Idk kind of sounds like capitalism with extra steps. Seems like the major difference between people who oppose capitalism and everyone else is just how they define the word.
What exactly does the meme imply the solution is? State operated companies? Only allowing cooperative companies? Lynching CEOs and hoping the next batch will be better, AKA “doing a luigi”?
The reason it isn’t capitalism with extra steps is that the defining trait of capitalism vs socialism isn’t the presence of markets (which long predate capitalism as a distinct concept), but rather who owns what and how that ownership is justified and structured. Now, arguably market socialism is more similar to capitalism than a planned economy is, but capitalism doesn’t just mean an unplanned economy either (as those, again, are much more ancient than the term implies).
I don’t think the meme implies any particular solution. To be honest, it doesn’t really even imply a problem to be solved. To my eyes it just looks like it’s just mocking a particular argument used to defend capitalism, without really communicating much beyond a distaste for that argument and presumably with capitalism in general.
Why would anyone build beepers if there are no mobile phones? That’s an entire wireless infrastructure that doesn’t need to be created or maintained. Beepers were the impetus for early wireless repeaters and signal towers. Phones created the data and load bearing standards but the hardware was built for the devices before phones.
In a planned economy the onus is on the person to be where they need to make or receive a call. Like the 70s and rotary phones. “Plan your day around what the day has planned for you” is what one of the most annoying teachers I’ve ever had said and it’s the perfect model for blaming the individual for problems outside their control. And that’s why central planners will use it to deflect from criticism.
deleted by creator
creation of a surplus of devices, through exploitation, for the purposes of profit is capitalism.
just buying stuff is just markets. barters and lemonade stands are not capitalist.
Where can I find this arbitrary definition of capitalism? Because barters and lemonade in a free market stands still sounds like capitalism to me, just on a smaller scale. Just because it seems more sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.
Im not saying that what you describe in your first paragraph isn’t bad, but words have meaning. If you intend to spread your thoughts on them, you’d do well to go beyond “capitalism bad mkay” because it makes people take your thoughts less seriously. So you end up preaching to the choir who’s already on your side and we’ve learned from reddit, Twitter and Fox that echo chambers are bad.
from wikipedia, for instance, with my highlights:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
All of which can still be present for your hypothetical lemonade stand.
yeah. cause a 8yo hires people and exploits them for profit while also buying up neighbors stands and closing them so they remain a monopoly. lol.
Careful with that rhetorical question or they’ll bring out a bunch of nutjobs books and ask you to read through untested and unrealistic theory from the past hundred years and then call you unintellectual for choosing the dictionary and textbook definitions over their pseudoscience.
deleted by creator
Humans did invent lemons to enjoy them, though. It was a very large and organized undertaking which led to commercial success for Egypt.
deleted by creator
and during a time … before capitalism. ;)
But not before capital. It was state controlled common economy. Common economy are basically proto communism.
And capitalism and communism both rely on capital. Just the controlling sector changes for the purposes of differentiating a common economy vs a modern capitalistic or communistic economy.
TBH Egypt was everything Communists claim about Capitalism. Idk why you would think otherwise.
Capitalism describes the division of labour and profits, not the purchasing of goods. YOU are not theCapital in capitalism unless you are working for the profits of the owner. The root word of Capitalism is Caput, meaning head or cattle. Capitalism’s root definition is basically the ownership of cattle or chattel.
According to? The Soviets made it to space before we did, and China currently fabricates the vast majority of that technology. Technology isn’t native to any economic structure.
But capital is. Both Russia and China are fighting for capital.
With the space race the capital was military research, propaganda and money.
In China it’s just money military research and propaganda
No different than the United States where the capital is money, military research and propaganda
End of the day it’s all just capital. How it’s controlled and what the capital is changes.
But it all still the same thing being fought over.
I would argue that is a better semantic dispute, but still forced. You can interpret things as political capital, technological capital, or even militaristic capital… But it becomes a little over done pretty quickly. There are better and more accurate ways to describe these claims than to claim everything is capital.
deleted by creator
Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.
Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn’t changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system…
Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?
Over a long enough time scale, a different economic system would have pressures towards different goods and services.
Why there would be definitely some similarities. A modern economic system such as capitalism and communism would result in two very invastly different things.
While baseline technology would probably look, if not be the same, what is then used for and developed for would be different.
For example, it’s more likely in a communist system that AI would be developed far more rapidly than we saw under capitalism.
While capitalism pushes towards something like ads and monetizing information. Communism would push towards the acceleration and simplification of outmoding the worker entirely.
For capitalism outmoding the worker is just a side effect of saving money. It’s not the goal. Under communism, it would be the goal since it would create the best possible circumstances for people to be able to live a equal life given the highest benefit of the communal progression.
Different systems have different goals to argue that the same things would be created in the same order is just bad faith. Even arguing that things would be created exactly. The same is bad faith.
A quick jump through the history books and even a service level understanding of History can prove that. The concept of simultaneous invention shows as much. The printing press is a fantastic example.
Invented hundred years apart in two entirely different parts of the world. One barely used and quickly forgotten because their system of governance, economy and society did not see much of a point to it. While the other is what revolutionized the world.
Different systems invent different things because they have different goals. Even when they do invent, the same thing doesn’t mean it’ll be used or even valued and thus never improved on.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we’re engaging in an angry argument? At least, I’m not upset. I think I’m just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?
So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don’t really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.
You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.
You too.
deleted by creator
Absolutely nothing requires the only two options to be capitalisim and planned economy. Market socialism is a thing.
Idk kind of sounds like capitalism with extra steps. Seems like the major difference between people who oppose capitalism and everyone else is just how they define the word.
What exactly does the meme imply the solution is? State operated companies? Only allowing cooperative companies? Lynching CEOs and hoping the next batch will be better, AKA “doing a luigi”?
The reason it isn’t capitalism with extra steps is that the defining trait of capitalism vs socialism isn’t the presence of markets (which long predate capitalism as a distinct concept), but rather who owns what and how that ownership is justified and structured. Now, arguably market socialism is more similar to capitalism than a planned economy is, but capitalism doesn’t just mean an unplanned economy either (as those, again, are much more ancient than the term implies).
I don’t think the meme implies any particular solution. To be honest, it doesn’t really even imply a problem to be solved. To my eyes it just looks like it’s just mocking a particular argument used to defend capitalism, without really communicating much beyond a distaste for that argument and presumably with capitalism in general.
deleted by creator
Why would anyone build beepers if there are no mobile phones? That’s an entire wireless infrastructure that doesn’t need to be created or maintained. Beepers were the impetus for early wireless repeaters and signal towers. Phones created the data and load bearing standards but the hardware was built for the devices before phones.
In a planned economy the onus is on the person to be where they need to make or receive a call. Like the 70s and rotary phones. “Plan your day around what the day has planned for you” is what one of the most annoying teachers I’ve ever had said and it’s the perfect model for blaming the individual for problems outside their control. And that’s why central planners will use it to deflect from criticism.
deleted by creator