|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Capitalism is economics. Adam Smith created economics. Marx and his progeny is faux-economics. If it is thought that Marx, socialism, or communism adds to the understanding of economics (other than providing information about what doesn't work), then it is likewise that astrologists add to the understanding of astronomy and cosmology.
This is more hogwash, really. I mean... I can assume that you have a point, but why do you make me pull it out of you?
Capitalism is not economics. I have already described many examples of economic exchange which are not capitalistic.
Tell me how me sharing things with my family is capitalism. We don't charge anything for the sharing, we don't expect anything in return, not even future sharing. There is trust between us which holds this bond in balance. This is a very micro-scale example, obviously, but I have explored less micro examples of market exchanges which are not based on the direct exchange of capital. Ergo, they are not capitalistic in nature, even though they are made by capitalists.
***
To equate what Marx wrote to any real-world government is a false comparison. To say that socialism and communism are identical is equally scandalous. Socialism is voluntary sharing. Communism is enforced sharing.
If you keep uniting words' definitions when there is practical and historical reason to treat the concepts separately, then that is a bold move which demands results. You're stripping nuance from these concepts. You need to show that the nuances are irrelevant, or at the very least distracting from a deeper understanding.
What is the benefit of this unified perspective on understanding things?
|
Reply With Quote