Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[MadMojoMonkey]

You think I should be more tedious?

I won't argue that I could be easier to understand. That's definitely true. Communication through text is a skill I feel I lack. There is probably a way that I could spend less time clarifying my statements. But I think the opposite of (C). It's because of how deeply I've considered these concepts that I feel free to call capitalism and markets the same thing. Granted, that is very confusing to others and doing so is a mistake on my part.

I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.

If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.


For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.

Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.

The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.

My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.

[wufwugy]

I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.

If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.

They say that when somebody says you're doing something wrong, they're right. I'll keep what you say in mind.

For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.

Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.

I intend to rustle your jimmies further :snickerface:

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.

The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.

I think this touches on something super cool.

My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.

I do not think I am conflating the two. I think I'm arguing for the framework that drives the human endeavor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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?

[wufwugy]

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.

I was just mostly trying to show you how frustrating I can be. I'm not sure I would want to argue that capitalism is economics even though I think I would make that case if I was pushed into a corner. I would do so by claiming that capitalism is the only branch that successfully describes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods. I think markets are the philosophy behind it all and are the best known framework to deal with when it comes to economic behavior.

Don't read too much into this. It would mean I've been way too successful with my arguments and I'm pushing the edge as much as I can.

***
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?

There is less nuance to the concepts than it may seem. Socialism and communism have the same philosophic framework. Communism differs only in that it's more rigorous and an extreme version of the philosophy. Since the USSR fell, socialism has sprouted up in redefined ways by people who benefit from their capitalist roots yet don't seem to realize they're trying to give their socialistic emperor new clothes. The claim that socialism is not forced sharing arises out of the capitalist view, where capitalists would be free to share communally. Socialism is by definition forced sharing. Capitalism allows communal sharing.

I think a mistake people make is saying that instances where communal sharing is chosen is socialism. You can technically get away with this if you wish to disregard everything else at play. The reason is that markets are the reason why there can be choice for communal sharing, and markets are not a product of enacted socialism. I think it is disingenuous to argue for socialism by such a myopic definition. Historically it has been an entirely different thing. The world split in two because of it, and we're the progeny that lives to tell the tale of which side lost and which side won.