this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
127 points (91.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43831 readers
729 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
127
What is the definition of capitalism? Is it compatible with people owning the things they produce? (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

@o_o@programming.dev asked "why are folks so anti-capitalist?" not long ago. It got quite a few comments. But I noticed a trend: a lot of people there didn't agree on the definition of "capitalism".

And the lack of common definition was hobbling the entire discussion. So I wanted to ask a precursor question. One that needs to be asked before anybody can even start talking about whether capitalism is helpful or good or necessary.

Main Question

  • What is capitalism?
  • Since your answer above likely included the word "capital", what is capital?
  • And either,
    • A) How does capitalism empower people to own what they produce? or, (if you believe the opposite,)
    • B) How does capitalism strip people of their control over what they produce?

Bonus Questions (mix and match or take them all or ignore them altogether)

  1. Say you are an individual who sells something you create. Are you a capitalist?
  2. If you are the above person, can you exist in both capitalist society and one in which private property has been abolished?
  3. Say you create and sell some product regularly (as above), but have more orders than you can fulfill alone. Is there any way to expand your operation and meet demand without using capitalist methods (such as hiring wage workers or selling your recipes / process to local franchisees for a cut of their proceeds, etc)?
  4. Is the distinction between a worker cooperative and a more traditional business important? Why is the distinction important?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What are you going on about? You're not reading what I said, and at this point this level of "ignorance" really seems deliberate and in bad faith.

Anarchy isn't "no regulations", it's "no hierarchies". Yes, "no regulations" is considerably easier to accomplish (temporarily) than "no hierarchies", but that's not what the word means. If you want to talk about unregulated capitalism, do so. There's nothing anarchic about it though. As you admit, capitalism spontaneously generates hierarchy in a vacuum.

"No hierarchies" is substantially more difficult to attain, but that's what the word means, and the synonym is communism. I'm not here, like you apparently are, to speak to the pragmatism of that ideology. I will repeat, slowly, since I've done so many times without your understanding and I wish to do so no longer:

COMMUNISM IS NOT STABLE IN THE PRESENT WORLD

THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS DEFINITION

THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHORITY PRECLUDES COMMUNISM

IDEOLOGIES WITH AUTHORITY ARE NOT COMMUNISM

MANY AUTHORITIES HAVE CLAIMED TO BE COMMUNISM

THEY ARE LYING, IT IS A CONTRACTION

I'm not going to keep saying the same thing. I'm done. Either you can't read or you're trolling, deliberately misunderstanding in bad faith. Reread my statements. I thought my last post quite deftly cut to the heart of it, you keep taking past me to a conversation I'm not having. You're taking to yourself, or a ghost of the conversation you think you're having, or there's an inefficiency in translation.

Review my posts. I'm done. Das Gespräch ist kaputt. There is no continuation.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone's got a temper, and someone believes he's the only one who is allowed to define terms.

Seems like a case of "ex falso quodlibet".

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Emphasis, not anger. Necessary due only to your continued disregard.

I did not define my terms, I used their definitions. You're the one trying to provide unique definitions.

Again, I'm done. Everything I have to say I've said already. Review for clarity.