589
Just one more reform bro
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
589 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
50363 readers
730 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
No, Capitalism is just one Mode of Production, a relatively new one, in a long chain of them. It isn't the first, and will not be the last unless we nuke ourselves to death or Climate Change kills us all.
Human nature is malleable, it is determined by material conditions, ie the surroundings and experiences, including the economic formation of society. As society shifts in Mode of Prodiction, "Human Nature" shifts with it.
Further, Capitalism is not simply using currency to trade. It arose only a few hundred years ago. Currency existed back in feudal eras, despite predating Capitalism. Capitalism specifically arose primarily with technologies like the Steam Engine. More generally, Capitalism is more about turning a sum of money into a larger sum of money through paying wage laborers to create commodities using Capital you own, competing within a market where this is the principle aspect of the economy.
This system is relatively new, and is already being phased out in Socialist countries like the PRC.
You're conflating production with Capitalism, and ignoring that the principle ownership of China's economy is public, not private. I don't think you've genuinely engaged with Socialism as a concept, you are over-generalizing Capitalism to periods and forms of production it doesn't apply to.
I think even deeper than that, they just conflate Capitalism with economics. There's a good bit to what you're saying too, though. They see anything outside traditional notions of economics as utopian.
Yep, seems like they are writing themselves into pretzels with contradictory stances.
It's a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren't Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren't the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren't the owners.
That's like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That's not really accurate in reality.
The reason you're running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you're basically using it as a catch-all term for "economics."
Not at all, government officials don't work that way.
What do you think Capitalism is? Roughly when did it first appear? What's Socialism?
You're getting farther and farther away from your original point.
I'm well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.
If you want a recommendation, Nia Frome's An Extremely Condensed Summary of Capital can put you on the right path in about 20 minutes.
All roads lead to present thing
Person experiencing present thing
Capitalism is not when money.
Capitalism is when you make companies the government.
Trade =/= capitalism. Capitalism is maximum enrichment for a few at the cost of the many. "Capitalizing on an opportunity" doesn't usually seem to get interpreted as "get what I need and hopefully what I want in an exchange that is equitable, just, fair, and negotiable to all parties"; instead, the common meaning seems to be "get all that I can as quick as I can in exchange for the least possible expense on my part", which is not even a full step away from 'The Tragedy of the Commons, ' or, "if there's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want or need, then everyone who takes as much as they need is evil, and if someone is going to be evil AND ALSO have enough than that person is damn well going to be me." THAT'S capitalism.
The endgame is companies buying politicians and eventually writing laws to favor themselves.
Corruption is an all time classic but capitalism takes it to the extreme.
The credo of capitalism is free market and deregulation.
No it can't
Capitalism has only been around for a tiny portion of human history
I get that these reductive analogies are enticing ways of digesting the world around you, but you really have to take the time to learn about political economies and their characteristics from actual experts if you want to talk about it in a way that makes any sort of sense.
This and your previous comment kind of read like a bunch of platitudinous concepts haphazardly thrown together from a lot of fiction and short-form content.
Such has been the present interpretation of the course of recorded history. Recorded most often by conquerors, looking favorably upon the the ends of their conquest to justify their means, and if you boil just about every single conquering ideology down for long enough, you will see two things, in this order: greed for what the conquered populace had, and fear of not having enough.
That's not "human nature," that's a response to human nature. Most of us would probably generally prefer to go on living. For many people, that looks like "i just need my necessities covered and I'll figure out the rest." Historically this happened by banding together and looking out for one another, not by hoarding resources and making people do extra work just to fucking exist with a modicum of comfort in a society forever dangling a golden carrot to keep you distracted from the meat grinder. (Edit for formatting)
OK I'm actually a noob at formatting and i have no idea how i even did that giant text