Technology ConnectionsIn re: some conversations I've had in other places (real and online)
A lot of people in leftist circles seem to begin conversations on step 8 and are surprised when the person they're talking to isn't receptive.
Ya gotta start on step 1.
There's a whole host of good people out there who - believe it or not! - are still using cold war vocabulary. They have not read the theory and whipping out "capitalism bad" freaks them the fuck out.
They usually want the same thing as you do, but it's your job to help them see it. And it starts with meeting them where they're at. Step 1.
AKingsburyI find that, for every 1000 people who express a hatred for capitalism, 999 struggle to define it and express an actual, specific objection to it.
Wave@AlexanderKingsbury @TechConnectify The wealth in the current American capitalism is failing to reach the lower class and poverty keeps squeezing the middle class out of existence. I dislike that companies like Google, Amazon, Tesla, Etc know more about my walking and commerce patterns than I do and Theres no way to tell them no. I dont use their products to begin with but because those around me do they can still build a profile on me.
You happy? What else do you need?
You happy? What else do you need?
I'm generally pretty happy, yes. Could you please define capitalism?
random_regret@AlexanderKingsbury @jame @TechConnectify
Ok so I know you're going for an easy gotcha, but I'm going to take the time to respond anyway. The reason why nobody can give you a good answer to that is essentially because your way of phrasing the question comes from a philosophical tradition that is very different from the one that the term "Capitalism" comes from.
I'd guess that your background is probably in the anglo-saxon tradition where usually you will go at a problem by precisely defining every term and then going through them step by step, like a logical puzzle. In that kind of tradition, a discussion ends up looking like a game of chess, where each player lays out their deductions one after the other until one of them gains the upper hand and demonstrates why their definitions and logical connections are better able to explain reality than the ones of the other person.
The tradition that terms like Capitalism come from is nothing like this. Many of the early leftist authors were author-activists. Their reason for writing was because they couldn't bear the political and economic situation in their countries and the violent abuse they saw people suffer at the hands of bosses and the police. So the term Capitalism arose to try to find a framework in which to make sense of why suddenly all of the serfs were being forced to move to the cities and thefactories, why the Kings were losing power to the men who owned the factories, why what used to be taken care of by custom and tradition was suddenly more and more integrated into the market, etc. etc. It was a change that was obviously happening at the time they were writing about it, not just a theoretical term tothrow into a discussion for clout. They developed the term to claim that all of those things are connected, and they attempted to explain in what way they are connected. And in many ways that is still what leftist theory is trying to do now.
So then what we talk about when we talk about Capitalism are the consequences of this broad historical shift in how society is structured. And that manifests in myriad ways, but the point is that something definitely is up. And so if you ask "how do you define capitalism" there's really no cut-and-dry answer to that. Because we're not just talking about something that can be circumscribed within a simple 5 point checklist. Which, granted, makes us horrible at discussions, haha. I hoped that helped somewhat.
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
No, I am not "going for an easy gotcha". That's a totally baseless accusation to make, and suggests that you are not approaching the conversation in an honest, mutually respectful manner. It's ad hominem, plain and simple.
@AlexanderKingsbury @random_regret @TechConnectify " YOU CAN'T MAKE A VALID CRITIQUE OF MY METHODOLOGY FOR ARGUMENTS SO YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS WRONG " ass comment. PLEASE go back to Reddit bro.
@jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
Please feel free to let me know if you ever come up with an actual definition.
@AlexanderKingsbury @TechConnectify @[email protected] Put the fries in the bag lil bro. I'm not taking your bait.
As usual; plenty of complaints about capitalism, totally unable or unwilling to even attempt to define it. With some cheap personal attacks tossed on for good measure.
Thank you for making clear the quality of discourse you provide.
@AlexanderKingsbury @TechConnectify Why dont you define it for me then? Tell me why my critiques are wrong based on your definition instead of being a snide asshole?
Or would that give me too much room to make a valid counterargument. What a cocksucker.
Or would that give me too much room to make a valid counterargument. What a cocksucker.
ChemicalTribe@AlexanderKingsbury
Capitalism - means of production owned by capitalists.
Actions of capitalists: reduce costs and maximize profit. Puts capital first.
@jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
Capitalism - means of production owned by capitalists.
Actions of capitalists: reduce costs and maximize profit. Puts capital first.
@jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
@ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
"Capitalism - means of production owned by capitalists."
Then what is a capitalist? Because if you define it by using "capitalism", you've got yourself a self-referential set of definitions.
"Actions of capitalists: reduce costs and maximize profit. Puts capital first."
So if I find someone who owns means of production but does not to everything they can to maximize profit, they aren't a capitalist?
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify According Karl Marx, who strongly contributed to the popularization of the term, Capitalism is the economic and political system in which the means of production are the private property of a class that sustains itself through the control of those means and sits in opposition of the working class. The working class in a capitalist society can only gain access to the means of production by trading in part of the value of their work for it.
For all the nuances, criticisms and developments following this definition, refer to my previous comment and to two centuries of philosophical, economic and social scientific scholarship. The use of the term Capitalism can vary between a descriptive, more open ended empirical scope and a more abstract theoretical term. As with all terms used in the social sciences, it can be fuzzy in edge cases and has to be adjusted to the issue at hand in order to be useful.
For all the nuances, criticisms and developments following this definition, refer to my previous comment and to two centuries of philosophical, economic and social scientific scholarship. The use of the term Capitalism can vary between a descriptive, more open ended empirical scope and a more abstract theoretical term. As with all terms used in the social sciences, it can be fuzzy in edge cases and has to be adjusted to the issue at hand in order to be useful.
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
So you offer a definition...kind of. It turns out it's "fuzzy in edge cases", that is can vary from being descriptive to being more abstract. This does not seem, to me, to be a useful definition.
"The working class...can only gain access to the means of production by trading in part of the value of their work for it."
Okay. Do they then become capitalists?
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify First, to the worker thing: No, what was meant by "access" is that they are allowed by the Capitalist to use the means of production, not that they come to own them. I.e. If you want to make tires, you need a tire factory, rubber, etc. The worker in the tire factory does not own any of that, but they are allowed to use them and earn a wage that is determined by the Capitalist.
This definition is 150 years old at this point, and there have been thousands of people critiquing, improving and modifying it since then. I'm sure you'll understand that I can't summarize more than a century of theory development in a mastodon thread. But feel free to pick up any introductory text to "das Kapital" and they will probably do a better job explaining this than me.
But then I also have my own issues with this definition by Marx. It's a good one, and it's very influential, but I think with the years a lot has changed. For example, I think that platform Capitalism does not so easily fit into that definition. You might "own" your car as an Uber driver, but it's still useless without having access to the app, which becomes the real means of production. Things like that. But then again it's not Marx' fault that he didn't predict Uber.
And to your point about the fuzziness. That's a very common feature of definitions in many areas actually. Think for example about legal definitions. There might be many cases where it is not entirely clear if something counts as murder or not. But that doesn't mean that murder is not a real phenomenon, or that the people who wrote the law were in any way confused or wrong about it. It just means that when you try to put a social, human phenomenon into words, you will almost always have to deal with some outliers. For an interesting example of this, you can also look up Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, where he tries an interesting way to work around this issue.
And in addition to the fundamental issue of putting social phenomena into words, you also have very different approaches in different disciplines. An economic historian might give you a different definition of capitalism than a philosopher, a sociologist, etc. But that also does not mean that they're confused or anything. All of those disciplines just have different areas of focus.
It's like how a lawyer might define death very different from a doctor or a priest. That however does not mean that death is not real or in most cases undesirable. It just means that different aspects are important to their profession.
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
"But then I also have my own issues with this definition by Marx."
Wait, so not only is it fuzzy and only sometimes applicable, you don't even fully support it?
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
Yeah, that's what I just said and gave like 5 paragraphs of arguments for
Yeah, that's what I just said and gave like 5 paragraphs of arguments for
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
So when I brought up that no one who complains about capitalism seems to be able to provide an actual definition for it that they can meaningfully critique capitalism using, you provided a vague, sometimes applicable one that you don't support?
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify My friend, I can only write, I can not make you read or comprehend what I've written.
If you read carefully through my comments you will find a pretty thorough explanation of my approach and my reasoning for it.
If you read carefully through my comments you will find a pretty thorough explanation of my approach and my reasoning for it.
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
I have read your comments, and I'm still not clear on why you would try to present a definition you don't even support.
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify That's ok, maybe this is not the right forum for this conversation, or maybe I just didn't do a good enough job. But at this point I'm really at a loss about what you want to hear from me. And besides, this is starting to take a toll on my mood.
So all I feel like I can do now is just recommend that you pick up a book on the topic or maybe look up an introductory seminar on social theory or something. If, like you say you do, you have a genuine interest in understanding where people are coming from, that might be a good place to start.
So all I feel like I can do now is just recommend that you pick up a book on the topic or maybe look up an introductory seminar on social theory or something. If, like you say you do, you have a genuine interest in understanding where people are coming from, that might be a good place to start.
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
"But at this point I'm really at a loss about what you want to hear from me."
If you can ever bring yourself to it, I'd like to hear an actual, clear definition of capitalism that you actually support.
@AlexanderKingsbury @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify You know, there is this old story. It's about a man from the countryside who wanted to go see the university. He comes to campus, grabs a professor and asks him to show him the university. The professor takes him around the place and shows him all the different buildings and facilities. While they're walking, the man from the country becomes visibly more and more frustrated. At the end the professor asks him what he thought of the tour, and the man from the countryside replies: "You've shown me the dorms, the lecture halls, the administrative buildings and all that. But professor, why can't you now finally show me the university?"
You are the man from the country in this story. It's not that people don't want to answer you, it's just that your frame of reference is wrong.
@random_regret @ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify
No, I have many times asked people to define this thing for me, this thing they hate and rail against and decry. And yet, apparently, none of them can. I know it's possible; proponents do it all the time. But people who can't fall back on silence or condescension. "I suggest you READ A BOOK". "Even considered an introductory seminar, old man?".
Meh. More of the same.
@AlexanderKingsbury
That's because you are looking at capitalism in a vacuum.
Simple question, do you prefer democracy, or rule by social status?
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
That's because you are looking at capitalism in a vacuum.
Simple question, do you prefer democracy, or rule by social status?
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
@AlexanderKingsbury
Look bro, if you want to limit the goal post to a definition of capitalism, that's fine. You are basically trying to say fire isn't bad because all it is, is a chemical reation, aka, combustion with oxygen, that gives off energy/heat and light.
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
Look bro, if you want to limit the goal post to a definition of capitalism, that's fine. You are basically trying to say fire isn't bad because all it is, is a chemical reation, aka, combustion with oxygen, that gives off energy/heat and light.
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
@ChemicalTribe @random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
I'm not limiting the conversation to that. I just think it's appropriate for you to answer clear, reasonable questions if you would like me to do the same. Would you?
@AlexanderKingsbury
You cannot ask that of anyone when you aren't willing to do the same. That's being a concern troll to borderline sealioning.
So, either answer my earlier questions, or don't bother at all.
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
You cannot ask that of anyone when you aren't willing to do the same. That's being a concern troll to borderline sealioning.
So, either answer my earlier questions, or don't bother at all.
@random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
@ChemicalTribe @random_regret @jame @TechConnectify
I am willing to do the same. I simply asked you that question well before you asked me; it seems reasonable to want the question that was asked first to be answered first. You are, of course, also free to make empty accusations and engage in personal attacks, if you prefer.
@AlexanderKingsbury
It would be owned by private individuals, but not the workers. Regarding the second point, yes, still a capitalist, because they own the means of production. I'm self employed and own all my means to do my work. If I hire 3 people who don't own the company and pay them wages, still capitalist. If I beccome a co-op, then the employees could have more power over decisions and share ownership. Sometimes @jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
It would be owned by private individuals, but not the workers. Regarding the second point, yes, still a capitalist, because they own the means of production. I'm self employed and own all my means to do my work. If I hire 3 people who don't own the company and pay them wages, still capitalist. If I beccome a co-op, then the employees could have more power over decisions and share ownership. Sometimes @jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
that's as easy as stock. That would be then moving toward socialism, since they would have more power with me, the owner as being owners with me. And if I suck, they could kick me out.
Really, you see this in real life play out when small companies are generally more amicable to work for vs big souless corps.
@jame @TechConnectify @random_regret @AlexanderKingsbury
Really, you see this in real life play out when small companies are generally more amicable to work for vs big souless corps.
@jame @TechConnectify @random_regret @AlexanderKingsbury
@ChemicalTribe @jame @TechConnectify @random_regret
So what is a "capitalist"?