this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1211 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
59339 readers
5271 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capitalism is the concentration of society around capital, hence the name capital-ism.
Here's a definition of capital:
: a stock (see STOCK entry 1 sense 1a) of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income set capital and land and labor to work —G. B. Shaw see also VENTURE CAPITAL b (1) : net worth : excess of assets over liabilities (2) : STOCK sense 2a see also CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL STOCK, EQUITY CAPITAL c : persons holding capital : capitalists considered as a group d : ADVANTAGE, GAIN make capital of the situation e : a store or supply of useful assets or advantages
So Capitalism doesn't give a shit about free market, workers, ethics, consumers, nation, environment etc, only about capital. Which is why Capitalism is good for the stock holders, yet bad for everyone else. Because stock holders will do anything for their capital.
I'm not sure why you're defining "capital".
capitalism
/ˈkapɪtəlɪz(ə)m/
*noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
"an era of free-market capitalism"*
This includes your labor: you are the private owner of your labor. Capitalism is not possible without free markets.
Mostly for myself.
The pointing i'm failing to make is you speak of Capitalism the same way others speak of Communism, of an ideal stateof mind where everyone plays nice and does what they're supposed to. But few people do. Most play dirty and don't respect these definitions. Like you say, the imagination is nice, however it's reality that annoys and people come to hate and harm each other when profit is more important that coexistence.
I don't think there is an inherent ethical value ascribed to capitalism...it's just a description of an economic system. It can be good or bad. It's a broad description at that too.
It is apt to say capitalism inherently lacks ethics. And in a world where competition is the main attribute describing society, that lack is what breeds success. Which is why one could even exaggerate and say that capitalism fosters sociopathy. Individuals that grow to lose their sense of ethics are favoured and more likely to succeed in positions of power, while those restricted by their morals are quickly pushed aside. So while we say capitalism can be good or bad, it is more likely that it leans towards the bad.
I defend capitalism because I don't want to live under communism. That doesn't however mean that I'm a huge fan of the status quo either. Ofcourse I want more fair distribution of wealth, and that factories stop dumping waste into rivers etc. What I don't want, however, is that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't advocate for that we just pull the plug on capitalism, whatever that even means. I'd much rather try and fix what's wrong with it with better rules and regulations. Even if you think that's impossible, it still sure is easier that rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up, and thinking you'll succeed on the first try.
Capitalism depends on the selfishness of the individual and their ability to extract the highest value with the lowest cost. Communism depends heavily if not fully on ethics. We are definitely not an ethical people. So you are correct the former is more preferable to the latter, because it's easier to implement. You cannot depend on ethics unless those ethics create the highest value at the lowest cost for the individual. So the key would be to make restrictions that inspire the ethical approach over cutting corners. If that is possible, then whichever system is used, they are more likely to be better than the alternative.
That's cool but, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Source