"Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:19 pm UTC

markets do not constitute capitalism. markets are organic. capitalism is not.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:26 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:traditional capitalist


lol

Capitalism is way too fucking new to be called a "traditional" economic mode anywhere, but particularly since it didn't even really begin arriving in Joseon Korea until around the turn of the 20th century.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Ranbot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:18 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:markets do not constitute capitalism. markets are organic. capitalism is not.

If someone is maximizing their wealth via a market they are being capitalistic. Whether they are trading stocks on wall street, running a sidewalk lemonade stand, or trading yams for a chicken, they are trying to maximize their personal wealth and that is capitalism.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:25 am UTC

not unless they're leveraging their prior ownership of something to extract that wealth from someone with less, it's not
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:05 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:Whether they are trading stocks on wall street


Capitalism.

running a sidewalk lemonade stand

Not capitalism.

trading yams for a chicken

Not capitalism.

they are trying to maximize their personal wealth and that is capitalism.


No,it's not.

That's a definition so broad as to render it pointless.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Ranbot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:55 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:not unless they're leveraging their prior ownership of something to extract that wealth from someone with less, it's not

That's a world view and none of that is in the definition of capitalism. You can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, but your opinion will carry more weight if you used terms in the same way the rest of society does.

capitalism noun
cap·i·tal·ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə- , British also kə-ˈpi-tə- \
Definition of Capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:30 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:traditional capitalist


lol

Capitalism is way too fucking new to be called a "traditional" economic mode anywhere, but particularly since it didn't even really begin arriving in Joseon Korea until around the turn of the 20th century.


The west didn't invent capitalism. Or rather, we didn't have a monopoly on it, it arose in a number of places. You can read about the dislike of merchants in old tibetan texts, if you wish.

Pfhorrest wrote:not unless they're leveraging their prior ownership of something to extract that wealth from someone with less, it's not


Even if you require that, this is an arrangement that is not unique to the 20th century in the east. The kye system*, for instance, is communal lending, but with interest. It's not exactly the same as traditional western financial instruments of the same time period, but it definitely allowed people to increase wealth by virtue of having wealth.

*The korean name for it, I believe. Chinese uses Hui for a sort of similar lending club arrangement.

However, as stated, the definition of Capitalism is broader than just moneylending and the like.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:35 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:That's a world view and none of that is in the definition of capitalism. You can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, but your opinion will carry more weight if you used terms in the same way the rest of society does.

It's not a worldview, it's the definition of the thing that people who say they're "against capitalism" are against. Then you and the rest of the brainwashed shitfucks in the world with no understanding of history go and change the meaning to something much more innocuous and act like we're crazy for being against that, while depriving us of any words with which to express what we're actually against. It's fucking Orwellian and I'm not going along with it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:02 pm UTC

Plenty of words out there. If you're against rent seeking, cool.

I do find it a bit amusing to discuss these two definitions under the heading of the ridiculously overbroad claim made in the title, though.

Anyways, capitalism arises organically across many cultures(using the broad modern term for capitalism), and so too does rent seeking. Parallel discovery, in some cases. That doesn't make capitalism(or any other broadly discovered thing) necessarily permanent, though. The bow and arrow was used pretty much everywhere, but plenty of pacific islander cultures had the bow at some point, but then largely lost them.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Ranbot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:10 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:...you and the rest of the brainwashed shitfucks...

Thanks buddy. You might want to refresh yourself on Rule #3.

Pfhorrest wrote:
Ranbot wrote:That's a world view and none of that is in the definition of capitalism. You can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, but your opinion will carry more weight if you used terms in the same way the rest of society does.

It's not a worldview, it's the definition of the thing that people who say they're "against capitalism" are against. Then you and the rest of the brainwashed shitfucks in the world with no understanding of history go and change the meaning to something much more innocuous and act like we're crazy for being against that, while depriving us of any words with which to express what we're actually against. It's fucking Orwellian and I'm not going along with it.

"Orwellian" is an ironic word to use in your retort, since George Orwell was an ardent supporter of democratic socialism, and that word originates from his critique of communism and totalitarianism (and yes I know you're smart enough to know this already). Who is being Orwellian now? Who is changing language to suit an ideology? But whatever, I'm not arguing with you whether it's the chicken's or the egg's fault for why we have the words we have to communicate with. If you don't want to use the language as the rest of the "brainwashed shitfucks" then go live on your own island somewhere where we can't hear each other. If you choose to stay here in this society, then you should speak the same language [metaphorically].

I've been reading back through this thread, and I think it really interesting that when you or Thresh are confronted with some difficult evidence or challenge to your worldview you fall back on really nasty insults. It's shocking how many insults Tyndmyr took and he calmly responded every time (better than I am being right now). He is trying to understand; trying to understand can include challenging the other person. If you and Thresh really want to change world for the better, you could learn something from Tyndmyr. Learning doesn't require agreeing.

He also made a really good point about manipulation of language within sub-cultures that was totally ignored, but he pointed out a perfect analogy for what many proponents of socialism are doing here so I'm going to re-quote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If you use non standard definitions, you need to define your language, rather than assuming everyone is speaking the same language as you. Look, have you ever talked to men's rights advocates? It's similar. They use a lot of invented lingo, including a lot of overloaded words with special meaning only to them. Often instead of using perfectly reasonable, clear language that already exists. And of course, they do this in order to pretend themselves clever, and endlessly bash anyone who disagrees with them. After a few such experiences, one concludes that while, in theory it might be possible to have a reasoned debate with someone holding such ideals, in practice it's nigh impossible because they have made it so.


Poke around in the communities of anti-vaxxers or far-right evangelical Christians and you'll find similar coded language as the example above. You'll also find a lot of really nasty insults directed at anyone who disagrees with them. I guarantee those other communities think they are smarter, special, and/or superior than the majority of people outside their group; sub-cultures thrive on those beliefs. Who doesn't doesn't want to feel smarter than everyone else? It's very alluring. It feels good to be in the know. Tribalistic even. Be careful you're not falling into the same trap.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

I throw harsh language around because I'm generally angry all the fucking time because my life is shit and I don't have the peace of mind to be calm about things, especially things that I've been over and over and over with a thousand different people a thousand times and don't have any fucking patience for anymore.

mods wanna lock this thread or whatever because of that, let them, i don't give a shit anymore

re: Orwellianism, you get that I am accusing you and the other capitalists of changing language to suit YOUR ideology, right? The word senses socialists use in criticising capitalism are the older ones, it's capitalists who changed them to make their ideology sound more innocuous than it is.

It's like if the majority of people ended up saying "chemtrails" instead of "contrails", and people who are opposed to the chemtrail conspiracy theory continue to use the correct words and say things like "there are no such things as chemtrails" and then people point at contrails and say the anti-conspiracy-theorists are obviously crazy because look, there's a "chemtrail" right there. When the anti-conspiracy-theorist is not denying the existence of those long streaks of cloud in the sky, just the origin of them supposed by the word "chemtrail", a claim that it's not possible to even discuss if you take "chemtrail" to just mean the same thing as "contrail".

Anyone can sound crazy if you change what you take their words to mean and interpret them to be saying something they're not!
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

Appreciate the complement re: tolerance!

It is extremely true within the christian right, and I believe it may be a fairly common element to nearly all cult/cult-like behavior. Make enough in-group language, and it becomes extremely easy to tell insiders from outsiders, and discourages communication with outsiders. This sort of equates socialists with a cult, which is not entirely correct...but the communication difficulty appears to be similar.

Pfhorrest wrote:re: Orwellianism, you get that I am accusing you and the other capitalists of changing language to suit YOUR ideology, right? The word senses socialists use in criticising capitalism are the older ones, it's capitalists who changed them to make their ideology sound more innocuous than it is.


Language changes are not guaranteed to be neutral, sure. They benefit someone, mostly whoever's viewpoint is popular. There are exceptions for specialized domains of language, but it's still largely popularity within that subset.

So yeah, the current definition of capitalism is definitely a more positive one than the one commonly used by anti-capitalists. But that's because it's the definition that people mostly find useful. It's not a definition being forced on the masses by authority.

It's like if the majority of people ended up saying "chemtrails" instead of "contrails", and people who are opposed to the chemtrail conspiracy theory continue to use the correct words and say things like "there are no such things as chemtrails" and then people point at contrails and say the anti-conspiracy-theorists are obviously crazy because look, there's a "chemtrail" right there. When the anti-conspiracy-theorist is not denying the existence of those long streaks of cloud in the sky, just the origin of them supposed by the word "chemtrail", a claim that it's not possible to even discuss if you take "chemtrail" to just mean the same thing as "contrail".

Anyone can sound crazy if you change what you take their words to mean and interpret them to be saying something they're not!


Well, yes. But this sounds crazy because you're using a meaning that's currently non-standard. If the other definitions were standard, it wouldn't be odd at all. Words are just series of letters and sounds. Whatever everyone accepts as the definition is the definition.

The anti-capitalists come across as the crazy ones, precisely because they're the ones using a non-standard definition. Just as using "chemtrail" in that fashion comes across as crazy nowadays.

Now, I don't mind a deprecated usage being pulled out now and again. Sometimes we must, for proper historical context. But declaring that language must not change is sort of an impossible fight. That doesn't happen until a language dies. One can't just reject the currently most common definition as not real, and not face difficulty in conversing with others.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Ranbot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:32 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:...especially things that I've been over and over and over with a thousand different people a thousand times and don't have any fucking patience for anymore...

re: Orwellianism, you get that I am accusing you and the other capitalists of changing language to suit YOUR ideology, right? The word senses socialists use in criticising capitalism are the older ones, it's capitalists who changed them to make their ideology sound more innocuous than it is.

If you're accusing me of something then you need to provide the evidence. That's just fair and common decency that holds true from a courtroom to kindergarten.

I don't have time now, but later I promise to read through every post you made here to see if I missed your explanation of how capitalists changed the language of socialism to make their ideology more innocuous. If I missed it, then I'll take the blame.

In the mean time though it's very easy to point out that the quintessential works of capitalism and communism that we look back on today at least are Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations written in 1776, and Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, respectively. The latter one had a lot to say about the former, including attempts to redefine many terms established by the former. Maybe that's too simplistic though....

Also, does it even matter if terms changes or who did it? All language is fluid and malleable with the times. Language lives today, it is what it is now. It wouldn't help anyone understand me if I decided Shakespearean English was the only form of English worth speaking in... That's a hyperbolic example, you do understand what I'm getting at... right?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:36 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:I don't have time now, but later I promise to read through every post you made here to see if I missed your explanation of how capitalists changed the language of socialism to make their ideology more innocuous. If I missed it, then I'll take the blame.


If memory serves, that discussion took place in the libertarian thread, and as you surmise, dates back to the Adam Smith/Karl Marx timeframe. It's a fair definition for that time frame, but linguistic drift has happened.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:46 pm UTC

Adam Smith is a great reference for talking about this. Smith didn't say anything about "capitalism". He talked about free markets, or a "natural system of liberty". Marx talks at length about "capitalism", as did earlier socialist thinkers, who first coined the term, as a pejorative for the thing that they were against. Marx did argue that free markets lead inevitably to capitalism, but many socialists contemporary with him disagreed, showing that at that time the two were not considered synonyms as many favored having one without the other.

Since then, "capitalism" has been conflated with "free market", and so when socialists say (as they always have) that they're "against capitalism", that's taken to mean they "against free markets", when in many cases they're saying no such thing.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Ranbot » Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:53 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:I don't have time now, but later I promise to read through every post you made here to see if I missed your explanation of how capitalists changed the language of socialism to make their ideology more innocuous. If I missed it, then I'll take the blame.


Pfhorrest wrote:Adam Smith is a great reference for talking about this. Smith didn't say anything about "capitalism". He talked about free markets, or a "natural system of liberty". Marx talks at length about "capitalism", as did earlier socialist thinkers, who first coined the term, as a pejorative for the thing that they were against. Marx did argue that free markets lead inevitably to capitalism, but many socialists contemporary with him disagreed, showing that at that time the two were not considered synonyms as many favored having one without the other.

Since then, "capitalism" has been conflated with "free market", and so when socialists say (as they always have) that they're "against capitalism", that's taken to mean they "against free markets", when in many cases they're saying no such thing.

I know I've been completely silent for a week, so I just wanted to jump in and say I've had a lot of stuff going on "IRL" that has limited my online forum discussions. But, I have read this, it's been on my mind, I respect the view. I have not forgotten about this discussion. I'll be back when my life permits.

Also, Pfhorrest, I respond to you[*] because you generally give thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful responses. While I may not always agree with you, that's fine. We can still talk. (Assuming I can ever get back to this. ) I just wanted you to know that....

* -
Spoiler:
Specifically... unlike others [who will remain unnamed] who "contribute" in much more typical internet troll-ish ways

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:09 am UTC

Thanks, I appreciate you saying that :)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: "Socialism" and "capitalism" are the same

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:33 pm UTC

Would like to second that. Might not agree with you all the time, of course, but we usually manage to have a good conversation all the same. A civil sort of disagreement is important, I think. It's probably the best way for someone to see other perspectives.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests