No, sorry, this is incorrect. There are much more efficient and fair modes of production out there. Case in point would be Cuba, or China. The leaps and bounds they’ve made in spite of the largest and most murderous economic power in the world trying to sabotage them every step of the way should be evidence enough of that.
Sorry but here again you’re just wrong on a factual level. China is not capitalist. Read whatever Cowbee writes, they’re usually good at explaining things.
I think I see the confusion. A capitalist is someone who owns a significant amount of capital. China obviously has capitalists. Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism. China does have liberals, but there’s been some pushback over the last decade or so.
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.
The statement of the main comment seems to be that capitalism is equal to exploitation and hierarchy, communism(or another placeholder) then is equal to end of suffering, exploitation and hierarchy, that’s why he/she sees capitalism as inevitable and communism and other ideologies seems utopic in comparison.
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)
deleted by creator
There is no alternative ™
deleted by creator
No, sorry, this is incorrect. There are much more efficient and fair modes of production out there. Case in point would be Cuba, or China. The leaps and bounds they’ve made in spite of the largest and most murderous economic power in the world trying to sabotage them every step of the way should be evidence enough of that.
deleted by creator
Sorry but here again you’re just wrong on a factual level. China is not capitalist. Read whatever Cowbee writes, they’re usually good at explaining things.
deleted by creator
Lol
I think I see the confusion. A capitalist is someone who owns a significant amount of capital. China obviously has capitalists. Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism. China does have liberals, but there’s been some pushback over the last decade or so.
deleted by creator
Well said!
This doesn’t make any sense.
deleted by creator
You’re a very entertaining poster
What on Earth are you talking about?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
The statement of the main comment seems to be that capitalism is equal to exploitation and hierarchy, communism(or another placeholder) then is equal to end of suffering, exploitation and hierarchy, that’s why he/she sees capitalism as inevitable and communism and other ideologies seems utopic in comparison.
All roads lead to present thing
Person experiencing present thing
deleted by creator
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.
Capitalism is not when money.
Capitalism is when you make companies the government.
deleted by creator
Capitalism has only been around for a tiny portion of human history
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)
deleted by creator
OK I’m actually a noob at formatting and i have no idea how i even did that giant text
Fair