@o_o@programming.dev asked “why are folks so anti-capitalist?” not long ago. It got quite a few comments. But I noticed a trend: a lot of people there didn’t agree on the definition of “capitalism”.

And the lack of common definition was hobbling the entire discussion. So I wanted to ask a precursor question. One that needs to be asked before anybody can even start talking about whether capitalism is helpful or good or necessary.

Main Question

  • What is capitalism?
  • Since your answer above likely included the word “capital”, what is capital?
  • And either,
    • A) How does capitalism empower people to own what they produce? or, (if you believe the opposite,)
    • B) How does capitalism strip people of their control over what they produce?

Bonus Questions (mix and match or take them all or ignore them altogether)

  1. Say you are an individual who sells something you create. Are you a capitalist?
  2. If you are the above person, can you exist in both capitalist society and one in which private property has been abolished?
  3. Say you create and sell some product regularly (as above), but have more orders than you can fulfill alone. Is there any way to expand your operation and meet demand without using capitalist methods (such as hiring wage workers or selling your recipes / process to local franchisees for a cut of their proceeds, etc)?
  4. Is the distinction between a worker cooperative and a more traditional business important? Why is the distinction important?
  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s exactly my point though: Anarchism in any form is a contradiction. Communist anarchism is not less of a contradiction than capitalist anarchism.

    Capitalist anarchism is, as you say, lacking an authority that enforces contracts and that authority will spontaneously appear due to the (translated from German) “right of the stronger”, meaning whoever is stronger will enforce contracts and the other party is out of luck. That’s what could be observed in real-life examples like the Kowloon Walled City, where the Triads became the de-facto government.

    Communist anarchism depends on the stronger playing nice and not forcing their will on the other people and it also depends on people not banding together to form a democracy to oppose the stronger people/stop them from forming the de-facto government.

    Capitalist anarchism is instable since it directly drops into an Oligarchy.

    Communist anarchism is a direct contradiction.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What are you going on about? You’re not reading what I said, and at this point this level of “ignorance” really seems deliberate and in bad faith.

      Anarchy isn’t “no regulations”, it’s “no hierarchies”. Yes, “no regulations” is considerably easier to accomplish (temporarily) than “no hierarchies”, but that’s not what the word means. If you want to talk about unregulated capitalism, do so. There’s nothing anarchic about it though. As you admit, capitalism spontaneously generates hierarchy in a vacuum.

      “No hierarchies” is substantially more difficult to attain, but that’s what the word means, and the synonym is communism. I’m not here, like you apparently are, to speak to the pragmatism of that ideology. I will repeat, slowly, since I’ve done so many times without your understanding and I wish to do so no longer:

      COMMUNISM IS NOT STABLE IN THE PRESENT WORLD

      THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS DEFINITION

      THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHORITY PRECLUDES COMMUNISM

      IDEOLOGIES WITH AUTHORITY ARE NOT COMMUNISM

      MANY AUTHORITIES HAVE CLAIMED TO BE COMMUNISM

      THEY ARE LYING, IT IS A CONTRACTION

      I’m not going to keep saying the same thing. I’m done. Either you can’t read or you’re trolling, deliberately misunderstanding in bad faith. Reread my statements. I thought my last post quite deftly cut to the heart of it, you keep taking past me to a conversation I’m not having. You’re taking to yourself, or a ghost of the conversation you think you’re having, or there’s an inefficiency in translation.

      Review my posts. I’m done. Das Gespräch ist kaputt. There is no continuation.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone’s got a temper, and someone believes he’s the only one who is allowed to define terms.

        Seems like a case of “ex falso quodlibet”.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Emphasis, not anger. Necessary due only to your continued disregard.

          I did not define my terms, I used their definitions. You’re the one trying to provide unique definitions.

          Again, I’m done. Everything I have to say I’ve said already. Review for clarity.