Yes, and people wanting to get funky with all this should absolutely read some Marx and probably some Lenin and also some Kropotkin, Polonyi, and maybe some Gramsci, Lefebvre, and Harvey. But I get annoyed when theory gets trapped in the ML vortex.
STS and ANT are a great tonic for that, as is Gibson-Graham's Diverse Economies. It's all people who tried ML and found it wanting and tried to come up with something more grounded and workable.
@MichaelTBacon @mapachin @cykonot Capitalism won’t survive when most citizens don’t see or perceive benefit. The gluttony of billionaires, corporations eliminating workers via automation and AI, millions of jobs exported for $$$, Capitalism is the characteristic of human endeavor that easily slips into greed, where ME>WE, not WE>ME. We’d better start thinking in terms of us and the planet or it will be a nasty end for millions, maybe more.
@Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin what if capital reproduction is no longer significantly based on human input? When society can be fully ignored
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin Human input factors into it at some point or it is not meaningful. Consumption is input – unless you are suggesting automatons producing for other automatons and the humans subsisting off the scraps of automated trade. You are suggesting the creation of a completely separate econosystem.
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin I don't think the dynamics of capitalism require human actors; I would not characterize capitalism as a humanist thing.
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin Capitalism is an abstraction that describes a form of human interaction. It is not a thing unto itself. It does not exist in nature. Removing the human interaction turns it into nothing more than math.
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin How do you define capitalism? What is its function outsides the bounds of human interaction?
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin If I were to gesture towards something more general, but still not universal because that's stupid and vain (outside the world of strict tautology/contradictions), I would say something like
The tendency of a reproductive system to allow actors to dominate space and time via market mechanisms. These actors are allowed to dynamically define markets using legalistic private property agreements and negotiated contracts. Actors form composites & coordinate.
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin like, I don't want to argue with some rando. You define it as purely abstract then make a demand implying materialism it's silly.
Im just humouring you with my definition. I'm anticapitalist, so the definitions I use tend towards propaganda. This is silly. You should say your goals clearly
I'm not a dictionary, go argue with Webster. If you're using Marxist terminology, I haven't read theory. Please don't be sanctimonious about your favored definition.
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin thank you for providing one, though! Defining terms is useful for communication. If you're being rigorous and using tradition, just say what the tradition is.
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin In the most technical sense, “capitalism” is about capital, or the way money reflows from a lot of people into an aggregation that can be used to accomplish a larger result than any of the participants could on their own. “Capital” is Latin for “head”, so the body of revenue forms a gathered head aimed toward a goal.
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin There is of course much more to it than that, but the flow of money into aggregation is the primary principle of capitalism. The term does not explicitly demand a market economy or voluntary participation, but those are concepts that are normally applied to it. The “voluntary” aspect is portrayed by some as crucial, but then excuses are made for why the big players should be in control.
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin i see it in a cybernetic control sense, with capital/money as a kind of valuation relative to productive assets. Vaguely
Etymology can be cool and explanatory, but also mislead. Especial when one is being technical in the sense I meant.
@cykonot @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin In a very real sense, “capitalism” is used by whomever to support whatever they want it to mean, so it is a highly diluted word. We think of “communism” as being autocratic, but the underlying principles would not trend that way (in an ideal world), and the capitalistic ideal of aggregating toward a larger goal is present there as well.
@yoused @Huntn00 @MichaelTBacon @mapachin I don't think you have the authority to enforce that, but I understand that to be your meaning and I am not saying your meaning is invalid.
I think technical homonyms require their domain/discipline to be denoted to responsibly use them in discussions with people who have disparate backgrounds.
Edit: I think a simple definition isn't enough. I think broader connotations & context are very important, especially the domain a definition is intended for.