this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
578 points (90.5% liked)

Memes

49990 readers
1355 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago (17 children)

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.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee -4 points 6 days ago (16 children)

Yes and no. We conquer and dominate and build. All human cities look roughly similar. Productivity wins because it conquers those who aren’t.

Even China uses their own form of capitalism. Chinese history is more capitalist than most countries too imo. China hasn’t risen above capitalism, they mastered their own style of it, but as waves rise and fall, the state of a country’s economy is ever changing. Today they are wolves, but without the century of humiliation they might not be, just as America would not have had anywhere to fall if did not climb so high.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago (15 children)

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.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That’s actually a good point but I would argue when power is in the hands of the public as you say, the gov officials become the capitalists.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren't Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren't the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren't the owners.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee -4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The gov officials set their own salaries and control the means of production. In that way it seems capitalist but in a way where everyone decides to become a single capitalist collectively rather than having individual capitalists wielding disproportionate power.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That's not really accurate in reality.

The reason you're running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you're basically using it as a catch-all term for "economics."

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No it’s like saying CEOs set their own salaries.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Not at all, government officials don't work that way.

What do you think Capitalism is? Roughly when did it first appear? What's Socialism?

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not all officials but some.

Right now, I’m not because I don’t want to and you can research it too.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're getting farther and farther away from your original point.

I'm well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Every time it’s gotten to this point in the past, I’ve regretted having the convo and felt dumber for getting bogged down in it.

I could use a refresh as while I went to college for politics, I started smoking weed because of how viciously Bernie was shit on and how that directly led to a Trump win. Everything political since then has been a brown haze of shit.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you want a recommendation, Nia Frome's An Extremely Condensed Summary of Capital can put you on the right path in about 20 minutes.

[–] Mallspice@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

I like theory of the leisure class myself.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)