Conversation

Replying to

and

Capitalism is a religious system, period, IMO. Invisible hand, free market, mythological constructs bestowing virtue of the greedy, economy's as priests, gatekeepers, elite monopoly on shared cultural production vs masses, etc.

Replying to

and

Some if the invisible hand is real. It's emergent phenomena. People trade in goods and services and create wealth. The feudal Lord lauded as the "captain of Industry" is the BS part.

Replying to

and

There is so much in the way of tradition, barriers, unfair advantage, privilege, culture, etc, that the hand is anything but invisible. Portraying it as such is a way to obscure all that, in the same way that organised religion used "God" to obscure their systemic functions.

Replying to

and

You mention the word God. That strikes me as how you use capitalism. To you capitalism is evil. To say "down with evil" and enjoining everyone to eschew it, strikes me as pointless.

Replying to

and

As I say, it's not going anywhere. Much like religion post secularism. It just needs outing in its box, out of harms way. If I use it like God, it's because I see others using it thusly.

Replying to

and

It just seems to me like a super vague, unweildy, super emotionally charged word.

Replying to

Conservatives use "socialism" almost the same way you use "capitalism" to connote everything they see as bad. In reality we have a mix of both.

Replying to

and

I do think all forms of capitalism are bad. Now. It's a system born of knowledge and culture as it was a few hundred years ago, and is now horrifically outdated, anachronistic, and destructive. It wasn't always thus. But context is all.

Replying to

and

Isn't this an argument across levels of analysis? Ted seems to be contending that you are overassociating negative characteristics of social reality with capitalism (I agree), and you that capitalism is a dysfunctional system of governance in need of replacement (I also agree).

Replying to

and

How can one over-associate an ideological label that refers to an economic, cultural, and social hegemony? It influences everything.

Replying to

and

Extremely easily, in fact. All it takes is conflating sociopolitical hegemony with biological or technological hegemony. Does capitalism steer all human impulses, including negative ones? Is it a defining cause of ecological destruction. I say no, not even remotely.

9:27 PM · Mar 30, 2019Twitter Web App

Replying to

I think capitalism is a strange attractor for a range of our current material conditions, and therefore easily conflated with those conditions as such.

Replying to

But I think, in the absence of capitalism, those conditions are still a hard problem. I feel like capitalism is a roadblock towards addressing that problem, but shouldn't be treated as primary.

Show replies

Replying to

and

What is biological hegemony? Can one target it for critique and change without targeting the culture built upon and from it? How does one reduce technology from the sociopolitical hegemony it exists in? I don't think we can on either point.

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Replying to

I just look at our birth rate and think we're pushing away at the timeline of when we'll be totally fucked, not if. But I'm also so stubbornly fatalistic about extinction that it doesn't bother me much.

Show replies