(So, both the USSR & the US are capitalist, & a system can be capitalist without markets, under this definition. And, under that framework, it's not surprising that you'd see creeping integration.)
-
-
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
However, right-libertarians tend to use 'capitalism' to refer to any system by which markets are used in the distribution and exchange of resources. Under this model, integrated structures are not capitalist, and politics is not a valid capitalist mechanism of control.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
Under that model, it's shocking that corporations tend to grow and create monopolies. (After all, when we have a name for a situation, we tend to assume that situation is both relatively permanent and relatively well-defined.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
Both these models have domains where the analysis they enable is predictive, & the use of the same term to describe very different (yet often-overlapping) things is the ultimate problem in trying to apply both analyses in conjunction with each other.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
(This is probably also part of the reason right-libertarians tend to strongly associate communism with large, highly-integrated states: they see capitalism as emblematic of atomized market-mediated individual association, so they figure anti-capitalism must be the opposite.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
(That & the basically failed leninist project to create an integrated capitalist state to bootstrap underdeveloped countries into industrialized societies ready for communism.)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
To a marxist, the essential feature of capitalism is 'exploitation' (a fairly loaded term for 'the separation of management and labor'), so heavy integration and the inflation of middle-management is a purer form of capitalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2 @chaosprime
To a right-libertarian, the essential feature of capitalism is the use of a market, so the exact same tendency appears to them to be making it less pure, for basically the exact same reason. Maybe we ought to come up with new terms, for when we're talking across the aisle.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @enkiv2
yeah, there's a bunch of cards that are constantly being palmed, that to my thinking boil down to: 1) who determines what a given person is going to spend their time doing 2) who determines what will be done with a given resource hm. i could make a stupid fucking quad
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime
Yup! And, it's also more than just binary. Marx makes a big deal about distinguishing feudalism from capitalism on the grounds that serfs control half their production & lords control the other half of serf production. So, from the beginning of this analysis, we have fractions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
yeah, that's a thing that annoys me about marxism tbh, that the troop rallying is all around this class divide that even in marx's writing is permeable as shit and is a thousand times more permeable today than it was then
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @enkiv2
like the polemic is the evil non-laboring class but the actual theory has bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie and artisans and yadda yadda and looks more like a Mandelbrot lace
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.