Why is Capitalism bad?

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-03T21:34:27.231Z

bootz:

three hundred years ago there was no definition of Capitalism. It wasn’t even considered

If capitalism wasn’t considered then how the ■■■■ are you going to say the definition of socialism is 300 years old? Do you understand that socialism was a direct response to capitalism? Do you think Marx called his book Das Kapital for ■■■■■ and giggles?

bootz · 2018-10-03T21:46:04.840Z

I think I used my own definitions and so SMF brought up Burke.

Given that Capitalism and Socialism are talking points of only 150 years or so, my definitions are appropriate. you go argue semantics you are comfortable there.

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-03T22:04:15.375Z

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-03T22:06:01.468Z

1024×735 129 KB

Don’t think the other one showed up.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-04T00:27:33.468Z

bootz:

I think I used my own definitions and so SMF brought up Burke.

Given that Capitalism and Socialism are talking points of only 150 years or so, my definitions are appropriate. you go argue semantics you are comfortable there.

Using your own definitions in a debate between terms that already have well established definitions is idiotic.

mobulis · 2018-10-04T00:35:25.685Z

AngraMainyu:

Don’t think the other one showed up.

How is education NOT part of the base?

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-04T01:31:38.415Z

Because it justifies the social relations of the base

mobulis · 2018-10-04T01:34:00.234Z

AngraMainyu:

Because it justifies the social relations of the base

Except in order to produce things people need to be taught how, that’s education.

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-04T02:20:50.918Z

Hence its maintaining function.
Just a quick overview.
Community training in lithic production in epipaleolithic → stone tools to carve up a deer to share with band;
metallurgical apprenticeship in guild setting → weapons, armors and farming tools to be sold to warriors/craftsmen/peasants;
purchase of engineer training to erect buildings → designs to be exchanged for wage payment to owner class.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-10-04T04:04:25.975Z

AngraMainyu:

I like this diagram. It explains the relationship between the base and the superstructure in Marxist theory very well.

As for the theory, what part of the nature of humanity necessitates this awkward split into production and everything else?

Samson_Corwell · 2018-10-04T04:05:08.529Z

mobulis:

AngraMainyu:

Don’t think the other one showed up.

How is education NOT part of the base?

Here we can see that Mobulis is not a Marxist.

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-04T04:59:47.508Z

Theory holds labor as intrinsic, but the social relations surrounding it are not.
E.g.
I gather plants to share with the tribe, whether they hunt or gather, or do nothing because of old age. This is the human constant - proto-communism.
I labor for wages, to share with my family and others, and a partition goes to the owner for profit. The current system.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-10-09T17:07:16.495Z

WuWei:

Is access to water a negative right?

It is very easy to phrase it as one.

markdido · 2018-10-09T21:22:27.365Z

CanadianJudo:

The EPA shouldn’t be worried about the profit marigin of Exxon mobile.

What proof do you have that they are?

bootz · 2018-10-29T04:49:38.594Z

have you considered Marxist theory may be wrong?

Samson_Corwell · 2018-10-29T06:09:27.784Z

bootz:

have you considered Marxist theory may be wrong?

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say anything about whether Marxist theory is true or false.

bootz · 2018-10-29T13:17:30.898Z

reply was to a devout Marxist not you

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-29T13:24:13.336Z

Obviously. It has undergone several revisions since the 19th century.

bootz · 2018-10-29T13:25:11.141Z

because it was wrong.

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-29T13:27:48.842Z

No. Material conditions are not static and keep changing. Some of his predictions were incorrect. Some are not.