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.
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.
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.
The statement of the main comment seems to be that capitalism is equal to exploitation and hierarchy, communism(or another placeholder) then is equal to end of suffering, exploitation and hierarchy, that’s why he/she sees capitalism as inevitable and communism and other ideologies seems utopic in comparison.
I think even deeper than that, they just conflate Capitalism with economics. There’s a good bit to what you’re saying too, though. They see anything outside traditional notions of economics as utopian.
This is the classical argument that capitalism is the best motivator of development since it is considered natural(selected as dominant till now) and by extension better fit for human nature.
Yet it is destroying itself, meaning he believes human nature will destroy itself, he then go on to say China is Capitalist, more specifically the government, that would assume the role of exploiter, then internally capitalism seem somewhat to be the exploiting structure reinforcing the idea of hierarchy and exploitation that generates more economic value and justify the inequality.
Probably because if it’s working it must mean it is capitalist in someway, they don’t conflate Cuba or another places with Capitalism because they don’t see the countries as economic powers.
The main differences would be that China invest in their workers, and Capitalistic countries don’t, the solution would be invest in the workers, but then he fails to notice that the failure of investing in workers isn’t a miscommunication or mismanagement, but a feature of capitalism itself that deny any handouts or any advantage to the masses to keep it up with the elite.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
The statement of the main comment seems to be that capitalism is equal to exploitation and hierarchy, communism(or another placeholder) then is equal to end of suffering, exploitation and hierarchy, that’s why he/she sees capitalism as inevitable and communism and other ideologies seems utopic in comparison.
I think even deeper than that, they just conflate Capitalism with economics. There’s a good bit to what you’re saying too, though. They see anything outside traditional notions of economics as utopian.
This is the classical argument that capitalism is the best motivator of development since it is considered natural(selected as dominant till now) and by extension better fit for human nature.
Yet it is destroying itself, meaning he believes human nature will destroy itself, he then go on to say China is Capitalist, more specifically the government, that would assume the role of exploiter, then internally capitalism seem somewhat to be the exploiting structure reinforcing the idea of hierarchy and exploitation that generates more economic value and justify the inequality.
Probably because if it’s working it must mean it is capitalist in someway, they don’t conflate Cuba or another places with Capitalism because they don’t see the countries as economic powers.
The main differences would be that China invest in their workers, and Capitalistic countries don’t, the solution would be invest in the workers, but then he fails to notice that the failure of investing in workers isn’t a miscommunication or mismanagement, but a feature of capitalism itself that deny any handouts or any advantage to the masses to keep it up with the elite.
Yep, seems like they are writing themselves into pretzels with contradictory stances.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
No it’s like saying CEOs set their own salaries.
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?