Happy Birthday, Karl Marx! : memes

[+] [email protected] -11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

I wonder if he would have changed anything in his writing had he known the damage he was about to unleash. Reminds me a bit of the Ricky Gervais bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CINep9Gqhk

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

By and large, Marx's writings have been overwheingly positive for humanity. Even if he didn't write as he did, though, Dialectical Materialism would have been synthesized by someone eventually, same with Scientific Socialism and the Law of Value. So in the end, I'd say he'd certainly be interested to see how Capitalism turned to Imperialism, as well as other advancements on his work, but I don't think he'd abandon his work entirely.

As for the Ricky Gervais bit, Nietzsche was by no means "misunderstood," he was always deeply reactionary. I recommend reading Really Existing Fascism.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Weird take, i guess the current definition of capitalism, but go to Ancient Rome or Babylon and tell me you don’t see capitalism

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Where's the steam engines and factories?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

And the conveniently small children?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Answered here. Commerce isn't Capitalism, and neither is small manufacture.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I think this meme is a little unfair. For the sake of this comment, I am assuming that op is 100% correct about his definitions and I want to stress that I don't claim that "capitalism" is human nature.

Op basically admits in his comments that the general public doesn't have a good understanding of communism or capitalism and consequently how do define them. E.g. He keeps having to explain the difference between capitalism and trade with currency, highlighting the lack of understanding of what capitalism is.

This should make you question what a person means when they say that capitalism is human nature. Do they mean capitalism or their understanding of it? The answer is obvious.

So what do they mean? Given that people don't just walk around saying "capitalism is human nature", it is probably fair to see it as what it attempts to be, a justification. A justification usually follows a critic. And what is that critic? I think it is fair to roughly assume that it is a justification for the usual critic of capitalism. The degradation of human life by encouraging a competitive environment which leads to exploitation and hierarchy. That exploitation is powered by the violence of controlling limited resources.

So the question becomes, could the person saying "capitalism is human nature" mean that humans are competitive hierarchical animals who will use any means to control, oppress and exploit it's environment, including economical violence. If yes, then the age of capitalism is irrelevant and ancient Rome is probably what the person would identify as what they believe to be human nature.

In short, I think the response in the meme doesn't accurately engages with the challenge of the claim and would probably fail to convince anyone and probably makes you seem intellectually dishonest from the perspective of the conversation partner.

I don't believe cowbee is intellectually dishonest, but that they fail to consider the issue from a different perspective, as we all do daily.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I think you'll also find that the upvote to downvote ratio is very positive, few people are commenting expressly to agree with me, while those who disagree feel compelled to respond. Further, there is a strain of liberal economics that believes Capitalism is the natural end result, the Thatcherite "there is no alternative."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know what you are trying to tell me.

Why is the ratio important? Is a anti-capitalism take on .ml being popular evidence for anything that is relevant to my comment or the discussion at large? If I had to guess, I would say you imply that people who up vote understand the difference between trading with currency and capitalism, which I would generally doubt that assumption. People liking trump posts probably don't understand traffics. You get my point. Additionally, my confusion about the relevance of ratio is properly best highlighted by the fact that my critic was about the meme in general, how that meme gets perceived in e.g. this community is beside the point. Deportation memes are probably well received in trump communities. That doesn't make them good arguments or an good thing to express. Could you assist me in understanding the relevance?

The second part, I agree with you and I disagree with the statement. Obviously it isn't without alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My point is that the response you pointed at with people pushing back is a minority of those who chose to engage with the post, though a majority of those commenting. Using the presense of the comments in the context of them being the minority of responses I think doesn't actually point to people not understanding the difference between Capitalism and commerce, IMO.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Well, there we have a disagreement. I don't think people press on like indicates a careful consideration of the argument and understanding of the argument presented. Look at how popular some of e.g. Elon musk's dumbest posts are.

I am judging the comments as their display some understanding and you are probably right that there is a bias in the dataset.

In the end of the day, my argument boils down to, Do you believe that the average person saying "capitalism is human nature" uses your definition of capitalism? Or that they are just vaguely reference something that they don't really want to argue?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (12 children)

I have no way of knowing the average, but without doubt there is a large school of economic thought that believes we have arrived at the "most optimal" form of society. It's the whole notion behind "there is no alternative." These people fully acknowledge Capitalism as it truly exists, not as commerce, but believe it to be all there can be.

Some do confuse Capitalism for Commerce, but that's a much weaker argument and thus less interesting to debunk, pretty much no academic uses those terms as such. Yet, these very same academics will claim Capitalism is itself Human Nature as it in their eyes epitomizes the ability to trade, which earlier societies did not in the same capacity.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it's thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn't address their actual point.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

The reason why this "colloquial definition" is this way is so that capitalists can convince the masses that capitalism is natural "because it has always existed" by claiming that antique slave society, feudalism and even late hunter gatherer society were actually capitalist. This isn't a neutral definition that is as valid as the other, it is a lie crafted for propaganda purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The “colloquial definition” isn’t the colloquial definition, though. Even in liberal academia, it’s the same as the Marxist conception. Using currency for trade isn’t Capitalism, not even in Libertarian theory.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn't a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't survey people on the street, but they likely would be closer to the definition accepted in academia than the mere buying and selling of goods.

I'll be honest, I don't really know what you're arguing for, here. Capitalism as a term has a very useful and descriptive definition as used by Marx and liberal academics alike. Trying to use Capitalism to refer to concepts like commerce that already have their own words just weakens understanding, rather than strengthening it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't survey people on the street, but they likely would be closer to the definition accepted in academia than the mere buying and selling of goods.

I think that's optimistic. The average persons understanding of these concepts is very limited. They'd most likely call ancient Rome "capitalist", because "they're not communist".

That's the average persons understanding. There's capitalism and there's communism, and communism is when you own nothing and everyone is poor and capitalism is everything not-communism. It's deeply disappointing but that's what you're up against.

So when an intellectual person says "capitalism is human nature", it means something completely different from when an average person says it. To both the 400-years argument won't make sense.

An intellectual will argue that it naturally came about, so it must be human nature for it to arise so prominently. An average person will laugh in your face "because Rome wasn't communist". Neither is correct in their own way, but they're also not going to be convinced by the 400 years argument. One doesn't believe you, the other doesn't care.

Historical examples of proto-socialism or communal living would be a stronger counterpoint imo. Not because it's more correct in a theoretical sense, but because it more directly challenges the core of the opposing sides argument.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most people wouldn't call feudalism "Capitalism" either. It isn't a stretch to see the slave-driven society in Rome as non-Capitalist as well. I don't see it as that optimistic, if I'm being honest.

The reason I don't directly bring up tribal societies as more fitting for "human nature" is that all Modes of Production have been a result of "human nature" as it historically shifts from one Mode of Production to another.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think you'd be surprised how poor the general state of education is... I think it's also in part why left-wing politicians lately are failing to get traction with the lower-educated. They speak in a way that doesn't resonate, and that's in part because they're working with different assumptions and definitions.

It's what people like Trump do understand very well, he speaks like they speak to each other. As a result, even if they don't fully follow along, it makes more sense to them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I think education is certainly poor, but the ability for the Working Class to grasp the essense of Capitalism is quite easy, as we all work within the boundaries of it.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don't think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they're using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they're using the word wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I answered this in this comment.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Sure? I don't really see why not, nor is that an accurate view of humanity anyways.

Memes

Rules: