Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
This is a valid sentiment. What Harvard Business School and CNBC call “Capitalism” IS in crisis. That being said— My take has always been that calling our present economy “Capitalism” is like calling Fig Newtons “cookies.” I know what a cookie is. That’s not a cookie. Today’s economy is theocratic witchcraft retconned onto John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, John Locke and Hegel as a placating cosplay. None of those philosophers imagined corporate personhood. None of them imagined private bankers printing public money. None of them imagined fractional reserve banking. None of them imagined fiat trading and manipulation. We cannot surrender to Ivy League goofballs and the CATO institute lying about their own mythos. THEY are the actual anti-capitalists. We have endless receipts. Many functionally humanistic economic policies align with a non-hypocritical read of “capitalist” philosophy. I REJECT the master’s semantics in dismantling the master’s house. Semantic lies melt to truth.
8 replies
2 recasts
31 reactions
Jawa
@jawa
I feel this way increasingly about the labels we are slinging around. What’s the solution? How do we refer to the bastardized form of capitalism we live under?
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Jawa
@jawa
With the goal of advancing the conversation instead of wading through semantics. I’d apply the same question to modern day uses of: fascism, socialism etc. We use these terms loosely to describe things that have only a few facets of the “pure” form. They are still helpful labels and better words don’t seem to exist
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
Just infiltrate lying definitions and speak the truth. The truth isn’t a plane flight. It does not have to announce its arrival. One of my late mentors— Alan Nasser— a classicist and Marxist philosopher—told each of his students: “You must be able to argue any position you oppose better than its strongest supporter.” The problem we have with social media is that people learn weak “straw man” caricatures of opposing views. Because of this, they’re not able to infiltrate power and trojan-horse it from within. The nimble revolutionary should be learned enough to deploy subterfuge, deception and guile. That’s exactly how whatever they’re opposing came to power.
2 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
