Jawa on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Tay Zonday pfp

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

29 reactions

Jawa pfp

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 pfp

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

Leeward Bound pfp

i agree but have a different takeaway on this - i think they are no longer helpful labels. better words don't exist, true, but personally i prefer to avoid using any of "capitalism, fascism, socialism, libertarian" etc. all tend to be more polarizing or dogwhistle in nature. the definitions are so misunderstood, and so disputed, that you're more likely to "hit a landmine" and trigger an unintentional reaction in your listeners*. unlikely to have productive discourse after that. you have more effective discussions (imho) if you find ways to express your point without leaning on these extra spicy terms. (*i mean in general, and when speaking in public, or to strangers. if you're in a college course on polysci, you can reasonably expect your audience to have a better grasp of these terms, and can employ them with less risk... but if you're posting on Twitter or speaking to a crowd, safe to assume that at least 50% of your audience is gonna have a *drastically* different definition of these words than you do.)

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions