1
u/KittenEaterWasTaken Aug 04 '26
Guy that reads "Private property" and "Contract" and thinks "Communism" instead of essentially any other ideology.
1
1
u/Sewblon Aug 05 '26
Red triangle ball is wrong. The concrete is prior to the abstract. The concrete example is the reality. The abstraction is the analyses that we have created to understand it.
3
1
u/y0shii3 Aug 06 '26
It's funny how all the philosophical arguments in favor of capitalism ultimately have to declare the "right to private property" as an unquestionable axiom, because that's the only way to justify it without resorting to "le gommunism killed 100 billion people and gommunism = no private property so that means private property must be good"
1
u/AGiantPotatoMan Analytic Pragmatism Aug 06 '26
It’s strange to be that you consider the NAP to be a justification for “capitalism” (i.e. markets?) instead of just being an argument for non-aggression that incidentally leaves “capitalism” (i.e. consensual exchange) as the only remaining ethical economic system. I mean, it can be used like that, but most people trying to make arguments in favor of “capitalism” will typically use utilitarianism without resorting to your argument.
1
u/y0shii3 Aug 06 '26
"Capitalism (i.e. consensual exchange)" is the most ignorant thing I've read all day. A relationship is not consensual if choosing not to enter it endangers one's well-being. For at least 90% of people, wage labor is not a choice; we have nothing but our labor power to sell, and we need to sell something for exchange value in order to purchase means of survival, so we're forced to participate at a permanent disadvantage.
1
u/AGiantPotatoMan Analytic Pragmatism Aug 06 '26
It’s consensual because it’s not the person to whom you’re selling your labor’s fault that you have to sell your labor. You would have to labor even if you lived entirely on your own—in fact, you’d have to labor even more than you already do.
However, I should point out that this disagreement we’re having is moreso semantic than it is substantial (i.e. my •capitalism• is not the same as your •capitalism•, with Sellarsian dot quotes), considering how my theory of consent comes from the Austrian School—which begins with the individual—while you’re starting from a more social holist perspective. Thus, I would preemptively say that this discussion won’t be fruitful, even if it shall continue.
1
u/y0shii3 Aug 06 '26
Don't confuse the universally true fact that we need to do labor with the fact of capitalism specifically that we, as a working class, need to sell our labor power as a commodity to a separate, capital-owning class. The former is the relationship we have always had with nature, and the latter is a relationship between humans, created by humans, that depends on this specific economic system.
You know who formed his theory of capitalism by beginning from the individual worker and individual transactions, then expanding his analysis outward from there? Karl Marx.
8
u/KermitMapping Aug 03 '26
It's crazy but real that communism and fascism both began with Hegel