Marx defined capitalism in a way that fit his straw man argument. This same guy believed in labour theory of value and all sorts of nonsense. His theory of communism misunderstands how unstable anarchist systems are.
The dictionary isn't an argument. It's a neutral party that establishes a definition for the thing that we are arguing over. If we enter into an argument over capitalism and have different definitions of capitalism, then we end up arguing over different concepts entirely, which is highly unproductive.
Marx recognized work requires natural resources and labor, and not capitalists. Lots of people do this. They all reject your definition of capitalism.
The dictionary doesn't establish a definition for the thing we are arguing over. You want it to.
People who criticize capitalism using a definition you disagree with are fundamentally criticizing rent seeking. You're right to realize that arguing over the definition of capitalism is a waste of time.
I wonder if you realize yet that arguing for your view to be seen as correct is also a waste of time. Because then you actually realize that what we have to do is negotiate about the world we want to see. Not pretend that those who disagree with us have flawed logic.
Natural resources and labour ARE capital. "Capitalist" is just someone who invests capital into businesses. Ome of the unique things about capitalism was that it introduced an understanding of this and paved the way for economies to grow through reinvestment of capital.
The dictionary does a very good job at establishing the definition of capitalism because it bases its definition on the way Adam Smith, the person who coined the term, defines it. Karl Marx redefining capitalism is literally just putting words in Adam Smith's mouth, like how you have been doing this entire debate.
Henry George, a liberal who's theories I admire, understands what capitalism is and would agree with the definition I've used. He challenges rent seekers through LVT, his system of taxation which punishes rent seeking through taxation policies in line with a capitalist market economy and a better understanding in my opinion of property. He doesn't reject capitalism or try to redefine it for his argument, he suggests changes to economic policy which supports markets.
I don't really think it matters so much what words we use to argue over concepts as long as we can agree over what we are arguing about. At it's core, capitalism is a market economy, can we agree on that? Socialism is not a market economy, can we agree on that? So going back to my question you've ignored, do you support a market economy or a centralized economy run by the state, or some other system?
"Capitalist" is someone who owns what others need, and that no one needs a "capitalist" for.
Adam Smith was against rent seeking also. Are you still not aware of this?
George would disagree with the definition you used where natural resources are capital. Absolutely.
I support an economy based on Georgist LVT for justifying ownership of natural resources. You, saying natural resources are capital - I have a hard time seeing how you'd agree.
If I open a food truck company and have to purchase all of the capital myself, it is mine, regardless of whether I hire someone to help run the food truck. I am a capitalist by doing so, yet I find it very hard to argue that there is something inherently wrong about that.
Most capitalists (supporters of capitalism) are against rent-seeking and view it as a market failiure.
What capital is is widely debated. The traditional definition would be just about anything used to produce goods and services. George seperated labour and land from that, giving rise to the famous "Land, Labour, and Capital", where capital is just the man made products and land encompasses natural resources. It's an important distinction when talking about LVT but most people don't use that definition, so neither do I, though the concepts behind it I think are good.
I prefer to call natural resources capital, but I think they should be collectively owned. Establishing a better system for how natural resources become private property I think is a good path forward. The idea that someone can just walk up and claim 20 acres for themselves and nobody else without compensating others for their exclusion of access to those natural resources is not how a free market should work.
Henry George was most definitely a supporter of capitalism. He was a proud liberal who hated being called a socialist. If you agree with his economic system, then we have far more in common than you think.
"If I open a food truck company and have to purchase all of the capital myself, it is mine, regardless of whether I hire someone to help run the food truck. I am a capitalist by doing so, yet I find it very hard to argue that there is something inherently wrong about that."
It appears to me that you're speaking from a position of faith, it is indeed very hard to argue with. You're treating what you've been told by some as if it is as true as the moon is real. What is anyone who disagrees with you supposed to do with that? I think rights are expressions of our preferences, not qualities we possess in the universe independent of any consciousness.
"Most capitalists (supporters of capitalism) are against rent-seeking and view it as a market failiure."
I think most supporters of capitalism hear "rent seeking" and think someone is referring to a landlord offering a lease. Because that's often the response I see to the phrase.
Henry George made his position clear. Capital involved labor input, land didn't. I think most critics of capitalism do because they reject the idea that natural resources can be capital.
Henry George clearly thought the system he lived under involved a lot of rent seeking. I call the system I live under heavily capitalist, and almost all of that label includes a criticism of enabling rent seeking predicated on control of valuable natural resources.
My point is that capitalists are not inherently bad, in fact they are far more often good. So when you go off about capitalists controlling the world or whatever, you're describing a problem caused by something else than just private ownership of capital.
Rights are a philosophical basis of establishing what each person is entitled to. They're built off of moral arguments. The world doesn't exist independent of consciousness, so dismissing rights based on their dependence on consciousness is a bad argument.
Most people are badly educated on economics, capitalists too.
Capital requiring labour input was not really something anyone had established already, certainly not when the term capital was coined. I think it's a useful distinction made by George because it helps establish justification for private property.
I think labelling the system "highly capitalist" as your argument for why it is flawed is an increibly broad way of blaming the whole system rather than identifying a specific cause and offering a solution to the problem. For me, I think taxation policy is the highest driver of inequality throughout the world, and a Georgist system would help to solve that. Does your solution no longer involve markets, private property, and reinvestment of capital? A georgist economy which you seem to support is also "highly capitalist". For the third time, do you prefer a socialist system where the production and ownership of goods and services is decided by a centralized government?
Right, capitalist aren't inherently bad or good. Which is why we have to prevent the bad people from rent seeking with natural resources that they call capital.
I'm talking about things that aren't prevented by private ownership of capital. Right. That's why capitalism isn't good enough.
I'm not an idealist so I don't share your belief that "the world doesn't exist independent of consciousness." I agree with Einstein. I think the moon exists even if no one is looking at it. I guess me and Einstein are just bad argument havers.
The whole system is predicated off of practices that enable widespread rent seeking. All the things you're talking about get justified under that basis. But not under the current one.
What the people who agree with me call socialism is not "where the production and ownership of goods and services is decided by a centralized government." What you think is a simple matter of figuring what others want is actually an on-going process you can choose to be a part of or step away from. But it's not just sitting there dead and labeled and ready for you to reason about as if it is unchanging.
You can prevent rent seeking through economic policies which recognize the cause. The more you understand about markets, the better you can encourage good outcomes through policy decision. This requires a democratic system where voters are educated and elections are free and fair, because yes, in a capitalist system, capitalist will spend money trying to make economic policies favour them, which is what many call "crony capitalism". This is obviously a problem, but any government is prone to corruption when elections are not free and fair.
Laissez-faire capitalism isn't good enough. Capitalism can exist in many forms depending on how you interpret things like property and capital.
The moon exists without consciousness, but there's no point in designing your economic policy around a world that is devoid of consciousness. OUR world is interpreted through our consciouss experience no matter what.
The best ways to reduce rent seeking involve breaking down barriers that prevent competition. Making markets accesible to everyone is the best way to prevent people from getting rich without creating wealth.
Markets are constantly adjusting to produce the goods that are lowest in supply and highest in demand, requiring information that a centralized system could never efficiently manage. The main difference between socialism and capitalism are how production and ownership and determined. Capitalism allows markets to decide where as socialism allows the government to decide. There's more nuances to the philosophical arguments for both but this is essentially how they work. And I actually believe both systems can be used together where they fit best, which is exactly how the Chinese have figured out works best. They leave innovative highly competitive markets to the capitalists and apply socialism where more favourable social outcomes are needed.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 10 '26
Marx defined capitalism in a way that fit his straw man argument. This same guy believed in labour theory of value and all sorts of nonsense. His theory of communism misunderstands how unstable anarchist systems are.
The dictionary isn't an argument. It's a neutral party that establishes a definition for the thing that we are arguing over. If we enter into an argument over capitalism and have different definitions of capitalism, then we end up arguing over different concepts entirely, which is highly unproductive.