• Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalism is not violent and greedy. Humans are violent and greedy.

    “Guns don’t kill people, humans kill people.” “Capitalism isn’t the problem, humans are.”

    Humans are the problem. You’re right. Yet, humans use guns to kill people. Humans use capitalism to be greedy and violent.

    If capitalism wasn’t a tool to be used, humans wouldn’t use it. The tool makes the problems when used, so get rid of it.

    • fkn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the most persuasive argument in this thread so far… but I’m not sure it’s valid (which is disconcerting because I do think the guns argument is valid but like you said it’s the same it very similar argument)…

      I think the part that is different is the scale of scope. For violence, modern firearms immediately peg the board in the red. I’m not sure that capitalism does that.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Capitaliam is an abstract concept, an umbrella term used to encapsulate a somewhat loose grouping of economic behaviors and theories. Humans might use capitalist ideas to justify greedy or violent actions, but they don’t “use capitalism to be greedy and violent”.

      The distinction matters because my point is that capitalism is not the source or instrument of violence, but rather a description of and rationalization for human behavior. The violence happens whether or not you conflate the behaviors of the people committing violence with capitalism.

      Ultimately I think it would be more accurate to conclude capitalism because violence and greed, not violence and greed because capitalism.

      • folkrav@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism is not an abstract concept at all: private ownership of the means of production. Sure, there are many economic theories to go on from there, but how does it change anything to the criticism of this very core idea?

        • fkn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Without additional qualifications on the term capitalism, that is a terrible definition of capitalism.

          • folkrav@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Feel free to come up with a better definition. It’s the one you’ll find in most dictionaries and textbooks. Of course there are more elements to it depending on the exact philosophy (more or less free market et al), but in the end, it all boils down to exactly that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        capitalism is, in fact, the instrument. the extraction of wealth from the labor of the preparation is violence