Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Meta_Digital t1_itqr2k5 wrote

Reply to comment by bac5665 in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy

The "marketplace" isn't a person who decides things. It's just whoever controls the market. Whether it's a cabal of wealthy billionaires or the state, it doesn't really matter.

In the end, all capitalism is, is a system that separates people into employers and employees. You got that and you got some form of capitalism.

1

bac5665 t1_itqtrdr wrote

So did Communism under Lenin, under Mao, and under Castro, so that's just not a useful definition.

You should actually read some Adam Smith. You might learn something.

0

Meta_Digital t1_itqwa94 wrote

Yeah none of them achieved a socialist economy.

Edit: Also, Smith wrote before the word capitalism even appeared.

1

bac5665 t1_itqy434 wrote

So capitalism is something we define only by how it's practiced, but socialism and communism are only defined by theory, and any attempted implementations should be called something else if they don't conform to theory?

Am I understanding you correctly?

And Smith is called the father of capitalism. His works are the foundation for the theory of capitalism, every bit as much as Marx is for communism. Just because the term for Smith's new system wasn't used in English until the 1850s doesn't change the historical lineage of that system.

−1

Meta_Digital t1_itr56mu wrote

Nobody but Stalin claimed achieving socialism, and you can believe him if you'd like I guess.

Smith was describing, not prescribing, economics. Maybe you should read him?

3