Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?
While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.
Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.
One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.
The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more “efficient” in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).
Putting aside the article’s weird definitions, I do like the article’s overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as “efficiently” as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
noun The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
noun politics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun economics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun countable a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?
Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?
While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.
One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.
On the topic of efficiency: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/3/17/the-tragic-downside-of-efficiency
The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more “efficient” in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).
Putting aside the article’s weird definitions, I do like the article’s overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as “efficiently” as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.
These seem good: https://www.wordnik.com/words/capitalism
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
from The Century Dictionary.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?