• stembolts@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You seem to be arguing words and not ideas.

    You, "Bingo bango! You made a statement that can be technically untrue, therefore you are entirely incorrect!"  
    

    Debunking someone’s point first requires engaging with it and you never even came close. So what about Mesopotamia? Let’s take your word on that, does it change the core point? Nope.

    You, "Shazam! People were stabbing before capitalism, therefore when someone gets stabbed under capitalism, it's fine! Shazam!"
    

    Then you go on to say that because a certain type of violence happened before capitalism, it’s cool that it exists.

    You, "Kersplat! You are icky, and I will stop there, the rest of your post is probably stupid anyway!"
    

    Do you have brain damage my dude?

    As I understand it, the comic states :
    1. Create penalties for not being a property/capital-owner.
    2. Acquire property/capital through violence
    3. With violently acquired capital-backing, use step #1 to exert control
    4. Population attacks itself to avoid rule #1, clawing to attain property/capital
    5. The system promotes population infighting, allowing the power-holders to exist un-noticed.

    Who gives a shit about who invented the baton when you’re getting hit in the face. Well, I expect that you do.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      Economic systems and sociocultural organization principles are irrelevant and attributing historical human violence to them is fallacious.

      you go on to say that because a certain type of violence happened before capitalism, it’s cool that it exists.

      No, I specifically did not make any such argument, and made a statement about this in my conclusion because I anticipated that someone would attempt to dismiss what I said by deliberately misinterpreting it and then putting words in my mouth. Did you even read my entire post?

      Who gives a shit about who invented the baton when you’re getting hit in the face.

      The person that made this cartoon cares, and clearly so do you, as you both want to pin it on a particular source for purely emotional reasons, which is evidenced by the fact that you have made no rational argument based on fact and instead have attempted to dismiss what I wrote while presenting zero evidence for your own point of view.

        • 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

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        Economic systems and sociocultural organization principles are irrelevant and attributing historical human violence to them is fallacious.

        I think you have not actually made a case for this claim, and it isn’t obviously true. To me it seems obviously untrue. The organizational structure of human society is very often a driving force for harm, because harm is simply what happens when we fail to solve the nontrivial problem of human cooperation. People with good intentions can be a part of a larger dynamic in which they are overwhelmingly incentivized to be a part of that harm, and may even be absolutely prevented from not being a part of it. Hateful people with bad intentions can be themselves a product of these failures. You can’t reduce this to the moral choices of individuals because individuals may have no knowledge or agency over the systems that shape their world and force their hands.

        I think “violence” might not be the best word for this, but it isn’t “fallacious”.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

        https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/moloch

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

          I think changing the wording from “capitalism is violence” (or harm). “To capitalism enables violence” resolves the wiggle room in the argument.

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

            Probably, but personally I think the violence/harm would happen (and does happen) regardless of capitalism/communism/feudalism/Marxism/anarchy/barter economy/etc.

            Saying that the violence/harm happens because of capitalism is like saying that rain happens because there are clouds in the sky. There’s concurrence, but neither is the cause of the other, they are both the products of underlying meteorological conditions.

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

              You are attacking a strawman.

              Some societies are violent more so than others.

              A social system is not simplistically the cause of all violence, and neither is any violence due to causes simplistically detached from the social system in which it occurs.

              Violence is latent in capitalism.

              It produces massive disparities in wealth and privilege that could not for very long be sustained except by the constant threat of force against those who are deprived, marginalized, and otherwise disadvantaged.