[Rich]

Hey Rich, did I write that Marx "wrote" or "published" Capital?

Sound out the words and use a dictionary for practice, or ask if you need help.

Thank you as always for adding such a thoughtful response to a forum. It really shows how hard that you're trying to participate when you have to drop everything and try to argue that a book not written in English didn't use an English word. With a little practice, you'll be able to actually participate in the content of an argument too! You just got to figure out these tricky language things

No my point was not that Marx didn't use the English word "Capitalism" in a German text but that he didn't use German word "Kapitalismus" in his German text. But I suspect you know that and are just being obtuse to hide your own embarrassment. I quoted from the German language version of wiki because the English language version is somewhat unclear. So

The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[31] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[32][33] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in The Capital (1867).[34] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of The Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "capitalism" first appeared in English in 1854 in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where he meant "having ownership of capital".[35] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German-American socialist and abolitionist, used the phrase "private capitalism" in 1863.

So note the term is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 not Adam Smith. That is the main point. I quoted from the German Wiki to show that the claim in red is inaccurate or at least misleading in that the first Edition of Capital did not contain the term "Kapitalismus". Whether Marx did or did not use the term Capitalism is not terribly important to me, I included it for accuracy, only that you chose to double down on a false claim.

[The Immortal Goon]

Wow Rich, Louis Blanc said the word “capitalism” before the 1867 publication of Kapital, which you admit uses the word. I guess, for some reason, your feelings dictate this is relevant.

Again, thank you for your super relevant feelings. I’m sure everyone but me ignores you for some reason other than this super interesting pendant whining you inevitably fail at making a case for.

[skinster]

Life is good when Rich's posts are a red line and nowt more.

[Rancid]

Does it matter if he wrote down the word "capitalism" or not?

[Rich]

Wow Rich, Louis Blanc said the word “capitalism” before the 1867 publication of Kapital, which you admit uses the word.

No I don't accept that the 1867 edition Kapital uses the word Kapitalismus. The English language version of WIki says it does, but the German language version of Wiki says it doesn't. Now I'm making an assumption here that the German language version of Wiki is likely to be more accurate when it comes to German language documents than the English version. I might be wrong in this instance, but it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

I repeat does it matter to me whether Marx used the word or not? - No not terribly. It would actually simplify my case if he had. I said that he didn't in the interests of accuracy because as far as I can ascertain he didn't. The central point is that the term Capitalism originated from Socialist circles not from pro market intellectuals like Adam Smith. It is not a neutral term but a derogatory one. It implies the rule of Capitalists. The Capitalists do not rule our society, although they inevitably have disproportionate influence.

Our current society is unequal and unfair. But Communist societies (in practice) are more unequal and more unfair. The party elite are the de-facto if not the de jure owners of capital. The working class has almost no power in a so called workers state. The British Socialist Workers Party and some other (Neo) Trotskyists accept the point about the party elite being the defacto owners of capital. Tony Cliff gives substantial evidence to argue that Stalin's Soviet union had higher levels of inequality than the united States.

[The Immortal Goon]

No I don't accept that the 1867 edition Kapital uses the word Kapitalismus. The English language version of WIki says it does, but the German language version of Wiki says it doesn't. Now I'm making an assumption here that the German language version of Wiki is likely to be more accurate when it comes to German language documents than the English version. I might be wrong in this instance, but it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

I repeat does it matter to me whether Marx used the word or not? - No not terribly. It would actually simplify my case if he had. I said that he didn't in the interests of accuracy because as far as I can ascertain he didn't. The central point is that the term Capitalism originated from Socialist circles not from pro market intellectuals like Adam Smith. It is not a neutral term but a derogatory one. It implies the rule of Capitalists. The Capitalists do not rule our society, although they inevitably have disproportionate influence.

Our current society is unequal and unfair. But Communist societies (in practice) are more unequal and more unfair. The party elite are the de-facto if not the de jure owners of capital. The working class has almost no power in a so called workers state. The British Socialist Workers Party and some other (Neo) Trotskyists accept the point about the party elite being the defacto owners of capital. Tony Cliff gives substantial evidence to argue that Stalin's Soviet union had higher levels of inequality than the united States.

1. Apparently conjugation of words is really important to you. You do know that the book itself is called “capital.”

2. You confess that the German edition of a book doesn’t have an English word in it. You must be very proud.

3. You admit none of this matters at all.

4. You imply that I was right and that you got Marx and Smith mixed up. Good job.

5. Your conspiracy theory about the word “capitalism” being made up to hurt your feelings in no way changes the fact that Adam Smith was describing a new economic system and how it developed. He even alludes to how the new merchants and the feudal governments didn't have the same interests or see eye-to-eye. Some of us accept that he was talking about economics. People like you want to whine about your feelings about how that makes you feel. The reader can decide which is a more legitimate point of view.

[Truth To Power]

You seem to be having a lot of problems with words.

My big problem is with dishonesty.

If it makes you feel better to think of yourself as superior, then that's fine.

LOL! Look who's talking!

But let's get those reading skills up!

I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

I meant bourgeois.

Then your claim that it resulted in American slavery is inexplicable.

It's okay to admit it when you don't know something, nobody knows everything!

The problem, as Twain observed, is the things folks know that ain't so...

Are you having difficulty following the conversation?

Maybe. As I mentioned, my chronic error is assuming honest intentions on the other side.

You seemed to miss that the context was bourgeois government.

It was the FIRST bourgeois government, which was somehow to blame for Cromwell and American slavery, as well as the Terror. Just which "bourgeois" government was that?

that's how we learn

I've learned to expect nothing of interest from you. Observe:

I then asked you to contextualize it further:
So now that you know what bourgeois means, and you know it has a particular type of slavery, let's see if you can guess how bourgeois notions of slavery may have been different than those in Ancient Egypt.
This might help. Talking to people at your level about slavery is notoriously tricky, but since you did such a good job of looking up the meaning of bourgeois, I think it's a discussion you're ready to have.
If you can list three things that are different about American slavery compared to Egyptian slavery, we can go over your work and keep talking. You're on the right track!
Let's go over the reading again. I've contrasted the two. Do you think that means I was saying the two are the same? Let's again think of differences between the two. Think of it like a game!
Now Truth to Power, did you not say that you knew what bourgeois meant? Perhaps you should look it up again. But since you seem to be really struggling with definitions, let me show you a primer that I think is easy enough:
Some of these words are really long, so don't be afraid to try looking them up!
I'm looking forward to talking to you about these topics, and I haven't given up. If you can do a little bit of reading and take your time in the definitions, you might be in a place where you can participate with the rest of us!
Don't be so hard on yourself! We all have to start somewhere, and you're doing a very good job. Just keep looking up new words so that you can use them in a sentence and try to think of how Ancient Egypt might not be the United States. Let me know when you're done

See? Nothing but a continuous spew of supercilious sneers and condescension, interspersed with evasions, equivocations and backpedaling.

Literacy issues aside, none of this changes the fact that it seems that the youth is moving away from capitalism

Unfortunately, people like you labor constantly to prevent them from seeing the alternative to capitalism and socialism: liberty, justice, and truth.

[The Immortal Goon]

I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

Great job!!!



Now try applying some of those skills!

Then your claim that it resulted in American slavery is inexplicable.

Do you need to look up the meaning of bourgeois again? We all need a refresher now and then!

The problem, as Twain observed, is the things folks know that ain't so...

I know, but don't be discouraged! There's plenty of people here that would be happy to help you learn.

Maybe. As I mentioned, my chronic error is assuming honest intentions on the other side.

Just because these are difficult concepts doesn't mean people aren't being honest. Why don't you try explaining what you're having trouble with, and then we can go through it together?

It was the FIRST bourgeois government, which was somehow to blame for Cromwell and American slavery, as well as the Terror. Just which "bourgeois" government was that?

I know it might have been very difficult for you, but for the third time I'm going to ask you to think of three differences between Egyptian and American slavery. Then check in with me or another adult, and we can start talking about context.

I've learned to expect nothing of interest from you.

Don't worry, I teach low level classes and I'm used to this. If you just do the work, you'll see that you can learn.

Unfortunately, people like you labor constantly to prevent them from seeing the alternative to capitalism and socialism: liberty, justice, and truth.

These are some big concepts! Before we parse through them, why don't you try looking up the big words that you had trouble with before and get back to me?

[Thomasmariel]

They're right to reject capitalism, as capitalism is terrorist and genocide

[Truth To Power]

They're right to reject capitalism, as capitalism is terrorist and genocide

No, because it isn't: some capitalist societies have no record whatever of terrorism or genocide: Switzerland, Norway, Finland, etc. They're right to reject capitalism because it makes people's rights to liberty into other people's private property. But they are also right to reject socialism, because it makes people's rightful private property into collective property. However, it's worth noting that of the two, socialism is worse -- verified by the unanimous verdict of history -- because when socialists steal capital, it reduces the amount of capital available for production, making socialist societies poorer; but when capitalists steal land, it doesn't reduce the amount of land available for production. See resource-rich socialist Venezuela vs zero-resource capitalist Switzerland for proof.

[Thomasmariel]

No, because it isn't: some capitalist societies have no record whatever of terrorism or genocide: Switzerland, Norway, Finland, etc. They're right to reject capitalism because it makes people's rights to liberty into other people's private property. But they are also right to reject socialism, because it makes people's rightful private property into collective property. However, it's worth noting that of the two, socialism is worse -- verified by the unanimous verdict of history -- because when socialists steal capital, it reduces the amount of capital available for production, making socialist societies poorer; but when capitalists steal land, it doesn't reduce the amount of land available for production. See resource-rich Venezuela vs zero-resource Switzerland for proof.

Capitalism means weapons and name-calling, so it's terrorist and genocidal

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism means weapons and name-calling, so it's terrorist and genocidal

No, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production: land and capital. So terror and genocide are pretty much orthogonal issues. Socialist countries have also engaged in terrorism and genocide, remember.

[Thomasmariel]

No, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production: land and capital. So terror and genocide are pretty much orthogonal issues. Socialist countries have also engaged in terrorism and genocide, remember.

Capitalism is theft and fascism, which leads to genocide

[Truth To Power]

Do you need to look up the meaning of bourgeois again? We all need a refresher now and then!

Condescension + evasion. Content = 0. As usual.

I know, but don't be discouraged! There's plenty of people here that would be happy to help you learn.

Condescension + evasion. Content = 0. As usual.

Just because these are difficult concepts doesn't mean people aren't being honest.

True; but what I've seen from both capitalists and socialists is concepts that are naturally easy deliberately being made difficult to facilitate and enable their dishonesty. The core example is "the means of production," the more difficult and complex aggregated concept which both capitalists and socialists have agreed to use as the basis of economic analysis, rather than the easier and simpler concepts of land and capital. They do this because it facilitates their dishonest pretense that land and capital are basically the same thing, when as a matter of objective physical fact, they are as different in their economic character and implications as chalk and cheese. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital; the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land. In both cases the pretense is dishonest, its purpose is dishonest, and the aggregation of the two easy concepts of land and capital into the more difficult concept "means of production" is effected to facilitate that dishonesty.

Why don't you try explaining what you're having trouble with, and then we can go through it together?

See above. I've explained it many times. The response, from both socialists and capitalists, is not to "go through it together" in an honest attempt to understand the issue, but to evade, misrepresent, ignore, dismiss, equivocate, ridicule, deny, prevaricate, pretend, insult, condescend, and ultimately censor. See above.

I know it might have been very difficult for you, but for the third time I'm going to ask you to think of three differences between Egyptian and American slavery.

See? Evasion + condescension.

Then check in with me or another adult, and we can start talking about context.

See? Insult + evasion.

Don't worry, I teach low level classes and I'm used to this.

See? Insult + evasion.

But I have been demolishing and humiliating socialist ignorami on this subject for decades, and am used to that .

If you just do the work, you'll see that you can learn.

See? Condescension + evasion.

These are some big concepts!

See? Evasion.

Before we parse through them, why don't you try looking up the big words that you had trouble with before and get back to me?

See? Condescension (which seems to be your specialty) + evasion.

Why would I bother getting back to someone who so O B V I O U S L Y has no intention of engaging in an honest mutual search for understanding?

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism is theft and fascism, which leads to genocide

No. Capitalism (like socialism) is theft, and it may foster fascism, but it is not fascism. When has Switzerland been fascist? When has Sweden or New Zealand?

[Thomasmariel]

No. Capitalism (like socialism) is theft, and it may foster fascism, but it is not fascism. When has Switzerland been fascist? When has Sweden or New Zealand?

Capitalism prevents trees from seeing thoughts, and means that a nation can tickle the balls of a creepy hallway

[The Immortal Goon]

What I've seen from both capitalists and socialist is concepts that are naturally easy deliberately being made difficult to facilitate and enable their dishonesty.

...See? Condescension (which seems to be your specialty) + evasion.

Why would I bother getting back to someone who so O B V I O U S L Y has no intention of engaging in an honest mutual search for understanding?

It's also possible that instead of everyone being in a conspiracy to lie to you, you just have difficulty in understanding the concepts. But that's okay--we all have difficulty with things sometimes!

I think we should start with your simple list of differences in types of slavery you seem to be having difficulty with, and then perhaps what you think "bourgouis" means.

Don't give up!

[Truth To Power]

It's also possible that instead of everyone being in a conspiracy to lie to you,

I neither said nor implied any such thing, as you know.

you just have difficulty in understanding the concepts.

<sigh> 170/170 on the GRE verbal. Remember? So blaming your terminological inexactitudes on my English skills is not going to cut it. Clear?

But that's okay--we all have difficulty with things sometimes!

Yes. For example, I have difficulty being civil to evading, condescending, and prevaricating apologists for evils that rob, oppress, enslave, starve, maim, torture and kill millions of innocent people.

I think we should start with your simple list of differences in types of slavery you seem to be having difficulty with, and then perhaps what you think "bourgouis" means.

Evasion + (surprise!) condescension. Content = o.

Don't give up!

Funny, that's what the Soviets told workers as they carted their most skilled and diligent managers off to the gulag...

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism prevents trees from seeing thoughts, and means that a nation can tickle the balls of a creepy hallway

Thanks for the input.

[Hindsite]

While I agree with Bulaba, I recall a poll in '08 or '09, Bush was just leaving office, that found the same sort of thing - an unusually strong affinity for socialism in the 18 to 35 years old bunch.

These are the Bernie type group that want free college education, free healthcare, and a lot of other free stuff. They are not into having to plan and work hard for a bright future. They want everything given to them on a silver platter.