Before we continue, ktttn and blablahblah, could you please give us your definition of what you think "capitalism" is? Because ou keep posting either gross misconceptions of capitalism, or examples that have nothing to do with capitalism, and it really looks as if we're all arguing about different things.
Any less than a bookshelf worth of information is insufficient to convey my understanding of capitalism. To be sure, my meaning of the word is very different than the meaning proffered by those who approve of it and engage in it.
I'm not in the buisiness of writing dictionaries, you understand. I'm criticizing the way things are done.
The best thing a piece of legislation can ever do is mitigate the insanity of an earlier law.
Similarly, when capitalism improves folks' lives, it only does so in respect to the ways capitalism previously distorted and wrecked those same lives.
Capitalism inserts a materialistic value system that is rather unhealthy in my experience.
To deconflate capitalism and materialism, perhaps distinguishing the two may shed light between them make communication of the ideas they relate to more smooth.
Deconflate. Technical slang? If not, a really kludgy use of prefixes, sort-a like
deconstruct -- leaves me wondering whether the guy's unsure of what he means to say. I'll go by the context & guess "differentiate," or "separate" -- something like that.
Thus far, no one in this thread has confused the two -- one's an economic system, the other a philosophical theory more often lumped together with socialism (Marx's historical materialism -- that's the culprit). So i think we're good here.
If capitalism is the system of measuring the value, and materialism is the choosing of ignore spiritual value and focus solely on the physical,
No. "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, with the goal of making a profit." -wikip
Materialism does not "ignore spiritual value." Neither is it consumerism. Materialism attempts to interpret the spiritual without allusion to the supernatural, pretty much what hard scientists do. Won't argue how correct or successful it is, but it chooses to ignore nothing.
In combination they may lead to a devaluation of the human condition.
However, they are distinguishable and different. Capitalism allows for valuing not merely physical objects, but experience and thought as well as the universe of other possibilities a person can ascribe value. It is merely the system that allows us each to agree on how we value what we value and come to agreement with each other on how to mutually advantage each other to achieve what we each value.
Please. I'm not sure what you're describing, but it's not capitalism. I've pasted a wikip quote above, and it's as good a one-sentence definition as any. Beyond that, i can only agree with ktttn -- there's too much to sum up in a post. But "agreeing on how we value" is not it.
If you value freedom more than another, you may choose to keep your time unconstrained by agreeing to bargain with it for anything.
A materialist may value an asset more highly than freedom, and trade away their time (but not another's) more easily.
Oddly enough, the bargaining often happens under more stressful conditions*.
*See: Your money or your life! & Day's wages is this rotten potato, take it or starve!
The word "capitalism" has been tarnished by conflating these ideas by those that would prevent the freedom to choose how we each ascribe individual values by ceding that responsibility and right to assign value to a central authority.
Wait, wait, which those are them? The Enemy? Communist Infiltrators? The Feds?*
*AFAIK, no one conflated any ideas. There's no need to deconflate anything.
Continuing that conflating confusion may create unnecessary conflict with the An-Cap folks who are struggling to throw out the bathwater and hang on to the baby.
Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms!