User, what do you mean you don't subscribe to and read The Economist? Do you completely prefer the Financial Times...

>user, what do you mean you don't subscribe to and read The Economist? Do you completely prefer the Financial Times... you don't even read that... what?! user, can I have a quick word with you after this meeting?

Neolib Reptoids must Die

...

Ideology *sniff*
I'd rather read economic magazines rather than this progressivism cult drivel.

capitalism is by definition 'progressive' as it places capital accumulation over everything else. Capitalism is going to make us all into post gender post human cyborg entities eventually. Not conservative or 'leftist' by any means, but rather something for an amoral species of pseudo nietzschean consumer degenerates that doesn't fully exist yet

>tfw youre an apolitical spiritual seeker who has transcended economic processes and your parents ask you whey are you still unemployed

The obsessive hatred, bordering on psychosis, against products — i.e. against man-made objects — seems to be the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual today. Hatred of consumption, a problem which no sane, healthy person has ever had. As if food and clothes, as if eating or dressing were bad. Such is the pseudo-intellectual's craving to appear to be raging at something, that he will rage at life's basic necessitities if need be.

The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.

What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

Listen, MEATSACKS, I only read Nick Land!

My boss actually gets upset that we don't read Barron's.
He has failed to keep up with the internet age.

I like pasta

>What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money

You dun goofed.

>Real or financial assets possessing a monetary value
t. Oxford

Oxford who?

>not reading either of the only two britbong news sources worth reading
kys

While an asset may have monetary value, you cannot reduce it to just that. You know, bread you can eat.

Dictionary.

>While an asset may have monetary value, you cannot reduce it to just that.
Are you saying that bank notes aren't capital, or cannot be 'reduced' to monetary value?

>not understanding the difference between having monetary value and being money

How does one B themselves TFO this hard and not even notice?

>The Economist
>neolib

do you actually know what the buzzwords you regurgitate mean, or do you simply vomit a bunch and pray for coherence?

Do you realise different objects can and have been used as money? Also, answer this

>it's literally called the economist
fuck off disgusting neolib shill

>they are reptoids

So everything is money. What a revolutionary ontology. Assets can't be reduced to just money the same way mammals can't be reduced to just cats, and the fact that I had to explain that to you is just fucking pathetic.

>What a revolutionary ontology
How is that an ontology?

>So everything is money
That's not what I said. Let's start over:

>Capital
>Real or financial assets possessing a monetary value

>Money
>objects or tokens regarded as a store of value and used as a medium of exchange.

t. Oxford Dictionary.

>Assets can't be reduced to just money
I mean, they are different words for a reason, I hope you're not trying to argue that the words obviously are different. But the point is that capital is defined as assets with a monetary value, their value comes from being able to translate them into money. If you hate mammals, you hate cats, and the fact that I had to explain that to you is just fucking pathetic.

>But the point is that capital is defined as assets with a monetary value, their value comes from being able to translate them into money
Exchange for? Yes. Translate? No. There are fundamental differences between what you can do with different forms of capital and what you can do with money, and to go from one to the other requires actions and agreements.
>If you hate mammals, you hate cats, and the fact that I had to explain that to you is just fucking pathetic.
Doesn't change the fact that you just spent several posts trying to defend your lack of understanding of basic econ terminology. But it's only the second dumbest thing you said in your very, very dumb post. The dumbest is your naive and etymology-based understanding of what capitalism is. If you don't address that defect, you're not going to be able to have any meaningful discussions on the topic.

>Exchange for? Yes. Translate? No.
I was using 'translate' as synonymous with 'exchange'.

>There are fundamental differences between what you can do with different forms of capital and what you can do with money, and to go from one to the other requires actions and agreements.
But the same applies to currencies...

>The dumbest is your naive and etymology-based understanding of what capitalism is. If you don't address that defect, you're not going to be able to have any meaningful discussions on the topic.
What you take to be 'naive' I consider to be cautious and free of any pre-conceptions.

>an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market
>a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange
First is dictionary, second is mine. This is just one sentence in my post that's being pointlessly challenged.

>But the same applies to currencies...
Do you have a point?
>What you take to be 'naive' I consider to be cautious and free of any pre-conceptions.
Capitalism exists in the real world so trying to look at it without preconceptions is by definition naive.
>First is dictionary, second is mine. This is just one sentence in my post that's being pointlessly challenged.
Why am I not surprised that you don't see the differences?

>Capitalism = Exchange

no? do u even read the fucking dictionary?
n.
> An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

>An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

that's just the logical result of free exchange with no government regulation. Face it, you want bigger government

>that's just the logical result of free exchange with no government regulation.

Capitalism is posterior to the existence of joint-stock companies and private property, both are Statist notions.

No one is arguing against ANY act of consumption, the problem is when consumption becomes the main (in some cases the only) thing that's valued. Capitalism as a system makes its adherents think ONLY in terms of exchange, wanting to commodify everything and make profit their sole aim. This, more than anything else, hurts civilization: when people are seen only as sources of profit.

>Do you have a point?
You seemed to be insistent that you can't call capital money since things need to be done to exchange one to the other, and yet different forms of money also require these kinds of actions to be done in order to exchange between them.

>Capitalism exists in the real world so trying to look at it without preconceptions is by definition naive.
No, preconceptions don't necessarily exist in the real world. For example, there are probably certain moralisings that you would not consider to be based on reality, and these kinds of things can colour such a discussion.

>Why am I not surprised that you don't see the differences?
Helpful.

>An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Owned for what purpose? I think this definition elaborates that:
>a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange

>Capitalism is posterior to the existence of joint-stock companies and private property, both are Statist notions.
Oxford Dictionary:
>an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market
This definition would imply that capitalism is about as old as money itself. It seems like instead people are focusing on a specific form, in modern European history, and contrasting that with other systems.

>No one is arguing against ANY act of consumption, the problem is when consumption becomes the main (in some cases the only) thing that's valued
Well depends how you define consume. You could sum up the world as forces consuming or being consumed by each other. Or if you have a narrow definition then clearly capitalism does not make people think only consuming is valuable.
>Capitalism as a system makes its adherents think ONLY in terms of exchange, wanting to commodify everything and make profit their sole aim
Being allowed to enter freely into exchange != being enforced to exchange everything (as if that were possible). And if you are using the narrow definition of money, rather than exchange in general, then this is even more true, being free to exchange things does not mean you have to; people choose different things to exchange.

>This, more than anything else, hurts civilization: when people are seen only as sources of profit.
Again, freedom to exchange does not mean everything becomes monetary. Civilization is dependant on exchange.

>capital = money
>capitalism = being allowed to enter freely into exchange

You're just making up definitions, my good man.
And you're not really understanding what people are arguing for. Read more.