441
Capitalism made your iphone (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Purchase of the device is Capitalism, because your money IS your vote, and YOU are the Capital of Capitalism!

Capitalism describes the division of labour and profits, not the purchasing of goods. YOU are not theCapital in capitalism unless you are working for the profits of the owner. The root word of Capitalism is Caput, meaning head or cattle. Capitalism's root definition is basically the ownership of cattle or chattel.

In a planned economy, there are beepers and payphones. No one builds the most expensive commercial endeavor in all of human history – advanced silicon fab nodes

According to? The Soviets made it to space before we did, and China currently fabricates the vast majority of that technology. Technology isn't native to any economic structure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I would argue that is a better semantic dispute, but still forced. You can interpret things as political capital, technological capital, or even militaristic capital.... But it becomes a little over done pretty quickly. There are better and more accurate ways to describe these claims than to claim everything is capital.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Semantics do not create meaning, they describe it, poorly in most cases as vernacular evolves.

    Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.

    Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn't changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system.....

    Most of the people that worked for William Shockley have been interviewed and recorded, along with their protégés. Bo Lojek of Motorola also wrote History of Semiconductor Engineering (Springer).

    Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    do not care to argue with you like this. I come here to hang out with digital neighbors, not to have some angry debate.

    I don't think we're engaging in an angry argument? At least, I'm not upset. I think I'm just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?

    I get nothing out of this, and for a disabled guy in social isolation, these have a disproportionate negative impact. On my original LW account I just blocked everyone that argues or down votes as such toxic negativity is unwelcome, unnecessary, and mildly harmful to everyone.

    So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don't really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.

    The trials of physical disability may include a much reduced margin for adversarial encounters and contention. It is a subtle prejudice that is impossible to avoid.

    You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.

    Have a great day.

    You too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)