@freemo Interesting. I notice 2 things.

1/ I'm possibly falling into that typical bashing of "Capitalism" maybe because I'm not getting what I want related to the other parts of life I want and responsibility of many systems which Capitalism doesn't seem to help with - at all (at least the Modern kind).

Ideally I'd like to think, involves or implement #Mutual #Cooperation (towards various things), Saving #Nature, Increasing #Commons / #Commoning, #Feelings / #Consent being part of it but not I don't see these words a lot or at all in Capitalism or books. So maybe I blame it or anyone that uses it overly (which I don't think can only be blamed on (people but the design too).

So the name is one thing but also I'm just a bit more concerned / defending what these words ignore / over-write / replace with numbers or mathematical tricks frankly.

YOU CAN SKIP TO 2ND POINT FOR NOW AND NEXT HORIZONTAL LINES...
and come back here if you have the taste for it... above as the main point 1
======================================

Caring about what people think is not just a number for example or free-market. All this 'other stuff' not in systems seems to me actively cutting it out (again said or not said).
And after that many things like Authoritarianism are exactly what you get as result of #MoralFailures or mostly physical / material ways of looking at life / extraction of it etc. There's more than that, hence Capitalism limited (of course but used by people deliberately so for that and evolving to crush people).

❓ Is it possible to have #commons and #caring with Capitalism?
Maybe. But not fully it seems.

❓ Does Capitalism mean banks and debt-based system creates debt mostly first and therefore negative propelled polarity / not positive in the other humans sense? Seems so.

❓ What it is Capitalism heading towards in terms of facilitating religion / beliefs / caring of various kinds never just 1 as a whole number or limited attribute / bigger spectrum of attributes?

Holding *Modern Capitalism* responsible seems relative - or those who are responsible for using it as rolling steam-roller of things

If #Capitalism prefers to ignore or lacks participation on human levels then it can reflect how much it is like a x y or z type system.

Finance or number-looking perspectives are close to #Fascism for me as the whole story is looking at people for profit / pimping / working them without diversity in mind (just for money) and other moral transactions is less there / non-existent. What it means to people locally, nature, seems a bit too encompassing as a system to involves but if we agree people are largely not part of the equation (only material and physical type intellect used once it's gained) then it seem play less of a part in life even though part of it physically.

IF free-market Capitalism involves not caring about or even assume we can do free-market selling the planet then perhaps for me it infers selling people or planet is ok - which seems wrong... at least without a whole other balance...

I'm defending what other people might feel ok with even by their God or just what exists today as a result of leverage to make people work (throttling for maximising gain) and could exist more towards making it free / pre=paid than for any kind of mass profit / screwing people to the wall to work for Capitalism. Imagnie most of the profit could pay for the many.

❓ Is Capitalism part of a rolling class of similar people or positions and keeping their position?

So I'm reviewing those things as "Capitalism" while at the same time it is is all probably asking a bit too much from language when it's a whole bunch of things.

========================================
2ND POINT

2/ At the same time of accepting inaccuracy or differences I feel like it's bad overall and not as neutral as you're talking about - almost 'another' kind of definition or free-market Capitalism definition, which surely exists, but in today's sense I'm not sure it does any more and not as embedded as it is today - so *just* the more static or classical past definition sure, but the practical usage today ( ignoring planetary limits, increasingly number representations NOT representing people properly or planet, animal-lovers, maybe #ClimateChange / #EnvironmentDamage at the expense of a business perspectives that Capitalism might have ( or simply might ignore and not declare as limits, assuming Infinite Growth, taking from other markets ok etc)... Can seem less related to Capitalism and 'maybe' not Capitalism's fault but it's part of how people use it... so it is different today both how it's used and what it is.

Today's version being tied to everything I feel which could frame the classical sense(s) of the word Capitalism differently and is not isolated any more - literally everything is increasingly weaponised FOR Capitalism or 'as' Capitalism itself is evolving and is / or becoming under #Authoritarianism or whatever let's say aggression or over-ruling personal beliefs, territorial eating of other's resources (or many things Capitalism is part of but might seem completely 'optional' to reader of the dictionary). People have and fall into a definite program whichever way it seems you look at it to do a set type of patterns at the expense of almost 'these thing' almost never. Why not? Largely the answer is that it's geared for very different things, not happiness or end-game for future children, it looks upon people and things well almost the same - just a thing to kick around and find sweet spot of demand and supply MINI-GAMES which make a bit of a mockery at the end.

Anyway some robust questions - all that is about caring and not sure how much you're into that.

So...

- Could the definition of Capitalism you had in mind change with time?

- How about if Capitalism is used as a sub-set to Authoritarianism ?
Would repackaging make it different weapon be totally innocent like a trigger for a gun or #mechanism not always for bullets but similar?

A strong repackage of Capitalism or forced-evolution tree (Like most #Linux #servers functioning or treated like an #advertising #farm) makes it a different animal overall and from birth - despite it being ok once as a component on it's own (but also server architecture changing). All these change / renders the definition, relativity and practical implementation different today even if still the same 'basic principle'.

> I'm possibly falling into that typical bashing of "Capitalism" maybe because I'm not getting what I want related to the other parts of life I want and responsibility of many systems which Capitalism doesn't seem to help with - at all (at least the Modern kind).

Yea that makes sense, that and I think there is a large dose of misusing the term capitalism as well, which is extremely common, even among people who are experts there can be debate on that.

Usually people wrongly take an uneducated approach to what capitalism is, they usually take it to mean "money rules and everyone is driven by greed", when in reality it means "markets are free, meaning everyone has the same amount of power int he market, no one can game the system". Much of what people therefore call capitalism is anything but. Banks having a monopoly on the market of fiat is very much anti-capitalism, as are all monopolies. Same goes for rich people being able to influence elections, that is anti-capitalism.

The other thing people do is they assume governments are monolithically one ideology or another. They will often refer to the USA as some model capitalism despite the fact that most of its characteristics are anti-capitlist and it only has a slight capitalism influence. Same is true of socialism, people often wrongly refer to most of europe as socialist when in fact the vast majority is anti-socialist and just has a handful of socialist qualities (and the USA too has a handful of socialist qualities).

People just really suck at nuance.

> Ideally I'd like to think, involves or implement #Mutual #Cooperation (towards various things), Saving #Nature, Increasing #Commons / #Commoning, #Feelings / #Consent being part of it but not I don't see these words a lot or at all in Capitalism or books. So maybe I blame it or anyone that uses it overly (which I don't think can only be blamed on (people but the design too).

Capitalism in no way forces such cooperation, nor does it preclude such cooperation. This goes back to thinking of capitalism as "everything a government does" rather than just one of a 100 ideologies a government may adopt. Capitalism just guarantees people can engage in trade fairly, nothing more. That trade can be used to further cooperation or it can be used to further competition, that is up to the society and even the government. We can, for example, use government taxes to help everyone and engage in cooperation, there is nothing remotely in capitalism that would be contrary to that, capitalism isnt anti-tax nor is it anti public service.

> So the name is one thing but also I'm just a bit more concerned / defending what these words ignore / over-write / replace with numbers or mathematical tricks frankly.

As well you should, the issue I had was largely with your choice of wording. Your concerns, at least around the baking system and cooperation and compassion, are perfectly valid and a legitimate criticism. But we have to be clear that criticism is just as prevalent in a capitalism as it is in a communism. Even the idea of a central bank is contrary to capitalism, but in communism you dont just have a central bank, you have a central authority that forces everyone to give up their money, so you centralize not just the bank but the bank customer (just one customer, the government, everyone else is at their discretion). So with communism you take the problem of a centralized bank and replace it with centralized money where one entity controls all money.. thats like taking the problem of authoritarianism and saying "maybe if we crank the authoritarianism up to 11 then we wont have authoritarianism anymore"... its really absurd.

But yea, your concerns, once we agree is outside of the scope of capitalism is perfectly valid.

@messaroundmarx

> Cool. So what words do you think I should use for my definition.

If you are looking for the name of a form of government that has authoritative central banks there really isnt one. However if you want a form of government that is anti-capitalist but represents a dynamic where money directly effects your influence in the government (basically what people misuse capitalism to mean) then the closest I can think of is plutocracy.

If you just want to highlight the authoritative nature then you can say authoritism, which is a major component in how many define conservatism.

> And then how to avoid this - I can see myself like a scratched record falling back into it... because I think many others are also not as educated or good with nuances? (kinda funny but if lots of people think it's the same then they can agree incorrectly)

The best way to avoid it is learn the concepts and the vocabulary better and try to use narrow and specific language like I described above.

> The use of this word is for me to know what I mean and then also for others to know - so it's kind of a vicious cycle! -
> Although I am using the word incorrectly / inaccurately, ironically others / we know what I . they mean and share similar dislike in the things I listed along the way in reply to you.

Well no apparently others dont know what you mean, because based on this one individuals responses he seemed to completely derail the conversation focusing on communism and capitalism and completely avoiding the important aspect of authoritarianism and even making recommendations that would increase authoritarianism suggesting the use of language may give the **illusion** of people understanding you when in fact their just mapping their own definitions. It is all smoke and mirrors from what I see.

> I can see how people might naturally never come out of these proper definitions because the feelings are almost right to them or others (oppression or cheating of some kind, lack of power or some meta way to see it) and even if the words they use are not great we can agree on 'wrong' or 'right' in some way.

Its much simpler than that, its purely about tribalism and non-cooperation principles which ironically was the main topic. Look how this guy @messaroundmarx responded to even light symantic criticism, his immediate response was to try to "exile" me from any discussion. **This** anti-cooperation toxic behavior is exactly why people intentionally keep using words incorrectly, because those errors allow you to make nonsensical arguments and allow you to construct bad logic that let you "fit in" with the community. Its the same reason you do it, everyone does it. People are so toxic you will be an outcast if you actually use logic and have nuanced opinion, so you ahve to talk their language, hate who they hate, and tow the line and youll fit in. You only do that if you use the same language as them, however wrong it is because that language is centrtal tot he idology. Hating capitalism, without having a clue what that word even means, is the cool thing to do.

> So thanks for this talk.

Happy to

> A few questions to wrap is the over question and mini points here so I can continue on a better trajectory and even 'teach' others on a better way to distinguish as a better reference or step by step way. Any ideas?

Just what I said above, be mindful of the nuance, be careful about your words, and stop thinking in black and white terms all or nothing. A government isnt capitalist or not, **every** government has some amount of capitalism in it, its a matter of degrees. Its also important to know capitalism on its own means nothing all that useful other than "free market" so if you find yourself using it to mean everything a government is and does, stop and rethink.