Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.[5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[3][6] In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8]
You understand that the claim that Stalin was "the biggest capitalist" is, well, a bit daft, right? Or is this some kind of No True Capitalist game/time suck? "Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
Capital is capital. It's not an ideology. As Bourdieu pointed out, there is even intellectual capital.
Obviously, when Stalin owned ten million slaves, he was a big time capitalist of sort, except if you want to tell me ten million people are not any sort of capital (in which case I send you back to Bourdieu)
I think, therefore I create.
Respectfully yours, Thoughtful, and not thoughless,
PA Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
Oh wait, because Wikipedia, for all its shortcomings, is subject to a modicum of peer-review, whereas the only criteria I can find for your process of determining the veracity of something is: whether or not you thought of it. Because when asked to substantiate your claims, the evidence you provide is usually some odd assertion of your own intellect. As in, if you thought it, it must be true. And if others can't figure out what you are talking about, it must be that they are silly or mentally deficient in some manner. This is not evidence of thoughtfulness. "Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
Not only does that not fit the wikipedia definition of capitalist, it does not fit any commonly used definition of the term.
In an argument, you do not win simply by asserting that the terms being used in that discussion mean something different from what everybody else thinks. Words have shared meanings for a reason - so that we can use them and know what people are talking about.
By all means, make your arguments, and if you like, explain your alternative definitions and the reasons for that. But it's a bit much to get snippy at others for challenging your custom definitions.
I may differ from the commons in semantics, but (sociologist) Bourdieu's arguments on capital are now well accepted at the highest levels of culture.
If someone owns a car, or a house, or shoes that someone has capital. So one cannot just attack "capitalism", without attacking oneself. It's the wrong debate. Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
