Capitalism has a very clear goal: make more money, sell more stuff.
And the culture around capitalism in different countries, gives it even more specific goals (the american dream, the rat race, etc).
That is like claiming evolution has w goal. Don't anthropomorphize it.
Isn't this statement obviously wrong? Evolution is a process in nature. Capitalism is a human invention. One can't anthropomorphize it, because it's already anthropomorphized by the fact that it's a human endeavor.
"Liar"? This choice of wording sounds like a quasi-religious attack. Like they're blasphemers or something, that dared misinform about capitalism.
No chance they could be right, or at least just misguided, instead of "liars"? Or that the subject being more complicated than a binary like "designed/emergent"?
Now, to the gist of it. Numerous human societies existed that weren't capitalist. In fact in many countries (of the last 2-5 centuries) capitalism was imposed along with colonialism, and otherwise they continued their ancient ways of living and trading. It is widely accepted that what we call capitalism (as opposed to mere exchange and trade, which existed since forever) was born around 13-14th century in Europe.
In any case, whether it was emergent or designed doesn't mean much. It was both: it was collectively shaped (emergent), by several influences, but it also had clearly designed elements (from contract and labor law, to central banks and monetary policy).
National law for one gives a very precise framework that molds capitalism in a certain shape in different countries, and that law was designed by actual humans with specific purposes and goals in mind.
And of course, something being "emergent" and that thing having "anthropomorphic" elements (if you refer to the second part of my comment) is not contradictory -- if that something emerged by human action within human societies.
Comments
Capitalism has a very clear goal: make more money, sell more stuff.
And the culture around capitalism in different countries, gives it even more specific goals (the american dream, the rat race, etc).
Isn't this statement obviously wrong? Evolution is a process in nature. Capitalism is a human invention. One can't anthropomorphize it, because it's already anthropomorphized by the fact that it's a human endeavor.
What liar told you that? Capitalism is an emergent system. Nobody designed capitalism.
"Liar"? This choice of wording sounds like a quasi-religious attack. Like they're blasphemers or something, that dared misinform about capitalism.
No chance they could be right, or at least just misguided, instead of "liars"? Or that the subject being more complicated than a binary like "designed/emergent"?
Now, to the gist of it. Numerous human societies existed that weren't capitalist. In fact in many countries (of the last 2-5 centuries) capitalism was imposed along with colonialism, and otherwise they continued their ancient ways of living and trading. It is widely accepted that what we call capitalism (as opposed to mere exchange and trade, which existed since forever) was born around 13-14th century in Europe.
In any case, whether it was emergent or designed doesn't mean much. It was both: it was collectively shaped (emergent), by several influences, but it also had clearly designed elements (from contract and labor law, to central banks and monetary policy).
National law for one gives a very precise framework that molds capitalism in a certain shape in different countries, and that law was designed by actual humans with specific purposes and goals in mind.
And of course, something being "emergent" and that thing having "anthropomorphic" elements (if you refer to the second part of my comment) is not contradictory -- if that something emerged by human action within human societies.
If capitalism is emergent it emerged from people's desire to make more money, sell more stuff.