this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
148 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
69845 readers
3689 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is telling me very little about the value of standards in a non-capitalist model, but man, is it telling me a lot of how pressure-washed the brains of US academics are. 'It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism,” the saying goes'? What the hell? Is that a "saying"?
I mean, part of the problem is I have no idea what Americans are talking about when they say "capitalism". Some mean everything up to and including outright fascist or communist centralized management as long as some form of private property exists. For others any glimpse of social democracy past radical anarchocapitalism is "not capitalism".
But even beyond that, how hard could it be to picture a non-capitalist form of trade or information sharing when it actively exists right now and always has? Capitalism has sometimes been the hegemonic form of structure for commerce or society, but it has never been the only one in place.
Oh, and as a note, I do like that this example comes from what seems to be a clearly left-leaning source. I often struggle to explain to well-meaning progressive Americans that their systems of value and meaning are built from the exact same pieces as their conservatives and in many casses approximate those more than the systems of progressives in other parts of the world. Which is true both ways, not just of Americans, but often not highlighted.
Any subject can be qualified, and you're right that more things probably should.
There's capitalism; then, for me, there's laissez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism as the two main branches. Somewhere within laissez-faire economics lies libertarianism and anarchy, which are political structures, but the implementation of which would presumed literally no central control - people trading precious metals, goods and services directly. On the other branch you have regulated markets that eventually include limited socialism - usually restricted to public infrastructure and military, and where you start to blend in aspects of communism. And while I'm certain there are technical terms for all of the, I care a little less about economics than I do sports, which is to say not at all.
I have my own opinions about what I think is wrong with Capitalism in the US, and what changes I think could fix them, but this is decidedly not my area of expertise and I'm very much a believer of differentiating between opinions and knowledge.
What you're seeing, I think, is a limitation in American education combined with DILIGAF - disinterest in becoming enough of a subject expert to use precise terminology. However, I think it's misplaced to get upset about it; I'm certain medical doctors, aerospace engineers, computer engineers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, classical musicians, voting theory scientists - they all probably mentally tear their hair out a little when talking to laypeople because we're all so "imprecise" in our terminology. I think it's just a consequence of living in a world so complex and varied, it's not possible for one person to be an expert and use precise terminology when talking about every subject - and this includes economics.
I don't think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
I think they are in a space where they don't think it applies to their output in this particular venue. Maybe in a space where they are subconsciously tied to a "here/now/default" take on the world that is just the US and everything else is this othered "elsewhere" that gets perceived as somehow smaller, less relevant or exceptional.
Part of it is a cultural disconnect. They may think the implications of "capitalism" when used to an American audience are clear. My observation is that this is not just a cultural disconnect in the use of the world, but instead that the word when used inside the US is fluid, poorly defined, deliberately imprecise and more or less tautological.
Capitalism is whatever the US does now, as perceived by whoever is using the word. I think that's a very purposeful result of US politics and, had they gotten to it on time, Americans may have benefitted from putting an end to it before the entire system lost all meaning.
Perhaps not, but successful academics will also understand and tailor their messaging to their audience, dumbing it down if necessary.
Complete agreement. So is the international hegemony of the dollar, and why, a decade ago, the US government had an apoplectic fit when OPEC made noises about starting to accept payments in, or fixing prices to, something other than the dollar. I don't think the general public understood just how important it is that so many of the global currencies are tied to the value of the dollar, and, like English, it's the financial lingua franca.
I disagree that it's been overall bad for the US, although I think it's been extremely unhealthy for the world at large.