this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
417 points (76.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43394 readers
1413 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi all,

I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] jerrimu@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The things you stated are not because of our financial system, but rather the scientific advances made. Scientific advances are not limited to capitalist systems.

[โ€“] qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Science cannot exist without finance. Science and its practitioners do not exist in a vacuum. Who are going to feed the "scientists"? Or who are going to be the "scientists"? It takes time and resources to train "scientists". It also takes time and resources to ensure knowledge is inherited and shared. That is why renaissance and enlightenment is such a big deal in history.

[โ€“] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is why renaissance and enlightenment is such a big deal in history.>

Umm...capitalism didn't exist in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. Most of Europe was still feudal during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. England is the exception, but England was always the exception. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Royal Society, for which Newton, Hooke, Halley, etc., were all members of, was funded by the Crown, hence the name, "Royal Society". The European savants all had royal patrons, like Leibniz, Brahe, and Huygens, that funded their livelihoods.

For note, I am a published historian by education that specialized in Tudor England.

[โ€“] qazwsxedcrfv000@lemmy.unknownsys.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Capitalism as a classification/concept did not exist does not mean the practice did not exist. Capital (both in kind and in mind) accumulation has been occurring since even the stone age. Of course we would not call those societies capitalistic.

Plus I am replying to the comment that tries to dismember science from finance/economy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)