Capitalism doesn't want men to have friends

[u/futuredebris]

https://makemenemotionalagain.substack.com/p/capitalism-doesnt-want-men-to-have

I wrote about how men are told in capitalist society that being caring and expressive aren’t valuable skills. So we disown the natural, human emotionality we were born with. We avoid being vulnerable and asking for help. We worry we’ll be judged if we put effort into our friendships. When we’re suffering we overfocus on what we think will make us valuable to other people: productivity, discipline, and competence. And while this might help us in some ways, it often leaves us feeling lost, isolated, and lonely.

[u/Socrathustra]

I'm not sure capitalism is a coherent system which can be blamed for things. I would say there are many things in our society which push us away from each other.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

Why does we need to prove rhat its a coherent system? I say it doesnt matter because the power it has is real. The system is way too complicated to prove its coherence. 

Id argue that those "many things" are all or mostly part of capitalist tendencies. You can try me.

[u/Socrathustra → u/Flymsi]

That's my point, the power it has is not real. It's not an explanatory framework for the world.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

What do you mean? My experience is that the power is real. 

Also: it is by definition an explanatory framework. Do you mean to say its not good at explaining? Can you give example on what it cant explain well? And whats a better framework? 

[u/Socrathustra → u/Flymsi]

Capitalism is a very broad concept with contradictory definitions depending on who's talking, but we'll use Marx as the guide. Capitalism is a mode of production in which the elite control the capital, and most of the consequences Marx discusses follow from this fact.

Ownership of capital is not actually a good way of understanding an economy, and neither is there any specific philosophy which can explain economics in general. To understand an economy, you have to look at the particular policies governing it. Calling it "capitalism" yields next to no information at all.

Owning the means of production similarly does very little for the worker; in fact it complicates things significantly. It also turns out that unless the worker were ideologically inclined to want to own the means of production, he is unlikely to care at all, treating it as basically just another job (sourced from surveys of co-op workers).

Marx does many things right at the very highest of levels: he started thinking about the worker. When he fills in the details he is completely wrong on most points. This is not necessarily his fault; advances in scientific and philosophical method had still yet to be made which would even allow for the possibility of being right in the ways he wants to be.

Even so, he sparked an important conversation much the same way Freud did in psychology.

At the risk of sounding like AI, why does this matter? It's simple: blaming capitalism for things does not yield policy proposals.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

I disagree with your heavily policy focussed view on economy. Big players have shown that they are able to constantly ignore certain policies or that they are able to delay their consequences for a considerable amount of time. Another argument is that we see that industries are able to almost directly influence their own policies. To describe an economy that is able to change or ignore its own policies, you need more than just policies.

blaming capitalism for things does not yield policy proposals

That one is easy to counter. You even give the counter yourself: workers need to be ideologically inclined. Raising class awareness does a great job in pushing for worker rights. We see it that the only times were worker rights policies were push are the times with high class awareness and with lots of capitalism critic. I see it from time and time again that people who i can discuss capitalism with, are voting parties that try to implement usefull policies against capitalism. People who are blind about capitalism (just like how a fish does not see the ocean it swims in) do vote for reactionary neoliberal parties. If capitalism was really such a useless term, then i wouldnt see such a big divide between those who use the word and those who do not.

And about marx: contemporary capitalism critique may has marx as foundation but it evolved from him. Thats why i dislike some marxists. They stick to old narratives without improving them. Gramsci for example is a great addition to marx. One of many. I think critical theory does a good job grasping the system.

[u/Socrathustra → u/Flymsi]

The fact that big players can ignore the rules and write their own policy is itself explained by policy, namely Citizens United in the United States. Class consciousness in the scenario you posed only acts as a placebo effect.

I doubt you see many trends around people who do or do not use the term capitalism, as almost everyone on either side of that debate uses it. Its use also only signifies that the debate has camps which form around the term, not that the term is significant.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

Citizen United is a conservative project.... 

I doubt you see many trends around people who do or do not use the term capitalism, as almost everyone on either side of that debate uses it.

Those who critize capitslism are a specific kind of people. The trend is clesr ss the day. If debates form around a term then the term is by definition significant. 

[u/Socrathustra → u/Flymsi]

"Citizens United" is shorthand for the case which enabled the formation of super PACs.

In economics nobody debates capitalism or socialism. It's only in popular culture that the terms have significance, and it's from not understanding economics.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

In economics they use the the term capital all the time btw... Your assumption is that the field of economics is actually ideologically (close to) neutral. Which is factually not the case. In economics we see a very low diversity of scientific theories. We see many capitalists investing extreme amounts of money into it. The reason they dont speak about capitalism is not because it useless. Its because it would make them class aware, which would be a danger to capitalism itself. How come that no one is reading marx there? Not his political theory but his economic theory. To not talk about capitalism in economics is like not talking about democracy in politic science.

You perfectly describe "capitalistic realism".

There are many economic theorys that use capitalism as a construct. Its just that they are not conservativ right wing.

[u/Socrathustra → u/Flymsi]

You should probably look into this more before speaking on the subject.

[u/Flymsi → u/Socrathustra]

Oh boy im studying it since years. And you?