It depends, if you think 100% pure unadulterated capitalism is a good thing, then "pure" is "good". If you think capitalism needs some checks and bounds then "pure" is "bad".
In the former case, "extreme capitalism" and "pure capitalism" may be two different things. In the latter, they are synonymous.
I still fail to see the difference. You seem to be suggesting that "extreme" is being used as a bad replacement for "against my moral views"? That is, that "pure" capitalism is "extreme" capitalism if and when "pure" capitalism is "bad"? What would qualify as "extreme" capitalism in the former?
In this example? I don't know, maybe this is what capitalism looks like in Nepal, but I've never been so I have no idea. All I know is my paycheck isn't drenched in blood, sweat, and tears, which to be clear, I am very grateful for.
True our paychecks may not be, however, the goods and services that we consume from developing nations will most definitely be 'drenched in blood, sweat and tears'.
This is also capitalism is it not?
I think the previous guy was trying to say that there is no morality in capitalism and therefore words such as extreme and pure do not apply. Capitalism is only concerned with money, nothing else.
> I think the previous guy was trying to say that there is no morality in capitalism and therefore words such as extreme and pure do not apply. Capitalism is only concerned with money, nothing else.
Pure can certainly still apply. After all, there is no morality in the existence of water, but water can still be pure.
You said it seems like an "extreme" form. Now you don't know what that means? I don't mean to seem confrontational; I simply didn't and still don't understand your comment.
So far my guess is that, as hinted in this and another response [0], that "extreme" is being used as a euphemism for "things I morally disagree with". Which, to me, does not make it any less "pure", but is rather your judgement on what "pure" capitalism is.
Well capitalism is defined as: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
I don't see how this tragic event is a pure form of anything except tragedy.
A tragic event happened. The Sherpa valued going home to mourn, and also valued being paid. I believe that collyw was suggesting that in "pure" capitalism, payment wouldn't occur unless services are rendered. So the ideas of "going home to mourn" and "being paid" would be incompatible. The result as stated was that "being paid" was considered to be of higher value, and thus they would continue. This is capitalism, because the Sherpa were privately allocating their capital (in this case, themselves and their skills) to what they considered the most valuable pursuit at the moment.
I don't make any value judgements in the above, except perhaps in the first sentence. It's simply my interpretation of the comment, and how the quote was representing "pure" capitalism in my understanding.
I think by now you have sufficiently, if indirectly, answered my question of what you meant by "extreme". It seems like I was probably correct in my guess.
Ok, I think I see what you're after. But take for instance a pirate ship. They're off looting and plundering. They lose half their crew to cholera. The crew wants to go home, but they won't have any money, thus they won't be able to eat. Is that "pure" Piracy, or is it just a demoralizing tragedy? In most societies, you gotta work to eat. I don't think it's necessarily a function of capitalism.