[lightgreen]

Let me rephrase.

Too high or too low temperature environment can hurt people. People with a soldeing iron can hurt people. People putting other people in the fridge can hurt people. Just temperature is not something which can do anything to anyone.

Capitalist companies, people living in capitalism, governments under capitalism, taxes and so on may be good or bad for people.

But saying "capitalism does not give a shit about people" is just literally nonsense. Of course it doesn't because an economic and political system is not an actor.

I could infer from the original comment that all actors under capitalism "do not give a shit", but that's obviously untrue. For example, wikipedia lives under capitalism and benefits from the capitalist system, and obiously it is good for people.

I could assume that the actor mean very narrow group of actors when they said "capitalism", but I won't because I will likely be wrong about understanding what the author really wanted to say (rich people? all people? large corporations? any corporations? including non-profits? and so on). It would be better if the author added some clarity to their comments. Would be better if the author said what exactly they wanted to say without throwing literally meaningless socialist slogans.

[tsimionescu]

Well, socialism (in its original form, not USSR-style "socialism") for example is an economic system that, by its definition, cares about people and their wellness. Capitalism, in contrast, is an economic system that, by its definition, doesn't care about people or their wellness. Just like democracy is a political system that cares about the people, whereas monarchy is a political system that doesn't.

If you want to be pedantic, you can say that the proper phrasing would be something like "socialism is an economic system whose defined goals are people's wellness", "capitalism is an economic system whose defined goals have nothing to do with people's wellness (they are profit for the owners of capital, and perhaps innovation)". But "caring for" is obvious shorthand for this.

You can, of course, say that individual actors living under any of these systems may or may not care about the people, and that's true. But the system itself may be designed with or without the people in mind, and different systems fall on different sides of this idea - for better or for worse.

[lightgreen]

I really don't like these oversimplifications.

It is like saying, railroads don't care about people, railroads are only interested in trains moving fast and reliably.

Or it is like saying, doctors (even under socialism) don't care about people, they only care about getting their salaries.

Smarter people make one step further concluding that fast and reliable trains are beneficial to people, doctors heal sick people, and capitalism generally make people wealthier.

> capitalism is an economic system whose defined goals have nothing to do with people's wellness (they are profit for the owners of capital, and perhaps innovation)"

Adam Smith' first book called "The Wealth of the Nations" not "The Wealth of the Richest People in Power").

I would not go that far to define a "goal" of capitalism. It is just a system of rules and principles, there's no goal in it.

And these rules and principles are profitable for both capital owners (they can grow their capital), and for regular dudes (who can be paid better because market provides them with more opportunities to pick different jobs and higher quality jobs and who can use cheaper good and services).

[nkozyra]

I'm sorry but this still treats capitalism as some ridgid, immutable force. This is demonstrably untrue. We, today, have capitalism shaped by the will of the people. The degree to which we allow it to be shaped is the actual point of contention, not the malleability itself.

I also find it unfortunate that you'd choose to represent such potential flexibility in the system as "meaningless socialist slogans." That makes it feel like you're not engaging in good faith with the central argument.

[lightgreen]

> That makes it feel like you're not engaging in good faith with the central argument.

There was no argument besides that socialist slogan.

I could get arguments like:

Large companies are inefficient under capitalism, they provide less value than they take from the society.

or

Capitalism is a very inefficient system of distribution of goods and services.

But there were none.

[nkozyra]

The argument is pretty clear to me: without holding corporate feet to the fire, we will suffer to varying degrees by their will.

If that's your definition of socialism, well, I'd argue that you do not actually know what socialism is.