@tony Thanks for the tip!

@cmw How would you define it?

How about, an economic school of thought or system, in which the possession of things is given more economic importance than in other schools/systems?

@Cerberus I'm not so sure about that. Wouldn't a king who valued their possessions more than anything also fit that bill?

@cmw What would the school of thought then be?

In a feudal system, possessions can be very important.

@Cerberus Depends on who is defining it and when. I haven't gotten too deeply into this lately, but I had before taken Polanyi's view.

Who?

Usually, in a feudal system, other factors are very important as well, such as class, family, honour, tradition.

@Cerberus I was thinking of that episode in Herodotus where Croesus shows off his possessions to Solon.

I would say most feudal systems we know have a fair bit of capitalism in them, in as much as capital is an important factor of power in them.

@cmw Croesus is such a capitalist!

What happens in the episode?

He says he is most blessed because he is the richest man.

Solon knows better, says that two boys who carried their mother and then died from exhaustion are more blessed than he is.

Odd choice, for sure, but his point was "consider no man blessed until he dies."

Which Croesus then saw for himself once he was captured by Cyrus.

Capitalism is an economic theory that capital can be increased through a system of private ownership over means of production and utilized for profit in markets.

I might have to alter that definition a bit if you poke at it too much.

I didn't want to necessary make a claim about the importance of capital in a capitalist society, because that could vary with other beliefs, but clearly in pure capitalism it's all about capital.

@cmw Hmm.

I'm not sure I understand this definition.

@cmw The rich are often unhappy anyway!

@Cerberus In essence, private individuals or groups own the means of production; the fruits of that production are converted to profit in markets, which is then used to increase capital.

@cmw So what you describe sounds more like a natural phaenomenon than a school of thought?

@Cerberus Well, I guess "economic system" is better than "economic theory".

I wouldn't call it natural!

Hah.

So "private individuals or groups own the means of production": could one say means of production = capital?

And how do you define private individuals?

Not e.g. families or corporations?

I did say "private individuals or groups."

The groups part would cover families and corporations.

A corporation isn't a real thing outside a legal framework. It's essentially a legal cover for a group of individuals.

Oh, sorry, I misread!

I would include "means of production" under capital, but not all capital is "means of production."

So what you describe is a state of affairs?

Is it in effect in most places in the world?

Today? Isn't it?

You and I are in agreement though that the essence of it is to acquire more capital. Compare that to mercantilism where the essence of it is to maintain a very high export to import ratio. It's where the emphases lie that is important. The process is actually not that different from market economics in antiquity.

And in which places is it not in effect?

@cmw I think what I am uncertain about rather concerns the type of thing that is is (theory? school of thought? practical state of affairs)? And also at what intensity the things deserves the name capitalism.

@Cerberus Thus the most common problem in defining and delineating human made concepts. What is freedom? At what point is someone free or not free? When is it a democracy and...yadda yadda yadda.

Maybe!

But, to me, capitalism is an economic school of thought, or a typical aspect of certain economic systems: not a theory nor a state of affairs.

And I like to stick to this simple stub for definitions of -isms: an -ism is a school of thought or phaenomenon in which the part before the -ism is very important.

@Cerberus Like embolism.

;)

What is an embol(us?) even? Something cast into something?

lol

It should be a phaenomen in which an embol... is very important.

A phaenomenon characterised before all other phaenomena by the centrality of embol... within it.

I guess that's fair enough!

And we can be more specific, when such a phaenomenon or school of thought praedominently happens to manifest itself in a certain specific way.

I think things get tricky when talking about racism or sexism.

I wouldn't say "sexism is a phenomenon in which sex is the most important part of it."

That makes no sense to me.

Maybe sexism is an approach in which sex is the determining factor of the approach?

@Adam Is it? I wouldn't think so.

Approach isn't really the best word

@cmw Why not?

It's just rather unspecific, because sexism usually happens in certain more specific ways.

@Cerberus Because an action can be both mildly sexist and extremely racist, and for that action, the sex discrimination is not the most important part.

@Adam I think approach can be a good word.

I would say that "sexism" is a particularly badly-formed word.

If you wanted to be explicitly clear you could say genderism

@cmw I would put it more abstractly: a certain action is not sexism. But the phaenomenon of placing more importance in sex [than expected, than happens in other phaenomena, etc.] is a (very abstract) definition of sexism, I think?

@cmw Hmm why?

Because of the ambiguity with respect to the word sex?

No, because it's a Latin word with a Greek ending.

Ah, of course.

Those damn hybrids!

But that applies to most -isms, does it not?

Is there a latin ending that can be used the same way as -ism?

But also the words become too nebulous. You would not call an algorithm that has learned to divide male from female bears "sexist."

I wonder what the romans would have though of using a greek ending with a roman word

@Adam I doubt it!

@Cerberus -ity?

@cmw I suppose we tend to have a more specific thing in mind when we talk about sexism, yes.

@cmw Maybe!

sexily

damn auto-correct

But I think -(i)sm is a bit more than -(i)ty?

@Cerberus In English, yeah.

@Adam Haha.

@cmw Not in Greek and Latin as well?

I think some of the original Greek and Latin is lost in translation.

Yeah.

To me, -tas and -ty mainly turn a word into something abstract.

Sexity is amusing to say, I want to read that and think it means a state of being sexy.

The same ending for "sexism" and "capitalism" is found in "charisma."

And spasm!

The state of having "charis."

Right.

@Adam Perhaps sexuity?

For the stem of sexus is sexu-.

@cmw So how I feel about it is that such definitions may be too broad to be practical; but they cannot be too narrow. In other words, if a certain thing is rightly categorised as an instance of sexism, it must conform with the 'simple' (very broad) definition.

So if I discriminate against you based on your skin colour, this is not to be considered sexism.