I heard that back in the days, people used to just go when their work was done on the farms and there was no concept of 9-5 (these days seem 24 hours work). There used to be a lot of holidays. Is that true? If it is, then given the abundance in technology, why our work hours increased and why do we have such weird lives that we live to work?
That suggests the problem is people don’t have any experience with capitalism, doesn’t it? Whatever it means to the person using the word, it’s always a system we live in, or somewhat live in.
The issue is the term is meaningless if it isn’t grounded in history. If it simply means “the system you live in” then it says nothing of how it came to be and what can come after.
Sure, but there’s no historical context there whatsoever, or even a present-day framing to narrow it down. The main thing it achieves, as a one-word response, is declaring a kind of tribal allegiance.
If you’ve clearly defined you mean “any market-based system” or “a system which no longer has a landed aristocracy”, among the many other possibilities, then sure, it’s not worth being a pedant about the exact word used. (Although, any conversation is more likely to be productive if you just say what you mean, instead)
Yes, using the word “capitalism” is a signifier, but I wouldn’t say it’s counterproductive. Based on a person’s response you can quickly conclude whether they have the historical context to understand the critique. Defining capitalism as “a market-based” system is ahistorical , markets existed before capitalism. It is very hard to surface the critique while also writing a wall of text that describes how capitalism came to be and how it was later moderated
No, tribal signifiers are dumb and easy to fake. Ask anyone who’s infiltrated the far right.
It’s what follows the signifiers that’s the tell