Yes. In the context of the original post and my comment (the isms, or ideologies), exactly this.
The first definition is not relevant to capitalism, it is the same usage as their “artist to artism” point, but it is literal and not a confused fallacy trying to introduce an ism that does not exist. An artist is to art, as a capitalist is to capital. However, we’re talking about isms here, nothing they’ve tried to raise.
That should have been obvious from the original post; if not, by my comment; if not, especially as they typed out their artism argument; if not, certainly by the time they consulted the dictionary. Four whooshes.
Yes. In the context of the original post and my comment (the isms, or ideologies), exactly this.
The first definition is not relevant to capitalism, it is the same usage as their “artist to artism” point, but it is literal and not a confused fallacy trying to introduce an ism that does not exist. An artist is to art, as a capitalist is to capital. However, we’re talking about isms here, nothing they’ve tried to raise.
That should have been obvious from the original post; if not, by my comment; if not, especially as they typed out their artism argument; if not, certainly by the time they consulted the dictionary. Four whooshes.