4 ms·

Such drivel. There is no "after capitalism," unless the concept of economics disappears completely. Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transac

Such drivel. There is no "after capitalism," unless the concept of economics disappears completely. Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree. As long as there is supply and demand (finite resources) there is capitalism. We have democratic socialism to make capitalism less brutal (read: less efficient but more humanizing) but demand is too fickle for most economies to be centralized much beyond that.

noja 11y ago
There is "after capitalism": it's after our current flavour of capitalism.
lumberjack 11y ago
What we have is welfare states, not democratic socialism.
- necessity 11y ago
  The majority (representatives) vote a law that says we take money from some and give it to others. Democratic socialism seems like a reasonable name for it, even though it's not necessarily taking from the owners of the means of production nor necessarily giving to the working class. Though I guess welfare state is more "official".
creshal 11y ago
> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree. That depends on your definition of "capitalism" and "economy". If you use "capitalism" in contrast to Mercantilism and feudalism – which seems to be a rather unpopular view in English-speaking countries for some reason –, then it makes perfectly sense. Although it would help to actually read it.
- puredemo 11y ago
  It would help to read... what exactly?
tomp 11y ago
> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree Not really. A lot of today's capitalism is based on concepts such as copyright, patents and trade secrets, which are definitely not "natural" - in fact, they are directly opposite of "free market". Personally, I believe that a capitalistic system where these three are eliminated or at least severely restricted would be much preferable to what we have today.
- ersii 11y ago
  All three are basically the right of ownership, isn't that practically exactly what capitalism is? Could you please elaborate on how the world would look like without these three concepts?
  - tomp 11y ago
    No, it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly. If I copy something you own, you still own it, I'm not taking anything away from you... It would be amazing! Basically what we have now, but (1) noone would go to jail for piracy, and (2) all research would be shared much sooner, and you wouldn't need to worry which spurious patents your original research is infringing.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      >it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly. Ownership is a form of monopoly as well. Just because a resource is rivalrous doesn't mean more than one person couldn't be permitted to use it, particularly when you're talking about capital goods.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    >All three are basically the right of ownership They are not "the" rights of ownership, they are a particular set of rights of ownership. Once upon a time people were included in the set of things people had a right to own, and ideas weren't. These things can change. The rights we have now are just those we currently think of as most correct.
bildung 11y ago
> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree. No, that's just a market. A necessary, but by no means sufficient condition to label an economy capitalist. That's why the new word "capitalism" has been introduced to describe the difference.
- puredemo 11y ago
  Point being, markets are inherently capitalistic. Would you disagree with that?
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    Markets don't necessarily have to involve property, which is generally considered a key element of capitalism. You could imagine (as a quick, not particularly explored example) a society where there's only a market for labour, and the state leases all durable goods, and sells or provides all consumables.
  - bildung 11y ago
    > Point being, markets are inherently capitalistic. Would you disagree with that? Yes, absolutely. For a system to be capitalistic, you also have to have at least capital intensive means of production (hence the name), a real labor market and more or less free access to the market both as a consumer and a producer. Capitalism only started existing with the onset of the industrial revolution. Reductio at absurdum: A Greek citizen in 200 BC is buying fish from a fisherman, with coins, at freely decided prices. Thats the market at work, but no capitalism at all.

noja 11y ago

There is "after capitalism": it's after our current flavour of capitalism.

lumberjack 11y ago

What we have is welfare states, not democratic socialism.

necessity 11y ago
The majority (representatives) vote a law that says we take money from some and give it to others. Democratic socialism seems like a reasonable name for it, even though it's not necessarily taking from the owners of the means of production nor necessarily giving to the working class. Though I guess welfare state is more "official".

creshal 11y ago

> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree. That depends on your definition of "capitalism" and "economy". If you use "capitalism" in contrast to Mercantilism and feudalism – which seems to be a rather unpopular view in English-speaking countries for some reason –, then it makes perfectly sense. Although it would help to actually read it.

puredemo 11y ago
It would help to read... what exactly?

tomp 11y ago

> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree Not really. A lot of today's capitalism is based on concepts such as copyright, patents and trade secrets, which are definitely not "natural" - in fact, they are directly opposite of "free market". Personally, I believe that a capitalistic system where these three are eliminated or at least severely restricted would be much preferable to what we have today.

ersii 11y ago
All three are basically the right of ownership, isn't that practically exactly what capitalism is? Could you please elaborate on how the world would look like without these three concepts?
- tomp 11y ago
  No, it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly. If I copy something you own, you still own it, I'm not taking anything away from you... It would be amazing! Basically what we have now, but (1) noone would go to jail for piracy, and (2) all research would be shared much sooner, and you wouldn't need to worry which spurious patents your original research is infringing.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    >it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly. Ownership is a form of monopoly as well. Just because a resource is rivalrous doesn't mean more than one person couldn't be permitted to use it, particularly when you're talking about capital goods.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >All three are basically the right of ownership They are not "the" rights of ownership, they are a particular set of rights of ownership. Once upon a time people were included in the set of things people had a right to own, and ideas weren't. These things can change. The rights we have now are just those we currently think of as most correct.

bildung 11y ago

> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree. No, that's just a market. A necessary, but by no means sufficient condition to label an economy capitalist. That's why the new word "capitalism" has been introduced to describe the difference.

puredemo 11y ago
Point being, markets are inherently capitalistic. Would you disagree with that?
- aninhumer 11y ago
  Markets don't necessarily have to involve property, which is generally considered a key element of capitalism. You could imagine (as a quick, not particularly explored example) a society where there's only a market for labour, and the state leases all durable goods, and sells or provides all consumables.
- bildung 11y ago
  > Point being, markets are inherently capitalistic. Would you disagree with that? Yes, absolutely. For a system to be capitalistic, you also have to have at least capital intensive means of production (hence the name), a real labor market and more or less free access to the market both as a consumer and a producer. Capitalism only started existing with the onset of the industrial revolution. Reductio at absurdum: A Greek citizen in 200 BC is buying fish from a fisherman, with coins, at freely decided prices. Thats the market at work, but no capitalism at all.