4 ms·

My first knee jerk argument was 'no true scotsman' capitalist edition, but that got me thinking. Capitalism is basically markets on a large scale, and some for

My first knee jerk argument was 'no true scotsman' capitalist edition, but that got me thinking. Capitalism is basically markets on a large scale, and some form of market will exist as long as a single person has opportunity costs and performs some sort of optimization. Markets will always be with us in some form. How could we even go about opting out? Being dissatisfied with capitalism as a concept seems like being dissatisfied with gravity.

SwellJoe 10y ago
There are anti-capitalists who support markets, and it is not ridiculous to do so. Capital is a concept independent of trade, though the two tend to rub up against one another a lot in the Western world. So, it's not necessary to oppose all trade in order to oppose the notion that one person can own everything people need in order to survive and rent it to everyone else.
- thescribe 10y ago
  That's absolutely fair. I was thinking of opposition to capitalism in pretty stark terms before you brought this up. The kind of Stalinist everything is centrally planned kind of totality.
dwiel 10y ago
That's like saying that hierarchy will always be around so being dissatisfied with it as a concept is like being dissatisfied with gravity (in feudal times). There are matters of degree. Genuinely curious: feudalism is to hierarchy as ? is to capitalism. I think maybe some people think feudalism : hierarchy :: capitalism : markets.
- thescribe 10y ago
  I hadn't considered it that way, so thank you for a second point of view. I had been thinking of capitalism as the 'natural state' or lack of power being applied. My best shot: Feudalism is to hierarchy as usury is to capitalism.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The natural state seems like people taking from outsiders and sharing amung their inner circle. Capitalism needs a lot of outside influence to keep going.
    - thescribe 10y ago
      I don't know but I suspect my definition of capitalism and yours are different. From my perspective if I have a goat, and that goat has kids, and I trade you one for some seeds we have a functioning, but tiny, instance of capitalism. I used my resources to produce more resources, you did too, and we exchanged in a way we both considered to be in our best interest (Or we wouldn't have done it). If I'm way off base I'd love to hear.
      - gbhn 10y ago
        I'd suggest this is more of an endorsement of free trade. (That is, no external party forced you to trade goats for seeds.) Lots of societies have free trade that I don't think would be usefully described as "capitalist." (And anecdotally societies in which free trade is discouraged seem to end up with a lot of black market free trade activity -- it is just too powerful an attractor.) To me capitalism is a more descriptive of a narrower and more modern development. Free trade is an aspect of it, but not sufficient to describe it.
        thescribe 10y ago
        I think I had made an assumption between countries like Venezuela and Soviet era Russia that had large black markets for a lot of goods and them being the opposite of capitalism.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Why should I trade you a goat if I can just take it?
  - quonn 10y ago
    Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It needs a sophisticated society, a rule of law, police and a majority who believe it is just. If this were not so, the disadvantaged would simply take or steal what they think they deserve.
- BerislavLopac 10y ago
  In fact, I like to argue that feudalism and capitalism are two facets of the same thing they're both about of having the control over the means of production. The only difference is in the mechanisms of both of those elements (means of production and control over it): in capitalism, the means of production is money, and the control is achieved through the legal system; while in feudalism, the means of production was land, and the control was achieved through military power. If you look at it, there is a pretty clear evolution of those mechanisms: the military power became centralised in the form of the state, which then introduced the legal system as a less damaging way of resolving conflict; similarly, the value of property became measured in gold, which became the standard for a "virtual" currency, turning eventually into the fiat currency. The two (means of production and the mechanism of control) feed off each other, with the former paying for the latter. And if you look at it, as soon as a society collapses the mechanisms revert to more "primitive" ones.
VLM 10y ago
> Capitalism is basically obtain a large enough, easily available enough pile of money today, to invest in productive resources, to generate a long term higher than inflation income stream. It has very little to do with markets except rather abstractly along the lines of a financial market being one way to obtain that money. The article has it backwards. Capitalism as a system has already completely given up on young americans. Almost completely closed and nearly impenetrable. Some young americans have noticed and unchecked the "like" right back at it, as if it cares. Its hard to run capitalism efficiently enough for it to work without free markets or in the presence of insane levels of corruption or income inequality. Young people will never experience economic conditions where capitalism works, so liking it or not is fairly irrelevant if its not going to work anyway.
hinkley 10y ago
In twenty years, thirty tops, I guarantee you'll be dissatisfied with gravity too. Source: My creaky joints.

SwellJoe 10y ago

There are anti-capitalists who support markets, and it is not ridiculous to do so. Capital is a concept independent of trade, though the two tend to rub up against one another a lot in the Western world. So, it's not necessary to oppose all trade in order to oppose the notion that one person can own everything people need in order to survive and rent it to everyone else.

thescribe 10y ago
That's absolutely fair. I was thinking of opposition to capitalism in pretty stark terms before you brought this up. The kind of Stalinist everything is centrally planned kind of totality.

dwiel 10y ago

That's like saying that hierarchy will always be around so being dissatisfied with it as a concept is like being dissatisfied with gravity (in feudal times). There are matters of degree. Genuinely curious: feudalism is to hierarchy as ? is to capitalism. I think maybe some people think feudalism : hierarchy :: capitalism : markets.

thescribe 10y ago
I hadn't considered it that way, so thank you for a second point of view. I had been thinking of capitalism as the 'natural state' or lack of power being applied. My best shot: Feudalism is to hierarchy as usury is to capitalism.
- Retric 10y ago
  The natural state seems like people taking from outsiders and sharing amung their inner circle. Capitalism needs a lot of outside influence to keep going.
  - thescribe 10y ago
    I don't know but I suspect my definition of capitalism and yours are different. From my perspective if I have a goat, and that goat has kids, and I trade you one for some seeds we have a functioning, but tiny, instance of capitalism. I used my resources to produce more resources, you did too, and we exchanged in a way we both considered to be in our best interest (Or we wouldn't have done it). If I'm way off base I'd love to hear.
    - gbhn 10y ago
      I'd suggest this is more of an endorsement of free trade. (That is, no external party forced you to trade goats for seeds.) Lots of societies have free trade that I don't think would be usefully described as "capitalist." (And anecdotally societies in which free trade is discouraged seem to end up with a lot of black market free trade activity -- it is just too powerful an attractor.) To me capitalism is a more descriptive of a narrower and more modern development. Free trade is an aspect of it, but not sufficient to describe it.
      - thescribe 10y ago
        I think I had made an assumption between countries like Venezuela and Soviet era Russia that had large black markets for a lot of goods and them being the opposite of capitalism.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Why should I trade you a goat if I can just take it?
- quonn 10y ago
  Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It needs a sophisticated society, a rule of law, police and a majority who believe it is just. If this were not so, the disadvantaged would simply take or steal what they think they deserve.
BerislavLopac 10y ago
In fact, I like to argue that feudalism and capitalism are two facets of the same thing they're both about of having the control over the means of production. The only difference is in the mechanisms of both of those elements (means of production and control over it): in capitalism, the means of production is money, and the control is achieved through the legal system; while in feudalism, the means of production was land, and the control was achieved through military power. If you look at it, there is a pretty clear evolution of those mechanisms: the military power became centralised in the form of the state, which then introduced the legal system as a less damaging way of resolving conflict; similarly, the value of property became measured in gold, which became the standard for a "virtual" currency, turning eventually into the fiat currency. The two (means of production and the mechanism of control) feed off each other, with the former paying for the latter. And if you look at it, as soon as a society collapses the mechanisms revert to more "primitive" ones.

VLM 10y ago

> Capitalism is basically obtain a large enough, easily available enough pile of money today, to invest in productive resources, to generate a long term higher than inflation income stream. It has very little to do with markets except rather abstractly along the lines of a financial market being one way to obtain that money. The article has it backwards. Capitalism as a system has already completely given up on young americans. Almost completely closed and nearly impenetrable. Some young americans have noticed and unchecked the "like" right back at it, as if it cares. Its hard to run capitalism efficiently enough for it to work without free markets or in the presence of insane levels of corruption or income inequality. Young people will never experience economic conditions where capitalism works, so liking it or not is fairly irrelevant if its not going to work anyway.

hinkley 10y ago

In twenty years, thirty tops, I guarantee you'll be dissatisfied with gravity too. Source: My creaky joints.