4 ms·

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). T

by 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.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    It also requires an extensive bureaucracy that is only reasonable with enough technology.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It's more natural than centrally planned economies, which absolutely require rule of law, police, etc. Capitalism is 1) that the relative value of choices needs to be determined and 2) those values are best crowdsourced. If the rule of law breaks down, people will still trade, they will just trade for things that cannot be stolen or reneged on. Things like honor or reputation. This obviously eliminates the efficiency of a common currency, but at the end of the day, choices still have various priorities and the world is too complicated for even the smartest people to evaluate all the choices for everyone. Anyway, those are the natural laws. Choices need to be made. Crowdsourcing is best when evaluating prices, especially regarding common goods and services.
- cam_l 10y ago
  My best shot Feudalism == Capitalism (specifically, unfettered capitalism). Seriously. Markets are where capital (ie. prior labour(yours or some one/thing else's)) is arbitraged for gain. The important part of this rather simplistic point is the arbitrage, it infers that the system is based on the twin concepts of demand and ownership, (or opportunity and opportunity-cost if you like). Capitalism is the word we use to describe the de-evolution of markets into the private ownership of the means of production. In other words, where enough asymmetrical arbitration has taken place to enable an entity to buy out the rights of someone else to own the profit (ie. the demand portion) from the fruits of their labour. The ultimate expression of this private ownership is the ownership of the people themselves, ergo Feudalism. Funnily, the last few centuries we attribute to the rise of capitalism, is actually the death throes of unfettered capitalism. See, the interesting thing about ownership it is a social compact, not a natural state. We can trade an item to both our benefits, only because we both agree that you own it and I do not. In a sense, the power IS the asymmetry in the arbitrage. Where this power is balanced between parties, we have free markets. Where it is not balanced, we have capitalism.
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.

by dwiel 10y ago

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.
- danharaj 10y ago
  It also requires an extensive bureaucracy that is only reasonable with enough technology.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It's more natural than centrally planned economies, which absolutely require rule of law, police, etc. Capitalism is 1) that the relative value of choices needs to be determined and 2) those values are best crowdsourced. If the rule of law breaks down, people will still trade, they will just trade for things that cannot be stolen or reneged on. Things like honor or reputation. This obviously eliminates the efficiency of a common currency, but at the end of the day, choices still have various priorities and the world is too complicated for even the smartest people to evaluate all the choices for everyone. Anyway, those are the natural laws. Choices need to be made. Crowdsourcing is best when evaluating prices, especially regarding common goods and services.
cam_l 10y ago
My best shot Feudalism == Capitalism (specifically, unfettered capitalism). Seriously. Markets are where capital (ie. prior labour(yours or some one/thing else's)) is arbitraged for gain. The important part of this rather simplistic point is the arbitrage, it infers that the system is based on the twin concepts of demand and ownership, (or opportunity and opportunity-cost if you like). Capitalism is the word we use to describe the de-evolution of markets into the private ownership of the means of production. In other words, where enough asymmetrical arbitration has taken place to enable an entity to buy out the rights of someone else to own the profit (ie. the demand portion) from the fruits of their labour. The ultimate expression of this private ownership is the ownership of the people themselves, ergo Feudalism. Funnily, the last few centuries we attribute to the rise of capitalism, is actually the death throes of unfettered capitalism. See, the interesting thing about ownership it is a social compact, not a natural state. We can trade an item to both our benefits, only because we both agree that you own it and I do not. In a sense, the power IS the asymmetry in the arbitrage. Where this power is balanced between parties, we have free markets. Where it is not balanced, we have capitalism.

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.