3 ms·

That works, but I think to get at what people mean (pro or against) when they say capitalism, you have to define it in a way that speaks to the economic "system

That works, but I think to get at what people mean (pro or against) when they say capitalism, you have to define it in a way that speaks to the economic "system" in practice, not just the rules governing it. Joint-stock and separation of capital & ownership. These need to be the dominant structure in an economy, for the economy to "count" as capitalism. IMO, this is a lot closer to Marx' "mode of production" definition (he also saw it as a progressive step up from feudalism) that the "capitalism as an ideology" definition of Neo/Classical/Anglo-liberalism. So... your defining mechanism may have existed at point A but I don't count that as capitalism until that mechanism runs a significant portion of industrial output. ...Also you need to consider all the clearly non-capitalist mechanisms that separate "ownership" from management, like the Byzantine/Ossoman system for example. The "ideological" definition just makes a lot more sense in a small firms world, where you really are talking about freely transacting individuals. The private property point is also worth delving into. No one is a feudalist anymore, so no one defends it. But, I think it's worth comparing and contrasting to this (much more long lived) ideological and practical mode of society. It's the one part of the definition both that marxists and capitalists emphasize is a defining feature of "Capitalism." The private property point made by marx is a pretty obscure 175 years later as we lost context. He considered feudal rights and borouise property to be very distinct from each other. Under most well functioning feudal systems in their prime, there were "welfare-ish" obligations (and obligations generally) of lords to serfs. Emergency grain stores, for example. A lord was expected to house and feed his subjects. These obligations don't come with modern property rights. In fact, there is barely a concept of obligations that come with property or rights anymore.

fallingfrog 9y ago
These are great points. On the obligations point: If you look at the whole uber/Lyft/gig economy dynamic and contrast that with salaried employment, I think you'll see that to the extent that a company owns the time of their employees, they are more likely to give them health benefits, paid vacation time, and so on analogous to how a lord treated his subjects. I think Nassim Taleb has made that point. Whereas a Lyft driver doesn't get taken care of in the same way.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I liked Taleb's point too, especially as it ties in to completely disparate situations like ancient greek urbanism. I think it's early to hang to much theory on these gig-companies though. It's still not clear they'll stick around for the long term. Hardly an economic "mode" yet. It's a great place to explore the divide though. To the capitalism point though... I think Uber/Lyft dynamics are perfectly capitalistic in a marxist sense. I think that from a ideological-capitalist perspective, a system where drivers transact more directly with passengers would be more capitalist.
freeflight 9y ago
> These obligations don't come with modern property rights. In fact, there is barely a concept of obligations that come with property or rights anymore. In some places, these obligations do exist, at least in theory. The German Grundgesetz Article 14, for example, states: "(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good." [0] Which is often quoted but these days rarely actually enforced/acted upon, the opposite is becoming far more common (privatization of common goods/services or straight up bailing out private companies with public money) like recent pushes to privatize German Autobahn [1] or when the public is bailing out massive private companies, like it happened with the banking crisis of 2008 [2], nuclear waste deals [3] or most recently bailing out German car manufacturers for Dieselgate [4]. [0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0090 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... [1] http://www.dw.com/en/german-autobahns-backdoor-privatization-row/a-39036565 http://www.dw.com/en/german-autobahns-backdoor-privatization... [2] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/subprime-bailouts-in-germany-taxpayers-forced-to-cover-risk-of-banks-folly-a-546586.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/subprime-bailou... [3] http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-de... [4] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/disbelief-at-plan-for-german-taxpayers-to-pay-for-dieselgate-1.3395183 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/disbelief-...

fallingfrog 9y ago

These are great points. On the obligations point: If you look at the whole uber/Lyft/gig economy dynamic and contrast that with salaried employment, I think you'll see that to the extent that a company owns the time of their employees, they are more likely to give them health benefits, paid vacation time, and so on analogous to how a lord treated his subjects. I think Nassim Taleb has made that point. Whereas a Lyft driver doesn't get taken care of in the same way.

dalbasal 9y ago
I liked Taleb's point too, especially as it ties in to completely disparate situations like ancient greek urbanism. I think it's early to hang to much theory on these gig-companies though. It's still not clear they'll stick around for the long term. Hardly an economic "mode" yet. It's a great place to explore the divide though. To the capitalism point though... I think Uber/Lyft dynamics are perfectly capitalistic in a marxist sense. I think that from a ideological-capitalist perspective, a system where drivers transact more directly with passengers would be more capitalist.

freeflight 9y ago

> These obligations don't come with modern property rights. In fact, there is barely a concept of obligations that come with property or rights anymore. In some places, these obligations do exist, at least in theory. The German Grundgesetz Article 14, for example, states: "(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good." [0] Which is often quoted but these days rarely actually enforced/acted upon, the opposite is becoming far more common (privatization of common goods/services or straight up bailing out private companies with public money) like recent pushes to privatize German Autobahn [1] or when the public is bailing out massive private companies, like it happened with the banking crisis of 2008 [2], nuclear waste deals [3] or most recently bailing out German car manufacturers for Dieselgate [4]. [0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0090 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... [1] http://www.dw.com/en/german-autobahns-backdoor-privatization-row/a-39036565 http://www.dw.com/en/german-autobahns-backdoor-privatization... [2] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/subprime-bailouts-in-germany-taxpayers-forced-to-cover-risk-of-banks-folly-a-546586.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/subprime-bailou... [3] http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-de... [4] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/disbelief-at-plan-for-german-taxpayers-to-pay-for-dieselgate-1.3395183 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/disbelief-...