4 ms·

Wikipedia states both, operation for profit and private ownership, as defining characteristics: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownershi

Wikipedia states both, operation for profit and private ownership, as defining characteristics: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." Classically free software works more like a gift economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy No capitalist society ever worked without a state that enforces rules and social constructs (such as private property or contracts). Simple example of how simply talking about (some abstract notion of) freedom misses this: A gift based (ideas) economy could work without a state enforcing copyright. A capitalist (ideas) economy requires a state enforcing copyright.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
> A capitalist (ideas) economy requires a state enforcing copyright. No. Copyright has nothing to do with capitalism. In a completely capitalistic system, there would be no intellectual "property". If you read the founders of right libertarian (pure capitalist) thought, the whole system is based around freedom. And property is justified based on the fact that it's necessary for freedom. Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way, to the contrary. Granted, Marx created the term 'capitalism' to refer to the private ownership, and he conveniently bonded that private ownership to for-profit operation. But there can be ownership that's not for profit, and libertarian theory considers owning things without operating them for profit a perfectly acceptable stance. Marx doesn't say anything about copyright or intellectual property, as far as I know.
- Certhas 7y ago
  And no true Spartan... Some schools of thought use some weird notion of freedom to derive some abstract structure that has never been tried anywhere and claim it has some hypothetical properties. You want to call that "true capitalism". I like theory, I do theory, but the post was talking about existing social systems within which we operate. Your private definition of "true capitalism" has nothing to do with that system. Nor does it have anything to do with the accepted use of the term capitalism. E.g. in state capitalism [1]. Therefore it is a bad definition that hinders clear communication, and you have failed to convince me to use it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    If state capitalism is capitalism, then National-socialism is socialism.
    - Certhas 7y ago
      You still can't define words to mean what you want them to. Common use of the term capitalism disagrees with you, and the use of the term in the posts you replied to does not align at all with your definitions, but with common usage.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago

> A capitalist (ideas) economy requires a state enforcing copyright. No. Copyright has nothing to do with capitalism. In a completely capitalistic system, there would be no intellectual "property". If you read the founders of right libertarian (pure capitalist) thought, the whole system is based around freedom. And property is justified based on the fact that it's necessary for freedom. Intellectual "property" doesn't enhance freedom in any way, to the contrary. Granted, Marx created the term 'capitalism' to refer to the private ownership, and he conveniently bonded that private ownership to for-profit operation. But there can be ownership that's not for profit, and libertarian theory considers owning things without operating them for profit a perfectly acceptable stance. Marx doesn't say anything about copyright or intellectual property, as far as I know.

Certhas 7y ago
And no true Spartan... Some schools of thought use some weird notion of freedom to derive some abstract structure that has never been tried anywhere and claim it has some hypothetical properties. You want to call that "true capitalism". I like theory, I do theory, but the post was talking about existing social systems within which we operate. Your private definition of "true capitalism" has nothing to do with that system. Nor does it have anything to do with the accepted use of the term capitalism. E.g. in state capitalism [1]. Therefore it is a bad definition that hinders clear communication, and you have failed to convince me to use it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  If state capitalism is capitalism, then National-socialism is socialism.
  - Certhas 7y ago
    You still can't define words to mean what you want them to. Common use of the term capitalism disagrees with you, and the use of the term in the posts you replied to does not align at all with your definitions, but with common usage.