4 ms·
Comparing China and Rome to a modern economy is basically impossible. Those were agrarian societies whose net output per unit of territory was largely static, a
by manfredo 6y ago
Comparing China and Rome to a modern economy is basically impossible. Those were agrarian societies whose net output per unit of territory was largely static, and determined by the amount of food that can be grown in the land. I don't think it's valid to categorize them as either socialist or capitalist societies. Marx agreed: he wrote of feudalism (and probably, by extension other agrarian civilizations) as a distinct kind of society that predated the capitalism that rose out of the industrial revolution.
- peterpeppers 6y agoThe fact that they were agrarian societies doesn't negate the fact that both China and Rome often cycled between socialist and capitalist styled policies. Feel free to substitute any modern economy in their place and you'll see a society that is capitalistic but uses socialist policies to constrain the amount of inequality (ie. healthcare, education, etc) driven by that capitalism. You're missing the point that balance between the two usually is best for the populace and for the stability of the government. This is a point that Thomas Sowell misses often as well. He strives for conformity with the conservative status quo.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThat seems to miss a point, at least for Rome. Much of the work was done by slaves. Saying that it cycled to "capitalist styled policies" or "socialist styled policies" may apply to the free people, but for the slaves, life didn't change much. Given how much of the economy was driven by slave labor, I'm not sure that the swings changed things all that much.