4 ms·

Means of production and money existed since the dawn of civilization. The law of Hammurabi discusses contracts, prices, private property, etc. Also, for exampl

Means of production and money existed since the dawn of civilization. The law of Hammurabi discusses contracts, prices, private property, etc. Also, for example, Rome during the times of Roman Empire had to rely on imports of food from Africa because Appenine agriculture wasn’t self-sufficient. And throughout history in Europe and Middle East trade was a big part of every complex society. These stories about feudal mode of production is just bad outdated 19th century scholarship. It also seems completely ridiculous to call modern states hyper capitalistic when in most countries 35-65% of GDP is controlled by the government (yes, even in the US). 100 years ago it was more like 5% of GDP and income taxes didn’t even exist!

esarbe 6y ago
I think you might be conflating trade with capitalism. The exchange of goods and services for a representative value (i.e. money) is not capitalism. That's just trade. Could you explain why you think that the percentage of GDP a government controls has anything to do with capitalism?
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  I am not conflating trade with capitalism. I am explaining that the “feudal mode of production” was at best localized and relatively short period in the history of mankind. So contrasting capitalism with it is disingenuous because many periods in human history were more similar to what we have today than feudalism but there is often an implication that feudalism is the closest in time and place to the rise of capitalism and therefore it is the most similar one which is simply not true. If you look at the history of Rome it is much closer to what we have now in terms of its legal system, government expenditure, private relations, etc than feudalism. And they even had a similar sort of “capital” like private ships they used for trade that were very expensive, even though they didn’t have a modern idea of a corporation. Indeed, exchange is not always capitalistic exchange. Capitalism can be analyzed as a system defined by 3 core properties: (1) private ownership of the means of production (2) labor market (3) commodity market. This is what Adam Smith called “the system of natural liberty” and what Marx called “capitalism” (I am not sure he coined it, but he certainly popularized it). Hence, when the government uses spends money on big infrastructure projects or hires people to work on a mine, it has little to do with capitalism, thinks like that existed in Ancient Rome and even Ancient Greece! Compare our modern world to what we had 100-300 years ago when companies had personal armies. I don’t see how we are live in anything close to “hyper capitalism”.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    First; thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is why I really enjoy NH. Why do you think that the "feudal mode" of production was only localized and over a short period time? I would argue that since the agricultural revolution some 12'000 years ago, most people that ever lived, lived in some kind of feudal system. Chinese feudalism is well documented back to about 1000 BCE. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is true for most of the cultures at the time; there are countless examples of how tribal societies change with the introduction of agriculture and how this in term leads to stratification and thus to some form of feudalism or another. But really; the point I'm trying to make is that the capitalistic mode and thus capitalistic exchanges are really something new in the history of mankind. Before the agricultural feudalism people weren't living in capitalism for sure. Rome is an interesting exception. And it really is just that; an exception. Yes, there were vast trading networks, bringing goods from all exotic places to the center of the universe, hundreds of ships transporting tons and tons of loot and slaves and culture. But only a very, very small percentage of the Roman populace was ever involved in such trades. Even in Rome (the republic/empire, not the city), most of the population was living in farmsteads, producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods. Very few would have had any capitalistic exchanges, most of them would have had none at all. Yes, much of the Roman land was owned by the elite of Rome itself and even today's oligarchs would pale if they knew how rich Marcus Licinius Crassus was. But that ownership was very different from anything that we could honestly classify as capitalism. If there was capitalism in Rome, it probably was in the manufacturies and in the mines. (E.g. Terra sigillata was manufactured on a ginormous scale - but only for a fraction of a percent of the population) And again; Rome in this shape existed for less than four hundred years. And for most of the world, Rome wasn't terribly important after that. So, if we go back to your (very apt) definition of capitalism, we can see that the three core properties really only arise around the year 1600 and 1700, at least in Europe. There we have the faint beginnings of a capitalistic system, akin to what imperial Rom might have had (for some time); wealthy merchants trading goods that - produced in a manufactory (1) by hired labor (2), are shipped and sold in a foreign market (3). Again; it is only a small fraction of the population that takes place in this value-adding. Most of the population is still not taking part in any capitalistic exchanges. Most of the population is still living a nasty brutish and short live in agricultural settlements; still producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods. That's the time when the term 'capitalism' is termed. And I think it is quite different from what we have today; nowadays; most of all exchanges are capitalistic ones, for much of the population all the exchanges are exclusively capitalistic. This exclusivity is something that is new (since about ~70 years). And it is this exclusivity that I think is something that was neither obvious not expected when 'capitalism' was first being used to refer to systems that satisfy our three core properties. So, there you have my reasoning. I understand that you might not agree with my assessment, but I hope I was able to explain my reasoning for using such an inflammatory term as "hyper capitalism" to refer to the manifestation of capitalism we have today. Thanks for having this exchange and thanks for making me work for it. ;)

esarbe 6y ago

I think you might be conflating trade with capitalism. The exchange of goods and services for a representative value (i.e. money) is not capitalism. That's just trade. Could you explain why you think that the percentage of GDP a government controls has anything to do with capitalism?

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
I am not conflating trade with capitalism. I am explaining that the “feudal mode of production” was at best localized and relatively short period in the history of mankind. So contrasting capitalism with it is disingenuous because many periods in human history were more similar to what we have today than feudalism but there is often an implication that feudalism is the closest in time and place to the rise of capitalism and therefore it is the most similar one which is simply not true. If you look at the history of Rome it is much closer to what we have now in terms of its legal system, government expenditure, private relations, etc than feudalism. And they even had a similar sort of “capital” like private ships they used for trade that were very expensive, even though they didn’t have a modern idea of a corporation. Indeed, exchange is not always capitalistic exchange. Capitalism can be analyzed as a system defined by 3 core properties: (1) private ownership of the means of production (2) labor market (3) commodity market. This is what Adam Smith called “the system of natural liberty” and what Marx called “capitalism” (I am not sure he coined it, but he certainly popularized it). Hence, when the government uses spends money on big infrastructure projects or hires people to work on a mine, it has little to do with capitalism, thinks like that existed in Ancient Rome and even Ancient Greece! Compare our modern world to what we had 100-300 years ago when companies had personal armies. I don’t see how we are live in anything close to “hyper capitalism”.
- esarbe 6y ago
  First; thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is why I really enjoy NH. Why do you think that the "feudal mode" of production was only localized and over a short period time? I would argue that since the agricultural revolution some 12'000 years ago, most people that ever lived, lived in some kind of feudal system. Chinese feudalism is well documented back to about 1000 BCE. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is true for most of the cultures at the time; there are countless examples of how tribal societies change with the introduction of agriculture and how this in term leads to stratification and thus to some form of feudalism or another. But really; the point I'm trying to make is that the capitalistic mode and thus capitalistic exchanges are really something new in the history of mankind. Before the agricultural feudalism people weren't living in capitalism for sure. Rome is an interesting exception. And it really is just that; an exception. Yes, there were vast trading networks, bringing goods from all exotic places to the center of the universe, hundreds of ships transporting tons and tons of loot and slaves and culture. But only a very, very small percentage of the Roman populace was ever involved in such trades. Even in Rome (the republic/empire, not the city), most of the population was living in farmsteads, producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods. Very few would have had any capitalistic exchanges, most of them would have had none at all. Yes, much of the Roman land was owned by the elite of Rome itself and even today's oligarchs would pale if they knew how rich Marcus Licinius Crassus was. But that ownership was very different from anything that we could honestly classify as capitalism. If there was capitalism in Rome, it probably was in the manufacturies and in the mines. (E.g. Terra sigillata was manufactured on a ginormous scale - but only for a fraction of a percent of the population) And again; Rome in this shape existed for less than four hundred years. And for most of the world, Rome wasn't terribly important after that. So, if we go back to your (very apt) definition of capitalism, we can see that the three core properties really only arise around the year 1600 and 1700, at least in Europe. There we have the faint beginnings of a capitalistic system, akin to what imperial Rom might have had (for some time); wealthy merchants trading goods that - produced in a manufactory (1) by hired labor (2), are shipped and sold in a foreign market (3). Again; it is only a small fraction of the population that takes place in this value-adding. Most of the population is still not taking part in any capitalistic exchanges. Most of the population is still living a nasty brutish and short live in agricultural settlements; still producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods. That's the time when the term 'capitalism' is termed. And I think it is quite different from what we have today; nowadays; most of all exchanges are capitalistic ones, for much of the population all the exchanges are exclusively capitalistic. This exclusivity is something that is new (since about ~70 years). And it is this exclusivity that I think is something that was neither obvious not expected when 'capitalism' was first being used to refer to systems that satisfy our three core properties. So, there you have my reasoning. I understand that you might not agree with my assessment, but I hope I was able to explain my reasoning for using such an inflammatory term as "hyper capitalism" to refer to the manifestation of capitalism we have today. Thanks for having this exchange and thanks for making me work for it. ;)