3 ms·

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 jus

• 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. ;)
    • LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      >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; Well, depends on your definition of feudalism I guess. If you ignore all political differences, I am not sure what core economic difference would cause to group the system in the Middle Ages Europe with Fengjian putting aside the Roman Empire. >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. For sure, it is quite different, but it is also more similar to the past that people usually imagine. Money, global trade, private property, even public-private partnerships in some sense (in Ancient Rome there were publicans, private subcontractors for public projects). You don't need capitalsim for any of that even though these things mostly didn't really exist in feudal realms. >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. But it is not really an exception. Every centralized government did something similar, the difference is that the Rome was the most succesfful one, it produced lots of written artifacts and it is the closest one to the European mind. If you look at the Bronze Age states, they are also very "modern", but the problem is that we don't have much info about them. They had complex regionals supply chains, trade, even infrastructure like sanitation systems. Of course people bought less stuff in Ancient times simply because there were less stuff that wasn't crops. I am not saying that there was capitalism in the past or that nothing have changed. My point is that many things people attribute as properties of hypercapitalism are not really that special. If food production technologies wouldn't be so advanced and we still had to rely to 80% of people working in semi-substistence farming (SSF) would this really make our world less "hypercapitalistic" by any measure people use for this label? (many people actually still do SSF, in Europe there are still over 5 million such farmers.) Doesn't this make hypercapitalism simply a measure of advancement of farming technologies? It wouldn't really change the everyday life dynamics of people who aren't engaged in such activities. Society is heterogenous and by such weird measure everyone who didn't engage in subsistence lived in hypercapitalism for thousands of years, while people in Europe who rely on semi-subsistence farming are not even in capitalism; of course from the point of their lived experience. But to me it seems absurd, it is the totality of human relations that defines the social structure, the network of relations. Many people in the past relied on subsitence farming, but they lived alongside people that didn't and this certainly affected them and vice versa. And I don't see how I can say that modern society is hypercapitalistic when not only governments tax the corporations but the whole international community creates regulation and controls these companies in a way that would benefit the states. >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. Right, but after Early Middle Ages many states had many similar things. There were many so-called "Medieval renessainces" in Europe. >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. But that's not really true. Many services you receive are not capitalistic on surface: the roads, the healthcare in most countries, education. In a country like Norway the government commands over 50% of GDP, i.e. it tells people what to do, what services to provide, to whom to redistribute money. There is little capitalistic about that. Again, compare it to company towns and governments with less than 10% of GDP spending in 18th century.