4 ms·

So it wasn't real capitalism?

Beltalowda 4y ago
There is no such thing as "real capitalism"; it's a broad and somewhat vague set of ideas with many possible implementations, none of which are more "real capitalism" than any other, although I'd argue that some implementations definitely better than others (and 90s Russia is a good example of that).
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  Capitalism is just an economic system with predominantly private ownership of the means of production. Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no?
  - derefr 4y ago
    If the people who own them aren’t willing to sell them for economically-rational prices, then you don’t have equilibrium capitalism; you have temporary capitalism as a reaction proceeding toward aristocracy / feudalism. When all the assets are illiquid, there’s no capitalism.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no? It is extremely relevant when you look at the outcomes.
throwaways85989 4y ago
It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold and effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the kleptocracy returned. Best description of the cultural background i found so far was this: https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?t=76 https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?t=76
- sammalloy 4y ago
  > It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold and effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the kleptocracy returned. This is my understanding as well, from everything I’ve read. The more interesting question is why Russia, both as a nation state and a culture, has no history or tradition of democracy. I’ve never received an answer to this question.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    You might want to check out the history of Novgorod.
    - sammalloy 4y ago
      Thank you! I briefly looked at the Wiki article to see what you were talking about. Apparently, some of the cultural history in regards to democracy is unknown, as the article mentions that the exact nature of the democratic experiment was lost to time.
simonh 4y ago
Every economic system has capital, even socialist ones, it just means property. What distinguishes capitalism is that individual rights over capital are respected. Capitalism is based on private property rights, and individual economic freedoms to buy and sell your labour or property. That means it’s fundamentally reliant on the robust rule of law to enforce those rights, the rights of those purchasing property and services, etc. It’s those rights that enable the trust required for a functioning market. Corporatist, oligarchic and cartel based systems are often described as capitalist, but they’re really not capitalist because they don’t respect individual rights over capital any more than communism does. Like communism they’re just stitch-ups. The role played by the rule of law often gets down played or even criticised by libertarian free marketeers. They think it’s needless regulation and just government interfering in free markets. But without the rule of law you get bloody free for alls like in Russia in the 90s.
- claudiawerner 4y ago
  The idea that capital is ahistorical (or at least, traces its origin to the concept of human property itself by being 'just' property) is not a claim to be made as though it were uncontroversial. In fact, many people proposing non-capitalist systems disagree the idea that capital is 'just property' for good reasons, which may be worth considering. You argue that the capitalist system presupposes these rights and the rule of law; I would say that historically speaking capital itself (more importantly its production process) presupposes these rights and capitalism presupposes capital.
  - simonh 4y ago
    It doesn’t matter what you call it, capital is the same thing regardless of its ownership structure. Let’s call it woogum and the woogumist system if you like, that doesn’t change anything. Capitalism is commonly defined as a system of economics based on private ownership, and associated rights such as free exchange of labour, free markets, etc as against state ownership. Systems based on cartels, oligarchies and corporatist systems aren’t capitalist because the oligarchs, corporatist entities, etc become part of the state system. They assume powers normally the prerogative of the state. Obviously there are different degrees, no two systems are identical and all such systems have some level of private ownership and trade. It’s all a matter of degree. Even the Soviet Union had some level of markets and private exchange.

There is no such thing as "real capitalism"; it's a broad and somewhat vague set of ideas with many possible implementations, none of which are more "real capitalism" than any other, although I'd argue that some implementations definitely better than others (and 90s Russia is a good example of that).

ZoomerCretin 4y ago
Capitalism is just an economic system with predominantly private ownership of the means of production. Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no?
- derefr 4y ago
  If the people who own them aren’t willing to sell them for economically-rational prices, then you don’t have equilibrium capitalism; you have temporary capitalism as a reaction proceeding toward aristocracy / feudalism. When all the assets are illiquid, there’s no capitalism.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no? It is extremely relevant when you look at the outcomes.

throwaways85989 4y ago

It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold and effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the kleptocracy returned. Best description of the cultural background i found so far was this: https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?t=76 https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?t=76

sammalloy 4y ago
> It was not really a base for capitalism to take hold and effect. It needs a basic rule of law and democracy to work. All it got was brief window of chaos, before the kleptocracy returned. This is my understanding as well, from everything I’ve read. The more interesting question is why Russia, both as a nation state and a culture, has no history or tradition of democracy. I’ve never received an answer to this question.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  You might want to check out the history of Novgorod.
  - sammalloy 4y ago
    Thank you! I briefly looked at the Wiki article to see what you were talking about. Apparently, some of the cultural history in regards to democracy is unknown, as the article mentions that the exact nature of the democratic experiment was lost to time.

simonh 4y ago

Every economic system has capital, even socialist ones, it just means property. What distinguishes capitalism is that individual rights over capital are respected. Capitalism is based on private property rights, and individual economic freedoms to buy and sell your labour or property. That means it’s fundamentally reliant on the robust rule of law to enforce those rights, the rights of those purchasing property and services, etc. It’s those rights that enable the trust required for a functioning market. Corporatist, oligarchic and cartel based systems are often described as capitalist, but they’re really not capitalist because they don’t respect individual rights over capital any more than communism does. Like communism they’re just stitch-ups. The role played by the rule of law often gets down played or even criticised by libertarian free marketeers. They think it’s needless regulation and just government interfering in free markets. But without the rule of law you get bloody free for alls like in Russia in the 90s.

claudiawerner 4y ago
The idea that capital is ahistorical (or at least, traces its origin to the concept of human property itself by being 'just' property) is not a claim to be made as though it were uncontroversial. In fact, many people proposing non-capitalist systems disagree the idea that capital is 'just property' for good reasons, which may be worth considering. You argue that the capitalist system presupposes these rights and the rule of law; I would say that historically speaking capital itself (more importantly its production process) presupposes these rights and capitalism presupposes capital.
- simonh 4y ago
  It doesn’t matter what you call it, capital is the same thing regardless of its ownership structure. Let’s call it woogum and the woogumist system if you like, that doesn’t change anything. Capitalism is commonly defined as a system of economics based on private ownership, and associated rights such as free exchange of labour, free markets, etc as against state ownership. Systems based on cartels, oligarchies and corporatist systems aren’t capitalist because the oligarchs, corporatist entities, etc become part of the state system. They assume powers normally the prerogative of the state. Obviously there are different degrees, no two systems are identical and all such systems have some level of private ownership and trade. It’s all a matter of degree. Even the Soviet Union had some level of markets and private exchange.