7 ms·

Exactly, i think you read way too much into what i said. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, i'm saying that's the definition. Capitalism is a production metho

by orwin 2y ago

Exactly, i think you read way too much into what i said. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, i'm saying that's the definition. Capitalism is a production method where capital owners decide what should the labor do, unlike anarchist worker councils, or feudalist lords. But capitalism say nothing on free trade, absolutely nothing. You can be a communist country or an anarchist commune and implement free trade. I'm pretty sure native mexican communes are allowing free trade (because if they didn't Mexico would likely do something about it), despite having a non-capitalistic method of production (which sometime is feudal, which is to me the worst system of production, once again, i clearly never stated capitalism=bad, i'm just saying capitalism != free trade)

_0ffh 2y ago
> i think you read way too much into what i said Well, it seems like I really may have done that. I actually hadn't even noticed that my interlocutor had switched inbetween. > i'm just saying capitalism != free trade Right, unfortunately it's very late and I think I need a clearer head for an adequate answer.
_0ffh 2y ago
Okay, the part of "free markets are possible without capitalism" is quite obvious. But going back to the earlier messages, what happened is that I assumed that capitalism implies free markets (not the other way around), and that's not equally trivial. I think capitalism at least implies markets, because otherwise it makes no sense at all. Who would care to specialise in the production of any good if there was no way to profit from it by offering it on a market? But does it imply free markets? That probably depends on where you want to draw the line between free and non-free. Personally, I'm a purist in these matters. There does not currently exist any market that I know of, which I would consider to be really free. So by my standards I assumed too much in my original statement. In public discourse though, I usually try to adopt a choice of words more compatible with what I estimate is the prevailing POV, as it eases communication. By that standard, there exist plenty of free markets, and maybe the claim could be made that capitalism does imply free markets, unless one is happy to have discussions about nonsensical constructs.
- orwin 2y ago
  This is much more interesting than the previous discussion! I honestly never thought of it this way. I will try to answer with a question: what was proto-capitalism? People talk about mercantilism but I disagree. I'll explain: you bought a share off a boat trade (often slave trade, let's be clear) and got a share of the profits. Multiple to hedge. At the time, you didn't had free trade between nations (the concept of nation was in the process of existing at the time), and tariffs, and a lot of different taxes. You also couldn't sell your shares. If you were the main buyer however, you could choose the trip rough beginning and initial trading goods, but during the journey, the captain made all the choices. Often he traded with his preferred trading post. Was it capitalism? The captains and first mates had as much power as the owners, if not more, so I would say no, but we could disagree. So for now: no market, no capitalism. Thinking a bit more about late mercantilism, I now think (writing this) that capitalism really started with 'joint-stock' companies. And, with all respect to the 'muscovy company', that really begins with the English 'east India company', which would be considered today state capitalism. Captains still had power while on the sea, but way less than Mediterranean captains. They had to stop at specific trading post, depart on specific days (and not month). They did not choose all of their crew, and relied on the royal navy to defend them. They could use bigger, less armed ship, do more efficient trips, at the cost of a bit of freedom for captains. I'm not sure anybody could buy a share though, but I think that's still capitalism. So for me, the response is no: you don't have to have a market to have capitalism. But it clearly isn't a final answer.

by orwin 2y ago

_0ffh 2y ago

> i think you read way too much into what i said Well, it seems like I really may have done that. I actually hadn't even noticed that my interlocutor had switched inbetween. > i'm just saying capitalism != free trade Right, unfortunately it's very late and I think I need a clearer head for an adequate answer.

_0ffh 2y ago

Okay, the part of "free markets are possible without capitalism" is quite obvious. But going back to the earlier messages, what happened is that I assumed that capitalism implies free markets (not the other way around), and that's not equally trivial. I think capitalism at least implies markets, because otherwise it makes no sense at all. Who would care to specialise in the production of any good if there was no way to profit from it by offering it on a market? But does it imply free markets? That probably depends on where you want to draw the line between free and non-free. Personally, I'm a purist in these matters. There does not currently exist any market that I know of, which I would consider to be really free. So by my standards I assumed too much in my original statement. In public discourse though, I usually try to adopt a choice of words more compatible with what I estimate is the prevailing POV, as it eases communication. By that standard, there exist plenty of free markets, and maybe the claim could be made that capitalism does imply free markets, unless one is happy to have discussions about nonsensical constructs.

orwin 2y ago
This is much more interesting than the previous discussion! I honestly never thought of it this way. I will try to answer with a question: what was proto-capitalism? People talk about mercantilism but I disagree. I'll explain: you bought a share off a boat trade (often slave trade, let's be clear) and got a share of the profits. Multiple to hedge. At the time, you didn't had free trade between nations (the concept of nation was in the process of existing at the time), and tariffs, and a lot of different taxes. You also couldn't sell your shares. If you were the main buyer however, you could choose the trip rough beginning and initial trading goods, but during the journey, the captain made all the choices. Often he traded with his preferred trading post. Was it capitalism? The captains and first mates had as much power as the owners, if not more, so I would say no, but we could disagree. So for now: no market, no capitalism. Thinking a bit more about late mercantilism, I now think (writing this) that capitalism really started with 'joint-stock' companies. And, with all respect to the 'muscovy company', that really begins with the English 'east India company', which would be considered today state capitalism. Captains still had power while on the sea, but way less than Mediterranean captains. They had to stop at specific trading post, depart on specific days (and not month). They did not choose all of their crew, and relied on the royal navy to defend them. They could use bigger, less armed ship, do more efficient trips, at the cost of a bit of freedom for captains. I'm not sure anybody could buy a share though, but I think that's still capitalism. So for me, the response is no: you don't have to have a market to have capitalism. But it clearly isn't a final answer.