When asked to describe how capitalism differs from previous modes of production in understandable terms and how the existence of markets before the emergence of capitalism is accounted for, I often describe the transition from feudalism or absolutism to capitalism as the transformation from a "society with markets" or "economy embedded into a society" to a "market society" or "society embedded into an economy" — that is, from a society in which it is POSSIBLE to enter into market-based relations (which are subject to all sorts of political or customary regulation) to a society in which it is IMPERATIVE to do so because almost all other possibilities have been gradually destroyed by proletarianization. Is it correct or did I just ruin a curious mind's political education?
"Isn't capitalism just exchanging stuff?"
Sounds like a pretty good way to describe it. What is unique to capitalism is that it turns every form of social interaction into an exchange of commodities, and gradually makes life outside of the market impossible. Under feudalism most people lived their lives with barely any interaction with the market, their only interaction being selling what surplus they have left after the lords and the clergy have taken their share and buying what small goods that surplus provides them. Beyond that they have no need for the market because they already have the means of living, land and livestock. Under capitalism most people have been deprived the means of living and so the only way to reproduce themselves is to exchange what they have to sell for what they need, and the only thing most people have to sell is their labour.
Brainlets.
Capitalism is about the accumulation of wealth through inheritance. It is an enemy of meritocracy, as a well deserving and excellent father will ensure that his incompetent useless son is very wealthy. Incompetence is thus rewarded, because of its association with past competence.
Capitalism = accumulation. Thats what the biggest problem of it is. Capitalism without inheritance laws, where when a person dies his stuff is distributed and free, would be completely tolerable and in no way worth killing or dying to remove. The accumulation is the problem.
Ah, so succdem with estate taxes isn't capitalism. Enlightening.
It reduces the worst aspect of capitalism, making it tolerable.
Though under your scenario wealth accumulation would just be slower, not impossible.
If you make it so wealth can't be accumulated, like with meme labor vouchers that totally aren't money, since they have an expiration date and you can't stockpile them, then the worst of capitalism is gone.
Who knew the Hapsburgs were the original and best capitalists ever!
Do you even know what CAPITAL is?
Everyone? Private government under Hapsburgs is more "capitalist" than public government in a republic.
Nepotism is certainly a problem under capitalism, but the fact remains that about 70% of millionaires and 60% of billionaires are self-made.
The primary issue is simply the statistical rule that capitalism rewards people for pushing money around on the plate (capital gains by exploiting ownership of the MoP to extract steal labor productivity) and punishes them for attempts to actually contribute to the economy.
Oh Holla Forumsyp, maybe if you understood basic economics like you chastise others for not knowing then you wouldn't have to waste your time trolling our board with your precious time.
I implore you to read up and understand what CAPITAL is.
I think you're being a little too generous here.
I talked to some capitalists earlier, there was one guy in particular who interested me and no one else contradicted him
(paraphrased)
"capitalism is an extension of some simple rights, I own myself, and through that self ownership I therefore can choose when to labor or not, and how, and what towards, thussly I own my labor, you will likely agree with me up to this point since I know labor is important to you"
he went on with a definition of ownership I cant remember the details of, but basically if he couldnt do whatever he wanted with it then he didnt own it, and because he owned his labor anything he made with it was by extension owned by him unless he had otherwise chosen to waive his right to it for some reason
anyway, I tried to reconstruct the part I found interesting, because capitalist (or at least some of them) consider it to be an extension of the ownership of your labor to sell or keep how you please
if I'm not mistaken he's just defining it as 'muh nap'. You could either point out the massive issues with the NAP or discuss how this definition is really shallow and doesn't work when applied to history. It also ignores what socialist's critiques of capitalism are and is often just shifting the goal posts of discussion.
no it wasnt the nap, that did come up and it was a separate concept (one said if I tried to take his stuff he would shoot my commie ass dead but I was free to share my stuff with other commies as much as I like, so that was fun)
This starts off like a Chick tract, you forgot to add the bit where you converted to capitalism at the end.
Well it's a shame you didn't discuss capitalism with him and instead humoured his vague platitudes of owning the fruits of his labour.
Strange, OP. When I get into an argument about semantics with people I tell them what capitalism actually is: a relation to production. It has nothing to do with markets or any of that other obfuscatory shit you mentioned. Capitalism is an economy where the major productive arrangement is the industrial capitalist process: a private entity owning means of production and paying workers a wage to transform it into a commodity.
how was it different to the NAP? Sounds like a textbook definition even if he didn't call it that
...
Eh, they're just surveys, but those are the numbers:
thelegaldollar.blogspot.com
review.chicagobooth.edu
Yeah, "first-generation" or "new money" is a better way to put it. Then again, isn't successfully fleecing the proles a type of skill, like getting rich as a mobster?
Well I have a cousin who's an orthopedist and her husband is some kind of doctor too, she makes about $400,000 a year and I can only imagine her husband makes something similar, but in general most people don't get rich solely off of their own labour.
So these 'millionaires' are basically upper middle class people? I feel like the definition has been watered down a lot, their net worth is barely a million.
Economy is more than just market exchange, it describes all distribution of resources.
Unlike individualistic systems, collectivist systems such as socialism bring everyone's shoulders closer to the grindstone of economic forces.
Land and livestock was often not enough that's why they had to sell products on the market.
You're confusing "capitalism" for central planning. It's OK, this kind of error is common among armchairs.
Society rewards people for making a difference in other people's lives. Don't "cook" a mudpie and then cry about muh labor power.
Economy is more than just market exchange, it describes all distribution of resources.
Unlike individualistic systems, collectivist systems such as socialism bring everyone's shoulders closer to the grindstone of economic forces.
Land and livestock was often not enough that's why they had to sell products on the market.
You're confusing "capitalism" for central planning. It's OK, this kind of error is common among armchairs.
Society rewards people for making a difference in other people's lives. Don't "cook" a mudpie and then cry about muh labor power.
Don't worry, we'll soon get our first trillionaire.
They sold their products because they had a surplus and might need/want to buy certain commodities from the town. They were almost entirely self-sufficient.
Nice "no u". Under USSR type state capitalism you're not selling your labor in a market, you're simply required to get a job. They're both exploitative but there's no labor market under state capitalism.
United Fruit Companys of the world definitely make a difference. Stop being such a fucking conflationist and read Kevin Carson.
Do you not realize how much shit stores sell that is essentially mudpies? Also, you don't understand labor-power and are repeating one of the most common and weakest refutations of Marxism.
Its not just about exchanging stuff its about ascribing a value to things.
So If I wanted your sheep and we both agree that its value is 50 of my carrots and we trade goods that is capitalism.
Using the same analogy, communism would be where a central authority decides that we both have to split the carrots and share the sheep between us.
The problem is that between a million and a billion there is a lot of money. Being a milionaire is quite possible nowdays even for non capitalists, so we a have a great number of milionaires with a few millions tops. As for the billionaires there are around 2000 billionaires and having this kind of money something quite new and usually reserved for tech entrepreneurs. The old money and probably the largest portion of the bourgeoisie is siting in the multi million dollar bracket with a couple hundred millions.
yeah, it's a skill. Just like getting away with murder is a skill.
Being a successful child molester who is never caught also involves a whole set of skills.
Not all skills deserve to be rewarded though.
this is objectively wrong though
It's evolution man, It's nothing new.
Feudalism = you do work and the landowner gives you a small portion of food you yourself grew
Capitalism = you do work and your boss gives you a small portion of money obtained from exchange of what you produced
They paid above and beyond the production value for rare merchandise, because are you really going to name-and-shame every merchant?
There was nothing stopping them from carrying on a frugal lifestyle and accumulating surplus value, except "scientific" doctrinists breathing down their necks.
Who gives a crap about whether a labor market exists? Communism deprives "workers" of autonomy. Their "capitalist" activity in the black market is just as much motivated by a desire towards creative self-actualization as excessive capital.
That's why, like communists, they required state power to turn a profit.
Yes and manufacturers are forced to eat the unsold product. Do you not realize how many companies go out of business every year?
You're so much smarter than everyone else. It's plainly obvious.
Why haven't you learned how to quote posts you dummy.
From what kind of backward internet shithole that doesn't use post quotation do you come from. Even usenet and old bb boards use them.
This is 100% bullshit.
There there young grasshopper one day you'll supercede your reliance on ad-hominems.
you mean the seller agrees to a value and the buyer puts up with it cause he needs food? do you really have to completely obfuscate capitalism to defend it at all?
I don't see what that has to do with you saying they needed the market to survive.
Because they're not actually selling their labor under state capitalism.
State capitalism does, I agree.
Notice how you say:
This is why you're a conflationist, you can't remember one second to the next whether a free market exists or not, and just say it does or doesn't depending on whether you like the example or not.
That's a good example of how inefficient Capitalism is, all those resources just gone; also there is some useless shit that is profitable because people can be retarded and do shit like impulse buy.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than you big guy, I'm saying you bringing up the mudpie example shows you don't understand the labor theory of value.
Also to quote someone, just click their post number, the number right after the date and time at the top of their post.
retard
They needed to stock pile surplus value as a nest egg. Only armchairs with no skills believe that systems function perpetually as designed.
OK, but what is the "material condition" of the individual? Why presume him a "worker?"
Under "capitalism" you can choose not to sell your labor and instead become a subsistence farmer – impossible under socialism.
That's not what surplus value is. They sold their agricultural surplus because they had no use for it and probably wanted something from town.
Because he's still working.
That requires a significant amount of land that costs a lot of money. If you can afford that land then yes, you can become a petit-bourgeois and live off your labor and property. In reality it is as likely as escaping the ghetto by becoming a professional athlete.
Under Marxist-Leninist regimes, sure.
That's not an ad-hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a conflationist, I'm saying you're wrong and a conflationist.
Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated in order to produce goods for exchange in order to make a profit. It's effectively private property + profit motive. In this case both large corporations and small shops are Capitalist, and even when Capitalism is nice and useful like a shop, it ultimately evolves into harmful and dangerous shit like large corporations, this is because under capitalism the proprietor must grow or go out of business, and eventually it becomes profitable to be unethical.
They were definitely the result of the Socialist movement and a genuine attempt, but the workers never had democratic control.
They do if the product is dumped off or sits forever unsold.
They haven't yet after 200 years.
Why does workplace democracy and an economy based upon production for use lead to empty shelves?
You mean the ones that existed during the Great Depression?
What trap?
No. Farmers are always forced to stockpile emergency funds because farms don't always behave how you want them to.
He does things that aren't work, but that's mostly bourgeois decadence to a socialist.
Determinism that all property is exchanged through markets and/or coercion.
Hiding your racism this much.
Again, "othering" instead of addressing issues.
Which credentialed expert in capitalism devised this definition?
This kind of determinism isn't logical.
Socialism means social ownership. These definitions about it being ownership by the workers is a farce to make sociopaths want to self-identify as workers.
It's bad business to let product sit on the shelf for decades.
Rogue workers illegally "accumulate" product and then sell it for a profit.
The same Great Depression that mysteriously put a dent in the Soviet economy.
You saw the word "mudpie" and circled the tanks
No. Farmers are always forced to stockpile emergency funds because farms don't always behave how you want them to.
He does things that aren't work, but that's mostly bourgeois decadence to a socialist.
Determinism that all property is exchanged through markets and/or coercion.
Hiding your racism this much.
Again, "othering" instead of addressing issues.
Which credentialed expert in capitalism devised this definition?
This kind of determinism isn't logical.
Socialism means social ownership. These definitions about it being ownership by the workers is a farce to make sociopaths want to self-identify as workers.
It's bad business to let product sit on the shelf for decades.
Rogue workers illegally "accumulate" product and then sell it for a profit.
The same Great Depression that mysteriously put a dent in the Soviet economy.
You saw the word "mudpie" and circled the tanks
Indeed: the USSR had both large companies and local shoe repairmen participating in market economies.
The only post in this thread about capitalism mentioning wage labour and it's the 14th post in, it's almost like this is a gaslighting thread.
Are you talking about now or historically? Historically if your crops failed then everyone else's did too and now you have a famine.
I have no idea what point you're making.
Are you implying it isn't presently? We don't like in the 1800s where you could go homestead somewhere.
It's not racist to know that's what many inner city blacks hope for.
If the present system is capitalism then that is the definition, since that is how the present system works.
This isn't a counterargument.
And the state isn't society.
Which is why this hypothetical business went under. Shit is produced that's not sold all the time, the majority of food isn't even sold to a final consumer.
People can do that now; it's called theft.
Did it? If so that's because the Soviet Union still used foreign trade.
You mentioned mudpie along with labor-power, you were clearly making a reference to the idea that the LTV says that all labor has objective value.
Ctrl+C Ctrl+V the post number you're replying to (just like you did with the text on their post) and then add two meme arrows behind it.
like so
A family that has no remedy to deal with famine would be disregarded at the very least as irresponsible.
By calling human beings "workers" you are essential objectifying them. They have no value to society when they aren't working.
Some property is inherited or taken over and improved after having been abandoned. Not every inch of land on the planet is crowded like some communist arcology.
"Knowing" inaccurate nonsense about what other people are thinking plants the seeds of racism.
Where are your credentials, though?
One day you'll stop blaming capitalism for it's supposed monopoly on "contradictions."
A stateless society is impossible. Don't waste your energy on useless dreams.
There are harmful consequences when a business fails which is why most businesses change their strategies.
To a communist all interpersonal conflict, including theft, is capitalism.
Historically societies have always engaged in trade for profit, and didn't require "imperialism" to do so.
The process of proletarianization (mentioned in the OP) implies the eventual generalization of wage labor;
In what historical reality? When and where?
IdPol is that you?
Define value please. For socialist the word value has a very precise meaning.
Your point?
Lolwut?
No what plants the seed of racism is the need to exploit as much as possible a segment of the population without having the rest rebel against the practice.
Nice non-argument.
This is a big misinterpretation. To a communist the social structure is determined by the material conditions of individuals. That is to say interpersonal relationships are built and seen through the lenses of a culture that reflects the economical structure that generated it.
Small scale commodity production and modern capitalism have little to do with each other. Imperialism is another beast entirely.
Sounds like the bog-standard Lockean notion of ownership, a lot of liberalism is based on it.
'Generalised commodity production' is the key phrase, though not very accesible to people who don't already understand economy.
BARTER TRADE
IS CAPITALISM
by: brainlet gang
...
You have mentioned literally the least egregious part of capitalism
Private property is a core component of capitalism but it is not exclusive to it, which is what this thread is discussing. And no, what I mentioned is not "egregious", it's where everything wrong with capitalism flows from.
Using the same analogy, communism would be where we are all in a union of egoists so the sheep belongs to me as much as everyone else.
Yes. Your just repeating what I said.
The seller puts up with it because he needs money and the buyer puts up with it because he needs food.
Its called a compromise.
From Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! Trilogy:
“Privilege implies exclusion from privilege, just as advantage implies disadvantage in the same mathematically reciprocal way, profit implies loss. If you and I exchange equal goods, that is trade: neither of us profits and neither of us loses. But if we exchange unequal goods, one of us profits and the other loses. Mathematically. Certainly . . .
When A meets B in the marketplace, they do not bargain as equals. A bargains from a position of privilege; hence, he always profits and B always loses. There is no more Free Market here than there is on the other side of the Iron Curtain . . .
And it is this that is threatened by anarchists, and by the repressed anarchist in each of us."
Capitalism is more of a social and political product. Its thr emergance of thr capitalist class as thr new dominante force in political society and the complete transformation of thr citizenry to serve capital owned by thr very few. Before most of society was in agriculture and industry was produced by people who each owned their own means of production ad opposed to someone else.
There is no absolutist mode of production.
Weird way to put it.
That doesn't explain much.
Moreover, you conflate society and processes that happen within society. In turn, this leads to incorrect belief that several modes of production cannot co-exist within one society. However, mode of production is but a process within society and several can exist simultaneously.
Capitalism is not based on proletarianisation. It is based on necessity to exchange goods - which follows from the increased specialization of producers inherent to industrial economy.
I.e. you do not separate reasons for emergence of Capitalism (industrial production), from Capitalism (market-based industrial economy), from consequences of Capitalism (proletarianization).