I have some basic quetion about history

[spice756]

I'm trying to understand Capitalism history .

1.how old is Capitalism?

I know before Capitalism there was Feudalism.

2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?

What do you call a system that is 100 free market than controlled market.

I'm confused with the US or Canada 8% controlled market than other countries that is 93% controlled market.What do you call that.
Where do Libertarian play in?And why does the US still have big libertarian base.

Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.

[RGacky3]

2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?

Not according to some fundamentalists, but the early 20th century is pretty much as free market as its ever gonna get.


Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.

The great depression and WW2.

[Optiow]

Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.
That was the time of the great depression, where there was a lot of unemployed workers and all that, as well as World War Two, which got the American economy going again and transformed it into a superpower by 1945.

[BeerShaman]

Capitalism started in the 18th century. It slowly took place where there was feudalism before. It started because of the rising of the bourgeois' power in Europe.

[Havet]

I'm trying to understand Capitalism history .

1.how old is Capitalism?

Some people claim it started with Mercantilism (a transitional period between feudalism and capitalism), but commodities were still largely produced by non-capitalist production methods. (see Scott, John (2005). Industrialism: A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press.)

It is probably somewhere between 16th century old and 19th century old.


I know before Capitalism there was Feudalism.

Err, not really. After Feudalism came Mercantilism and only after that came industrialism, or what we understand as capitalism today.


2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?

There has never been a completely free-market, but there was indeed much corporate freedom aproximately since late 19th century to the 1930's


What do you call a system that is 100 free market than controlled market.

It really does depend on one's definition of free-market. For some, 100% free-market is called laissez-faire capitalism and/or "anarcho"-capitalism. For others, a free-market can only come when there is no forceful exploitation of labor (they would call that system a mutualist system or an anarcho-socialist system)


I'm confused with the US or Canada 8% controlled market than other countries that is 93% controlled market.What do you call that.
Where do Libertarian play in?And why does the US still have big libertarian base.

I dont understand the first and second questions. As for the third, the U.S. does not have a big libertarian base, mainly because libertarians have split, ones still believing in the classic ideas behind libertarian thought (generally more inclined to a "left" perspective) while others re-defined libertarianism to a more "right" perspective.


Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.

I agree with RGacky3 here. It was the great depression and world war 2.

[RGacky3]

It really does depend on one's definition of free-market. For some, 100% free-market is called laissez-faire capitalism and/or "anarcho"-capitalism. For others, a free-market can only come when there is no forceful exploitation of labor (they would call that system a mutualist system or an anarcho-socialist system)

The majority of everyone would call a free market one with the least amount of government intervention (except for property rights). The forcefull exploitation one is impossible because most that believe in the exploitation of labor believe its inherent in the market system itself.


Err, not really. After Feudalism came Mercantilism and only after that came industrialism, or what we understand as capitalism today.

I would argue that Capitalism has moved from industrialism, I'd Say Capitalism since world war 2 is significantly different from what it was before then, and moving more toward a global corpratist finance driven capitalism.

[Havet]

The majority of everyone would call a free market one with the least amount of government intervention (except for property rights). The forcefull exploitation one is impossible because most that believe in the exploitation of labor believe its inherent in the market system itself.

Those "impossible" people also think exploitation of labor is an inherent feature of the capitalist market system.


I would argue that Capitalism has moved from industrialism, I'd Say Capitalism since world war 2 is significantly different from what it was before then, and moving more toward a global corpratist finance driven capitalism.

Yeah. Capitalism since world war 2 is often described as keynesianism and neoliberalism, and it is different than industrialism since the service sector increased.

[RGacky3]

Those "impossible" people also think exploitation of labor is an inherent feature of the capitalist market system.

Yeah, I agree, but most people think markets and capitalism are synonimous, I'm not saying its true (although I think it is), the point is thats what most people believe.

[ComradeOm]

1.how old is Capitalism?Depends how you date it. I would suggest that it first stirred in Britain in the late 17th C but it didn't become a recognisable mode of production outside of the UK until the late 18th C and early 19th C. The speed at which it spread depended heavily on a multitude of factors but was most associated with the spread of industrialisation


2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?Never 100%. The state tended not to actively intervene during the latter half of the 19th C but it varied from country to country. For example, most industrialising nations (including France, Germany, Russia, and USA) relied heavily on government tariffs to safeguard their early industrial base. It was only when their industry had matured, and was thus ready to exploit overseas markets/territories, that capitalists clamoured for 'free trade' and laissez faire policies


I'm confused with the US or Canada 8% controlled market than other countries that is 93% controlled market.What do you call that.I don't understand the question. Do you mean why does the US have less government regulation/control of the market than other countries?


Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.Left to itself the market is highly self-destructive and tends towards regular crises of overproduction. The Great Depression was a classic example and shook the capitalist class enough to make them realise that the market could not regulate itself. Hence the introduction of increased state 'interference'


Err, not really. After Feudalism came Mercantilism and only after that came industrialism, or what we understand as capitalism todayMercantilism is capitalism. An early form perhaps but capitalism nonetheless. Certainly it, being a mere set of economic policies, cannot be considered a full mode of production in its own right

[mikelepore]

Marx suggested reserving the word "capitalism" for the condition only since workplaces have reached a certain size and and a certain degree of mechanization.

"Capitalist production only then really begins, as we have already seen, when each individual capitalist employs simultaneously a comparatively large number of labourers; when consequently the labour-process is carried on on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large quantities of products. A greater number of labourers working together, at the same time, in one place (or, if you will, in the same field of labour), in order to produce the same sort of commodity under the mastership of one capitalist, constitutes, both historically and logically, the starting-point of capitalist production."

--- Marx, "Capital", Chapter 13

[NGNM85]

There has never been a completely free-market, but there was indeed much corporate freedom aproximately since late 19th century to the 1930's


I'd say Chile under Pinochet counts, although the results were disastrous and ultimately they completely reverse those policies to save the country.

[MadMoney]

"Capitalism" is just a label. The fundamental aspects of "capitalism" (ownership and trade) have always existed in some form or another. Just another perspective.

[spice756]

So you are saying that Capitalism is 300 or 400 years old? And started in 17th century or 18th century?

People say it started do to bourgeois' power in Europe.What do they mean by that.


What was the main difference of Mercantilism and Feudalism ?


As for the third, the U.S. does not have a big libertarian base, mainly because libertarians have split, ones still believing in the classic ideas behind libertarian thought (generally more inclined to a "left" perspective) while others re-defined libertarianism to a more "right" perspective.

What do you mean?


I would argue that Capitalism has moved from industrialism, I'd Say Capitalism since world war 2 is significantly different from what it was before then, and moving more toward a global corpratist finance driven capitalism.

I think you are trying to say before ww2 was protectionism and after ww2 was free trade the globalization.


I don't understand the question. Do you mean why does the US have less government regulation/control of the market than other countries?

Free market and government regulation social democratic socialist that just want to keep capitalism but make it fair.In Europe social democratic socialist and the US in between free market and social democratic socialist what ever you call people that are not free market but not social democratic socialist .

[iskrabronstein]

Okay, this is a complicated subject but I will try to be as brief as possible.

Capitalism as a term refers to a specific state of social and economic development, characterized by the production of commodities for profit and the expansion of industrial infrastructure to accommodate this end.

The transition from feudal economies to capitalist ones in Europe was a long, complicated one, particularly because the process took varying forms in different locations, and the development of capitalism in places like England and France deformed the development of other states, like Italy and Spain.

The preconditions of capitalism were a high level of infrastructural development and large amounts of liquid capital to further expand interterritorial market share - this need could only be filled by the process of capitalist accumulation, which sparked the race between European powers for the resources of the New World. Despite the absolute monarchy in Spain having an initial upper hand, the productive resources of England, France, and the Netherlands (which incidentally funded much of Spain's imperial ventures, and produced the goods that made them possible) eventually overtook their competitor and began fighting each other to accumulate capital through colonization. Spain held on as a colonial power for several hundred years yet, but the viability of its political and social model was never again seriously credited.

England's early development of bourgeois parliamentary systems and relations of property through the Civil War and Glorious Revolution strengthened its ability to fund and sustain imperial possessions overseas, both through state patronage and exiling of political and religious dissidents. France too was a colonial power, but its possessions were severely reduced after the Anglo-French war of the 1750's and only really posed a challenge to English capitalist imperialism under Napoleon, the gravedigger of the French Revolution but the patron saint of French capitalism.

The United States experienced its own bourgeois revolution in its war for independence from Great Britain, but it's government was a mix of bourgeois and slaveowners, where the latter predominated politically. The capitalist revolution in the United States only took place after the American Civil War, which smashed the slave economy and fully consolidated the power of the American bourgeoisie. Uncoincidentally, it was after this tribulation that the American nation began to emerge as an imperial power - newborn capitalism needed blood to suck.

These periods of transition differed in other countries, with the late national revolutions in Italy and Germany, and the autocratic conditions under which they were conducted and sustained, coupled with the underdevelopment of the respective national economies to my mind paving the way for fascism.

In any event, the bourgeoisie are the private owners of the means of production, who are economically bound to extract value from their workers by selling the commodities they produce at a profit and pocketing the difference in revenue and wages. This is the technical definition of exploitation. This is just a general definition of bourgeois, as it can be argued that the bourgeoisie developed at different rates and in different forms due to the deformation of national economies caused by imperialism.

The events that paved the way for the institution of capitalism, commodity production for profit, and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are bourgeois revolutions.

[RGacky3]

In Europe social democratic socialist and the US in between free market and social democratic socialist what ever you call people that are not free market but not social democratic socialist .

Keyensian Capialist, regulated Capitalism, welfare capitalism. Social Democracy imo can be described as one where there is significan democratic control over the economy, so that does'nt mean a welfare state or just regulation, it neads a significant public profitable sector.


I think you are trying to say before ww2 was protectionism and after ww2 was free trade the globalization.


Not really, protectionism was the rule after WW2 pretty much up into the 80s or 90s. What I mean is that Capitalist power after WW2 grew to a point to where it was'nt just a national power, they were more international, dispite protectionism, it had to do with American corporations essencially getting subsidised and buying up the old european empires. Before WW2 a big time Capitalist was a guy that owned a couple factories and was invested in maybe a few other companies, nowerdays that guy would be laughed at by the modern big time Capitalists.

Its kind of like in feaudalism, moving from the warlords and regular fiefdoms, where a noble or king had a castle and good amount of land, to where a king controled HUGE amounts of land and ruled over nobles.

The reason it happened quickly after WW2 was essencially the destruction of major economies and the dissaperance of european empires, a power vacume basically, and Capital took it over and finance became a much bigger power.

When Karl Marx said in the world 10% own 90%, that was pretty shocking to poeple back then, that would be considered utopia today.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Not according to some fundamentalists, but the early 20th century is pretty much as free market as its ever gonna get.

Are you fucking retarded. The early 20th century was a period of protectionism and economic nationalism. Ever since the republics cheated their ways into the white house in the compromise of 1877 they set down policies of pure protectionism and that is exactly what prevailed. That is not a free market and the U.s. has never experienced a free market. The closest to a free market achieved in the U.s. would be during the articles of confederation.

Now unto the 30's and 40's. The crash was predicted by austrian economists are early as 1923. The crash came as a result of stupid economic policy and all the state did was prolong it into a depression. WW2 created a new nationalism that was practically jingoism and allowed the government and state capitalists to become huge and face little to no competition.

[RGacky3]

domestically the market was pretty free in the US and most of europe. within countries.

[Comrade Anarchist]

domestically the market was pretty free in the US and most of europe. within countries.

that is exactly what protectionism is. markets are barely free within a protected region. meaning that competition is limited and in turn no free market.

[#FF0000]

that is exactly what protectionism is. markets are barely free within a protected region. meaning that competition is limited and in turn no free market.

Okay but hear me out. There is this thing that happens, when economies get more and more and more deregulated...

People suffer and are worse off.

So, do we have to get rid of all the regulations at once, or is there some light at the end of this rainbow of poverty, disease, hunger and addiction that makes it all worth it?

[Jimmie Higgins]

1.how old is Capitalism?It's hard to say - as others mentioned, it was a gradual process that happened over time and at different rates in different places. I think in "Capital" Marx says it started in England in the 16th century with a long period of transition dating back a couple of hundred years earlier: the slow transformation of the peasantry to landless beggers and wage-earners began towards the end of the 14th century.



2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?What do you mean by free-market? No regulation? The myth about capitalism and the state is that these are different things. Capitalism needs state power: to enclose common lands, to make laws against the "mob" and vagabondary (i.e. you have to work if you are a landless peasant or you get yer ear cut off in 1700s England... this is the origin of the "free selling of labor under capitalism"). Capitalism needs a navy to protect trade routes and open markets, it needs cops to protect private property and enforce the law and court decisions. The state is the way it is... in the US or wherever to meet the needs of business and profit-making. If there is little regulation, it is because that is what is deemed best at the time for business - if there is a lot of regulation like in the 1940s, that is because business in general feels it is necessary (either to prevent the short-sightedness of the market from destroying the whole system or because business is forced to change things due to public pressure or unrest).


Are you fucking retarded.There's no need to call people names when they weren't even addressing you let alone insulting you.


That is not a free market and the U.s. has never experienced a free market. If you mean a "free market" in the sense of no government involvement in the economy, you are correct - there never has been this and never can be in order for there to be profits.


WW2 created a new nationalism that was practically jingoism and allowed the government and state capitalists to become huge and face little to no competition.While the government and state-involvement in the economy grew greatly, monopolies pre-dated this era and in the "guided age" wealth was concentrated into a few companies very quickly. The fact that a company like US Steel could control most steel production or that JP Morgan could write one check to stop a market crash became liabilities for the entire system and so this is the source of increasing governmnet involvement in the economy, increased foreign interventions in countries vital to the US economy in the early 20th century (as well as reform movements of the "progressive era")

[RGacky3]

that is exactly what protectionism is. markets are barely free within a protected region. meaning that competition is limited and in turn no free market.

But domestically during that time period they were most free, so that can be considered the time where they were most free, thats what I was talking about when answering his question

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

"Capitalism" is just a label. The fundamental aspects of "capitalism" (ownership and trade) have always existed in some form or another. Just another perspective.

Except those aren't the fundamental aspects of capitalism.

Do you not pause for a second to think about what you are saying before you do so? Read though what you said, and then tell me how useful a definition it is to define an economic system as one that has "ownership..."

So absurd.

Guiyz capitalism has been around forever too cause in a communist society peoplez are gonna own things...so now whenever someone own things it capitalism rite?!

No.

[spice756]

Keyensian Capialist, regulated Capitalism, welfare capitalism. Social Democracy imo can be described as one where there is significan democratic control over the economy, so that does'nt mean a welfare state or just regulation, it neads a significant public profitable sector.


What I'm trying to say is in Europe the market is more controlled well in Canada and the US only 10% controlled .So If the market is 10% controlled or 15% controlled it is Keyensian Capialist but if the market is 50% or more is Social Democracy?


Not really, protectionism was the rule after WW2 pretty much up into the 80s or 90s. What I mean is that Capitalist power after WW2 grew to a point to where it was'nt just a national power, they were more international, dispite protectionism, it had to do with American corporations essencially getting subsidised and buying up the old european empires.

Is that becuse most businesses where destroyed in Europe after ww2 it was easy for US businessess to set up businesses in Europe after ww2 even with US protectionism .


When Karl Marx said in the world 10% own 90%, that was pretty shocking to poeple back then, that would be considered utopia today.

I thought in the US 1% has of now rule over everyone and control every thing.



What do you mean by free-market? No regulation? The myth about capitalism and the state is that these are different things.

Before the 30's there was no minimum wage , environmental laws companies can put waste in the lakes or any where, no child labor laws , no unemployment money ,no food stabs ,no welfare ,government housing projects ,no retirement money ( social security ) no work compensation if one gets injured at work ,no healthcare , no laws on monoply . It was brute exploitation at work.

Well libertarians dream of the days when all off the welfare state is and regulations is abolished.In US it may be 15% welfare state and 10% regulation and in Europe 40% welfare state and 45% regulation .The libertarians hate welfare state , any thing state run other than the cops and army even EMS and fire they hate state run , hate regulation .

[Invader Zim]

I'm trying to understand Capitalism history .

1.how old is Capitalism?

I know before Capitalism there was Feudalism.

2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?

What do you call a system that is 100 free market than controlled market.

I'm confused with the US or Canada 8% controlled market than other countries that is 93% controlled market.What do you call that.
Where do Libertarian play in?And why does the US still have big libertarian base.

Why was the 30's and 40's big turning point to the US.


1.how old is Capitalism?

It depend son how one defines 'capitalism', on the one hand primative forms of capitalism existed in the ancient world, and mercantile capitalism rose in the medieval and early modern period. But the modern concept of capitalism, while again having its origions in the medieval and early modern period was a product of the Age of Enlightenment.



2.Is it true Capitalism was 100 free-market to the 30's or 40's?

No, it is not true. A 100% free-market laissez-faire capitalist system cannot exist, and everytime it has come even within a country-mile of being enacted the result has been gross economic instability, i.e. the 1920s and 30s boom and bust in the United States, and the boom and busts of 19th century Britain. More recently the same happened in Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.


And why does the US still have big libertarian base.

It doesn't. There is, no doubt, an ignorant portion of the population that flirts with the notions of 'small government' and confuse that position with libertarianism. But actual libertarianism, a phenomenon of the mid-late 20th century, is now largely considered a bad joke and is largely restricted to internet warriors.

[RGacky3]

What I'm trying to say is in Europe the market is more controlled well in Canada and the US only 10% controlled .So If the market is 10% controlled or 15% controlled it is Keyensian Capialist but if the market is 50% or more is Social Democracy?


Where are you getting these figures from? 10% of the market? not at all, unless your including the military. Its not a matter or how much its controlled, Keyensian Capitalism is simply a regulated market, in other words the government sets gidelines on how buisiness is done. In a Social democracy the major industries are publically controlled. So its not about how much or how little, its regulated or actually controlled and owned.


Is that becuse most businesses where destroyed in Europe after ww2 it was easy for US businessess to set up businesses in Europe after ww2 even with US protectionism .

US protectionism HELPED them set up buisinesses worldwide, because the US protected their industries at home while buying up industries abroad. However European protectionism protected their own industries, whereas most of the 3rd world were forced to accept free market policies where the US took over quickly.


I thought in the US 1% has of now rule over everyone and control every thing.

Yeah, Karl Marx lived in the 1800s, things were different then, now they are more extreme.


Well libertarians dream of the days when all off the welfare state is and regulations is abolished.In US it may be 15% welfare state and 10% regulation and in Europe 40% welfare state and 45% regulation .The libertarians hate welfare state , any thing state run other than the cops and army even EMS and fire they hate state run , hate regulation .

Enough with the percentages, thats a horrible way to analyse it, first of all because welfare is'nt part of the market, its essnecially philanthophy, regulation also is'nt part of the market perse, its rules. You can't look at it that way, it does'nt make any sense.

[spice756]

Where are you getting these figures from? 10% of the market? not at all, unless your including the military. Its not a matter or how much its controlled, Keyensian Capitalism is simply a regulated market, in other words the government sets gidelines on how buisiness is done. In a Social democracy the major industries are publically controlled.


So it does not matter if in the US they control 10% ,15% ,20% or 50% of the market it is Keyensian Capialist ? The about of control or regulation is still Keyensian Capitalism if it is very little or alot of control or regulation.

So if it is 5% of the market or 90% it is still Keyensian Capitalism.



Enough with the percentages, thats a horrible way to analyse it, first of all because welfare is'nt part of the market, its essnecially philanthophy, regulation also is'nt part of the market perse, its rules. You can't look at it that way, it does'nt make any sense.

Well welfare policy and market control or Keyensian Capitalism was part of Roosevelt response to the problems with capitalism doing the 30's and before.Well Karl Marx was a response to the exploitation doing the industrial revolution.Doing the 30's their where to roads in US to the problems with capitalism a mass base to go to communism or reform capitalism want Roosevelt wanted to do with the FDR.

It became clear in the 30's that capitalism had major problem and 2 groups came up with a solution we go with the flow like Europe communism or reform capitalism and put the safety nets in place the FDR.

Read up on the industrial revolution and the monoply in the 1800's and early 1900's capitalism was hell.

Well the libertarians believe all problems is do to government and control or regulation and the welfare is very bad .The conservatives believe small government is the way to go, free market or very very little market control ,small tax ,little welfare or welfare run by the church or non profit than goverment.

The liberals believe in capitalism and free market but it should be more controlled or more regulation and more welfare well not all liberals believe in European welfare state or market control. And alot of liberals in Europe are doing away of the welfare state and less market control.

Again not all liberals believe in welfare state or control or regulation they normally more than the conservatives so it is like 30% welfare and 40% of the market controlled.It is normally fake socialists who want to keep capitalism but have massive welfare state and have alot of control or regulation .Where liberals are saying it is too much and conservatives who are saying this is hell.

[RGacky3]

So it does not matter if in the US they control 10% ,15% ,20% or 50% of the market it is Keyensian Capialist ? The about of control or regulation is still Keyensian Capitalism if it is very little or alot of control or regulation.

So if it is 5% of the market or 90% it is still Keyensian Capitalism.


Well technically they regulate 100% of the market because minimum wage laws apply to every industry, the percentage thing does'nt work. There is no defining line, its relative, keyensian capitalism is a principle of policy.

[spice756]

You are simplifying it :lol: it more than minimum wage or child labor law.The laws on environment laws change every eletion .If the greens get in that is alot of laws ,if the liberals that is is more than the conservatives.

Europe has more laws on company mergers and monopoly than the US.
The US could not go to big banks and tell the rich VIP or CEO use your money has the bail out or the rich car maker CEO or VIP and say use your money has a bail out.

They have no control over if company wants to make better product or use 30 old product. They have no control if all the stores by choice want to use microsoft.Thery cannot say 25% has to be a non microsoft.


If city called 005B has 5% of the people that have 9 billion dollars and 95% of the people on food stamps and in a homeless shelter ( there is nothing the government can do ).No matter want they have there is no control to tell a rich CEO or VIP to take a pay cut even if the economy is in major problem or massive of poverty or homeless.Even in a depression !!

The US has no control over the rich walmart.Every time there law in place to up the minimum wage or more environment laws there is big debate and conservatives hate for the minimum wage to go up or more environment law.

If there was conspiracy to lay everyone off and put their money under the mattress there is nothing the government can do.

In fact the government has very liitle control over the market and in the past 20 years the government is now the prist of the ruling class.The government does not care about the people .You are naive to thing the government cares about the poor or middle class they do not.

[RGacky3]

You are simplifying it :lol: it more than minimum wage or child labor law.The laws on environment laws change every eletion .If the greens get in that is alot of laws ,if the liberals that is is more than the conservatives.

I understand, I was using that juts to show that discussing in terms of percentages does'nt make any sense.


In fact the government has very liitle control over the market and in the past 20 years the government is now the prist of the ruling class.The government does not care about the people .You are naive to thing the government cares about the poor or middle class they do not.

I never said that they do ....