So what is Capitalism?

[Rooster]

As it appears that there's a difference of opinion here on what socialism is, I guess a thread where we can all hopefully agree on something would be a step forward.

So what makes capitalism capitalism under a Marxist definition? What constitutes capitalism?

Sometimes going back to basics is the best thing to do.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is a lot of things but primarily it is a single person, sometimes extended to group, which own the means of production and exploits labor in order to extract surplus value.

[Rooster]

What about when Engels mentions the socialisation of the means of production?

[Blake's Baby]

It's generalised commodity production and the exploitation of surplus labour through wage labour.

Unfortunately GodlessUtopian's definition would also work for Feudalism (Lords (individuals/group) own means of production - check; extracts surplus value - check; through exploitation of labour - check). Or antique slavery even.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's generalised commodity production and the exploitation of surplus labour through wage labour.

Unfortunately GodlessUtopian's definition would also work for Feudalism (Lords (individuals/group) own means of production - check; extracts surplus value - check; through exploitation of labour - check). Or antique slavery even.

Simplification. But no, the feudal lords didn't own, they controlled. The difference is in capital concentration. What value did they extract? They didn't extract any value but gave peasents land in return that they work the fields; as part of this deal they would be protected. Two different systems, you see. As such your accusation is false since the definition I gave was directed entirely at capitalism as defined in Marxist terms.

You're grasping at straws.

[Blake's Baby]

Straws, produced by an exploited class for an expropriating class.

All social wealth was produced by classes that were exploited. It is how that exploitation is organised that differentiates them.

'Ownership' is a fiction in a class society, 'de jure' does not necessarily equal 'de facto'. The Lords had the right to dispense summarary justice. They owned not only the means of production (primarily, land) but also the very peasants that did much of the producing.

What value did the Lords extract? All the value. There is nowhere else value comes from than the exploitation of labour.

As such, your explanation is false, and the definition you gave meaningless.

You're grasping at air.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Straws, produced by an exploited class for an expropriating class.

All social wealth was produced by classes that were exploited. It is how that exploitation is organised that differentiates them.

'Ownership' is a fiction in a class society, 'de jure' does not necessarily equal 'de facto'. The Lords had the right to dispense summarary justice. They owned not only the means of production (primarily, land) but also the very peasants that did much of the producing.

What value did the Lords extract? All the value. There is nowhere else value comes from than the exploitation of labour.

As such, your explanation is false, and the definition you gave meaningless.

You're grasping at air.

Definition semantics in varying historical eras. Hardly relevant. I gave a definition and you expanded on it to make it "more full." Lets leave it there. I had previously said it was a lot of things,and as such my answer wouldn't be complete, but I suppose you failed to take that into consideration.

Still grasping, however.

[Blake's Baby]

Rooster's question - what is capitalism?

My answer - generalised commodity production and wage labour (the two primary features that differentiate capitalism from other economic forms).

Your answer - a class society.

Which of these is the right answer? Technically, yours is 'not wrong'. But it's also 'not useful'. You could also have given the answer 'a word with 10 letters in it, it begins with c' which would also be 'not wrong', but would be 'a fucking useless answer'.

And let's leave it at that.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Rooster's question - what is capitalism?

My answer - generalised commodity production and wage labour (the two primary features that differentiate capitalism from other economic forms).

Your answer - a class society.

My answer assumed what you mentioned were included, but that still wasn't my answer as I didn't hint at any sort of society.

Now lets leave it at that.

[Rooster]

I'm writing a documentary at the moment. That's primarily the reason for the thread. I'll put the script up once I finish it.

What is the significance of the wage-labour and generalised commodity production? How does this relate to exploitation of labour?

[rolfwar]

basically,Capitalism is a loop-economic-system.It is meant to always increase production and consumerism.Also,bringing consumerism to new peoples is very important to a capitalistic system.
As easily noticeble,this system could work only if the Humankind had uncountable planets and uncountable people,which could support a nonstop growth of production.

[Thetwoterrors]

The capitalist mode of production is marked by wage-labor,private property, the production of commodities for market exchange and most importantly, the accumulation of capital.

Under capitalism, the bulk of the surplus is produced by a massive global working class and extracted primarily by a tiny capitalist ruling class. The working class differs from previously exploited classes because they receive their payment primarily in the form of money.Unlike peasants and serfs they do not enjoy the immediate returns of their own labor, they are forced to buy the products they need for survival on the global market. Unlike the medieval peasant or artisan, the working class does not produce their products for the consumption of a lord on a rural estate or for consumption in a local rural economy but instead for national and international markets.

Working classes have existed before capitalism (such as the egyptian pyramid builders) but they were usually a relatively small proportion of the population, which did not produce the lions-share of surplus. Under capitalism however, the global working class makes up billions of people and are one of the most productive exploited classes in history.

Under feudalism luxury goods and foreign commodities were usually confined to ruling classes, what few commodities peasants enjoyed were produced in the rural economy/estate for their own enjoyment. Under capitalism commodities are produced all over the world for mass-consumption, the primary logic being to make more money by expanding the global commodity markets to more and more people.

Societies dominated by Feudalism or Ancient slavery were ruled by landed aristocrats or slaveowners or both. Capitalism is marked by the ascendance of the monied classes (small-time bourgeois, industrialists, financiers) as the driving engine of class-rule and power.

Private property can exist outside capitalism(it doesn't always), but generally private property is a prerequisite for capitalism. However, capitalism tends towards monopoly so private property ends up in fewer and fewer hands as capitalism expands.

Finally, Capitalism is marked by constant growth, capitalism must stay constantly expanding or face collapse. Therefore capitalism must constantly reinvent the means of production, shackle new labor, expand into new markets, and more thoroughly exploit old markets or die.

[Lolumad273]

I believe that commodities, markets, currency, wages, all existed under traditional economies, such as Rome, Greece, European countries ETC..

The defining characteristic of Capitalism is the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the people who don't operate it.

[Ostrinski]

What is the significance of the wage-labour and generalised commodity production? How does this relate to exploitation of labour?Well, when wage (labor cost) is less than surplus value (value of unpaid labor), profit is made/capital is accumulated. I think this is exploitation in the most scientific sense.

Under generalized commodity production, meaning an arrangement in which all things are produced for sale, trade, exchange, etc., all things must have the characteristic of exchangability with priority to use. I don't know how this directly relates to labor exploitation, though.

Can't wait to see the doc.

[Ostrinski]

I believe that commodities, markets, currency, wages, all existed under traditional economies, such as Rome, Greece, European countries ETC..

The defining characteristic of Capitalism is the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the people who don't operate it.This is not unique to capitalism.

[Geiseric]

It just has to do with who owns production. Who owns production will use it for profit. However what marks Capitalism is that it's private, not public ownership.

If something is owned by the state, like most government services that we recieve in Capitalism, then it seizes to be used for profit and thus is not Capitalism. Only private owners who seek to get the last M in the M-C-M are Capitalists.

The U.S.S.R. was not run for profit. It had to grow and expand and the bureaucracy stole huge amounts of wealth, but it was illegal to OWN anything in the U.S.S.R. because the workers state and the workers in general wouldn't of allowed it.

As for "workers don't recieve all of their wealth from work," than I would counter, in feudalism that certainly did happen, so was 13th century bumfuck backwards europe capitalist?