capitalism

[gam]

do you think capitalism is ever okay? if so, in what instance, and to what degree? sorry if its a stupid question, just wondering what you think

[ComradeChris]

What I'm more interested in, is what is Capitalism? I asked my father, and he and I both agree that it constitutes anything that involves barter even (any ownership that could be seen as "capital" - anything that constitutes wealth) should be considered capitalistic, by both the definition of capitalism, and capital.

And if thats the case, I'd have to say, no good can come of private ownership.

[Zavara]

the private ownership of means of production, I assume...

[Subversive Pessimist]

Understanding capitalism requires a strict understanding of the importance of property ownership in the capitalist system. Property ownership is the core of the capitalist system. (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/economy_web.htm)

[Essential Insignificance]

do you think capitalism is ever okay? if so, in what instance, and to what degree? sorry if its a stupid question, just wondering what you think

Well, thats going to depend on who you ask. If you ask someone who's "on the top", then your reply is going to be a sure "yes"... but if you were to ask the vast majority who own no property, other then their "labor-power", then you will hear "no".

As for me... capitalism will never be okay!


What I'm more interested in, is what is Capitalism? I asked my father, and he and I both agree that it constitutes anything that involves barter even (any ownership that could be seen as "capital" - anything that constitutes wealth) should be considered capitalistic, by both the definition of capitalism, and capital.

In order to understand what Marx means when he employs the term "the capitalistic mode of production", it is first necessary to comprehend what he means by the "means of production".

The first concept to be distinguished is what Marx, sometimes called, the "factors of production", and, to wit, this is further divided into: "labor-power", peoples ability to perform labor; and the "means of production" which can be additionally separated into: the raw materials or semi-produced items that people objectify their "labor-power" upon; and the large-scale instruments that are put to use, or supervised by human "labor-power".

All of the above forums stand in relation to one another, and this is what called the "agents of production", such as individuals, institutions and corporations, which control them. And this can be described as the "social relations of production", where different groups of people in virtue of them standing in different relations to the means of production -- are different!

Now what is the true, definitive character of capitalism that separates it from other modes of production? That the commodity (human labor-power congealed in to a product or service) is "dominating and determining" quality of is product... that the relation between capital and the wage-labor determines the entire nature of the mode of production... the product being between the two the production of a commodity, that the producer is alienated from, and the owner of the "means of production" swindles to accumulate his pre-existing capital.

Capitalisms foundation is based on the production and exchange of commodities; private ownership where the proletarian is forced to sell his "labor-power" to the owner of the "means of production", who puts him to work, and acquires "surplus-value" from the his "labor-power".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you're gonna be historically materialistic, then whether or not it's "good" is relevant, isn’t it?

I'm sure that towards the end of the middle ages when feudalism was becoming obsolete and capitalism took over, it was very progressive. But to answer your question objectively, no. Class society always involves oppression.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:42 AM
do you think capitalism is ever okay? if so, in what instance, and to what degree? sorry if its a stupid question, just wondering what you think
Is slavery ever okay? Of course not. And why is slavery "not okay"? Well, because (a) it makes certain people the property of others, and (b) it is a form of exploitation (the slaves' work goes to benefit their masters). Capitalism is bad for very similar reasons.

Simply being opposed to capitalism, however, isn't saying much. I always discourage people from being merely "anti-capitalists". You must define yourself by what you support, not by what you oppose.

[ComradeChris]

When does everyone think Capitalism started then?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:57 PM
When does everyone think Capitalism started then?
Capitalism replaced feudalism across the world during the 18th and 19th centuries.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Edric O+Nov 26 2004, 01:00 PM--> (Edric O @ Nov 26 2004, 01:00 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 06:57 PM
When does everyone think Capitalism started then?
Capitalism replaced feudalism across the world during the 18th and 19th centuries. [/b]
I'm reading a book for my Ancient Greece essay that said capitalism was a main factor as to why Athen's wasn't completely democratic.

[Essential Insignificance]

When does everyone think Capitalism started then?

It's apparent that the economic structure of capitalism has developed out of the economic structure feudalism; the disbanding of the latter gave way to the "free fundamentals" for the former to grow and prosper.

Bourgeois historians like to "paint the picture" that the producers within feudalism were "emancipated from serfdom" -- and turned into "wage-labors", free to sell there means of life, hence labor-power, on the market, presumably to the highest bidder (capitalist). But, the newly "liberated" man, was robbed of his means of production (specialized skills), and the assurances of the continuation of life and reproduction, which was made possible by feudal provisions. The wage-labor became the subject to the ebb and flow of the newly formed economic configuration and, indeed, labor-market -- like any other commodity.

There's actually, in my opinion, a hint of Engel's, in The Principles of Communism, suggesting that feudalism was more equal, which, furnished better working conditions for workers then capitalism does.

I believe, if memory is to serve me correctly, that traces and indeed, the true "birthplace" of small, intermittent capitalistic production was in some townships in the Mediterranean in the 14th and 15th century.

In England serfdom had, for the most part, surrendered from its suppression by, roughly, the 14th century. The majority of the population then, and into the early part of the 15th century were free peasant proprietors.

The introduction to what was to lay down the foundation of the capitalist mode of production, with definite social relations which men enter into free of their choice, and social intercourse relative to the means of production, which gave birth to the proletariat and bourgeoisie, was in the late 15th century and early 16th century. With the seizure of land and thus livelihood, of the recently free proprietors, which in turn forced them to seek, in newly formed large-scale factories, work, in order to continue existence