On the History of Capitalism [Archive]

LSD

21st September 2005, 21:19

We've had trade, right?

Sure.

We've saved, right?

The rich did, yeah.

And we reinvested our labor/savings into other things, right?

Sometimes.

We've had progress, right?

Absolutely.

So naturally we've always had capitalism.

How is that "natural"? How does "progress" relate to the presence of capitalism? :huh:

hmm, it seems that there's an implied assumption somewhere in in this argument...

Oh wait! Here it is:

Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting.

You see that (trading et al.), that's called economics.

Trading, saving, and reinvestment occur in every economy, be it communist, capitalist, socialist, mercantilist, feudal, or barter. The question is who conducts economic activities and how.

A much more truthful, but still highly abbreviated, definition of capitalism would be an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of supply and demand in a free market.

You see, now we're getting down to specifics, what makes capitalism ...capitalistic.

Arguing that every economic activity is capitalistic only serves to make capitalism less historically important, not more. If capitalism really is what you claim it is, then it's entirely irrelevent!

If we can have capitalism without a free market and without private property, if all that is required is that fundamental economic activity be conducted (trading, saving, reinvesting), then every person on this board is a capitalist!

Well, hurray for us, I guess, but I don't really see what you've just accomplished, other than being the first person to claim with a straight face that an ardent communist can be a capitalist. :rolleyes:

Honestly, discussing capitalism without mentioning the "market" is like discussing bread without mentioning wheat. Capitalism is free market private ownership, it's what it is. Earlier forms of economic activity are exactly that, earlier; pre-capitalist.

Capitalism dates as back as far as the early 14th century at the most.

quincunx5

21st September 2005, 22:05

The rich did, yeah.

No, not just the rich. Anyone who created more than they consumed. Civilizations would not have flourished in any other case.

Sometimes.

Always. Those who felt oppressed moved to a better area.

You see that (trading et al.), that's called economics.

Trading, saving, and reinvestment occur in every economy, be it communist, capitalist, socialist, mercantilist, feudal, or barter.

Yes. History is nothing more than capitalism with more or less tyranny of governance.
It enriches most with less governance.

The question is who conducts economic activities and how.

The answer is always people.

A much more truthful, but still highly abbreviated, definition of capitalism would be an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of supply and demand in a free market.

This is exactly what existed. Private ownership of means of production is nothing more than an extention of private ownership of self.

One does not need a formal property rights system to enforce private property. In the past, private property was enforced by the owners themselves, sometimes with the aid of their neighbors. The neighbors would expect the same in return.

Arguing that every economic activity is capitalistic only serves to make capitalism less historically important, not more. If capitalism really is what you claim it is, then it's entirely irrelevent!

Arguing that something is important because it's part of every economic activity makes it less historically important?

Your statement makes no sense.

Capitalism is irrelavant because of it's omnipresense?

I suppose you may have an intersting point there. That could be why 'capitalism' did not have a definition prior to Marx.

If we can have capitalism without a free market and without private property, if all that is required is that fundamental economic activity be conducted (trading, saving, reinvesting), then every person on this board is a capitalist!

YES! You LSD are indeed a cut above the rest. I must say you are smarter than I gave you credit for.

Well, hurray for us, I guess, but I don't really see what you've just accomplished, other than being the first person to claim with a straight face that an ardent communist can be a capitalist.

I go one step further to say that a communist is a confused capitalist!

Capitalism is free market private ownership, it's what it is

Now you are just confusing yourself. You know that the "communist" states were really state- capitalists. They had no private ownership. So if they weren't capitalist and they were not communist, what the fuck were they?

Or is it the simple fact that one can't really remove private ownership from someone without killing them?

Capitalism is free market private ownership, it's what it is. Earlier forms of economic activity are exactly that, earlier; pre-capitalist.

How do you account for free market private ownership prior to the 14th century?

Again, you don't need a private property rights system (pink slips) to enforce private propert

Capitalism dates as back as far as the early 14th century at the most.

Nope.
I suppose the Lydians used their coins for decorative purposes.

LSD

21st September 2005, 22:39

No, not just the rich. Anyone who created more than they consumed.

A group which, for most of human history, was the vast minority.

Yes. History is nothing more than capitalism with more or less tyranny of governance.

That's patently insane.

So any society in history which had limited "governance" is characterized by you as capitalist, even if it didn't respect private property or had communal ownership over the means of production or used a barter economy?

Were paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribes "capitalist"?

Were mesolithic agricultural communities?

Again, by making the definition of capitalism overbroad, you make it functionally useless.

This is exactly what existed. Private ownership of means of production is nothing more than an extention of private ownership of self.

Which, itself, is an abstract redefinition of human person hood. It's basic security of person theory recasted in a private property context.

You're taking the theory of private property and attempting to justify it by claiming that personal right at pro are themselves derived from "ownership of self" rather then from existence of self.

Sorry, but logic doesn't work that way. You can't make up a connection and then use it as evidence.

Private property is a distinct concept. One which has distant origins, of course, but a distinct concept nonetheless.

Socities have existed with limited or even nonexistant definitions of private property, and for most of human history, property had multiple layers of ownership depending on social standing and class.

The feudal relationship with property was very different from the capitalist one. Calling it capitalism with "state" intervention is ludicrous, especially seeing as the "state" hardly even existed in the modern context.

How do you fit the serf into your everything is capitalism paradigm? How does the lord-vasal relationship exist within the context of a "free market"?

How about slaves? How about the Roman patronage system? How about the Greek oligarchies?

Economic history is the story of change. Claiming that all of human history contains but one economic model is ridiculous at face!

One does not need a formal property rights system to enforce private property.

No, but one needs a mutual recognition of the concept. One guy with an axe isn't going to keep the starving hoards at bay.

Arguing that something is important because it's part of every economic activity makes it less historically important?

No, it makes it less politically important.

If every economic system possible is "capitalist", then being a "capitalist" is a meaningless label. It's like calling yourself a stay-alive-ist.

Your definition of "capitalism" functionally interchangeable with economic system, that is any economic system. So really, what's the point? All that it accomplishes is forcing us to chose new labels! You want a kind of what you call "capitalism" with free markets, private property, and production ownership. I want a kind of what you call "capitalism" without those things.

So what... do I call you a private-property capitalist and me a communistic capitalist?

Seems like a mighty waste of time to me.

How about, instead, we stick to the definition that actual economists use and leave the bullshit at home, OK?

I suppose you may have an intersting point there. That could be why 'capitalism' did not have a definition prior to Marx.

So what was Smith writing about again?

Now you are just confusing yourself. You know that the "communist" states were really state- capitalists. They had no private ownership. So if they weren't capitalist and they were not communist, what the fuck were they?

Of course they had private ownership.

Even the USSR would admit that it had private property. It would call it "transitional" or "socialistic" or whatever the meaningless Leninist buzzword of the day was, but the fact remains that the USSR was strongly state-capitalist.

It was largely a command economy to be sure, but there were plenty of markets, not to mention strong examples of private ownership.

Instead of bouegeois control, they had bureacratic control. Only the class part of rulling class changed, the rulling sure as hell didn't.

I suppose you could call it state-feudalism or state-monopoly-bureaucracism in many respects, but state-capitalism is indeed valid because it did exhibit strong characteristics of capitalism, despite heavy state intervention.

The USSR was far more capitalistic than any society you can point to before the rennaisance.

Or is it the simple fact that one can't really remove private ownership from someone without killing them?

:rolleyes:

Of course one can.

Private ownership is a social institution. It is no more immutable than any other socialy created "right".

Whether it should be removed or not is, of course, a heated debate. But whether it can or not is a nonissue.

How do you account for free market private ownership prior to the 14th century?

They didn't exist, not in any meaningful sense. That's the point!

I suppose the Lydians used their coins for decorative purposes.

No, they used them as a means of keeping records, as a measure of value, for certain religious services, and, later, for simplifying large transactions.

So what?

quincunx5

21st September 2005, 23:57

A group which, for most of human history, was the vast minority.

History disagrees with you.

So any society in history which had limited "governance" is characterized by you as capitalist, even if it didn't respect private property or had communal ownership over the means of production or used a barter economy?

No I said capitalism always existed, be it under less governance OR more governance.

Were paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribes "capitalist"?
Were mesolithic agricultural communities?

I said no before. The Neolithic period is what marks the birth of capitalism.
The pre-Neolithic period was marked by living at a subsistence level.

Again, by making the definition of capitalism overbroad, you make it functionally useless.

Indeed. Marx created the ideological dichotomy.

Which, itself, is an abstract redefinition of human person hood. It's basic security of person theory recasted in a private property context.

You're taking the theory of private property and attempting to justify it by claiming that personal right at pro are themselves derived from "ownership of self" rather then from existence of self.

Self exists, Yes, but self needs space. To an outside observer, you are still property.

The feudal relationship with property was very different from the capitalist one. Calling it capitalism with "state" intervention is ludicrous, especially seeing as the "state" hardly even existed in the modern context.

The lord was the 'state' as he taxed his serfs.

How do you fit the serf into your everything is capitalism paradigm? How does the lord-vasal relationship exist within the context of a "free market"?

Because the free market existed despite feudalism. The free market always exists.
The lords traded amongst themselves, for example.

How about slaves? How about the Roman patronage system? How about the Greek oligarchies?

These activities are confined to their own geographic regions.

Economic history is the story of change. Claiming that all of human history contains but one economic model is ridiculous at face!

Economic history is indeed the story of change. It is the history of refining ways to capitalize.
Science is interwoven there too.

No, but one needs a mutual recognition of the concept. One guy with an axe isn't going to keep the starving hoards at bay.

If he can not defend, he will lose his property. This does not mean that private property was not recognized, it just means it wasn't respected by others. Your neighbor respected your space, but your foes did not.

If every economic system possible is "capitalist", then being a "capitalist" is a meaningless label. It's like calling yourself a stay-alive-ist.

YES!

Your definition of "capitalism" functionally interchangeable with economic system, that is any economic system. So really, what's the point? Your definition of "capitalism" functionally interchangeable with economic system, that is any economic system. So really, what's the point? All that it accomplishes is forcing us to chose new labels! You want a kind of what you call "capitalism" with free markets, private property, and production ownership. I want a kind of what you call "capitalism" without those things.

You can want all you want, but you won't get it. Should you try to accomplish your goals, you will find you wasted your time. You would in essence be fighting yourself. I'm just trying to save you time and embarassment.

So what... do I call you a private-property capitalist and me a communistic capitalist?

No. You call me a practical capitalist, and you call yourself an impractical capitalist.

How about, instead, we stick to the definition that actual economists use and leave the bullshit at home, OK?

Mainstream economists would define capitalism by the existence of money markets.
I feel this is just a refinement of capitalism, not it's inception.

So what was Smith writing about again?

The Wealth of Nations.

Of course they had private ownership.
Even the USSR would admit that it had private property. It would call it "transitional" or "socialistic" or whatever the meaningless Leninist buzzword of the day was, but the fact remains that the USSR was strongly state-capitalist.
The USSR was far more capitalistic than any society you can point to before the rennaisance.

Private ownership can not actually be taken away. You can come up with different labels, like "personal property" but the concept remains the same.

Of course one can.
Private ownership is a social institution. It is no more immutable than any other socialy created "right".

Respecting others' private ownership is a social institution. Yet having private ownership is an individual's perspective.

No, they used them as a means of keeping records, as a measure of value, for certain religious services, and, later, for simplifying large transactions.

I was mocking you, since you didn't grasp the connection between capitalism and money. But here I see that you said 'measure of value', so everything is fine.

LSD

22nd September 2005, 00:53

No I said capitalism always existed, be it under less governance OR more governance.

Yes, I know that. Now answer the question!

You claimed that every post-neolithic human society has been capitalistic regardless of the nature of that society.

Accordingly, you should view any society with little "governance" to be capitalistic and to your liking.

So, again,

any society in history which had limited "governance" is characterized by you as capitalist, even if it didn't respect private property or had communal ownership over the means of production or used a barter economy?

Self exists, Yes, but self needs space.

Irrelevent.

You don't "own" yourself, you are yourself.

To an outside observer, you are still property.

Only if that "outside observer" is Ayn Rand.

For the rest of us, other people are not considered property.

The lord was the 'state' as he taxed his serfs.

No he didn't, he collected his grain from his lands. The state was the King and his vassals, which may include the lord in question, but who's power, regardless, could not be exerted by said vassals unilaterally.

Feudalism was not state intervention in "free markets", it was pre-market, it was precapitalist!

It was an entirely different manner of aranging production and economics, albeit with certain similarities to later capitalism, which, of course, would develop from late feudalism.

The lords traded amongst themselves, for example.

Sometimes, but quite rarely. For the most part, production worked at local levels and travelled only vertically.

Trading was limited and sporadic until the late middle ages. Before that, the feudal aristocracy operated almost entrely autarkically, from an economic sense.

Because the free market existed despite feudalism.

No it didn't. The "markets" that did exist were small, localized, highly controlled, and subject to feudal whims.

Nothing approaching capitalist supply-demand curves existed and, for the most part, those markets which did exist did so in small and insignificant industries. Real production decisions were made by feudal patrons based on personal assesments and material conditions. Serfs worked because the alternative was death, they did not "sell" they labour.

Neither, of course, did slaves.

For most of human history, labour was compelled by the threat of torture or execution. It almost always surpased what we would now call "demand", and rarely if ever was remuneration, if it existed at all, based on value.

Artisans and the like were often better off, I suppose. They could often taylor their "prices" to a rought analysis of demand, but even so, they were always a tiny segment and later, especially in feudal Europe, found themselves subject to aristocratic command.

Feudal production was not capitalistic, it was not capitalistic with "governance", it was feudal.

All of this, of course, is not to say that commerce did not exist prior to the rennaisance. It did. Sometimes it even flourished. But commerce is not capitalism; capitalist commerce is.

Feudal relationships and pre-feudalist relationships that preceded it were economic models of their own. Rich and complex and multilayered. Reducing them to capitalism with "governance" is anachronistic and bad history.

The human story is far more complex than you give it credit for.

The free market always exists.

Again, that's a ludicrous assertion.

These activities are confined to their own geographic regions.

So?

You made the claim that EVERY post-neolithic human society in history was capitalistic. If I can provide an example where this was false, no matter how "geographically confined", your premise falls.

Now answer the questions.

Mainstream economists would define capitalism by the existence of money markets.

No, they would define it, again as an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of supply and demand in a free market.

Re-read that last part.

Ask any of these "mainstream economists" if they belive that capitalism "always existed" and what do you think they'll say?

What you're trying to do is politicize history. You want to say capitalism has always been there so, naturally, it always will. You're trying to bend economic history to fit a party line.

Well, don't. There are much better arguments against communism thatn that, and most of them don't require blatantly lying. Capitalism is a spefic economic model, anything else is propaganda ...and you know it.

Private ownership can not actually be taken away. You can come up with different labels, like "personal property" but the concept remains the same.

Private property implies specific monopoly ownership. Personal property implies usage rights under social conditions. They are related, but distinct concepts.

Respecting others' private ownership is a social institution. Yet having private ownership is an individual's perspective.

Obviously private ownership as a thought is a subjective experience. But private ownership as a social reality, which is what we are discussing, is a matter of institutional support.

I can think that I own New Mexico, but it doesn't matter 'cause no one else does.

quincunx5

23rd September 2005, 04:16

You claimed that every post-neolithic human society has been capitalistic regardless of the nature of that society.

Let me be more clear. I previously asserted that capitalism was born when civilizations began forming. But this process was not occuring in the world all at the same time. So yes you can find examples in the "post-neolithic" period where I would be wrong. One easy example would be the cultures of the western hemisphere. Those places that did have trade, and did achieve prosperity were those that I consider capitalistic.

You don't "own" yourself, you are yourself.

Not at all. You have the free will to voluntarily kill yourself. Hence you owe your life to yourself.

Only if that "outside observer" is Ayn Rand.

For the rest of us, other people are not considered property.

Any material that occupies space can be property.
And since we are such, we are indeed property. What the fuck do you think slaves were? What is the fundemental difference between owning a cat, a dog, or a person? There really isn't one. It just happens to be that owning a person is considred immoral.

No he didn't, he collected his grain from his lands.

Which is taxation!

Sometimes, but quite rarely. For the most part, production worked at local levels and travelled only vertically.

No it didn't. The "markets" that did exist were small, localized, highly controlled, and subject to feudal whims.

Well if trade still existed it still falls under 'capitalism with more governance' statement.

Trading was limited and sporadic until the late middle ages. Before that, the feudal aristocracy operated almost entrely autarkically, from an economic sense.

And before that were other cultures. Did you forget about the Greeks or the other cultures around the Mediteranen sea? Do you not remember the merchants who brought goods from various lands?

Greek society eventually formed city-states headed by guess who? The previous merchant capitalists.

Nothing approaching capitalist supply-demand curves existed and, for the most part, those markets which did exist did so in small and insignificant industries.

You don't need supply-demand graphs to engage in trade. I assure you that the marchants sold at the highest prices the consumers could bear, and they still had to lower their prices because of other merchants (competition). Same shit, different time.

All of this, of course, is not to say that commerce did not exist prior to the rennaisance. It did. Sometimes it even flourished. But commerce is not capitalism; capitalist commerce is.

What is commerce other than the free market? The market is always enganged in enriching itself. It has always been capitalistic.

Feudal relationships and pre-feudalist relationships that preceded it were economic models of their own. Rich and complex and multilayered. Reducing them to capitalism with "governance" is anachronistic and bad history.

What magical economic models did they follow?

No, they would define it, again as an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of supply and demand in a free market.

Re-read that last part.

Yes. Capitalism needs a market. The market has always been there. Simple Supply and Demand has been around as long as the markets. It's the Keynesian Aggregate Supply and Demand that is new bullshit.

Ask any of these "mainstream economists" if they belive that capitalism "always existed" and what do you think they'll say?

The mainstream economists are poor historians. Why are you making appeals to authority?

Well, don't. There are much better arguments against communism thatn that, and most of them don't require blatantly lying. Capitalism is a spefic economic model, anything else is propaganda ...and you know it.

It's funny how 3 of the 4 economic schools of thought have different economic models. 2 of them can't even agree on the right way to make a supply-demand graph. Another 2 can't agree on aggregate supply-demand curves.

Please explain to me how tradesmen, caravan, and merchants did not act under supply and demand? Tell me why competition did not exist. Tell me why the merchant always tried to sell forthe highest price possible. Tell me why people traded with the merchants in the first place.

Obviously private ownership as a thought is a subjective experience. But private ownership as a social reality, which is what we are discussing, is a matter of institutional support.

Yes, I agree. But I have already told you that your neighbors need to support your property. You don't need a monopoly institution for this though.

I can think that I own New Mexico, but it doesn't matter 'cause no one else does.

You can think whatever you want. But the New Mexicans will disagree on your claim.

LSD

23rd September 2005, 06:07

Let me be more clear. I previously asserted that capitalism was born when civilizations began forming. But this process was not occuring in the world all at the same time.

Of course not, but, again, you're evading the point.

You are claiming that every society which was itself post-neolithic in social evolution displayed capitalism. That assertion clearly falls at face due to the obvious examples I have already provided earlier in this thread.

Not at all.

You are "not at all" yourself?

Huh? :huh:

You have the free will to voluntarily kill yourself. Hence you owe your life to yourself.

By that logic, you owe your life to everyone who doesn't kill you even though they have the "free will" to do so. Does everyone who has the means to kill you but doesn't "own" you?

Any material that occupies space can be property.

Can be, but isn't nescessarily.

And since we are such, we are indeed property. What the fuck do you think slaves were?

My case in point.

Slaves were property. They were owned by others. Therefore, under your "your body is property" model, how would you describe their relationship to themselves?

That is if the slaves don't own their own body (since someone else does), homecome they can exert considerable control over it?

Clearly, all this property and ownership crap is just that. While in some situations, humans may indeed fall under the power of a property system, our fundamental relationship to ourselves is not one of property.

Which is taxation!

No.

Taxation is the collection by a state of monies from citizens of said state. Taxpayers spend a specific amount of their personal wealth. That's not manorialism; there is no capitalist version of what feudal manoralism was.

Serfs weren't renters, they weren't citizens, they weren't leasing, they were serfs.

Well if trade still existed it still falls under 'capitalism with more governance' statement.

Only if it was capitalist trade, which it most assuredly wasn't.

Again, you're making the assertion that any economic activity is capitalism. By that definition, of course, capitalism has always existed. Continuously, however, you have failed to defend this ludicrous position.

Capitalism isn't about trading, it isn't about investment. It's about trade and investment, and everything else, being determined by the market.

And before that were other cultures. Did you forget about the Greeks or the other cultures around the Mediteranen sea? Do you not remember the merchants who brought goods from various lands?

What about them?

They are an example of early mercantilism. Buying items, moving them, selling them for more. It's certainly pre-capitalist and would be an important influence on the development of capitalism, but it isn't capitalism.

For it to be capitalism, the market would have to, for one, be understood, two, be "free", and three be inclusive. A market that definitinaly only includes specific classes is not capitalist, it's petty oligarchic mercantilism.

You don't need supply-demand graphs to engage in trade.

No, just to engage in capitalist trade. Without teleology, capitalism does not exist.

The system itself is defined by rational analyses designed to maximize wealth.

What is commerce other than the free market?

Commerce! "Free market" commerce is a specific kind of commerce, one based on the objective dictates of said market instead of on social obligation and duty.

That is unique to capitalism, wherease commerce itself (read: basic economic activity) is, of course, not.

Mercantilism predates capitalism by millenia.

What magical economic models did they follow?

Feudalism, slavery, petty commodity production, mercantilism etc...

Yes. Capitalism needs a market. The market has always been there.

Again, you miss the point. It's not the presence of any market that matters. It's the nature of that market and the influence of that market.

What distinguishes the capitalist "free" market is that it is the prime agent of economic activity, as opposed to a marginalized subject of it.

Investment, distribution, production, etc.. are defined and decided by the market under capitalism, even the mixed-economy capitalism that you so despise. This cannot be said for any pre-capitalist economic models.

Yes, the market often played a role, but far more important was caste and patronage and social placement. The market was a tool for aristocratic and oligarchical control.

It's funny how 3 of the 4 economic schools of thought have different economic models. 2 of them can't even agree on the right way to make a supply-demand graph. Another 2 can't agree on aggregate supply-demand curves.

And yet despite all this, they can all agree that capitalism is a product of the late middle ages!

Please explain to me how tradesmen, caravan, and merchants did not act under supply and demand?

Of course they did, but that is not capitalism, it's mercantilism.

LSD

23rd September 2005, 18:34

Split.

23rd September 2005, 19:55

It sounds like we need some definitions here. Let's start with capitalism:

Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined by the influence of supply and demand in a market, rather than by the state or the collective.[/b]

Of course, if you don't want to trust wikipedia, we can go to other definitions.

Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.[/b]

Originally posted by Compact Oxford English Dictionary
An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Originally posted by Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary
An economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market.

Riverside Webster's II New College [email protected]
An economic system, marked by open competition in a free market, in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporated owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits.

Newbury House Dictionary
An economic system based on private ownership, competition, and a free market.

I could keep going with about 30 other definitions, but they are largely similar and I think you will get the point. The point is, of course, that your definition of capitalism as "Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting" is incorrect and LSD's is correct. Just grow up and concede to the point that you're wrong. Unless you want me to keep posting definitions while you keep claiming that all of these definitions in all of these dictionaries are wrong and the definition which you made up is correct. But that would just be irrational.

FleasTheLemur

24th September 2005, 02:42

Someone call 911! We've got a burn victim on our hands!

:lol:

...Alright, I'm sorry for being an ass. I couldn't help myself!

Vallegrande

24th September 2005, 07:18

Capital-- from caput (head)

Concilio-et-Impetu

24th September 2005, 07:41

Poor moron, i think you broke his brain.

Morpheus

25th September 2005, 00:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:29 PM

Have you passed your history courses?

Just barely. My 90%+ test scores, had to be weighed arbitrarily with my lack of doing homework.
I have a degree in history. You know little of history; there must be grade inflation at your school.

Freedom Works

25th September 2005, 17:24

I have a degree in history.
Appeal to authority.

You know little of history; there must be grade inflation at your school.
Ad hominem.

quincunx5

25th September 2005, 20:04

I could keep going with about 30 other definitions, but they are largely similar and I think you will get the point. The point is, of course, that your definition of capitalism as "Capitalism is nothing more than trading, saving, and reinvesting" is incorrect and LSD's is correct. Just grow up and concede to the point that you're wrong. Unless you want me to keep posting definitions while you keep claiming that all of these definitions in all of these dictionaries are wrong and the definition which you made up is correct. But that would just be irrational.

You can spew all the definitions you want. They are incomplete. You are unable to see the fundemental similarity between all the definitions you give.

They all talk about the 'market'. The market has always involved tradinig, saving, and reinvesting among private individuals claiming whatever private property they can regardless if it was constantly in dispute.

Capital-- from caput (head). Everyone had a head - hence everyone could capitalize.

Tell me, really, what is the fundemental difference between mercantalism (as LSD notes) in ancient Greece and modern capitalism?

There were fractional-reserve banks and gold coins even back then. How is this not capitalistic?

I have a degree in history. You know little of history; there must be grade inflation at your school.

Historians make poor economists and philosophers. History is too broad, you can't know it all.

Obviously there was grade inflation, it's not politcally correct these days to fail half the class. You might hurt their feelings.

Slaves were property. They were owned by others. Therefore, under your "your body is property" model, how would you describe their relationship to themselves?

That is if the slaves don't own their own body (since someone else does), homecome they can exert considerable control over it?

The slave still own themselves. The master believes he owns the slave. This is precisely why it was morally corrupt. The problem of slavery is obviously a problem of conflict of ownership.

Capitalism isn't about trading, it isn't about investment. It's about trade and investment, and everything else, being determined by the market.

And this did not exist prior to 14th century (your claim) ?
I don't think you understand what investment is.

No.

Taxation is the collection by a state of monies from citizens of said state. Taxpayers spend a specific amount of their personal wealth. That's not manorialism; there is no capitalist version of what feudal manoralism was.

Monies? Extracting wealth (products of labor) from serfs is indeed taxation.

They are an example of early mercantilism. Buying items, moving them, selling them for more. It's certainly pre-capitalist and would be an important influence on the development of capitalism, but it isn't capitalism.
For it to be capitalism, the market would have to, for one, be understood, two, be "free", and three be inclusive.

What? They are the same thing. You actually think the merchants did not understand what they were doing? You think their buyers had no idea what they were doing? Get real.

You'd be surprised, but people used to more "free" than today. This is indeed a fact.

Three is just plain wrong.

A market that definitinaly only includes specific classes is not capitalist, it's petty oligarchic mercantilism.

What? We have a free market today that exludes people. Yes, indeed, practically all those that are living in poverty or are unemployed are highly exluded from the market (mostly by their government).

In fact one of the freedoms of the market, is for individuals to exlude.

No, just to engage in capitalist trade. Without teleology, capitalism does not exist.

Don't be an idiot. I could can be just as foolish in saying poverty didn't exist until governments started to objectively identify it using statistics.

Tell me, did the Egyption pyramid builders need Euclidean geometry? Did the term geometry even exist back then? No.

The market was a tool for aristocratic and oligarchical control.

People are controlled when they get what they want? The market has always operated outside of whatever stupid form of governance prevailed. It never operated because of it, but inspite of it.

The system itself is defined by rational analyses designed to maximize wealth.

And this is a bad thing?

Mercantilism predates capitalism by millenia.

Different words, same fundemental principles.

Morpheus

25th September 2005, 22:00

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 04:55 PM

I have a degree in history.
Appeal to authority.

You know little of history; there must be grade inflation at your school.
Ad hominem.
Your'e incorrect on both counts. I was responding specifically to quincunx5's claim that he knew lots of history because he got As in a few classes. Having a degree in history makes me a sort of minor expert on history, at least when compared to him/her. Thus my statement was expert testimony - which is not an appeal to authority. If I said I was a movie actor or a great general and said he was wrong, then that would be an appeal to authority. My second sentence is not an "ad homien" it is entirely pertinent to the issue as to whether quincunx5 has a good grasp of history. Expert testimony indicates otherwise.

Morpheus

25th September 2005, 22:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:35 PM
Tell me, really, what is the fundemental difference between mercantalism (as LSD notes) in ancient Greece and modern capitalism?
Ancient Greece practiced slavery on a substantial scale. Modern capitalism does not.

Your conception of capitalism is so broad it isn't very useful. It lumps together all sorts of competely different economic systems as if they were the same when they're not. Markets have existed in many different societies (though not in all as you appear to think) even though they've often had completely different economic systems. The defining characteristic of capitalism is wage-labor. In capitalism most people have to sell their labor to make a living. That's what differentiates capitalism from other economic systems, like slavery or manorialism/feudalism. As I said in an essay (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/capitalism.html) I wrote:

Capitalism is an economic system based on wage-labor and profit. Wage-labor is the defining characteristic of capitalism. Markets, while they usually accompany capitalism, are not the defining characteristic of capitalism – wage-labor is. Markets existed long before capitalism and in many other economic systems besides capitalism, and one unusual form of capitalism – state monopoly capitalism – largely does away with markets. Under capitalism the majority of the population must sell their labor (usually via working at a job) in order to survive.

There are two main classes in all capitalist systems: the capitalist class (or bourgeoisie) and the working class (or proletariat). Under some circumstances capitalism can have other classes as well, but all forms of capitalism have at least these two classes. The capitalist class owns the means of production (or the vast majority of them), either directly or through organizations they control (such as corporations), and the working class does not. Means of production are non-human objects that are used to produce things, such as factories, mines, land, etc. Since workers do not have access to the means of production they must sell their labor to those who own the means of production – the capitalist class. Members of the capitalist class, by definition, are wealthy enough that they do not have to sell their labor to survive (1). They may choose to do so for whatever reason but are not threatened with the possibility of becoming poor if they do not. This is the basic structure of a capitalist system. The Hiltons, Rockefellers, Waltons, Kennedys, Mellons, Murdoch, Fords, Bushes, and Carnegies (ie. the super-rich) are all typical members of the capitalist class.
...
Capitalism can be contrasted with other forms of class society such as feudalism and slavery. Class is another name for economic hierarchy. In a class society some people have power and control over other people with regard to economic matters. Those on the top of the hierarchy, who exploit and live off the labor of those below it, are called the ruling class.

In an economy based on slavery the ruling class is made up of slave owners who exploit the slaves they own and live off their labor. The slave is sold once and then belongs to that master until the master decides to sell him/her. This differs from capitalism in that the slave is sold once and for all whereas in capitalism the worker must sell him/herself repeatedly by the day or hour or some other unit of time. If the wage contract were made to last indefinitely, instead of for a fixed period of time, it would in fact constitute full-fledged slavery. ...

In feudalism society is divided into several classes with the nobility on the top and the serfs on the bottom. The nobility lives off the labor of the serfs who must give crops and various forms of unpaid labor to their lords. Serfs differ from proletarians in that they have their own means of production, land, and thus do not have to sell their labor to survive. They must, however, give up a part of his/her product (crops, usually) or part of the services of her/his labor to the ruling class. Examples of feudal societies include medieval Europe and Japan (8).

This distinction allows us to meaningfully examine and compare different economic systems and to analyse how human economies have changed over time - something that's very usefull if you want to understand human history. Your overly broad conception of capitalism ends up grouping almost all economic systems under the same label, thereby erasing all distinctions, making a comparative analysis impossible, and pretending there haven't been any major economic changes since the stone age. The economic relationships between people are quite different in capitalism, slavery, feudalism and other systems and those differences should be reflected by giving the systems different names, not calling them all the samething and pretending there's no fundamental differences between them.

Historians make poor economists and philosophers. History is too broad, you can't know it all.

If you knew anything about academic history you'd know that virtually all historians specialize in certain areas of history precisely because it's so broad. And those whov'e specialied in the rise of capitalism (or even just economic history) would find your claims rediculous. That's not my specialty, but I have taken a class specifically on the subject and studied it enough depth to at least know that you don't know what your'e talking about. Furthermore, you are making historical claims so it falls under the rubric of history, not economics. And neo-classical economics is a pseudo-science, anyway, making all sorts of ahistorical claim to justify its ideology.

Obviously there was grade inflation, it's not politcally correct these days to fail half the class. You might hurt their feelings.

Yes, your feelings would have been hurt had you actually been judged by real historical standards so don't go flaunting around getting As in a few dumbed down freshmen survey courses as if that means you know history.

Commie-Pinko

26th September 2005, 05:15

There is really no point in arguing with these people (radical capitalists). It's laughably stupid the total lack of historical knowledge they have. Capitalism did not exist fully; elements of it existed, which is not the same thing. THere were spurts of capitalism andor capitalist elements in the Roman Empire, the Greek Empires, and the Byzantine Empires, but it really developed as a system in late medieval europe.

This article (credible), talks about the emergence of capitalism during the Mid and Late middle ages in Itality--a system which usurped the previous economic model, which was not capitalistic. Read the Origins of Capitalism. It explains quite clearly that the Florintines and Italians were one of the first to create a true system of financial capitalism. Prior, trade was in the hands of the artisans and merchants who, according to history, were "not capitalists in any sense" at the time. It also mentions that the first signs of capitalism in England appeared toward the end of the Middle Ages and the beginnings of the Renaissance.

http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll...nCapitalism.pdf (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/see/ModernCapitalism.pdf)

And remember kiddies, saying "appeal to authority" is only a valid attack (a fallacy) if you are appealing to an improper authority. The fallacy is not appeal to authority, rather appeal to improper authority. Logically, it is quite reasonble to assume that trusted, reviewed sources have correct information. If you know your history, youw ill know that History is an explanation of development and spurts of change. Not all all points did something exist, nor did something exist fully at all times. Capitalism developed over a long period of time. IT didn't just magically appear and it didn't exist fully originally. You will also learn there were various types of capitalism with different principles and properties.

In debates you are expected to use authoritative material for evidence, unless you want to bullshit your way through.

26th September 2005, 05:36

You can spew all the definitions you want. They are incomplete. You are unable to see the fundemental similarity between all the definitions you give.

:lol:

They all talk about the 'market'.

They talk about the free market. Huge difference.

The market has always involved tradinig, saving, and reinvesting among private individuals claiming whatever private property they can regardless if it was constantly in dispute.

The obvious fact that the market has involved these things is irrelevant. The difference between capitalism and other socio-economic models is the free market.

Capital-- from caput (head). Everyone had a head - hence everyone could capitalize.

So peasants in a feudal society (before the development of towns) could capitalize?

Tell me, really, what is the fundemental difference between mercantalism (as LSD notes) in ancient Greece and modern capitalism?

Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)An economic system to increase a nation's wealth by government regulation of all of the nation's commercial interests.[/b]

wikipedia
Mercantilism is the economic theory that a nation's prosperity depends upon its supply of capital and that the total volume of trade is unchangeable...Mercantilism suggests that the government should advance these goals by playing an active, protectionist role in the economy by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs.

quincunx5

26th September 2005, 23:06

So peasants in a feudal society (before the development of towns) could capitalize?

Note that feudalism was not everywhere. Note that feudalism is precisely marked by having a town next to a castle.

And yes, peasents indeed could capitalize, but at very low interest rates.

During the feudal societies of Europe, Islamic societies were at a Golden Age. Islamic influence in Spain is precisely why Spain became such a strong empire in the 14-16th centuries.

Every strong Empire in history has been preceeded by a strong free market. Without the wealth brought about from the free market, there would be no wealth to extract later for imperial conquests. Just look at Spain, France, England, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, and of course the US.

Mercantilism is the economic theory that a nation's prosperity depends upon its supply of capital and that the total volume of trade is unchangeable...Mercantilism suggests that the government should advance these goals by playing an active, protectionist role in the economy by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs.

Yes, but the arm of government was extremely weak. They could not effectively intervenece in the economy as they do today. Precisely those areas that had an ever increasing governmental role were soon troubled financially. This is why government was extremely unstable.

I was responding specifically to quincunx5's claim that he knew lots of history because he got As in a few classes.

I never made such a claim. I merely defended myself when the question of me failing history arose.

In fact I never said I got As in a few classes, I merely said I barely passed when my good test scores had to be weight down by lack of homework.

Also, even if you feel that I am wrong about this, this does not in any way prove that I do not know history. Are you actually going to tell me that all historians agree on everything all the time? Ha! Each have their own sources and each draw their own conclusions. History is perhaps the most biased of all studies.

There is really no point in arguing with these people (radical capitalists). It's laughably stupid the total lack of historical knowledge they have. Capitalism did not exist fully; elements of it existed, which is not the same thing. THere were spurts of capitalism andor capitalist elements in the Roman Empire, the Greek Empires, and the Byzantine Empires, but it really developed as a system in late medieval europe.

I never said it fully existed. Like all things it was developed over time. I claim Capitalism existed but it was not as refined as it is today.

You yourself tell me that it existed in "spurts". So there you go. I never claimed otherwise.

http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll...nCapitalism.pdf

And yet your link talks about "Modern Capitalism". It also confines itself to European history.

Commie-Pinko

27th September 2005, 00:38

Yes. The title talks about modern capitalism, but that's not what the entire file is talking about. It is talking about the evolution of capitalism to modern capitalism. Did you even bother to read it, or are you just skimming?

I never said it fully existed. Like all things it was developed over time. I claim Capitalism existed but it was not as refined as it is today.

You yourself tell me that it existed in "spurts". So there you go. I never claimed otherwise.

You and someone else tried retardedly to claim that Feudalism was, in fact, Capitalism, when that's absurd and has no credible sources as historical support.

27th September 2005, 02:16

Note that feudalism was not everywhere. Note that feudalism is precisely marked by having a town next to a castle.

No it's not. Towns only developed towards the end of feudalism.

Morpheus

27th September 2005, 03:05

Even if you feel that I am wrong about this, this does not in any way prove that I do not know history. Are you actually going to tell me that all historians agree on everything all the time? Ha! Each have their own sources and each draw their own conclusions.

Of course historians disagree on lots of things, but we also agree on some things. You'll be hard pressed to find many historians, even rabid pro-capitalist historians, who subscribe to your laughable attempts to portray capitalism as something that has always existed. Speaking of which, you failed to respond to my explanation as to why your claim is ahistorical. Do you concede the point?

Morpheus

27th September 2005, 03:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:47 AM
No it's not. Towns only developed towards the end of feudalism.
Towns greatly expanded in Europe towards the end of feudalism, but they did exist before that. Most people didn't live in them, but they existed. The social structure in the towns & cities of medieval Europe was often quite different from the countryside, too. There were towns before feudalism, too, in the Roman empire.

27th September 2005, 04:00

Towns greatly expanded in Europe towards the end of feudalism, but they did exist before that. Most people didn't live in them, but they existed. The social structure in the towns & cities of medieval Europe was often quite different from the countryside, too. There were towns before feudalism, too, in the Roman empire.

I guess I paraphrased too much. What I meant was that feudalism wasn't precisely marked by a town around a castle and that towns only developed towards the end of it.

Axel1917

3rd October 2005, 17:29

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2005, 08:10 PM
Capitalism has always existed?

Have you passed your history courses?
This nonsense seems to be becoming an official line of the nonsensical "social sciences" of the Bourgeoisie! I once met this cretin on another website, with a degree (I can't remember. Either in history or economics), of whom stated that capitalism has exsited for 5000 years. What cretinism!

From Commie-Pinko:

There is really no point in arguing with these people (radical capitalists). It's laughably stupid the total lack of historical knowledge they have.

Heh. True. :D

quincunx5

4th October 2005, 19:50

This nonsense seems to be becoming an official line of the nonsensical "social sciences" of the Bourgeoisie! I once met this cretin on another website, with a degree (I can't remember. Either in history or economics), of whom stated that capitalism has exsited for 5000 years. What cretinism!

Polylogism is stupid. There is no difference in human action between any Marxist classes of Burgeoise and Proletariat. All people strive to improve themselves.

I would be considered Proletariat by Marxist class analysis, yet I am a hardcore advocate of capitalism. Marx and Engels were themselves Burgeois.

The problem with this discussion (as with most) boils down to this:

Collectivism or Individualism.

Those who follow Zeno's Stoic doctrines of Invidualism will see that capitalism is a fairly simple thing that can be logically and praxeologically explained by using two people. Two people can both trade with each other and save and reinvest. Taking this view it is indeed what happended since recorded history.

Those who follow Plato's doctrines of Collectivism (which inspired Hegel, which then inspired Marx) will need some sort of majority or maybe a plurality of people in a society (more
correctly a republic or state of some sort) to engage in capitalistic actions.

If one takes this kind of view then capitalism as a mainstream event could have only been started exactly as Pinko's link states: 13th century Italy and later on in Low Countries.

Those of us who can envision capitalism as something that exists outside of the state (or any form of government or society) will indeed say that capitalism is as old as recorded history. The intensity of capitalism has come and gone between and within various geographic regions at various times.

Those who will still give Feudalism as a counter-example have to acknowledge that Feudalism was not a world wide-event, and that even still the serfs engaged in capitalistic actions with other serfs. In fact historical records show that the kind of harvest taxation imposed on the serfs are nothing compated to the taxes people pay today in almost every "civilized" country.
Serfs were never conscripted and they most certainly never used their masters as arbitrators for all conflicts that may have arisen, unlike what we have in "civilized" countries.

Led Zeppelin

4th October 2005, 19:53

Marx and Engels were themselves Burgeois.

Marx was most definitely not, since he didn't own any means of production, it could be argued that Engels was, though I don't consider a class-conscious Communist "bourgeois" as "bourgeois" in the proper sense of the word.

quincunx5

4th October 2005, 20:47

Marx was most definitely not, since he didn't own any means of production,

Really? His parents were not well to do?
His wife and her family wer not well to do?
Wasn't Engels in essense employing Marx?

I'm sorry, I must be providing Burgeois facts. Can you point me to the proper Proletariat facts so that I can get it right?

4th October 2005, 22:11

Marx was actually quite poor. Both were petty-bourgeois at most.

Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx) Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 , in the city of Trier in Rheinish Prussia. His family was Jewish, but converted to Protestanism in 1824. The family was petty-bourgeois; his father was a lawyer...In 1843, Marx married, at Kreuznach, a childhood friend he had become engaged to while still a student. His wife came from a bourgeois family of the Prussian nobility, her elder brother being Prussia’s Minister of the Interior during an extremely reactionary period – 1850-58...Marx’s life as a political exile was an extremely difficult one, as the correspondence between Marx and Engels clearly reveals. Poverty weighed heavily on Marx and his family; had it not been for Engels’ constant and selfless financial aid, Marx would not only have been unable to complete Capital but would have inevitably have been crushed by hunger and malnutrition.[/b]

Engels

Born in Barmen on November 28, 1820. Took up commerce and worked as an office clerk from 1837 to 1841, first in Barmen and from 1838 in Bremen. After serving for a year as an army volunteer (1841-42), he joined his father's business in Manchester in 1843, staying there until 1844. From 1845 to 1848 he lived in Brussels (with K. Marx) and, alternately, in Paris; from 1848 to May 1849 he worked for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne. In June and July of that year he took part in the uprising in South Germany as an aide-de-camp in Willich's volunteer corps. Then he went to London for a short time and, in 1850, rejoined his father's concern in Manchester, working first as a clerk and, from 1864, as a joint proprietor. In 1869 he retired from business for good. He has lived in London since 1870.