Capitalism is driven by the idea of a free market, where competition and the law of supply and demand determine prices, production, and distribution. Manipulating you to buy stuff you don’t need is the result of human greed, not capitalism. That’s such a monothink way of seeing the world.
Imagine living in a small town in the middle ages. You’re growing corn, your neighbour has a chicken farm, then there’s also a bakery, blacksmith etc. Say you now need nails. Where do you go? To the blacksmith obviously. Does he just give them to you? No, he wants something in return. Well you offer corn because that’s what you have plenty of but what if he doesn’t want corn but wants eggs instead? Well you can go to your neighbour and ask if he would like to trade some eggs for corn which you could then further trade for nails. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn’t, but that’s still a bit of an hassle. That’s why people came up with money. You can just sell your corn, get cash, buy those nails with said cash and the blacksmith can then go buy eggs with that. That’s capitalism.
Medieval communities did not engage in capitalism or any sort of internal market economy. Your assumption is that history defaults to a modern western mindset where everyone is highly individualistic and only interested in themselves. Yes you would give your neighbor eggs because you know theyll give you nails. Its called a “gift economy” by historians. Anyone who didnt help the community would be ostracized
Trade existed. Trade over privately owned goods. Also known as capitalism. Capitalism is a broad term and people in this thread are zoning in on modern day liberal interpretation of capitalism because they can’t wait to get their late stage capitalism verbiage in. Please, everyone take a step back or open a history book.
Commerce is not the same thing as capitalism, those words are not synonyms. Take a step back and open a dictionary.
Pedantic definitions aside. The idea that capitalism is human nature and that human society and more broadly humans as a species are inherently capitalist is completely made up and ancient couns existing doesnt prove it. Id recommend looking up articles regarding “gift culture’” and “barter culture”
As for opening a history book: i did my undergrad in European history, and have a masters in Archeology. So while im not the definitive expert on the history of commerce and capitalism by any means, I have definitely opened up a couple history books.
Capitalism is the concentration of society around capital, hence the name capital-ism.
Here’s a definition of capital:
: a stock (see STOCK entry 1 sense 1a) of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period
also : the value of these accumulated goods
(2)
: accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods
(3)
: accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income
set capital and land and labor to work
—G. B. Shaw
see also VENTURE CAPITAL
b
(1)
: net worth : excess of assets over liabilities
(2)
: STOCK sense 2a
see also CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL STOCK, EQUITY CAPITAL
c
: persons holding capital : capitalists considered as a group
d
: ADVANTAGE, GAIN
make capital of the situation
e
: a store or supply of useful assets or advantages
So Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about free market, workers, ethics, consumers, nation, environment etc, only about capital. Which is why Capitalism is good for the stock holders, yet bad for everyone else. Because stock holders will do anything for their capital.
The pointing i’m failing to make is you speak of Capitalism the same way others speak of Communism, of an ideal stateof mind where everyone plays nice and does what they’re supposed to. But few people do. Most play dirty and don’t respect these definitions.
Like you say, the imagination is nice, however it’s reality that annoys and people come to hate and harm each other when profit is more important that coexistence.
I don’t think there is an inherent ethical value ascribed to capitalism…it’s just a description of an economic system. It can be good or bad. It’s a broad description at that too.
It is apt to say capitalism inherently lacks ethics. And in a world where competition is the main attribute describing society, that lack is what breeds success. Which is why one could even exaggerate and say that capitalism fosters sociopathy.
Individuals that grow to lose their sense of ethics are favoured and more likely to succeed in positions of power, while those restricted by their morals are quickly pushed aside.
So while we say capitalism can be good or bad, it is more likely that it leans towards the bad.
I defend capitalism because I don’t want to live under communism. That doesn’t however mean that I’m a huge fan of the status quo either. Ofcourse I want more fair distribution of wealth, and that factories stop dumping waste into rivers etc. What I don’t want, however, is that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t advocate for that we just pull the plug on capitalism, whatever that even means. I’d much rather try and fix what’s wrong with it with better rules and regulations. Even if you think that’s impossible, it still sure is easier that rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up, and thinking you’ll succeed on the first try.
Capitalism depends on the selfishness of the individual and their ability to extract the highest value with the lowest cost.
Communism depends heavily if not fully on ethics. We are definitely not an ethical people. So you are correct the former is more preferable to the latter, because it’s easier to implement.
You cannot depend on ethics unless those ethics create the highest value at the lowest cost for the individual. So the key would be to make restrictions that inspire the ethical approach over cutting corners.
If that is possible, then whichever system is used, they are more likely to be better than the alternative.
That’s cool but, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
What are you talking about? Capitalism is inherently reliant on free markets. Otherwise what you have is a planned economy. You know, the opposite of capitalism?
Capitalism is reliant on a free market. That does not make it the same nor does that mean that a free market is reliant on capitalism. The concept described above is a free market, not capitalism.
Capitalism is driven by the idea of a free market, where competition and the law of supply and demand determine prices, production, and distribution. Manipulating you to buy stuff you don’t need is the result of human greed, not capitalism. That’s such a monothink way of seeing the world.
Imagine living in a small town in the middle ages. You’re growing corn, your neighbour has a chicken farm, then there’s also a bakery, blacksmith etc. Say you now need nails. Where do you go? To the blacksmith obviously. Does he just give them to you? No, he wants something in return. Well you offer corn because that’s what you have plenty of but what if he doesn’t want corn but wants eggs instead? Well you can go to your neighbour and ask if he would like to trade some eggs for corn which you could then further trade for nails. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn’t, but that’s still a bit of an hassle. That’s why people came up with money. You can just sell your corn, get cash, buy those nails with said cash and the blacksmith can then go buy eggs with that. That’s capitalism.
Medieval communities did not engage in capitalism or any sort of internal market economy. Your assumption is that history defaults to a modern western mindset where everyone is highly individualistic and only interested in themselves. Yes you would give your neighbor eggs because you know theyll give you nails. Its called a “gift economy” by historians. Anyone who didnt help the community would be ostracized
My comment is meant as a counter argument for the claim that capitalism is “manipulating you to buy specific shit”
Money was invented in 3000BC, with first coins being minted out of precious metals around 650 to 600BC
coins being around for a long time dosent mean that most trade relied on them though
Trade existed. Trade over privately owned goods. Also known as capitalism. Capitalism is a broad term and people in this thread are zoning in on modern day liberal interpretation of capitalism because they can’t wait to get their late stage capitalism verbiage in. Please, everyone take a step back or open a history book.
Commerce is not the same thing as capitalism, those words are not synonyms. Take a step back and open a dictionary. Pedantic definitions aside. The idea that capitalism is human nature and that human society and more broadly humans as a species are inherently capitalist is completely made up and ancient couns existing doesnt prove it. Id recommend looking up articles regarding “gift culture’” and “barter culture”
As for opening a history book: i did my undergrad in European history, and have a masters in Archeology. So while im not the definitive expert on the history of commerce and capitalism by any means, I have definitely opened up a couple history books.
You’re attributing a lot of things to my statement that I did NOT say and I don’t know why you do this. Why do you do it?
It brings me hope when I see atleast one other person trying to make sense of things. Fun place for debate, isn’t it?
That’s commerce, not capitalism.
deleted by creator
That’s the foundation capitalism is built on.
Capitalism is the concentration of society around capital, hence the name capital-ism.
Here’s a definition of capital:
: a stock (see STOCK entry 1 sense 1a) of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income set capital and land and labor to work —G. B. Shaw see also VENTURE CAPITAL b (1) : net worth : excess of assets over liabilities (2) : STOCK sense 2a see also CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL STOCK, EQUITY CAPITAL c : persons holding capital : capitalists considered as a group d : ADVANTAGE, GAIN make capital of the situation e : a store or supply of useful assets or advantages
So Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about free market, workers, ethics, consumers, nation, environment etc, only about capital. Which is why Capitalism is good for the stock holders, yet bad for everyone else. Because stock holders will do anything for their capital.
I’m not sure why you’re defining “capital”.
capitalism
/ˈkapɪtəlɪz(ə)m/
*noun
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
“an era of free-market capitalism”*
This includes your labor: you are the private owner of your labor. Capitalism is not possible without free markets.
Mostly for myself.
The pointing i’m failing to make is you speak of Capitalism the same way others speak of Communism, of an ideal stateof mind where everyone plays nice and does what they’re supposed to. But few people do. Most play dirty and don’t respect these definitions. Like you say, the imagination is nice, however it’s reality that annoys and people come to hate and harm each other when profit is more important that coexistence.
I don’t think there is an inherent ethical value ascribed to capitalism…it’s just a description of an economic system. It can be good or bad. It’s a broad description at that too.
It is apt to say capitalism inherently lacks ethics. And in a world where competition is the main attribute describing society, that lack is what breeds success. Which is why one could even exaggerate and say that capitalism fosters sociopathy. Individuals that grow to lose their sense of ethics are favoured and more likely to succeed in positions of power, while those restricted by their morals are quickly pushed aside. So while we say capitalism can be good or bad, it is more likely that it leans towards the bad.
I defend capitalism because I don’t want to live under communism. That doesn’t however mean that I’m a huge fan of the status quo either. Ofcourse I want more fair distribution of wealth, and that factories stop dumping waste into rivers etc. What I don’t want, however, is that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t advocate for that we just pull the plug on capitalism, whatever that even means. I’d much rather try and fix what’s wrong with it with better rules and regulations. Even if you think that’s impossible, it still sure is easier that rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up, and thinking you’ll succeed on the first try.
Capitalism depends on the selfishness of the individual and their ability to extract the highest value with the lowest cost. Communism depends heavily if not fully on ethics. We are definitely not an ethical people. So you are correct the former is more preferable to the latter, because it’s easier to implement. You cannot depend on ethics unless those ethics create the highest value at the lowest cost for the individual. So the key would be to make restrictions that inspire the ethical approach over cutting corners. If that is possible, then whichever system is used, they are more likely to be better than the alternative.
That’s cool but, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Source
You just described the free market, not capitalism.
My definition is almost word to word the same that merriam webster gives. You can go have a look yourself.
What are you talking about? Capitalism is inherently reliant on free markets. Otherwise what you have is a planned economy. You know, the opposite of capitalism?
Capitalism is reliant on a free market. That does not make it the same nor does that mean that a free market is reliant on capitalism. The concept described above is a free market, not capitalism.
Dude, you’re talking to 14 year olds that skimmed Das Kapital one time and binged second thought on yt for the sum of their economic education.
Edit: your downvotes can’t hurt me. You know I’m right. Go back to watching Hasanabi or something.