You may well start a flame war. :wink:

When I studied economics, the key matters of capitalism revolved around the questions of: Who owns the means of production? Who gets the profits? How should labour be treated? Hence the notion of wage slavery.

How one reacts to these issues will depend on worldviews. Is there such a thing as kind capitalism? Is capitalism best when it has socialist brakes to protect society form the worst excesses of neo-liberal fundamentalisms? Should we let markets rip and scrap legislation and taxation in the service of libertarian profit making?

You tell me. Whatever you decide will depend not on capitalism so much but on how you think an entire society and culture should operate. Websites abound with interpretations and statistics. It's like the interminable debate about true understandings of Bible verse.

Capitalism is akin to previous economic systems inasmuch as it exploits the workers. In economic terms it is called "screw the crew."

Then there is the free market, which is also held up by the forced non-allowance by government decree of monopolies. They call this, in economic terms, "Pace the race", and also, "share the flair".

There is non aristocracy in a Capitalist society; people have unequal opportunities, but anyone can strike it rich. They call this, in economic terms, "the buck of luck".

The ruling class, opposed to what many believe, is diverse; there is the upper echelon, who direct the company's future by having the majority of voting shares, but basically anyone can own dividend-bearing shares, and voting shares, in as many companies as they want, and as long as their money can be stretched. They call this, in economic terms, "The wretched stretch".

Capitalism suffers, from time to time, of an over-production crisis. This is when the people have too many goods that don't need replacement, and therefore nobody buys anything for a while; workers can't earn, they get laid off, and they can't spend; by the time they need to spend, because the goods wore out finally, they can't buy because they hadn't had an income for a long time. In economic terms it is called "poverty ain't novelty".

On the other hand, when people are buying like crazy, because they have jobs that provide them with a good income, and there are plenty of well-presented gimmicks to buy, then money changes hands quickly; everyone becomes well off; they buy shit, they spend money, and the more money they spend, the more the unit price of shit goes up, because of the other trend: the elasticity of demand over supply. This is called in Economic terms "Where's the money, Honey?"

Good thread. It's a great question.

Like many things in political science, sociology, and economics, it's one of those words that is used a lot but is very rarely defined -- I think of something along the lines of "God", although that's admittedly an extreme example.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system. Like other socioeconomic systems -- e.g., feudalism -- it has some unique features which differentiate it from others. What is the unique feature?

Many say it's markets -- but those have been around since time immemorial.

Some say it's the profit motive -- but profit has been around a long time indeed.

Others say it involves ownership, particularly the ownership of the "means of production." The idea of ownership and the control over production seem to pre-date "capitalism," though.

Perhaps it's a combination -- one which seems to have arisen after the middle ages and especially with the industrial revolution.

Personally, I like Richard Wolff's tentative definition: capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and employee. Like the Lord and vassal/serf, or the master and slave, a unique relationship is the defining feature.

I like Richard Wolff's tentative definition: capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and employee — Xtrix

I like Wolfe and he knows more about this than I do. There's a lot to unpack in the idea of 'defined by the relationship between...' it brings me back to the means of production, profits, and wage slavery - out of which that relationship is built. :wink: But I take your point about these existing above and beyond capitalism. Of course so do relationships between workers and owners - in feudalism, say. Is capitalism a system or a relationship? Or is it a bit of both? And how many forms of capitalism are there?

Of course so do relationships between workers and owners - in feudalism, say. — Tom Storm

Not employer and employee, however.

For my filthy lucre, "capitalism", in sum, is a global, commodifying, market system institutionalized for maximizing shareholder returns (i.e. private profits) on stakeholder investments-taxes (i.e. public costs).

Possible that capitalism is not an economic system at all, but a type of (partial) government system.

If you designed a government to establish public safety to some manageable degree, to protect private property, to enable complex and mediated methods of trading by enforcing contracts, and then further stipulated that government was not to interfere in any other way with the activities of its citizens except when and to the degree that it can demonstrate it is necessary to maintain such a system of “ordered liberty,” then you’d have capitalism. Markets and trade and finance and division of labor, none of that is behavior exclusive to capitalist societies, but capitalist societies are those whose governments are constrained from interfering in these activities except as demonstrably necessary, and providing the underpinnings (again, public order, property, contracts, etc.) without which the scope of such activities might hit natural limits.

That you can take this as a partial definition of a type of government is clear from the various mixed models which incorporate all of this but empower government to serve other ends as well. Even in such mixed models, the point would be that government does certain things, but specifically refrains from doing things it conceivably could — putting a cap on income, say, something obvious like that, which is inconceivable in any sort of capitalist society, even if it spends lavishly on public goods like education or on anti-poverty programs, and so on.

TL;DR. Capitalism maybe not so much an economic system as a political one, a type of partial government.

Not employer and employee, however. — Xtrix

Personally I'd say the relationship was equivalent just less evolved. How would you see the differences?

For my filthy lucre, "capitalism", in sum, is a global, commodifying, market system institutionalized for maximizing shareholder returns (i.e. private profits) on stakeholder investments-taxes (i.e. public costs). — 180 Proof

Possible that capitalism is not an economic system at all, but a type of (partial) government system. — Srap Tasmaner

:up: :sparkle:

It is the system where the market is the only capable of promoting laws and regulations, not the lawmakers represented in the Parliament.
Being sincere, inside capitalism the markets and "central banks" act as a true legislative power.

At its root capitalism is economic anarchy.

From here:

Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

Capitalism is one of a series of socio-economics systems, each of which are characterised by quite different class relations: tribal society, also referred to as “primitive communism” and feudalism. It is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” which characterises capitalism. The transcendence of the class antgonisms of capitalism, replacing the domination of the market by planned, cooperative labour, leads to socialism and communism. — marxists.org

The term was once a socialist bugaboo but has become familiar with overuse. In the mouths of critics and defenders alike “capitalism” confounds more than it clarifies, though, because if capital is the portion of wealth which is applied to the production of more wealth, then any system that does not consider the ownership and management of capital is unthinkable. All systems are capitalist. The differences lie only in who ought to own the capital, whether public or private, employer or employee, the collective or individual, and so on. Even Lois Blanc, who arguably coined the term, says as much (the appropriation of capital by the few, to the exclusion of the many).

Capitalism is just the free market economy.

How would you see the differences? — Tom Storm

The rise of the corporation and technology, mostly.

The corporation is a legal fiction created by states, and has become the vehicle of plutocracy. Its “owners” are also major employers. It’s talked about as if it’s a person— which legally it is. A nice scenario for those who own lots of shares.

The start of the industrial revolution, where people went from mostly working in their homes, on their property, or in a small business to working in factories / mills was brought about by a change in technology.

Capitalism is just the free market economy. — Yohan

"Free" of what?
"Free" for whom?
Anthropogenic climate change (at least) since the mid-1800s demonstrates one catastrophic way the "market economy" has not been "free".

:mask:

At its root capitalism is economic anarchy. — Yohan

I agree. The big fish eat the little fish. Except for the Sherman Anti-Combines act in the USA, and similar laws elsewhere.

Perish or thrive. Freedom. No control other than protection for personal safety, private and public property, and freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

This is the reason China historically, and the USA recently have become political and economic giants. If you don't apply yourself, you rot and die. You want to make it? Work hard, even as a beggar or as an industrial mogul.

The perfect system for evolutionary forces favouring the survival of the strongest and the best. The bottom 3% gets left to rot.

Other places have similar controls, and got nowhere, like Haiti, Bangla Desh, The Tchad, (if it's still called that... maybe it's Upper Volta now?) etc. This is due to the lack of their background in heavy industrialization.

"Free" of what?
"Free" for whom?
Anthropogenic climate change (at least) since the mid-1800s demonstrates one catastrophic way the "market economy" has not been "free". — 180 Proof

1. free of governmental restrictions.
2. free of conscientious decision making.
3. free of overlords and their capricious demands.
4. free of insane rulers, free of laws that impede healthy and easy changes that favour trade.
3. not free of its own environmental impact.

:ok:

Sounds like classical liberalism. In which case, Marxism's description of capitalism is apt.

I was referring to historical capitalism and not Randian-fantasy capitalism. :roll:

:up:

I was referring to historical capitalism and not Randian-fantasy capitalism. — 180 Proof

So was I. In America this has been the case since the second half of the nineteenth century.

Randian-fantasy capitalism does away with systematic exploitation (SE). SE is necessarily a part of capitalism, and necessarily not a part of Randianist libertarianism (RL). RL praises the individual effort, and independence from others individually and societally. Those independencisisms are not compatible with the capitalism i described, because exploitation is heavily dependent on non-individual-freedomism.

not Randian-fantasy capitalism — 180 Proof

Please don't curse in mixed company, it unsettles the horses. :wink:

:smirk:

To get rich is glorious. — Deng Xiaoping

Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein (just to name a few)…glorious indeed.

Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein (just to name a few)…glorious indeed. — Deus

:rofl:

Syād,

Everything is for sale if the price is right. — Lucio Tan

:chin:

Please don't curse in mixed company, it unsettles the horses. — Tom Storm

:sweat:

I think Capitalism is pretty obvious what it is, it's more interesting to ask the question: is there an economic system past Capitalism that isn't Marxism? Seen as how Marxism has a problem being combined with the autonomous future we're heading towards, in which millions will be out of a job, replaced by automation. Previously, during the industrial revolution, there were fears that automation would produce a lot of unemployment, but it just transitioned into a new form of a job for people and also pushed plenty to move to cities and work in the factories there.

However, future development, based on a normal capitalistic trajectory, needs advanced automation in order to maximize further profit. Industries today are close to maximizing their profit due to there just not existing enough people. Facebook, as an example, are pushing free internet to poor nations, not as a sign of goodwill, but to get more people onto their platform.

So if future industries start to rely more and more on advanced automation and more and more people go unemployed as people can't transition into new job titles as easily as during the industrial revolution, then a new form of economical system needs to be created that can cover life quality for an entire population. Some suggest UBI as a solution, but that's just short term and it doesn't really create a system where finances flow organically. It would generally be that corporations pay 75% taxes on their profits in order to cover a UBI system that would then go straight back into the corporations from people buying their products as well as being part of the tax being used to finance infrastructure that also goes into corporations who handle such work. On top of this, the only work being done by humans are technical jobs managing automation and engineering improvements, as well as government people and artists and creative people doing "high art", meaning, not content produced by AIs but art commercialized through specific individuals (a whole other discussion, but anyway).

In the end, automation will both be a blessing and a curse for capitalism and we are yet to have a system that can function within this kind of future scenario. If we are partially destroyed by climate change or some large-scale world war, then we will have decades of "normal" capitalist work after it that will postpone the automation revolution, but one day it will eventually come and by then we need to have a functional economy in place that replaces capitalism and free market democracies as we see them today.

Sounds like classical liberalism. In which case, Marxism's description of capitalism is apt. — Moliere

All these different terms get confusing, but the basic idea is free trade vs forced community sharing. When government interferes with free trade, then the problems of capitalism emerge.
Communities sharing is good. Thats the positive value communism is based on. But when its FORCED it leads to unintended consequences.
Trying to control nature always leads to unintended consequences. We have to work WITH nature, not against it.

Facebook, as an example, are pushing free internet to poor nations, not as a sign of goodwill, but to get more people onto their platform. — Christoffer

Echoes of Adam Smith my fav Scot btw.

In terms of the latest tech developments which will either stall and stagnate or slowly advance with the use of clever robotic automation for the means of producing it begs the question as to the redundancy and shift of human consciousness and perhaps labour.

With over abundant workforce and general population education needs to play an important part in skilling them towards this new future.