In a few threads I have seen that some tend to think capitalism originated in Europe, while others argue that capitalism is natural.
What do you think?
Did capitalism exist before and was just not practiced untill europe? Or did the euopeans plan out capitalism like they try to with socialism?
I do think that 'capitalism' is a product of man's nature, although the market institutions that we take for granted today certainly did not necessarily exist in the past — 'capitalism' [the market economy; market coordination forces; et cetera] is in continuous development. When answering the question it's important to ask what 'capitalism' is and represents, otherwise you get more confused responses, such as Merlin's (although, I'm very perplexed when he writes that capitalism does not reflect on human nature). Capitalism evolves as a result of economizing man, who choses amongst means and ends — rational (economizing) man is a function of human nature.
I've become interested in the Phoenicians as of late and they engaged in a lot of trade and production. One of the books that I'm reading on them seems to suggest that a lot of it was state directed, but the author has a somewhat Marxist perspective and seems to be economically illiterate. While some of it was probably state directed, etc. a lot of it might not have been. It's not like markets originated in Europe just a few centuries ago either. There was Chang'an in China and the Kushans of southern China and India were very successful traders, etc. They traded with Augustus of Rome in fact. I do think that capitalism is man's natural state. I think perhaps what people mean when they say that it originated in Europe is that they are referring to a specific political economy and not simply "capitalism".
Thats what I thought, I mean if you use menger's thoery of how money emerges from barter, surely this emergance couldn't have been exclusive to Europe.
To be specific, it is the thread "Myth that is Scandanavian Socialism." One person was name calling over it.
What is that book called? I am lebanese and as far as I know, the phoenicians are my direct ancestors.
You're butchering the word capitalism if you suggest it didn't begin in europe. And nobody but the dogmatics that already agree with you are going to know what you're talking about if you do so.
Capitalism is not a simple synonym for market. If I said "I'm going to the supercapitalism to buy some apples" you would think I was nuts. If I said "I thought there was a capitalism for pink bunnies, so I opened a pink bunny store" I would sound stupid.
Synonym for trade? "I capitlismed my Emmit Smith card for his Jerry Rice." Doesn't sound so great, right?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
So your definition of capitalism is? I capitalized on a deal and the supermarket. I capitalized on a market for pink bunnies. I capitalized on the value differential of football cards.
Is this your point?
It's not a matter of synonyms, but what qualifies as capitalism. Trade, the division of labor, commerce, some semblance of several property are all necessary for capitalism, but not sufficient. There is more to capitalism and the ideology defining capitalism. Anthony de Jasay offers a quite satisfactory definition of capital and capitalism in this section of The State. An important excerpt:
The peasant in the North and Central Russian "repartitional" village held land because of who he was and because he had so many adults in his family. His title, such as it was, could be argued to have depended on status, need for and capacity to use, the land. Every so many years, when the cumulative change in the needs of his and other families in the village demanded it, the caucus of influential peasants who ran the obshchinnoe might take away his strips of land and deal him out other, inferior strips. Nobody, however, could sell out or buy into the village; if they could have done, the land would have become capital. The land the American farmer "found" on the frontier, or "proved up" under the 1862 Homestead Act, or got from somebody else who did, was capital. The premises, tools and stock of materials of a master of a craft guild, were not capital. The physically very similar premises, tools and materials of his successor, the small entrepreneur-artisan underGewerbefreiheit were the very essence of capital.*12 Unlike his guild predecessor, he could be anybody and could run his shop the way he saw fit. It is not the scale of the undertakings nor the fact of employing the labour of others which makes the first pre-capitalist and the second capitalist. Both generated "surplus value" and enabled their owner to appropriate it. However (except perhaps in Italy north of the Papal States), the guild master's title to his business was contingent not only upon constraints on output, price and quality, but also upon who he was and how he lived. Ownership which does not have to be born into, lived up to, served and atoned for, but just is, is of course no less an ideological phenomenon for that. Its recognition is a distinctive mark of the ideology defining the capitalist state, just as ownership which is contingent upon its conformity to some principle of social utility, justice, equality or efficiency and which is forfeit or at least forcibly adjusted if it does not so conform, satisfies an ideology which is variously called democratic, liberal, socialist or combinations of these words.
Ownership which does not have to be born into, lived up to, served and atoned for, but just is, is of course no less an ideological phenomenon for that. Its recognition is a distinctive mark of the ideology defining the capitalist state, just as ownership which is contingent upon its conformity to some principle of social utility, justice, equality or efficiency and which is forfeit or at least forcibly adjusted if it does not so conform, satisfies an ideology which is variously called democratic, liberal, socialist or combinations of these words.
I would probably agree with Laotzu that capitalism did begin in Europe, though for different reasons since we probably define the system differently. I believe Laotzu associates capitalism with what many of us here call mercantalism and corporatism and the like, which is not wholly unwarranted.
I believe Laotzu associates capitalism with what many of us here call mercantalism and corporatism and the like, which is not wholly unwarranted.
Ok so the concept of capitalizing on somthing existed before, however, the way capitalism is defined as our modern system where the state and business work to faciliate trade (and much more). Which i would concede did originate in europe.
This brings me to another question.
This capitalism wasn't planned in the sense that people try to plan in socialism. RIght?
Bearchu.: So your definition of capitalism is? I capitalized on a deal and the supermarket. I capitalized on a market for pink bunnies. I capitalized on the value differential of football cards. Is this your point?
Capitalism is charaterised by the means of production being privately owned. Also, it is charaterised by the selling of labour for profit. So I agree with Laotzu del Zinn.
Bearchu.: I believe Laotzu associates capitalism with what many of us here call mercantalism and corporatism and the like, which is not wholly unwarranted. Ok so the concept of capitalizing on somthing existed before, however, the way capitalism is defined as our modern system where the state and business work to faciliate trade (and much more). Which i would concede did originate in europe. This brings me to another question. This capitalism wasn't planned in the sense that people try to plan in socialism. RIght?
Do you mean 'libertarian socialism' or 'state socialism'?
State socialism. Sorry to not be precise.
No system could be further from man’s instinctual constitution than capitalism. It’s a very new, very late and very ‘unnatural’ development. If it will come to be, it will be in spite of human nature, not because of it.
The market mechanism is civilization; everything else is and has been barbarism, primitivism, or a method of leeching off what causes civilization.
William: The market mechanism is civilization, everything else is and has been barbarism and primitivism.
The market mechanism is civilization, everything else is and has been barbarism and primitivism.
Civilisation. What does that even mean?
The division of labor
William: The division of labor
LOL