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’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?
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:
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?
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.
Do you mean ‘libertarian socialism’ or ‘state socialism’?
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.
Civilisation. What does that even mean?
The division of labor
LOL
I don’t mind you giving that response to me; however if you do that to anyone else moderating action will be done. As will be the case to anyone who responds in a likewise manner to you.
If you have any further personal issues with me, as this is now off topic, take it up via PM or in …
MEMBER ISSUES:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/groups/memberissues/default.aspx
This forum is for issues with other members. Subscribe and unsubscribe as necessary to deal with issues. Subscribe permanently, if you like to tune into member drama. Feel free to stay unsubscribed if you want to tune it out.
So much for freedom of speech.
“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.”
Lol no, not at all. Just as anarchism is the natural so is capitalism. Everything else is the political or societal arrangement of capital.
“What is that book called? I am lebanese and as far as I know, the phoenicians are my direct ancestors.”
It’s called The Phoenicians and the West by Maria-Eugenia Aubet from the Universidad Autonoma of Barcelona.
Edit: I just realized that it says “Universidad Autonoma of Barcelona” in the book, but it should"de" instead of “of”.
I think the division of labor is a key part of our current way of things. But private ownership of the means of production or “capitalism” doesn’ t necessarily imply division of labor.