What Is Capitalism, When Did It Start, Or Is It Natural?
Saw a college chick that was a big proponent of "smashing capitalism" and installing a marxist/communist system. It got me thinking why do people hate capitalism? First thing that's interesting is that people don't know what capitalism is. Discuss what it is, as it seems to be hotly debated on its beginning, etc. To start, the Wikipedia page is wrong on the definition of capitalism. It describes it through the lens of Marxism and calls it an economic system. Capitalism more so resembles a social system based on individual rights. The economic system under capitalism that advocates for private industry and production, would be the free market economy. Adam Smith described capitalism using the emergence of the division of labor: "Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. " The people who understand the practicality of life, know they must develop some ability to produce something that may lead to a valuable and exchangeable surplus that can be traded on the market. Capitalism is social and natural while the economic system must be reflected in the private and individual institutions that allow for the free exchange of goods. Why do people hate capitalism?
It literally has capital in it. How is it a social system? That it influenced social systems across the world is but a consequence of it as is suggested by Adam smith - the emergence of commercial society due to exchange of labour.
Liberalism is the social system that you are alluding to here. Liberalism is what gave recognition to rights of individuals over societal and hereditary rights.
This led to the emergence of capitalism as it unshackled medieval mode of production were the landed/privileged benefited, to a more profit generating mode of production for whoever had capital.
Capitalism was never natural. Tribal societies that we trace our evolution to did not have it. It was only with the emergence of nation-states that profit motive came into picture.
> Liberalism is what gave recognition to rights of individuals over societal and hereditary rights.
Yes, but it's important to remember how it started — giving rights to "land (inherited or claimed)/labor (slaves)/capital (generational wealth) owning" folks, while suppressing or downright excluding groups (natives/"lower-castes"/women) as they saw fit.
It’s like saying communism as had happened in USSR and China which deprived basic rights to people is how Marx deemed it. Marx did not even talk about communist state nor party. His concern has been the emancipation of man.
What you have stated was never the intent of liberalism. Liberalism did see property as a means to increase one’s liberty (Locke), it did not argue for snatching land rights of natives. In fact, Locke said property has to be acquired only by legal means and must never be snatched.
Capitalism, however, enabled the suppression of natives (Lenin). Especially with its one way free trade and the british desire to defeat other Europeans. Liberalism gets blamed for it because in a way it enabled capitalism but it’s a stretch to pin the blame of capitalism on liberalism.
Liberalism remains an ideology to realise individual as an end upon himself and not a means to an end.
See more comments
And with respect to smashing capitalism- that is impossible. The only way communism will be successful is if the entire world adopts to it. It’s utopian and will likely never be achieved in modern economics systems.
Traditional systems did have communism in its earlier stages when production was only to meet the basic needs. Life has evolved beyond that at this point.
Same for all utopian systems- Plato, Gandhi’s trusteeship. They can be achieved to a small extent within the larger capitalist model but not become a system on its own.
You know the famous saying, communism sounds great in theory, but in practice it usually ends up being overthrown in an American backed coup/war/invasion.
See more comments
Sugar
Stealth
4 months ago
In capitalism people compete
In socialism people beg
Which country has the most number of homeless and on the brink of homelessness (aka a small emergency expense away from) people I wonder?
Sugar
Stealth
4 months ago
You didn't get my point, I'm speaking about mindset here, not the literal meaning
>In a capitalist society people define rules and they compete with each other to gain from one another by circulating money and also sticking to the rules. This system rewards more competent ones over less competent
>In a socialist society, people just sit lazy and don't compete but demand(beg) for the distribution of things(wealth, resources, etc.,). This system rewards the higher voice(be it collective strength of a group or a concentrated power) rather than higher competency........unless there is dictator at top who won't tolerate incompetency.
If there isn't any reward for a competent one, how come innovation flourish?
See more comments
Imo primitive form of capitalism started when we were hunter gatherers, and we decided to do barter and then the system developed further with trading of goods with gold/silver coins. Capitalism is natural, socialism is aspirational. Reality shows that socialism can only be successful when built on top of capitalist system like Scandinavian countries, otherwise in pure socialism, you run out of free money to distribute. Capitalism brings unequal prosperity, but socialism brings equal misery.
Primitive society driven by capitalist motive? Tribal societies to this day don’t have much profit motive and have a collectivist mode of living. How can you say capitalism as natural and socialism as artificial?
when fruit gatherer A trades 5 apples with hunter B for a piece of meat, what do you think that is, capitalism or socialism? Or when a king rules his empire through feudal lords and by taxing agricultural output, what do you think that is closer to - capitalism or socialism? Socialism needs to be implemented from top, it's a utopian idea which came about after industrial revolution. When capitalism as a system succeeds and taxes are reallocated for socialistic goals to provide equality of opportunity, only then socialism succeeds.
See more comments
Even Adam Smith, a big proponent of the capitalist system was against the concept deriving value from just ownership of "capital" without any useful production behind it. This, at the core, a "liberal" concept, is the biggest fault of the "neo-liberal capitalist" system, which always tends towards people with more "capital" acquiring even more of it.
Read about the origins of liberalism, and the transition from the feudal system (A king's claim over all land/labor as per "god's will") into the system we live in today, where this power over land/labor transitioned into the hands of the aristocratic business owning "minority". It has its roots deep into exploitation, slavery and the extraction of surplus labor.
Bebo
Stealth
4 months ago
Bhai tu Google mei hai ya college mei ?
Tbh i like capitalism mostly because it’s there since i was born. And my mindset has been to survive in this competition. So i don’t want to switch to any other systems
Umadbro
Stealth
4 months ago
The only right answer is that we made it up. We made all the rules surrounding it as well.
The aim is to preserve the efforts one puts in towards building something. All the frameworks use see are the evolution of that.
Starts at the time humans went hard on agriculture. You have given someone a piece of land, asking them to grow crops. The investment of effort here is dependent on how easily the people around them could take away the land. If very easily, then the effort would be low. If not, effort invested would be high. Capitalism is a made up system to preserve that investment of effort. Evolved from there to cronyism we see today. Not the best, but the alternate is’land can be taken away easily anytime’. Means you need to force people to work, they won’t invest their efforts in an endeavor which could be wasted any day.
DaringTrain
Stealth
4 months ago
Philosophical debates aside,
Was the college chick hot?
It’s not the capitalism that people hate, but predatory capitalism. The former allows all to equally participate in the economic system where there is room for growth for even those which don’t have any wealth at the beginning. American dream until 1990’s was the perfect capitalism that’s why people became rich there. But eventually it became predatory capitalism where large corporations tweaked the rules and that lead to inequality and corruption. The banking crisis of 2007-08 was the result of predatory capitalism. People hate this because it leaves no opportunity for a common man to grow because big companies don’t allow fair competition. On the other side, Adam smith’s capitalism meant that everyone with their good product and capability to sell can succeed assuming the floor is leveled for all. There should not be undue advantage for anyone.
Dihaadi
Stealth
4 months ago
I think people who inherently have skill gaps or are not willing to compete (read ambitionless) form the major crowd of anti capitalism. The communists, unless they have been a part of a communism society which incentivises communist behaviour, are mostly folks who have had historical wealth in the family and are opposed to working / earning a living. The non communist anti capitalists are generally- environmentalists, 🏳️🌈, failures. The successful communists are oligarchs and hence preservation of wealth needs them to stand ground on the communist ideology. If it is free markets, oligarchy loses in the end.
“Its just money init. Its all made up so that we don’t have to kill each other for food”
