Time to redefine capitalism

August 2024 Forums General discussion Time to redefine capitalism

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #84354
    perspicacious
    Participant

    As a new subscriber here, let's recognize that the term capitalism used here is false and misleading. Better to be objective and begina with an object when capitalism began when the value of nature's bounty was first recognized; natural assets such as water, food, and shelter. They're all value propositions and in their  absence, life itself isn't possible. "Nature's bounty" is an interesting term when bountiful might explain the way that man has taken natural assets for granted until contemporary times to a large extent. Thankfully, there's a move afoot to recognize finite resources and distinguish them from renewable resources as well as the introduction of sustainability as a concept applicable to managing resources.

    If my first paragraph seems abstract or obtuse, if failure to recognize natural assets as capital was initially overlooked for the most part, then capitalism didn't begin until humans recognized the value of their first the possessions — our earliest tools and our first clothing. Later, the recognition of skill and cooperation created human capital.

    Later on, as humans interacted and found common purpose in hunting and gathering, and in defense against different perils, social capital arose.

    Rather than a complete history of the human race, I think I've made my point. Capitalism is a natural by-product of human nature and has been around since the dawn of time.

    Capitalism and economics — Every man for himself has always been a losing proposition. Natural capital, human capital, social capital led to hunting and gathering in small groups, fashioing tools and weapons, clothing ourselves, building shelters, and beginning to acquire the necessities of life by pursuing common objectives. Naturally, there was a division of labor and before the luxury of a voluntary exchange of labor, food, clothing, shelter, tools, and weapons there was the compulsory provision of labor to obtain the necessities of life.

    We evolved and now there are 7.4 billion of us, by that measure, we're thriving. Along the way, trade and commerce and the need for mediums of exchange, Whether through barter or other means (money), we learned to facilitate our transactions.

    It's 2015 and so-called capitalism is the worst economic system known to man, except for all the others. Warts and all, any imperfections, such as monopoly, oligopoly, monopsony (sole supplier), are defined and different remedies have been proposed and implemented with vrying degrees of success. However, explotation and cronyism are not economic issues but subjects to be treated with a multi-disciplinary approach. Social norms, community standards, traditions, and the rule of law are some of the ways we have used to deal with imperfect markets and less than ideal circumstances. We've tried many different ways to organize ourselves for better or worse.

    In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi said, "Balance is everything, balance is key." It means that socialism and capitalism as dogma are both absurd and that a mixed economy moving forward and improving as we go along offers the best future for us. In a mixed economy, maximizing profit is the greatest good but it can't occur without incentives and rewards, sanctions and prohibitions, nor can it neglect the young, the old, or the infirm. Natural capital, human capital, and social capital, can't be subordinated to financial capital, a point that socialists misinterpret and carry too far with a bizarre belief that a cadre of elite central planners can somehow replace the countless decisions made by individuals in deciding how goods, services, and other value propositions are weighed, measured, and exchanged. 

     

     

    #115125
    Ozymandias
    Participant

    Blech

    #115126
    ALB
    Keymaster
    perspicacious wrote:
    Capitalism is a natural by-product of human nature and has been around since the dawn of time.

    Nul point for that one. That's not a redefinition, just an old chestnut.Even supporters of capitalism recognise that it's not always existed and had a historical origin in what has been called 'the long 16th century'. For instance, from today's papers:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4611701.ece

    #115127
    DJP
    Participant

    At a guess this poster hasn't read a single article on this website and is just spamming every forum she can find with this trite…

    #115128
    robbo203
    Participant
    ALB wrote:
    perspicacious wrote:
    Capitalism is a natural by-product of human nature and has been around since the dawn of time.

    Nul point for that one. That's not a redefinition, just an old chestnut.Even supporters of capitalism recognise that it's not always existed and had a historical origin in what has been called 'the long 16th century'. For instance, from today's papers:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4611701.ece

    Although some supporters of capitalism – like Eugen Bohm-Bawek , a leading figure in the Austrian School of economic thought – have  argued that the "roundabout" method of production involving intermediate products  – tools –  entails "capital" and is thus  presumably "capitalist" by nature.  This was an audacious, but quite futile, attempt on Bohm-Bawerk's part to universalise the economic categories of capitalism and so render them system trans-historical and impervious to change – simply by dint of redefining what "capital" meant.  However such a stratagem effectively denudes the term of any real significance.  For example, one could equally argue on that basis that our tool making Palaeolithic ancestors were also "capitalists" by this token which is, of course, nonsense.  This would completely overlook or disregard the enormous qualitative differences that obtain between different tool-making and tool-using societies.Marx's approach was much more rigorous – and more plausible.   Capital, he argued, is not a thing but a social relationship.  In Wage Labour and Capital (1847) he explained what he meant by this:A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/)The "certain conditions" under which means of production  become "capital" are those of “generalised commodity  production”  It is when "All products of which it consists are commodities" that capital becomes capital.  Chief among these commodities is, of course, labour power – the skills that the worker possesses – which is sold to the capitalist in return for a wage.Of course one problem for the supporters of capitalism who adopt this rather silly line of argument that "capitalism has existed since the dawn of time" and is evidenced by the existence of tools is that they cant very well turn to examples like (state capitalist) Russia and claim that "socialism has failed".  This is because by their logic the Soviet Uniion must have been capitalist because capitalism is everywhere and has always existed whenever tools have existedKind of boxed themselves into a corner with this argument havent they?

    #115129
    robbo203
    Participant
    perspicacious wrote:
     Natural capital, human capital, and social capital, can't be subordinated to financial capital, a point that socialists misinterpret and carry too far with a bizarre belief that a cadre of elite central planners can somehow replace the countless decisions made by individuals in deciding how goods, services, and other value propositions are weighed, measured, and exchanged.  

     Where do you get this bizzare idea that socialists hold this bizarre belief?

    #115130
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    robbo203 wrote:
    perspicacious wrote:
     Natural capital, human capital, and social capital, can't be subordinated to financial capital, a point that socialists misinterpret and carry too far with a bizarre belief that a cadre of elite central planners can somehow replace the countless decisions made by individuals in deciding how goods, services, and other value propositions are weighed, measured, and exchanged. 

    Where do you get this bizzare idea that socialists hold this bizarre belief?

    It's an idea (s)he's clearly derived from the state-capitalist command economies of Russia and elsewhere.  This person, as someone has already suggested, hasn't taken the trouble to find out about the SPGB and what it understands by socialism/communism before shooting their mouth off.

    #115131
    alanjjohnstone
    Keymaster

    I read the contribution from the OP and immediately thought of Humpty Dumpty 

    Quote:
    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.