History buffs: Capitalism vs. socialism

[MJGrae]

I have already defined capitalism earlier in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself.  But the short version is that "capitalism" is not an "-ism" at all.  That term was popularized by Karl Marx, and was meant to be derogatory and to equate the economic model that it represents to a religion.  It was an effective smear that many people buy into even today.  Words matter.

There is no exception to this rule though; that in every market, the freer that it is, the more beneficial for the consumer.   Free markets are not always beneficial for the producers, nor for governments that need to restrict freedom in order to extract tax revenue; but freedom is always and everywhere a net benefit for consumers.
[/quote]

First of all, I didn't know that bit about Karl Marx, and I love interesting tidbits of history like that. So thanks for the lesson.

Secondly, I find that rule to be something I quite often end up debating with people nowadays in order to try and get them to believe it, so it's good to see someone else of the same belief before I even came to the table.

Insightful post.

[1715068896]

1715068896

[MoonShadow]

About the improvement of the average quality of life (or richness) during the industrial revolution, I'd say that it was a quite long and much dialectical process (ask the luddites),

I do not contest this point.  It still is an ongoing process, puncutated by fits.

influenced mostly by factors who had nothing to do with free markets (empire, class struggles, technology, market manipulations, etc).

I do contest this point.  The rise of free markets are intertwined with the breakdown of class privilages, even though that does take generations.  Furthermore, the development of technology is provablely not possible without a concurrent increase in many freedoms, and particularly economic freedoms.  The freedoms of markets cannot be seperated from the freedoms of the public, because not only are they co-dependent, the markets are the public.  Every market is simply the sum total of the individuals who participate in the trade within that market.

 And the fact that the industrialization had to recourse to massive expropriations by state violence in order to start negates anything free-market about it.

There is no evidence that state expropriations were a pre-requisite, and much evidence that it is not.  Despite British contributions to the Industrial Revolution, a great many advancements during the Industrial Revolution were developed in places that did not engage in the suppression of the lowest classes to achieve these ends.  London begot so many advancements because it was the Silicon Valley of the age, attracting the self-selecting inovators to the same locale in order to learn from each other, like the world's first makerspace.  Britons did not have any particular quality of people or state that granted them the advantages, it's just that if your dream was to be the next great scientist or inventor, London was where you went if you could manage it, or New York if you could not.  Just like Seattle was the place to go if you wanted to be the next big alternative music artist during the 1990's.  It wasn't the place that held the attraction, it was the people who were already there already doing those kinds of things.

The fact that London was (and remains) a major investment finance center certainly didn't hurt matters, either; but was not the major contributing factor.

[MoonShadow]

First of all, I didn't know that bit about Karl Marx, and I love interesting tidbits of history like that. So thanks for the lesson.

Secondly, I find that rule to be something I quite often end up debating with people nowadays in order to try and get them to believe it, so it's good to see someone else of the same belief before I even came to the table.

Insightful post.

Thank you for that.  I've read many books on this topic, and can offer many suggestions.  Currently, I'm reading a history book simply called Salt.  I'd wager that you can guess the focus of the kind of history it discusses.  That one is full of those little "interesting tidbits of history".

If you desire to improve your argumental position, I can suggest both Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? by Rich Maybury, which are geared towards teenagers; and Economics in One Lesson by (IIRC) Henry Hazlitt, which is geared toward adults that are not formally educated in the dismal science.  Also, the videos by Praxgirl (just google it) are insightful and entertaining, but they are packed full of information.  Praxgirl doesn't wait for those who tend to fall of the back of the bus.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

In particular, you said that capitalism is not fascism. I agree if by capitalism you mean just free market. But then perfect free markets use to be a quite scarce commodity in world history.

I have already defined capitalism earlier in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself.  But the short version is that "capitalism" is not an "-ism" at all.  That term was popularized by Karl Marx, and was meant to be derogatory and to equate the economic model that it represents to a religion.  It was an effective smear that many people buy into even today.  Words matter.

Capitalism, in an economic sense, is nothing but the sum total effects of the many 'natural' laws of economics that express themselves whenever a society is predominately left alone to exchange naturally; therefore it's not an "economic system" or even an ideology in any sense.  This almost never happens in reality, but instead we have varying degrees of freedom in markets.  There is no exception to this rule though; that in every market, the freer that it is, the more beneficial for the consumer.   Free markets are not always beneficial for the producers, nor for governments that need to restrict freedom in order to extract tax revenue; but freedom is always and everywhere a net benefit for consumers.

I think that's a good definition of capitalism.


Would you care to answer why the term capitalism, in some minds, can be such an "effective smear?"

[MoonShadow]

In particular, you said that capitalism is not fascism. I agree if by capitalism you mean just free market. But then perfect free markets use to be a quite scarce commodity in world history.

I have already defined capitalism earlier in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself.  But the short version is that "capitalism" is not an "-ism" at all.  That term was popularized by Karl Marx, and was meant to be derogatory and to equate the economic model that it represents to a religion.  It was an effective smear that many people buy into even today.  Words matter.

Capitalism, in an economic sense, is nothing but the sum total effects of the many 'natural' laws of economics that express themselves whenever a society is predominately left alone to exchange naturally; therefore it's not an "economic system" or even an ideology in any sense.  This almost never happens in reality, but instead we have varying degrees of freedom in markets.  There is no exception to this rule though; that in every market, the freer that it is, the more beneficial for the consumer.   Free markets are not always beneficial for the producers, nor for governments that need to restrict freedom in order to extract tax revenue; but freedom is always and everywhere a net benefit for consumers.

I think that's a good definition of capitalism.


Would you care to answer why the term capitalism, in some minds, can be such an "effective smear?"

Well, I'll try; but to be honest I don't think that is possible without my ow biases entering into my language.  And an objective answer cannot have bias...

I don't believe that Karl Marx intended the term to misrepresent the idea, it's just that humans have a tendency to group abstract concepts into classes that make them easier to compare to each other.  Karl Marx's experiences, and most peoples', is with systems; i.e. hiarchial organizations, logical machines, governments, etc.  By By defining an -ism, he's implying that there is a structure to it, and thus an authority in control.  Further implying that the results of the kind of capitalism that he sees around himself (also in London during the Industrial Revolution) is a product of intentional design.  That is the kind of capitalsim that people hate, the idea of some faceless elite is controlling the economy.  The reality is that there is an elite that controls our economy, but they aren't faceless, they're elected to Congress; and they are all a far cry from "capitalists".