• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Capitalism

just to be clear, then you understand any form of state regulation of production and markets as socialism

but that has existed in most societies, say the guilds of the middle ages, not to mention the subsequent mercantilists

so, they were all socialists too?
 
sailordeac said:
just to be clear, then you understand any form of state regulation of production and markets as socialism

but that has existed in most societies, say the guilds of the middle ages, not to mention the subsequent mercantilists

so, they were all socialists too?
Click to expand...

Only if it actually transcends the self-regulating market. Eg Obamacare is not socialism, but it wouldn't be necessary to go all the way to a US NHS to be socialist. Medicare-for-All would qualify.

The guild societies are pre-capitalist. Pretty well-covered in The Great Transformation, which is a good book. Polanyi says that capitalism only comes about after the "fictitious commodities" of land, labor, and money" have been subjected to markets through enclosure (closing of the frontier in the US' case), poor law reform ending outdoor relief, and the international gold standard.
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Only if it actually transcends the self-regulating market. Eg Obamacare is not socialism, but it wouldn't be necessary to go all the way to a US NHS to be socialist. Medicare-for-All would qualify.

The guild societies are pre-capitalist. Pretty well-covered in The Great Transformation, which is a good book.
Click to expand...

what does this mean? what qualifies as socialist and what does not?
 
Capitalism or free markets are nothing more than people being allowed to exchange their labor or goods with someone elses money. It is essential for large populations that do not prefer starvation. Best case scenario for a population that is devoid of any capitalism is a subsistence level existence.

Countries that have capitalism as part of the equation can thrive to one degree or another. See China's development once they allowed private property to some extent. Also countries like Singapore with fairly unfettered markets.

Best case scenario for capitalist-free societies are Cuba or N. Korea.

Capitalism is the engine. It does not have to be unfettered to be useful. I like it mostly unfettered but many societies thrive with a very fettered capitalism.
 
knowell said:
Capitalism or free markets are nothing more than people being allowed to exchange their labor or goods with someone elses money.
Click to expand...

This is actually a conception that Polanyi demolishes. Markets are a long-standing *part* of human life but capitalism or the orientation of society around a self-regulating market is a very recent development (1832 in UK, ~1890 in the US).
 
ITT tuffalo just read Polyani. Have you read Zinn, yet? Can't wait for that thread.
 
Tuffs, what are your thoughts on market socialists like Erik Olin Wright?
 
If anything this most recent election has proved that people are stupid and stupid people will vote on their ignorance.
I don't know why we'd want to push to anything close to a real socialist economy....I don't want stupid people voting for stupid (or worse, smart) politicians who promise them stupid things that sound good, but don't work
People are going to try and maximize their own welfare and so far modern western economies (we'll call them capitalistic) have, by a mile, done the best job of exploiting that drive in order to maximize collective welfare.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
This is an overwrought concern imho and I hate it. If you and I paid each other to do the other's dishes, we'd have economic growth and no more or less sustainability.
Click to expand...

Why would two people do this? Kind of a dumb example
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Why would two people do this? Kind of a dumb example
Click to expand...

Work requirement scam, obvs

deacvision7 said:
And one is surely more efficient at washing dishes than the other, creating a natural imbalance.
Click to expand...

Point would hold if one person did dishes and another mowed both lawns. More simply, if I hire a local #youth to mow my lawn instead of doing it myself, resource consumption is unchanged but we've got economic growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top