[mindslight]

I am trying to tease out what the term "capitalism" objectively means, because otherwise it's all too easily to do motte-and-bailey - where supporters of an -ism claim things that seem good while disowning things that seem not good. Perhaps it's ridiculous to think this is even possible in a world where a term can mean something different to each person. But if discourse is ever going to get past one camp asserting that "capitalism" is a great achievement of humankind and its detractors are fools that want to bring us closer to killing fields (plus the appropriate vice-versa for the other camp), then it is necessary to tease out the nuance of what "capitalism" actually means, rather than letting it take convenient credit for associated but distinct concepts.

> but there’s also many arguments that limitations on IP are also capitalist.

I've read plenty of them, and internalized them. After my infatuation with embracing the term "capitalism" faded, those arguments didn't really seem to be based on capital. Rather they bundled other often-associated concepts based on an assertion that they must obviously go hand in hand, while still carrying the "capitalism" banner most prominently. Your bit seems of the exact same vein - I agree musicians aren't generally IP maximalists, but most musicians aren't generally capitalists either, so that doesn't say much. Meanwhile the parts of the music industry that we would describe as the most capitalist are indeed IP maximalists, seeking to modify the law to maximize the scope of their capital.

Also I don't agree with your general assertion that any laws can be a foundation of a capitalist society as they're enforced consistently. A trivial refutation is a society that abolishes private property - no matter how consistent it is or what else it does, it could never be considered capitalist.

[Retric]

> I agree musicians aren't generally IP maximalists, but most musicians aren't generally capitalists either, so that doesn't say much.

Songwriting etc seems like a very capitalistic enterprise to me. You evaluate the market then invest X hours making something that is then judged on the open market. This is very different from most people simply work for someone else.

The parts of the music industry that’s IP maximalists on the other hand tend to simply buy existing IP rather than create it. They essentially face zero risk from infringing on others copyright because they aren’t creating anything. While that’s a form of investing there is several forms of investment in feudal society like making loans etc. Investing on it’s own doesn’t necessarily mean capitalist.

> a society that abolishes private property

I was suggesting it as a prerequisite rather than the only need. Obviously a communist society can enforce it’s laws without being capitalist.

That said there are many online communities which promote creativity etc based on acknowledgement and social credit rather than ownership. I don’t know how you could end up with a stable capitalist post scarcity society without any form of private ownership, but it’s one of those things we don’t have any direct evidence for either way.

Academia may actually be relevant model here. Mathematics isn’t owned by the individual who discovers it, but they still control and can invest in the means of production Aka themselves. Calling that capitalist doesn’t seem to fit, but it seems closer than the other options like socialism, anarchy, etc.

Hopefully that’s taken as food for thought rather than just being a ridiculous argument.

[mindslight]

> Songwriting etc seems like a very capitalistic enterprise to me

I see where you're coming from with many aspects similar to say, starting a business [0]. But why is the specific label "capitalist" appropriate for songwriting, rather than songwriting merely being compatible with capitalism? Or describing it with similar terms like marked-based, enterprising, or something else? Without having "ownership" of the song afterwards, then the only resulting capital would be "social capital" for their name/reputation. But the term social capital is a stretch, as it cannot be freely traded with someone else the way a property right can be.

Would a songwriter in the SU, NK, or China do something different such that their songwriting isn't capitalist? Would a songwriter writing a song for a king be capitalist? Or even market based? It would be a stretch to call pleasing just a king and his court "a market", or preparing for it as "investment". So we're down to just human interaction of "is this other person going to appreciate what I've done", which "capitalism" can't really take credit for as a prescriptive paradigm. (There is a difference between using an -ism for analyzing traditional cases through its lens, and using it as a prescriptive model for shaping society)

> I don’t know how you could end up with a stable capitalist post scarcity society without any form of private ownership

This seems like another statement of a fundamental characteristic of capitalism that I agree with, but which supports my initial comment. If capitalism requires private ownership, then doesn't it stand to reason that a society which is more capitalist has more types of private ownership?

> Academia may actually be relevant model here. Mathematics isn’t owned by the individual who discovers it, but they still control and can invest in the means of production Aka themselves. Calling that capitalist doesn’t seem to fit, but it seems closer than the other options like socialism, anarchy, etc.

But the workers own the means of production, and can't really part with it (unless mathematicians were chattel). To me, it seems quite close to the ideal envisioned by communism [1], where individuals have implicit bodily autonomy but the fruits of their labor are shared for all to use.

[0] I've long said the SV startup scene is directly modeled on the LA music biz.

[1] I haven't read Marx and I'm definitely not implying that communism in practice could live up to this ideal across many types of endeavors!