| HN Mirror

This quote has nothing to do with capitalism.

Please note that "commerce" and "capitalism" are not synonymous, and that the former does not imply the latter. Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

sophrosyne42 29 days ago

"Capitalism" is an ever shifting ambiguity that exists to be a scapegoat to attack but is completely meaningless in its concrete usage by the attackers.

But "capitalism" in its historical and practical meaning means nothing other than commerce, i.e. the society based exchange, the system of production based on exchange. It was only through capitalist accounting methods that businesses were able to conduct commerce in such a way as to contrast costs and proceeds, and therefore create the optimizations that lead to mass computer production or, what is the same, cheap computers for the masses.

> But "capitalism" in its historical and practical meaning means nothing other than commerce, i.e. the society based exchange, the system of production based on exchange

Completely wrong. Many of my comments here distinguish commerce from capitalism.

Commerce, ie the exchange of goods and services, has existed longer than civilization. Even some animals do it.

Capitalism is specifically the substitution of labor with ownership as a means of profiting. This produces an imbalanced market: some people compete for resources by selling their labor, while others compete simply by owning capital: the means of production. The problem is that the latter mode allows unlimited accumulation of wealth, while the former is limited by time and effort.

Imagine if Elon Musk was working a salaried job that paid $60000 per hour. How long would he have to work in order to earn his current fortune?

sophrosyne42 28 days ago

Every socialist tries to make this distinction and falls to their own guillotine. You do realize that "substitute with" is merely a synonym for "exchange"?

The exchange of labor, to be sure, has existed nearly as long as civilization itself, perhaps longer, as all people cooperate by exchange through the division of labor right down to the family, and it is exchange whether the articles to be exchanged are money or physical things or even intangible, ephemeral things like love, pride, loyalty, or otherwise. Since human society is human cooperation by the division of labor, by your definition capitalism is nearly synonymous with human society itself. Fine by me.

This argument does not make any sense.

I have no problem with the concept of money. Commerce always the exchange of good and services, including on a symbolic level: as you point out, affection, money, etc. "Money" is not the distinguishing factor between commerce and capitalism.

At the risk of repeating myself: the distinction is how wealth is acquired. Capitalism allows one to acquire wealth merely by possessing capital, which in turn engenders unlimited capacity to acquire more capital. Capital is unique among all those systems for that reason.

sophrosyne42 28 days ago

Then capitalism cannot exist and never has, because there is no such thing as something which produces wealth merely by possession. Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use. Without a use, there is no yield. Capital (in the sense of the monetary value of assets) is merely an index for the utility of assets in producing a yield. There is nothing special about the yield of capital; there is properly speaking no yield to capital at all, only a yield for the assets which the capital indexes. Entrepreneurs gain wealth by choosing which uses to put assets at their disposal. It is only when assets are put into production that they yield a profit or loss. And wealth accumulates only when there is sustainable profits. Mere posession would not involve exchange, let alone production, and therefore could not yield any profit. There is no "free" or "automatic" generation of income. It is the result of conscious activity on part of the owner, as is capital itself.

The distinction between capitalism and earlier forms of production is that money provides a means to index the yield of assets by capitalizing the value of those assets. The ability to quantitatively track the yield provides the ability to determine whether you are able to replace the asset or if you are consuming it. Accumulation can be planned by resolving to consume less than the yield of the asset. Capital and capital accounting, too, has existed nearly as long as civilization has existed. But the cause of the yield is in principle no different from the yield of resources in pre-history, which is refraining from consuming more than you produce. What is unique is the ability to determine the economic yield of things quantitatively, not procedure by which wealth accumulates.

tick_tock_tick 29 days ago

I mean we don't really have any counter examples even China didn't really start advancing in any meaningful way until they started moving towards capitalism.

We didn't have any examples of states without a divinely appointed absolute monarch until we did. Things can change.

And as a matter of fact, there are many examples of non capitalist societies.

CamperBob2 29 days ago

Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

Really? Who else builds stuff?

torben-friis 29 days ago

>Who else builds stuff?

The Chinese, famously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_opening_up

ivewonyoung 29 days ago

China is a great example of a counter point to the argument. They only started making things once they realized capitalism was better.

> The reforms [starting in 1976] de-collectivized agriculture, abolished the people's communes, relaxed price controls, allowed foreign direct investment into China, and led to the creation of special economic zones, most prominently the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone and the Shanghai Pudong New Area. Private enterprises were allowed to grow, while many state-owned enterprises were scaled down or privatized. Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange were established in 1990, allowing a capital market system

> They only started making things once they realized capitalism was better.

Free commerce is not the same as capitalism. A country where production, wages, and ownership are decided centrally can hardly be said to be unfettered capitalism.

ivewonyoung 29 days ago

> A country where production, wages, and ownership are decided centrally can hardly be said to be unfettered capitalism.

The reforms in China I listed heavily cut down on that. Are you claiming that China is somehow less capitalistic now compared to 1976?

By your metric the US isn't capitalistic because NASA and various govt agencies and entitlements worth trillions of dollars a year of taxes exist.

> Really? Who else builds stuff?

Said the Christian in pre-Englightenment Europe: "Well, of course Christianity is the one true religion. After all, the whole civilized world is Christian."

CamperBob2 29 days ago

That doesn't answer my question.

That's because your question is silly. I'll spell it out for you: Just because all modern states are capitalist does not mean that all states must be capitalist, as evidenced by the many erstwhile states that were not capitalist. Your failure to see beyond your immediate surroundings and ignoring the first sentence of my previous comment is perhaps the reason for your silly question.

ivewonyoung 29 days ago

> Just because all modern states are capitalist does not mean that all states must be capitalist, as evidenced by the many erstwhile states that were not capitalist

However, I doubt anyone else would instead want to live in current day North Korea or pre-1990 eastern bloc countries, or in East vs West Germany.

lkey 29 days ago

You don't have to demonstrate this kind of ignorance of human history on main. Aren't you embarrassed? Do you value knowledge even a little bit?

When did capitalism begin? How was 'stuff' created and distributed prior to that? How do other, distinct and contemporaneous modes of production create 'stuff'?

WalterBright 29 days ago

Capitalism began when Thag, who was a good hunter, brought home two dinosaur steaks. His buddy Grog was a lousy hunter, but was good at making spears. Thag traded a dinosaur steak for a new spear.

lkey 27 days ago

Really Walter? You know better than this.

First, pedantically, we did not share time with 'dinosaurs' in the sense you imply.

Secondly, pedantically, that kind of hunting was not the main source of calories for hunter-gatherers. It's more apt to imagine them as gatherers first and primarily.

Thirdly, and also pedantically, you are not describing the system of capitalism that I, and most educated people talk about when they use the word. That system has only been with us in the main for, generously, 250 years.

Critically, Thag and Grog both own the means of production for their spears and 'steaks' respectively. The necessary abstractions for capital accumulation, debt, and private ownership simply do not exist.

That's commerce, not capitalism.

Capitalism began when Thag declared that he owns all the dinosaurs, and anyone who hunts a dinosaur must pay him 10 percent of the meat as a tribute, or else he will stab them with his spear.

Um, Grog had the spear.

WalterBright 29 days ago

> Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

Communist countries copied technology, their inventions are very few. Capitalist countries routinely exhibit rapid technological development.

I was just watching "Shock and Awe", a documentary on Amazon, about the development of electrical theory and products.

It was driven largely by people who wanted to make money off of their inventions. None of the progress came from communist countries.

Did you know that Gutenberg invented the printing press in order to make money?

Did you know the Wright Bros invented the airplane in order to make money?

And so on and so forth.

> It was driven largely by people who wanted to make money off of their inventions.

I am getting a little tired of repeating myself, but you're evidently confused so I'll indulge you.

The opposition to capitalist as a monetary system does not imply the opposition to the profit motive. As I've said several times, and which you continue to ignore, the exchange of goods and services in the form of commerce requires the profit motive. Conflating my position with communism is a straw man.

Well, you do repeat Marxist tenets, like the class struggle and the labor theory of value.

Just because they are Marxist tenets doesn't mean they aren't true. Feel free to refute them if you feel otherwise.

richforrester 29 days ago

That has little to do with what I said.

A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism.

WalterBright 29 days ago

About 90% of the world lived in poverty before capitalism.

Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

samiv 28 days ago

The fact that some countries (mostly the political west) developed a wealthy middle class post WW2 was not due to capitalism but due to social democracy.

Capitalism by itself does not produce egalitarian wealthy society. The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict.

There are plenty of capitalistic countries where most people are poor. In fact many of the as said Western countries has also high levels of poverty while running capitalism in the 1800 etc until post WW2 social democratic movements.

Once you dismantle those social democratic constructs such as labor unions and start shifting more power to the capital holders you'll see how the society splits apart to rich and poor. The rich use their wealth and power to rig the system to benefit themselves even more and become richer at the expense of everyone else. Ultimately they will remove democracy because functional real democracy is a threat to their wealth.

The middle class emerged in colonial America. During the 1800s, scores of millions of people came to the US with little more than a suitcase. They went into the middle class, and some into the wealthy. We know this because:

1. Average height increased throughout the 1800s

2. Life expectancy increased throughout the 1800s

3. Plenty of photos and paintings of towns that consist of middle class housing

> The system divides the populace into "capital owners" and "workers" who are in direct conflict.

That's what Marx claimed. I've had many jobs. In none of them was I ever in conflict. It was a negotiated relationship, where I provided labor and expertise in exchange for money. I've also been a boss, and if you ever have been you'd know you had no power over your employees. They only work for you because they want to. When they stopped wanting to, they simply disappear, and there's not a thing I could do about it.

In the US, every worker has the power to walk away and start their own business. The wealthy in America did not come from wealthy immigrants, they came from poor immigrants.

samiv 28 days ago

Most employees have absolutely Zero leverage. Ask any Amazon warehouse worker how much liberties they have and how much in practice they can negotiate. Just because some employees have had some leverage doesn't change the underlying power dynamics between employers and employees. In fact we're now seeing this play out in software as well with the AI hype train and I expect a reality check to hit many people previously in their cushy office jobs.

> Most employees have absolutely Zero leverage.

They can walk away at any moment and there's absolutely nothing Amazon can do about it.

Amazon pays significantly above minimum wage. Why don't they pay minimum wage?

Amazon benefits to warehouse workers include heavily subsidized health care (starting at $5 per week), up to 20 weeks of paid parental leave, prepaid college tuition, and a 401(k) company match.

That's the leverage workers have.

imtringued 28 days ago

People living with room mates working 80 hours a week have a higher standard of living than kings?

Do you even listen to yourself?

Let's enumerate a few things:

1. Today's poor are as tall as rich people, meaning they get plenty of nutritious food. They're taller than medieval kings.

2. Fresh vegetables and fruit from all over the world 365 days a year.

3. Flush toilets.

4. Air conditioning

5. Central heating

6. Infinitely better medical care

7. Endless amazing entertainment at the push of a button

8. Can communicate with anyone in the world, for free

9. Anything you want to know, at the push of a button

10. Far better clothing

11. Cars you can drive anywhere

12. Fly at 30,000 feet in complete luxury across the country

13. Free education, in any field you want

14. Hot and cold running water

15. Hot showers

16. Microwave ovens

I can go on if you like.

account42 29 days ago

> Besides, America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

Only if you define the standard of living in a consumerist way.

sokoloff 28 days ago

Would you willingly swap your life (or the life of your child) for that of a medieval king?

I sure wouldn’t.

Neither would I.

rationalist 29 days ago

> A third of the world lives in poverty. That's the fault of capitalism.

So what you're saying is that capitalism lifted about two thirds of the world out of poverty.

Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

> Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me.

The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system.

"It's true, Mr/Ms Rationalist, that our patented Miracle Medical Snakeoil caused a third of your leg to become necrotic and fall off, but be glad for the two thirds that did not fall off!"

rationalist 29 days ago

> > Thanks to capitalism, I don't have to toil in the fields.

> No, that's thanks to commerce not to capitalism. Capitalism benefits those those who hold capital, which is not me.

Are you toiling in the fields? It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich."

> The fact that there are more than enough resources for no one to live in poverty should suggest to you that something is wrong with the distribution system.

So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally?

> It seems to me like your attitude is that "If I can't be rich, then no one should be rich."

The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field.

Everyone has a body and a mind, and commerce allows us to rent out those features in exchange for pay. People who are smarter or stronger or work harder or work more will be able to benefit more. That's how I got rich. But there's a limit to how rich I can get, because I have only one body and one mind and there are a finite number of hours in the day.

The other way to get rich is to own things. If you own a factory or real estate or bonds you get to charge other people and make a profit even though you are expending no effort. And in this case there is no limit on your profit, because you can use your profit to buy more capital and make more profit from that. The result is eventually a winner-take-all economy, where the winners own an increasing amount of society and everyone else pays them to use it. If that sounds familiar, it should, because it's feudelism, and is the eventual end state of capitalism.

You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it.

> So instead of two thirds of the world not living in poverty, everyone should live in poverty equally?

No, that's ridiculous.

eklavya 29 days ago

> The other way to get rich is to own things. If you own a factory or real estate or bonds you get to charge other people and make a profit even though you are expending no effort. And in this case there is no limit on your profit, because you can use your profit to buy more capital and make more profit from that.

Risk : Reward, that's obvious, isn't it? I have known many relatives who bankrupted themselves trying to "own" stuff. I also know some who succeeded and are rich. Starting a business is very hard, try it.

ndiddy 28 days ago

It's interesting how when you talk to people who are vocally in favor of capitalism, they always turn out to be in favor of an imaginary version of capitalism where everybody is a small business owner, rather than in favor of how the system works in practice and the outcomes that it necessarily creates.

rationalist 29 days ago

> You should really read a bit about the philosophy that you're arguing so vehemently for, apparently without knowing anything about it.

You had a good comment until you wrote that. Don't lower your standards with stupid personal attacks.

> The problem with capitalism is not that some people get rich and some people don't. The problem is that of an unfair playing field.

I would love for things to be fair, but I grew up in the real world and learned that things weren't fair back when I was a kid in primary school.

Instead of lamenting about something that I can't control, I decided to focus my efforts on what I can control. Instead of tearing other people down, I built myself up.

Unless you can change the human characteristic of greed, the world will always be unfair. You can spit into the wind, or you can set a sail.

sophrosyne42 29 days ago

The third of the worls that lives in poverty obstinantly refuses to adopt capitalist methods.

CamperBob2 29 days ago

Really? What other systems are better at lifting people out of poverty (without killing a few tens of millions in the process?)

There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.

> There are so many other places where this sort of low-effort high-school edgelording fits in better than here.

A good sign of low-effort edgelording is championing an obviously broken system by using a straw man to disparage the alternatives.