[hackyhacky]

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]

"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.

[hackyhacky]

> 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]

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.

[hackyhacky]

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]

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.

[hackyhacky]

> Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use.

Money is used by loaning it out, which requires no effort and most importantly: the amount of money you can loan out (and make a profit from) is not limited by the number of hours in the day, and therefore owners can always out-compete laborers.

> 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.

Now you're getting it!

[tick_tock_tick]

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.

[hackyhacky]

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]

Capitalism is in no way a prerequisite for technological development.

Really? Who else builds stuff?

[torben-friis]

>Who else builds stuff?

The Chinese, famously?

[ivewonyoung]

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

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

> 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

[hackyhacky]

> 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]

> 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.

[hackyhacky]

Please avoid straw man arguments. I didn't say that China didn't use capitalism: I said that it didn't use unfettered capitalism. Its capitalism is strongly tinged by its authoritarian rule with the explicit goal of reducing poverty.

The US, like China, continues to use a mixed approach to economic management in the form of regulated capitalism. The degree of regulation in the US has been declining since the 1950s, resulting in larger wealth inequalities and more poverty.

[hackyhacky]

> 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]

That doesn't answer my question.

[hackyhacky]

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]

> 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.

[hackyhacky]

> 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.

An astute observation, if your knowledge of history begins and ends with the 20th century.

[lkey]

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]

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]

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.

[hackyhacky]

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.

[WalterBright]

Um, Grog had the spear.

[WalterBright]

> 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.

[WalterBright]

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.

[hackyhacky]

> 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.

[WalterBright]

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

[hackyhacky]

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

[WalterBright]

> Just because they are Marxist tenets doesn't mean they aren't true.

Since Marxism never works, there's something definitely wrong with the tenets.