“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”—John Maynard Keynes
I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.
Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.
Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter’s husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.
Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.
Oh yeah, that’s because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.
That’s where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could’ve, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could’ve made that happen.
However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that’s make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.
I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn’t some natural state we defaulted to. It didn’t happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn’t chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.
Nope, it’s literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Nope, it’s literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Holy cow. I never thought about it that way.
Good points. I feel like mercantilism would have evolved naturally into capitalism even without the catalyst of the upper classes and their influence. But that’s another topic entirely.
We might have to agree to disagree but one of my main points is that there’s nothing natural about capitalisms evolution at all. I agree that its presented to us as the natural state of things that all came to be organically, in the exact same way that the divine right of Kings was.
That too was a lie.
No one would work for a company where they didn’t get a cut of the profit, unless it was turn up when you want and work when you like kind of work. People could do that, as many had access to common land to both live on and grow food.
They had to be dispossessed of their land, brutally put down when they rose up again and again over it, then killed, starved, imprisoned, whipped and or branded until they accepted their fate. They had to effectively re-colonise the UK.
This is why they dont teach the origins of capitalism in school. Funny how we learn about feudalism and its origins but not that. Well, tbf, the origin of capitalism is its own critique, from which it cannot morally recover from. So, that would be why.
I hope you know how appreciated you are. Thank you for being civil and thoughtful.
To be fair mercantilism was highly controlled. The original corporations were created under mercantilism and given such broad monopolies that they had their own soldiers and fought their own wars.
So it wasn’t exactly a bastion of choice either. Capitalism was the Democratic backlash against kings giving out monopoly contracts. But it was only ever meant to widen the ownership class so all the nobles and rich people could play, and not just the super connected ones. The workers were never supposed to benefit.
For sure, merchantislism was very controlled too. I meant in terms of the market having that potential, according to the Hobbesian view of the time but that’s fair enough to clarify.
On the contrary, the formation of joint stock companies, to whom monopoly contracts were given, was the birth of capitalism and, like capitalism has always been, there was nothing democratic about it. Not even Slightly. For example, the Royal African company was handed a monopoly of the transatlantic slave trade. Capitalism is both the antithesis ruin of democracy. It’s economic aristocracy which makes sense when you remember where it came from.
Capitalism was always meant to consolidate power. It’s capitalism’s nature and I believe capitalism began earlier than people realise. Its also far more intimately linked to slavery and the slave trade than anyone would be comfortable with.
This is why they don’t teach the birth of capitalism is school. Its history is its own critique, from which it can’t morally recover. Its illegal to critique capitalism in just about every school in the west. I’m not even talking your Marxist level stuff. I mean anything other than “this exact form of capitalism is perfect in every single way” is illegal.
I think that requires losing some of Capitalism’s ideological tent poles. Like free trade. You obviously can’t have free trade while the British and Dutch East Indies Companies are having a state sanctioned war over who gets the rum plantations.
If you want to rely on profit seeking and markets then you can say Capitalism goes all the way back to ancient times.
I do agree that looking at it’s birth is enough to disqualify it, but that birth is in the mid Industrial Revolution, not the Renaissance.
There’s no such thing as free trade and there never had been. I would have to disagree that its an ideological tent pole. It’s high school propaganda, made specifically to sell an appallingly unfair and un-free economic system. Unfortunately, you’ve shown yourself to be smart enough to have to be held to a higher standard than that.
In fact, using the same logic you presented, we wouldn’t be living under capitalism now. After all, you can’t have free trade when the American and Russian military industrial complexes were having a state sanctioned war over who gets the oil plantations…
Sorry, no, not profit seeking markets. Thats not even close what I said. I very clearly pointed out the commonly accepted birth of capitalism: the invention of joint stock companies and the risk mitigation that arose around it (the invention of capital or the capitalisation of assets, with a view to a profit). Although, ultimately, capitalism’s roots can be traced back to the slave economy of the Romans (which is why right wingers love them so much) but I don’t imagine thats what you meant.
The industrial revolution, like capitalism, started during the renaissance. The “mid” part youre thinking of is the expansion of capitalism, not its origin.
If not, as universities have accepted, the invention of capital, at what point did the formation of joint stock companies develop into capitalism and what specifically changed it to capitalism from, presumably, the legal recognition of sparkling joint-capitalised enterprise, undertaken with a view to a profit?
The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable. They should teach that part in High School, but they don’t. Where you and whoever is telling you this with a .edu is failing is you’re not considering how the stocks are operating. You’re confusing Capital with Capitalism. You could hold those stocks, and get money from them. But you didn’t have control over anything. Only the people who were chartered by the crown had that control. There was no private control over trade, and many countries had domestic monopolies as well that operated in the same way. Crown chartered corporations were the hot thing in Mercantilism.
So this is why Free Trade became such a big thing, along with private property, and Utilitarianism. The entirety of the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish Colonial Empires operated under these rules. So when a philosopher in 1760 says says we should have free trade he means he should be able to export cotton from the Carolinas to France instead of England. But not only is he not allowed to do that, the British East Indies Company will pay him a visit with a warship and a company of armed men to arrest him as a smuggler.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange. The problem is the first Stock exchange operated in the 1600’s, 17th century, which is Early Modern Era. But as I said above those stocks were in Crown Chartered Corporations which are operating as branches of the government. It’s 100 years before stocks really take off and for that entire time they’re still chartered. Because it was illegal to make your own corporation in the 17th century and about half of the 18th century. Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism. So I’m not sure how you’re getting that Capitalism started directly after Feudalism unless you’re reading the wreck of a Wiki page that can’t decide if it was then or the golden age of the Middle East, or the Greek Philosophers.
There are certainly elements of Capitalism earlier, but the ideology does not emerge until the industrial revolution.
You “it can’t be capitalism, as a the markets weren’t free enough to be glorious free trade”
Me "Free trade has never existed and could never exist "
Also you “The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable.”
Well, you can’t argue with that logic.
That .edu would be just about every .edu there is but sure, even though you misused basic terminology, of course you know better than all of them.
Of course you do!
No, I’m not confusing capital with capitalism. Thats a lazy response that shows you didn’t understand what was said to you.
Yes, you would have control over “things” and royal charters were to hand out monopolies to some joint stock companies, not all, as many didn’t need them due to the freedom of trade they had. There’s also no such things as a crown chartered corporation.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange.
As I said above, you had no idea what was said to you and it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here either but that doesnt seem to be stopping you. Nope, it barely even slowed you down. This might help: j
oint stock company =/= a stock exchange.
There wouldn’t have been enough exchanges of stock to justify a dedicated stock exchange, at the start, now would there? It would be a weird thing to have, right at the beginning, dont you think?
David hume wrote about capitalism, within capitalism, according to David hume. I know you think you know better than practicality every university and wiki too but I doubt even that level of arrogance could make someone believe they know David hume better than David hume. Also, preindustrial capitalism exists. So, we can dismiss that, without a second thought.
Much like capitalism, merchantislism started before you seem to think it did. The acts of enclosure were the death throws of the last part of feudalism, within a mercantile economy, in much the same way that you can have socialised housing, within a capitalist economy.
So, you can’t actually say what change ushered in capitalism. Its just that you don’t like how it came to be or the baggage it has to carry. So, instead, despite the existence of capitalist vehicles of enterprise, we’re to believe that capitalism didn’t come into existence until about sometime around the labour reforms where it was presumably baptised, to wash away its prior sins.
Apparently, unlike wiki and all those stupid universities, it seems that capitalism came into being when we all beleived in glorious free trade hard enough for it to be immaculately convinced as the natural economy we were always meant to have.
At least it can now be seen that you confused “capitalism” with “industrial capitalism.”
The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.
Do company towns still exist?
When I meet someone in Seattle, I ask them if they work for Amazon or Microsoft. Usually I’m correct.
But that’s still a city all on its own. A company town is owned, administered, and policed by the company.
See also: cities where the healthcare system or hospital system is the largest employer.
Look at oil companies. They have to house a lot of workers in remote areas.
Kings actually used to take care of their subjects, unlike modern capitalists’ CEOs.
No, lots of kings were brutal tyrants and/or totally incompetent rulers. The ones who took care of their subjects and who were wise and competent were extremely rare. These were the philosopher kings Plato wanted as rulers.
Democracy and Capitalism is barely better.
Democracy and capitalism is worse, even, compared to life under an enlightened monarchy. Unfortunately, wisdom and kindness aren’t as hereditary as we’d wish them to be.
By what metric?
By the post black plague metric where mistreating workers meant they literally walked off to a better kingdom. It lasted like 2 generations each time.
CEOs take care of thier subjects very well.
Thier subjects: $$$
It’s not like some dude was suddenly born one day and everyone decided he was in charge. The forefathers of Kings were inhuman psychopaths.
They were often the descendants of conquerors or settlers. While you could overcome competitors justly, being completely ruthless is typically advantageous. Maybe I’m crazy, but perhaps we should implement a governing system that discourages that behavior.
We could make it so that each person, as equals, gets a secret vote to put people in charge of writing laws, managing the treasury, appointing judges and military personnel, etc. In order to stop people from gaining too much power or authority we would limit the growth of their personal assets via tax brackets which increase based on the amount they gain, and when we end up with surplus of funds from taxation we then use that money to provide to the needy and build public goods which enrich everyone’s lives.
Some places notionally ran that way. But in reality it was the person putting the crown on a baby’s head who was in charge.
Debatable honestly. People inherited who were so bat shit insane even the “free market” can’t do worse.
Insane people inherit wealth today and lead their “kingdom” to ruin only to be proper up by somebody else only to fail again.
We just haven’t had this type of capitalism for long enough to see many Neros that had infinite power and then ruin it completely. We are in the holy Roman empire with 1000+ kingdoms constantly in strive with each other. Some are more powerful than others and ever so often one completely shits the bed because the inherited child is an absolute buffoon.
Also, it was by no means always inheritance. Quite often it was the most power hungry psychopath that won.
I’ll pay you more. Come with me! Well, that and God said that I should be king. It is my divine right! My great grandpa made a deal with his great grandpa! Oh, and never fight uphill, me boys. Not good.
And Musk can’t order you beheaded.
Yet
The path to being a CEO of an established company starts with being born in a zip code that offers connections to the wealthy elite. We already have an Aristocracy back.
I’m not disputing that. I said debatable because it was the right word
And professionals instead of priests.
deleted by creator
Don’t most small farmers in the west at least own their own land. So not really like feudalism but I get your point.
Just as residents in cities are progressively owning less of the land they live on family farmers are being pushed out by corporate megafarms.
Ahh a small rural subset of the population rules their own land. But unfortunately they don’t own the rights to their seeds, farming equipment, and the food they produce (sometimes). They produce things that sell for so little sometimes they can’t be independent and need trade agreements with other feudal lords that work them to death. Aka a farmer still gets groceries at Walmart, healthcare, seeds from big seed Corp, and tractors from John deere so much so most small independent farmers are closing up shop
I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.
Something like 39% in the US too, mostly the best farming areas according to the government’s map. There’s no cross data though on how many small farm operations in the US have to rent land.
Oh they’re solving that problem as fast as they can. Don’t you worry.
There should be a system that pays for producing value to all life. Something bigger than UN.
This is totally possible under actual democracy, the only challenge is getting enough people to the point where they’re not voting against their own long-term interests, and voting system’s robust enough to withstand the influence of capital.
What I mean is, there are governments around the world already funding positive things, on the collective purse.
It’s just at the moment, it pales in comparison to the stranglehold capitalism has over our economies.
Just saying, we don’t need to wait for the entire world to join hands to move towards socialism.
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;
All murder’d: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a kingPolitical power and purchasing power are just two kinds of power. And when those two powers merge - as with wealthy kings of the past or modern politically active business elites - bad things happen.
I mean there were counts and dukes and shit too. But yeah.
The CEOs are often just low level lords that get a small percentage of the legal murder they oversee for profit.
The meaningful shareholders know their money is bloodstained, and order the CEOs to do what they do, but don’t dirty their hands with the day to day murders, too busy mega yachting.
REMINDER: there are less than 3,000 billionaires on Earth, there are only about 28,000 hundred million plus-inaires on Earth.
They are the greed disease we the billions of humans on earth subsist to serve. CEOs are often merely their top livestock generals, the ones they appoint as their proxies to do their legal murders for them while they live lives of abject gluttony while declaring themselves the hardest workers merely for making broadly cruel dictates into their cell phones from their guard gated world for others like their CEOs to enact.
Don’t mistake any of this for publicly traded CEO pity, class traitors or nepo babies one and all, but the CEOs who arent also the meaningful shareholders are Vaders, not Palpatines.
At this late stage it is.
Yeah sort of, in the sense of the classes being so far apart. And nepotism hires can feel like hereditary rule.
But companies don’t generally go to war with each other. The comparison falls apart if you think about it too hard.
Mergers and acquisitions are quite combative at times, albeit not physically.
When it comes to going outside the western countries, companies absolutely do use violence to get their goals. There is multiple mining companies waging war on indigenous people in South America and Africa, murdering them to steal their lands. Look for the term Banana republic to see how US companies used to slaughter striking employees, etc…
I get that there are similarities, because capitalism came from feudalism. In feudalism the serfs were trading their labor for military safety provided by the king. The king got most of the resources from the serfs, but the serfs got something out of it too. While capitalism you are exchanging labor directly for money. Serfs generally had no ability to leave their kingdom. Under capitalism the employees can choose to quit and work for someone else. They could also start their own business. Starting your own kingdom wouldn’t have gone so well under feudalism.
That’s why capitalism and feudalism are two different words. They mean two different things.
There were absolutely freemen under Feudalism. And you were free in most places to start your own enterprise as long as you paid your taxes, Guild and King.
And the country thing doesn’t apply. The US wouldn’t let you start your own country either. We kind of fought an entire war over that.
Pepsi v Cola
Coca Cola Death Squads
Shell African Village Clearances
Banana Republics
Coal wars
Sheep wars
…
And if you want to know how bad it gets without guardrails look up any East Indies Company or West Indies. They literally had militaries and fought literal battles for control of markets and resources.
LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.
He surely thinks Ivan the terrible was great with people hahahha
LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.
You mean the Caligula who was assassinated after a reign shorter than a modern US presidential term? Is that the Caligula that you claim OP is ignorant of and you’re not?
