Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
It requires free markets, and generally provides workers the liberty to own their own labor, and allowing individuals to decide how they spend their time and how they spend their money. There are unfortunately examples where privately owning capital means abridging liberty of the workers. However, for a lot of people ideal capitalism means workers are more free than in other economic systems since they can sell their labor to whoever they please, or use it themselves without interference from external entities like the community or the government. For a lot of people, protecting people against these situations becomes a major role of government in a capitalist society.
Contrasting this liberty and individual choice, many other economic systems including socialism and communism have the community or the central government make these decisions for the individual.
Often, "Capitalism" becomes the catch-all phrase attacking all market failures exclusively. For example, some people talk about feudalism and complain about capitalism, but under feudalism everything belonged to the king, and the king would meter out control of his holdings to nobility, who in turn would meter out control to peasants. By definition the capital was not owned privately since it was owned by the king exclusively.
Capitalism often works very efficiently because individuals know what they want or need better than the state does. Free markets tend to be rooted in pragmatism: For one example, Meta has invested billions of dollars into the metaverse, but people don't want the metaverse so they've just lost that money. If this was a government program, customers would be forced to participate in the metaverse or they'd continue to get money forever, but eventually the private company will run out of money for the program and eventually the capital will be reallocated to something more beneficial.
It's this very pragmatism that can be dangerous at times: Jonathan Swift said markets need to be underpinned by a moral society for this reason. The pragmatic thing is often also horribly evil, such as spending as much as possible to monopolize surface water then raising the prices of water massively. This is another place where even proponents of capitalism often support government intervention, to ensure that market actors aren't taking actions that are profitable but grossly immoral.
In practice, there have been virtually no examples of pure capitalism, so there are many examples throughout history where merchants could trade and individuals could own things despite strong central planning in other ways, but although there are examples from the medieval era onwards, capitalism in the sense we think of it today really started with eras focusing more on liberalism, which started only a few hundred years ago. In addition, capitalism has never been the only economic system on earth at one time, with a number of different economic systems being in play at any one time and that's true today.
It requires free markets, and generally provides workers the liberty to own their own labor, and allowing individuals to decide how they spend their time and how they spend their money. There are unfortunately examples where privately owning capital means abridging liberty of the workers. However, for a lot of people ideal capitalism means workers are more free than in other economic systems since they can sell their labor to whoever they please, or use it themselves without interference from external entities like the community or the government. For a lot of people, protecting people against these situations becomes a major role of government in a capitalist society.
Contrasting this liberty and individual choice, many other economic systems including socialism and communism have the community or the central government make these decisions for the individual.
Often, "Capitalism" becomes the catch-all phrase attacking all market failures exclusively. For example, some people talk about feudalism and complain about capitalism, but under feudalism everything belonged to the king, and the king would meter out control of his holdings to nobility, who in turn would meter out control to peasants. By definition the capital was not owned privately since it was owned by the king exclusively.
Capitalism often works very efficiently because individuals know what they want or need better than the state does. Free markets tend to be rooted in pragmatism: For one example, Meta has invested billions of dollars into the metaverse, but people don't want the metaverse so they've just lost that money. If this was a government program, customers would be forced to participate in the metaverse or they'd continue to get money forever, but eventually the private company will run out of money for the program and eventually the capital will be reallocated to something more beneficial.
It's this very pragmatism that can be dangerous at times: Jonathan Swift said markets need to be underpinned by a moral society for this reason. The pragmatic thing is often also horribly evil, such as spending as much as possible to monopolize surface water then raising the prices of water massively. This is another place where even proponents of capitalism often support government intervention, to ensure that market actors aren't taking actions that are profitable but grossly immoral.
In practice, there have been virtually no examples of pure capitalism, so there are many examples throughout history where merchants could trade and individuals could own things despite strong central planning in other ways, but although there are examples from the medieval era onwards, capitalism in the sense we think of it today really started with eras focusing more on liberalism, which started only a few hundred years ago. In addition, capitalism has never been the only economic system on earth at one time, with a number of different economic systems being in play at any one time and that's true today.
Now you can't say nobody gave you a definition of capitalism. Now you've got two from two different people.
So the real reason you've never seen a definition of capitalism is that your definition of definition is so damn narrow.
The difference between capitalism and wealth is that for most of the history of the world, protection of private ownership wasn't really a core concept of law. For most of human history, although an individual may accrue wealth, ultimately ownership and control fell to the tribe, or the community, or the king, or the gods (through the priest class).
It wasn't until very recently that private ownership was a concept, particularly in law, and that concept of private ownership ended up becoming a cornerstone of liberalism. Once the state protected your ownership stake in a thing, it opened the door for protecting other rights, which is why many human rights in common law are conceptualized as a property right.
It wasn't until very recently that private ownership was a concept, particularly in law, and that concept of private ownership ended up becoming a cornerstone of liberalism. Once the state protected your ownership stake in a thing, it opened the door for protecting other rights, which is why many human rights in common law are conceptualized as a property right.
Actually, that's the opposite of reality. French legal systems are based on the civil law system, which is fundamentally different than the common law system. Quebec in Canada shares that, but english speaking canada is also based on common law like US law.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
The US, Canada, and the UK share common roots in the common law system characterized by the concept of precedent and of lower courts being held to decisions by higher courts. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they share every precedent, but they are all based on the same common law system, and cases in each jurisdiction sometimes make use of precedent set before the legal systems split off.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.
The thing is, you're wrong, and because you're wrong, you're wrong.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
Yeah, that's how it works. When you're wrong about underlying facts, your conclusions will as a consequence come out wrong most of the time. Even when your conclusions are correct by accident, if the means by which you came to the correct conclusion is flawed, then the correct conclusion is less useful.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
So you fundamentally misunderstand the history of the world.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.