Topic: What are the minimum prerequisites for Capitalism to be possible? - page 5. (Read 5545 times)

I engage in lots of Capitalist activity -- I buy food and stuff. I earn money by providing a service to my employer... General things like that. I never said Capitalism was all bad.


Snipes777: I guess we covered most of that with Rassah, re: pain + learning + adapting.
However, now that you mention it, I guess there needs to be a trigger. Something has to actually do pain because the theory is not enough, it has to actually happen. People interact, they make mistakes, pain happens, and society evolves.

There seems to be a sort-of collision between the need for pain and the need for things to be voluntary. What's your view on that?

Why would the world require anti-monopoly legisaltion if monopolies weren't a problem?

It's a reasonable path for any business sector leader to simply buy up smaller competition
 whenever it arises. It could then make deals with other sector leaders to maintain a status-quo.

At present ,any monopoly is broken up by legislation and activity external to the Capitalist system.

 

I think you need to be at least two in the world for communism - one to abuse the other...

Anyway - capitalism can start with only one, voluntary trade with two or more.

Scarcity is always present.

So freedom from violence - private property - voluntary exhange. Some or all will save, which then will be capital. The capital is the basis for increasing productivity.

 

No. Why, and more importantly, how, would it?

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

But doesn't Capitalism always decay into monopoly?

Question to the OP: How do you get by day-to-day without engaging in capitalism? Do you have everything given to you by the government, or have the government dictate to you what you must obtain, where, and what you must pay for it?

Sure, but it doesn't really have to be "human's" even. Other species can learn and adapt from pain too. They just may not realize other members' wants and desires, and thus not understand that someone else might want something of theirs in exchange for something else. So, I guess pain, ability to learn, and means of communicating wants.

A expresses preference for the apple from B and suggests a form of consideration (money, other product, sexual favors, getting rid of debt, altruistic feeling, friendship, etc.)

B accepts or denies

Accept and trade occurs.

Deny and suggest alternative or trade doesn't go through and A and B separate having not traded.

A accepts or denies alternative

so on..

They know they should negotiate because of voluntary interaction from others. If A beats up B, then C, D, and E will want nothing to do with A. Thus A can't get all the products and services he may want and lives a less fulfilling life that requires him to provide for himself more as the others do not want to interact with him.

People learn from personal experience and the collective wisdom of all who came before. It is the idea of spontaneous order. At the college I went to, paths had been made in the snow from many feet walking between paths. No one planned the paths. People can walk through the snow if they think it will be a better path from them, or they can take the one that everyone else took where the snow is packed down. The result is 99% of people take the same paths and they are the most efficient paths for the most people.

Those who go their own way have a harder path to travel, but may need to move really quick to get to class on time or something.

Those who build their own path, charge a toll for use and beat up anyone who takes another path gets no friends, realizes his costs exceed his profit, and quickly finds another way to get things done.

Re-read my post. Person A takes Person B's stuff, Person B will smack Person A, and that will teach Person A not to do it again. If Person A notices that there is something Person B wants from Person A as well, then they can both decide to trade for the things they want. It does take some brains to figure out, but ours have the capacity for it.

If you think about it, all rights are property rights. You own yourself, so someone trying to take your life is attempting to steal your property - your life. And honestly, it doesn't matter whether rights are inherent, or ascribed by society, or derived from mutual agreement, for capitalism to work. As long as they are respected.

As I said, all rights are property rights. So I suppose you could say they're all necessary for capitalism. As to finding out what they are, it's very simple, if you're logical about it. Start with the right to life. Anything that supports that right, without requiring a positive obligation on another, is a valid right.

Then you're not using logic. Scarcity is not a requirement for desire. I desire knowledge, yet knowledge is not scarce.

Just one thing: Pain.

Pain from a lack of something we need (food, water, shelter, hard labor that would be made easier with some tool) keeps us wanting to get those things.
Pain from being slapped around by some other monkey when we try to take their stuff keeps us from taking their stuff, and forces us to look for some other means of trying to acquire it.
Pain or risk of pain from trying to take their stuff by force makes us look for more painless methods of acquiring that stuff, and trading things both of us want is so far the most pain-free method we have found.


The bolded part is the part you are missing. Where did you get the idea that "we" disapprove of violence?

1vol·un·tary
adjective \ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē\
Definition of VOLUNTARY
1
: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2
: unconstrained by interference : self-determining
3
: done by design or intention : intentional
4
: of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will
5
: having power of free choice
6
: provided or supported by voluntary action
7
: acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation

And it is voluntary for all parties. Not one, this violates the voluntary nature.

in·ter·ac·tion 
/ˌintərˈakSHən/
Noun
Reciprocal action or influence: "interaction between the two countries".

Can be talking, pointing, body language, trade, etc., etc., etc.

I have no problem with voluntary sparring or sporting in order to determine who wins something- like a wager. This would be considered voluntary interaction if both parties voluntarily consent to it- not that one beats on another and then takes "winnings".

Quote from: myrkul on January 07, 2013, 12:26:39 PM

Quote from: bonker on January 07, 2013, 12:08:22 PM

Keeping something as unstable as Capitalism afloat requires a hidden scaffolding of authoritrianism/feudalism.

Some of the mechanisms required to prop-up the fascade of a free market:

1) Buckets of intricate anti-monopoly leglisaltion and hidden agreement.
2) Control of the press while presenting the illusion of press freedom
3) I could go on... basically Capitalisim is a sham

State capitalism, a.k.a. corpratism, a.k.a. fascism, is, yes.

None of what you said actually applies to capitalism.

+1

Saying that our current state is capitalism shows ignorance of economic and political theory. I'm pretty sure Noam Chomsky (who is insanely critical of "capitalism" aka fascism/ cropy capitalism) has stated that he would probably like and be ok with the "capitalism of Adam Smith" where there isn't all the corporate bullshit in our current economy.

State capitalism, a.k.a. corpratism, a.k.a. fascism, is, yes.

None of what you said actually applies to capitalism.

Keeping something as unstable as Capitalism afloat requires a hidden scaffolding of authoritrianism/feudalism.

Some of the mechanisms required to prop-up the fascade of a free market:

1) Buckets of intricate anti-monopoly leglisaltion and hidden agreement.
2) Control of the press while presenting the illusion of press freedom
3) I could go on... basically Capitalisim is a sham

You are right Myrkul, Actually property rights og scarecity is enough, Force follows as a result of disputes.

Capitalism was invented by farmers, before money. Hunter gatherers care less about their property.

Strong property rights, and scarce resources. That's all that's really needed for capitalism to be possible. Pure capitalism also requires a rejection of force, threat of force, or fraud as legitimate means of acquiring property. "Programmable Lemmings" not required.

Scare Resources
Voluntary Human Interaction

That is it. Things like money and language are kind of a part of the human interaction part. It also needs to be voluntary as if I force you to give me something than it is no longer capitalism. Desire to trade is also not necessary. If I buy a cake, it is as important that I bought the cake as important that I didn't buy everything else possible. It could be said that for anything I didn't buy, I was unwilling to trade.

Scarce resources are also necessary, as when things are infinitely reproducible (like ideas) then trade for them doesn't exist as anyone can easily acquire those resources themselves.

Hi! Thanks for your response! It's food for thought. How would you distinguish your description of Capitalism from a minimalistic description of Communism? Or from a lonely hermetic lifestyle? I guess I was implicitly including "trade" as part of the description, but maybe that's incorrect?


Perhaps plain scarcity is not enough? I can imagine that if something is uniformly scarce, e.g.: pink-and-blue single-seater flying saucers are all uniformly unavailable, obviously they can't be traded. Nor would that fact encourage the trade of any other items.

Maybe scarcity also has to be relative?
E.g.: everyone might stockpile food for the winter, but because winter occurs at different times of the year and with different types of food becoming scarce depending on where you live, this might make it easier and more convenient to trade instead of just stockpiling?

Property Rights
Rule of Law (it is hard to trade when it is easier to just rob or murder you)
Common Language (atleast for the trades)
Weights and Measures (helps determine price)
Demand for Trade


These are a few big ones to get it going.

Capitalism is possible with one single human beeing - the only thing that is needed is the willingness to save by using scarce time to create tools or intermediate goods.