Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Capitalism - a system by which the means of production are privately owned - has only been dominant for the last few hundred years, broadly exacerbated by the industrial revolution (where you could easily point to "Guy who owns the big Machine").
It is, at its most fundamental description, a Top-Down system of governance and ownership (I admit, probably not the way you mean, but it did tickle me).
Dragons hoarding wealth might be emergent human behavior, but, hey, so are brave knights.
> has only been dominant for the last few hundred years
That's hard to falsify, although I'd guess people have had things for much longer, eg spears. Although this get's away from the point, and into something else.
Right now if I step out into the street, I can flag a taxi, I can buy a coffee. In each case these are direct peer to peer transactions, where the price is agreed between us based on what we both want out of the exchange. I find it easy to imagine that's how it was hundreds of years ago too, even within tribes.
The capital (money, coffee, spear), isn't really the relevant thing. It's a conduit and focal point of behaviour. That was my original point, and why I don't value a top down aspect to it (even though that of course exists in groups with more scale - societies). I would welcome a refute on that point, or if you could frame a different way of looking at it (capitalism) at the level of individuals who want to consentfully interoperate (and don't even know the word capitalism).
> Right now if I step out into the street, I can flag a taxi, I can buy a coffee. In each case these are direct peer to peer transactions, where the price is agreed between us based on what we both want out of the exchange
I agree that we can do this. I do not agree that this is, strictly speaking, capitalism.
Capitalism =/= the exchange of goods, services, and capital.
Capitalism is the system that says the people who own the property constituting the critical infrastructure of an organization - the "Means of Production" - should get to make all the rules. That's it.
If I own a big beef machine that turns cows into hamburgers, it doesn't matter that I need 50 people to run it and 200 people to box and ship and sell the patties, the fact that I am the person who had enough money to buy the big beef machine means that my word is law, period. If I don't like the way they touch my big beef machine, they go away. If they don't like how unsafe the big beef machine is, too bad. Doesn't matter how much I sell the patties for - I decide how much I pay you, and I keep the rest (not exactly peer-to-peer). I own the big beef machine, so my say goes.
I agree with you that trade will exist until the end of time, and has existed since the first time Ook had something that Grog wanted and Grog decided it was too much energy to kill Ook over it.
When I say I am "Anti-capitalist", I mean (among other things) that I do not believe Capitalism specifically is the best (most productive, least ethically repulsive) means by which to engage in trade.
None of these opinions relate to trade or even the concept of capital itself, but rather the means by which we organize it.
To the original quote: It is hard to imagine the end of capitalism, because people believe capitalism is a natural facet of human nature. It is not; it is a big beef machine.
Thanks for such a breakdown at that scale. I appreciate it. (sorry for my slow reply).
I think my view of Capitalism is over-indexed to the human to human level. Although as I zoom up to ownership and 1 to many relationships, it gets more complicated but still fits in my consent view.
Regarding your beef machine example. What you present as the owner having control over the others still seems like consent to me, in that for them consent is something they has to opt into. What I see is the leverage has changed. Ie the machine owner can chose to fire a worker. But that is them no longer consenting to work with that person. I guess we could say, 'but the worker consented to work in an environment where they thought they had some protections' for instance. Is that how you see it as being non-consensual, or am I misunderstanding?
The point on keeping the profits also makes sense to me still. If I want to take risk, I can start a business, where I reap the rewards and bear the losses. If I don't want to take risk, I can agree to work for a fixed rate, but miss out on the rewards.
For sure I can imagine to some people, they want to make a collective and share all (rewards/losses), but that still seems like either require opt in (capitalism / collective structure).
So it's no longer peer to peer, but still seems consensual at a 1 to many scale to me.
I think there is a natural valuation drop off at scale.
For instance if only one person sells coffee, I really want to trade with them. If 100 people have coffee, I'm not that fussed about an individual vendor anymore. Then they loose leverage and I gain it. Haha, sounds crass to write it in those terms, but sure you know what I mean.
Regarding this part:
> It is hard to imagine the end of capitalism, because people believe capitalism is a natural facet of human nature. It is not; it is a big beef machine.
Does my analogy of buying coffee from one person or picking from 100, fit in with the big beef machine dynamic you point out here? Or how come not? I don't think the analogies line up perfectly, but can't put my finger on where they don't align.
Separate line of thought (but to the same end), curious what you think: If humans are nature, and humans have capitalism, is capitalism not natural?
Haha, easier to talk about these things in real life, appreciate your time/efforts here anyway.
I am going to try to respond to the middle chunk later, because I don't really understand the lines you are drawing and how they map to my argument. In some sense, you are describing "The Market", which is another thing that exists outside of the means of organizing the resources. There are collective systems of governance that answer a lot of these questions, too!
To this, however:
> Separate line of thought (but to the same end), curious what you think: If humans are nature, and humans have capitalism, is capitalism not natural?
I don't care? Cancer is natural, Bifocals aren't. I don't think it's a useful framing on the question. My opinions would be the same on capitalism if it were a plot from the moon-beings of Andromeda IX vs. it being written explicitly written into our DNA. In the context of the quote, it is meant as in "It is not an objective facet of our existence, or something we must endure."
"“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
The framing of it as natural was to point out that you can't get rid of it. It would be like getting rid of people having favourite colours. We just act like that.
>"“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
This was nice to read, although following on from my first point (this comment), I don't think this analogy fits. Kings to capitalism I mean. Kings are one central top down authority, whereas capitalism has many spheres of power which pop up wherever there are humans clustered. It's nature.
I disagree. Capitalism is a very specific, recent invention. You are living out the actual quote. I don't care if its nature - in my estimation, it fucking sucks!
Your argument works just as easily for Kings, Slavery, and every other horrible thing humans have done to one another. Capitalism is not in any way, shape, or form necessary to human existence. It would be like saying that Prime Time TV is "Nature" and worthy of almighty consideration. I pray I get to live to see the end of all of the above in my life time.
I've said my argument about as cleanly as I can! It's a complicated topic, and I encourage you to continue reading about it.
I'd guess it's more recent, since it's more recently we scaled.
With slavery, there wasn't consent. So I'm not sure that's comparable.
> I pray I get to live to see the end of all of the above in my life time.
That's kind of my point though, you can do that right? There are lots of collectives and alternative communities where you interact with people how you all agree. Or if you have a different structure, you can start it. Or do you feel differently?
There is a definition difference. What Marx defined as capitalism is a pattern of post-feudal production after the industrial revolution. It means the transformation of quantities of surplus value from wage labor, and the qualitative transformation of the surplus into capital.
People typically respond with “well using money and buying stuff in a market is just natural law” etc which isn’t “capitalism” and indeed the first chapter of Capital is all about commodity-money and primitive markets and production. These things are all pre-capitalism and have existed for as long as civilization has.
Thanks.
In your view, if people want to get rid of capitalism, or live in post capitalism or whatever, do you think that's possible?
I still think you'd need to have consent, and you wouldn't get it as some people want to take risk but some don't so would opt for no risk but fixed - limited - reward.
I ask, as just as trading is long standing, so I'd guess would be a risk tolerance (and other tolerances which factor in).
I mean under Marx's definition I can easily envision a "non-capitalist" system where most economic activity is done by solo-entrepreneurs who own their means of production. This doesn't involve any wage labor being utilized. It's not socialism but there is arguably no labor "exploitation" which is the main moral argument I suppose, and frankly close to what a lot of libertarians imagine in their head as the ideal social arrangement anyway.
IMO, this is the right idea. I've worked on small projects using Jira primarily as a means of ticket management, and I've worked on giant orgs with scrums and groomings and all that.
As far as a tool, it's perfectly fine. A lot of my bad feelings came as a result of wanting it to be simple ("What should I work on next") but it being twisted into a series of incantations and rituals by those looking to bend it for the purposes of more and more intricate views into how we spend every moment of our day.
Damn, it's almost like Gender is largely vibes and any attempt to root it in a strict biological standard is as patently ridiculous as it would be trying to do the same to horoscopes.
Giving birth is already not a precondition of being a woman, as the category "infertile women" exist.
Imagine the organization you are imagining in your head.
Now imagine there is a Super-boss, who is exactly like the "people running the business" (attribution needed), but one level above them.
If the Super Boss were to look at the situation, I think it'd be pretty obvious that the issue would be "The people organizing the company at the highest level" who are responsible for the failures of the company. That may involve over-hiring, which is itself a bad practice that causes unnecessary pain and (personal, financial) suffering, and would be a good cause to fire them for almost crashing my beautiful super-company that I, the Super-boss, super-founded.
You're saying that if we return the Super-boss to the realm of the fictional, then suddenly it isn't the C-suite's fault anymore?
If we're discussing should, then yeah, their heads should be the first to roll. I agree its idealistic to imagine them having the sort of decency this requires, but I agree it should be the case!
We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.