Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism. — Xtrix

Mm, but that's why I've argued that the employer/employee distinction follows from, or arises under the conditions in which, capitalism has already begun in institute itself. To condense the question, what is the differentia specifica of capitalism? It is market-dependency (which in turn undergirds the pursuit of profit, which is the other pole of capitalism?), or is it the class relation of capitalist and worker, employer and employee?

Two points to make: first, that employer-employee relations predated capitalism: contractual obligations between workers and employers can be found all through antiquity and the middle ages, even if not the predominant form of labour; second, while I agree that the predominance of capitalist-worker relations do track with the advent of capitalism, they, again, follow from the dispossession of the means of production (farms, looms, equipment, institutions of learning and apprenticeship), and only once they are taken possession of by capitalists who turn it all into pure capital: means of profit making. Again, the market-dependence comes first.

That all said! These distinctions are primarily analytic before they are strategic. Regarding what you said might count as a 'flaw' in your reasoning, that worker-control never represents 'the entire community', believe it or not I don't think that's a flaw. Primarily because I don't think 'the entire community' is something totalizable: politics and community take shape in their working themselves out. People and communities are not little pre-made packages of interests and desires! Which brings me to the question of what you call solutions: how mitigate market-dependency?

Well, some very basic socialist principles!: enable and institute a robust thriving baseline from which people can participate in their communities: this means housing for all (and if this means abolishing housing rent, then so be it), deep and well oiled healthcare systems not subject to profit, expansive and accessible public transport systems (which means eliminating car dependency and vastly mitigating oil dependency!), the absolute commitment to food and water security, which would in turn mean agricultural production that itself is not dictated by market imperatives and so on. None of this is particularly original, and you among other will have heard it all before.

But what's important about these things is not that they're just, as it were, goods in themselves - although they are that - but because they count as the minimal conditions from freeing ourselves from market-dependency. If there is a place for markets in the future where the planet is not dead - i.e not our current future - it's going to be as a stratified layer on top of, not our 'basic' needs, but our incredibly well-met wants. Markets will be luxuries, side-projects, art-affairs. And of course, worker control will be key to all this too.

you read into that that my position was that the best course of action for the US is to do that which would instigate immoral activity on the part of the Russians. — Hanover

Talk of "reading into"... Perhaps you can quote where I said that of your post?

No, what you're frankly out to do is continuously reiterate your narrative that you have some special understanding of the situation that somehow evades everyone else and so you stomp your feet around like that should make us better believe you. — Hanover

Except I don't have any special insight. My sources are fucking TIME magazine. And basic reporting, say, of the European refugee crisis. None of this is special, not one bit. It only seems special in the face of the vomitus regurgitation of US propaganda talking points regularly and dutifully reproduced by participants in this thread. Your post just happened to be one among a long line of many that has tried to reduce and downplay American culpability by reducing world politics to some morality play for children with some help of metaphysical categories employed only by the most seasoned 18th century romantics.

Do not confuse the inconvenince of what I say with your ability to screen it out of consideration because it does not fit the approved script you run by.

So no answer then. OK.

Sure. What is the connection between this?:

I agree with you that capitalism has become more and more widespread, nearly universal, as a socio-economic model and practice; and I haven't said otherwise. This is now so deeply entrenched that I think there is little hope it will change; not as we might want it to and certainly not rapidly. This is because there is no clear figurehead which represents it which could be overthrown, as was possible with feudalism.

So, as I see it, sweeping, rapid change is unthinkable and not worth wasting any intellectual effort on. The only way to effect any (modest) change at all will be from within the system itself. The system is now a juggernaut which cannot willfully be stopped, although it could indeed collapse, and inevitably will, if we don't address the problems of overpopulation, environmental pollution and destruction, resource depletion, impoverishment and destruction of soils, global warming, etc, etc. Problem is we can't predict when or how that will happen, so for the time being it is possible to remain in general denial — Janus

And you being wrong about this?:

The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus

Which is what I was responding to.

Still not answering my question.

(And no, you didn't claim capitalism is an abstract matter, but that is what your claim comes down to; in any case it doesn't matter. You made an assertion. I'm asking you to account for it.)

Everything I have written has to do with what I originally wrote, if not with the OP itself. — Janus

Then no doubt you can spell out the connection between treating capitalism wrongly as an abstract matter of profit growth and two paragraphs of wallowing defeatism.

I'm not out to "contradict" what you said, I'm out to dispute the frankly infantile framing of what you said. Can you imagine a state department lackey writing a white paper on geopolitics of Ukraine analyzing things in terms of "free will" and "moral responsibility"? They would be fired on the spot or else laughed at and told never to write that again on pain of infinate embarrassment. It's just so incredibly stupid.

Xtrix asked if the US contributed to the mess in Ukraine. And your response is a parable about bad parents and free will? What is this? Seasame Street?

Time Magazine in Janurary 2021:

At a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security in September 2019, Soufan urged lawmakers to take the threat more seriously. The following month, 40 members of Congress signed a letter calling—unsuccessfully—for the U.S. State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization. “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years,” the letter said. Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, later confirmed in testimony to the U.S. Senate that American white supremacists are “actually traveling overseas to train.”

The hearings on Capitol Hill glossed over a crucial question: How did Azov, an obscure militia started in 2014 with only a few dozen members, become so influential in the global web of far-right extremism? ... From across Europe and the U.S., dozens of fighters came to join Azov that year, many of them bearing tattoos and rap sheets earned in the neo-Nazi underground back home. The Ukrainian authorities welcomed many of them, and in some cases granted them citizenship."

https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/

Propagandized fucking morons in March 2022: "lol Nazis in Ukraine are Putin propaganda lol"

It's why we don't throw bad parents in jail for the acts of their children. It's that quaint notion of free will. — Hanover

Ah yes, the infant-won't-go-to-bed theory of international politics. Nevermind that the US activtely encouraged and spurred on this war, and frankly couldn't be more enthusiastic about every dead Ukranian that gets blown to bits by Russian bullets. Yeah, in the face of tens of thousands of dead people, the best we can do is - because apparently humans are incapable of any sense of complexity and must treat their international politics like a bedtime story - 'pick a side'.

"Free will". Imagine using this Christian metaphysical bullshit to think about how to understand the geopolitics of Ukraine and expect to be taken seriously.

Well, the Somalian government (that use the blue flag with the white star) are happy that the US are back. But that small detail doesn't matter I guess. — ssu

Last I checked this is exactly what Russia has claimed of Ukraine. But sure, pick your propaganda as you see fit for the side of the imperial murderers you like best, whom you do your utmost to cheerlead.

Wow cool you can quote a year old article maybe narrow your Google searches to the last 24 hours and you can offer me some amateur analysis about more things you know nothing about while adorning it with useless infographics that no one pays attention to.

They really need to improve their advertising for it, because at the moment it almost looks as if no one gives a shit because they're black. — Isaac

Well the US state department has not released a statement condemning the war in Somalia, so our friends here don't have any script to follow. It's not their fault.

https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1184575/europe-accused-of-double-standard-on-ukrainian-refugees/

That said the Europeans it's true absolutely fucking loathe anyone who is not lily-white so they will welcome their Ukranian refugees with open arms while letting those horrible Africans bloat at sea.

Also I stand with Somalia against the US special military operation although probably those here who like to run cover for Nazis don't have much to say about the US invasion of a nation of black people:

This Putin propaganda?



Or did this extensive Western media coverage of Nazis in Ukraine retroactively become Putin propaganda only as it became expedient to American interests, which you parrot?

Russia: If NATO keeps moving East we will probably use violence

NATO: moves East.

Russia: Uses violence.

NATO apologists: Oh no the only solution to this is to expand NATO more. Crazy how Putin blames Nazis.

Even though, as it so happens, Ukraine is in fact crawling with fucking Nazis, now armed with American weapons, downplayed by Nazi apologists like ssu.

Stick to issues you know. — ssu

I know very well when you fabricate completely incredulous trash out of nowhere. I've seen it so much I'm practically an expert. Like: the West is very tired of war; or, NATO has not really given all that much thought to nuclear weapons deployment in Europe.

It really wasn't about Minsk protocols or NATO enlargement. That should be obvious when the leader starts to talk about denazification. — ssu

Yeah yeah, NATO are innocent little babes and Putin is just a video game baddie. Oh and Ukraine is not chock full of Nazis inspiring murderers in the US who wear the same insignias that Zelensky's pal soldiers like to parade around in. The same Nazis you like to run PR for on behest of the American state department.

Yeah, NATO is "not likely to have planned" for the literal reason for their entire existence. Uh huh. At least make the things you pull out of the sky semi-fathomable.

And it really was hype from the US, whether or not Russia attacked or not. They could not have been more excited. They are even more so now. They get two more nation whores in Sweden and Finland to fuck.

None of this has to do with states investing in private enterprise. It has to do with the state bailing out private enterprises when then fail of their own accord; or else guaranteeing their profits even in the face of market failure; or even lack of markets, for that matter.

Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well. — Xtrix

Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? To be clear, I'm all for this in a strategic sense. So long as capitalism is ascendant, sure, let's make everyone, every worker, a capitalist. This would immeasurably improve life of everyone on Earth.

But to pick up on public transport: if the condition of reproduction (survival) of say, a worker-owned public transport system is still, say, its ability to make profits (and it still would be, even if if it is worker owned), its still not clear that they would not eliminate, say, necessary but little used routes. Or buy cheaper, but more polluting buses to keep costs down. Or build train tracks that geographically cater to other corporate (but worker-owned) interests, rather than social need? Like, I'm not saying all this stuff will happen, and it is almost certainly less likely to happen than under current circumstances.

But so long as the damoclean sword of market-dependency - and as I understand it, capitalism - hangs over it all, these temptations will be structural and not individual. It's less about intentions than just survival. But really, my interest here is using this as something like a litmus test for what counts and does not count as capitalism. I think it's important to see exactly where its limits and borders are, if only to understand better what might or can lie beyond them. It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip.

It can be more productive to expand the discussion of contemporary capitalism beyond the framework of “the exchange/production distinction so that production becomes production-for-market.” — Number2018

To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation. As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity. — Number2018

I think such discussions have their place, but are they ultimately consequences of capitalism. Yet people cannot even get their head around basic principles, and so confuse markets, interest, finance, and profit with the existence of capitalism. There is interest in talking about individuation and so on, but at some point this stuff is mystifying rather than clarifying if our basic concepts are not fixed.

Is there a kernel of truth in my thinking the state taking on private risk is least talked about (albeit most consequential) because it is a critical phase of the economic life of a mature capitalist state wherein it starts to move toward socialism strategically?

Moreover, have you seen this movement towards state-run economy attributes in other mature capitalist economies that are nearing market saturation (in the absence of wars of conquest), thus suggesting as capitalism matures, it's compelled to move away from free market purity towards a complex, mixed capitalist-socialist economy? — ucarr

There is nothing socialist about states taking on private risk. The risk being taken on is that of corporations, without any concomitant control; ownership remains in private hands, and states taking on such risk simply means that corporate failure is ultimately underwritten by taxpayers. It is capitalism taken to the nth degree such that private enterprise parasitizes on public finances. The socialization of risk place more burdens on society, to the benefit of capital. It cannot in any possible way be understood as socialism.

If you ask what is "capitalism" -well, that is only a concept and concepts only exist in relation to their context. So, conceptually, capitalism is simply the application of capital. Capital is the legitimization of any action by social agreement. Social agreement means investment by a communities shareholders. Finally, the success of one's actions is judged by the creation of greater capital and failure by the diminishment of all shareholder's capital. — ASmallTalentForWar

All of this is wrong. People do not live under "concepts". People live in realities, of which capitalism is one. If you keep trying to understand capitalism as an idea and not a reality, you will not understand it, and confuse the issue in perpetuity.

However, that is the only "real" version of capitalism available. It's like baseball. I can tell you all the rules involved in the game, but knowing every last detail of the rules of the game will not tell you anything about how an actual game will turn out.

So, do you want to play a game of baseball (or watch one) or know how the game is played? That is essentially the problem of defining capitalism. What happens on the field is not going to match perfectly to the rule book. — ASmallTalentForWar

I don't know what you are talking about.

But that is not capitalism in the ideal sense. — ASmallTalentForWar

I'm not concerned with 'capitalism in the ideal sense'. A red herring, ignorable forever.

However, even where capitalism can take root, it does not do so without the liberal ideology to support it. — ASmallTalentForWar

Says who? I mean, sure, capitalists retroactively justify their class position with all sorts of fairy tales, but the fairy tales do not preceed those class positions.

So, capitalism was inherently associated with early ideas of liberalism where individuals could make choices that were not constrained by the aristocratic society. It is an expression of social philosophy, and not primarily economic. — ASmallTalentForWar

But this is quite wrong. Capitalism can only take root where its conditions of reproduction can be secured. And those conditions are material, and not ideational. Liberalism's ascendency was a reflection of the growing and real power of the bourgeoisie in society who did indeed feel constrained by the fetters of feudalism. The articulation of liberalism was an effort to express that in ideational form, and secure an intellectual foundation for their own preferred mode of extraction.

Not sure what point you're making other than writing a book report on that one Mark Blyth book you read once?

You can't really define or understand capitalism unless you look at what its original proponents intended it to replace. — ASmallTalentForWar

Intentions are really quite irrelevant in the face of reality. But really, I do agree with most of what you're saying. I guess I'm not sure how it is meant to function as a response to what I wrote?

From 2021, but imagine this shit being sustainable - not for life, which it clearly isn't, but for capitalism itself:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-rings-alarm-collapsing-market-breadth-51-all-market-gains-april-are-just-5-stocks

"Goldman then calculates that just the five most popular tech names - AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, TSLA, GOOGL - have contributed 51% of S&P 500 returns since April. After contributing over double their starting weight to the index’s return, these stocks now make up 22% of the S&P 500 by market cap, a 4% increase from the start of the year."

The point is that markets already are incorporated into wider circuits of social life. The relevant question is one of dependancy or not.

I largely disagree, but none of this has much to do with what you originally wrote, nor what I was replying to.

Anyway, I clearly need to say more about finance and profit, and their relation to markets, since these things are clearly causing issues.

Worth starting with profit, a notion which is sorely missing from the OP. Picking up where I left off with @Janus: Yes, it is in fact the case that the pursuit of profit is the abstract heart of capitalism, and it (capitalism) only reproduces itself in and as the pursuit of ever more profits on an ever widening scale. Production on the face of it has nothing to do with this, and capital will in fact flow to wherever in the economy and world where it can make profits. Which is what we see today with the massive shift in activity from the so-called real economy into finance and speculative activity. Hence the predominance of rent, debt, the stock market, housing going out of control, private equity, stock buybacks, investment fund ballooning and so on. Basically, all the pathologies of contemporary economies. Fine.

But the Marxist rejoinder is twofold: first, that this can't continue indefinitely. Why? Because people need to fucking eat and not be dead. Which can't really happen very well when 'growth without production' is the functioning principle of one's economy. There are, as it were, natural, or rather, material constraints on this kind of growth. Which is again why this kind of thing cannot be thought about in the abstract apart from the conditions of its reproduction. Second, it can't continue because at the end of the day, finance is parasitic on the real economy (i.e. production and consumption) as the condition of its own existence and growth to begin with. Merely pointing out, as @Frank does, the preponderance of finance is meaningless if it not recognized that the financial house of cards is built upon the ever more thinning foundation of an economy that still needs people to eat and not be dead.

Which is in turn why capitalism can never, and will never, be adequately thought apart from understanding its roots in production. Capitalism may be about profits above all, but there is in fact one thing above that: which is its own reproduction, and securing the conditions under which such such profits can be infinitely pursued, whether in finance, or anywhere else. That all said, one real tendency is the effort of capitalism to undermine itself. It has never really had a problem demolishing societies and people in pursuit of profits, along with its own conditions of reproduction, so long as it substitutes new conditions for the old ones. But I think this ability to 'substitute' is reaching its limit, precisely because finance's ever extending divorce from the real economy. Capitalism always moved forward by revolutionising the 'forces of production'. But those revolutions are coming ever more to an end. Is it any surprise that we're in the middle of an unprecedented crisis of capitalist innovation?

After the saturation of globalization and failures of neoliberalism, is it any surprise that the cutting edge of innovation is... dogecoin? Or else that stupid juicer that was meant to revolutionize silicon valley?

The essence of capitalism is capital growth or profit, over and above any growth in actual products. — Janus

But this is not true. Or at least, this remains only a partial truth, and far too abstract. One needs to make a distinction between the mere existence of capitalist enterprises and capitalism as generalized mode of production. It's true that capitalist enterprises - enterprises whose raison d'etre is to make profits - have been around since whenever. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is when social reproduction (the reproduction of society) becomes dependent on such enterprises, and relies upon them as a condition of their existence. That's the 'ism' part of capital-ism. This is broadly why one can make a distinction between feudalism and capitalism, even as instances of capitalist enterprise could be found all through feudal society.

In other words, capitalism in unthinkable without taking into account the securing of its conditions of reproduction. And those conditions are precisely the point at which the production process in general becomes 'subsumbed' - in Marx's words - to the capital. In yet other words, you cannot think about capitalism as an abstract schema ("capital growth and profit') without taking historical account of when such efforts at growth and profit became generalizable, reproducible, and, as they say, structural - i.e. when societies become dependant on such processes of generalizing and reproducibility.

Capitalism needs to be understood in materialist terms, not idealist ones. Usury may be capital growth without production; but without taking into account the material conditions under which such efforts at capital growth are reproducible, then you're just talking words, and not history, or, for that matter, reality.

At heart, the implication is that money is the proper measurement of economic activity, but that is only true is the currency of transaction is limited by the real activity of an economy. — ASmallTalentForWar

Again, holding fast to the distinction between exchange and production, this does not get to the heart of capitalism insofar as it tries to understand capitalism in terms of exchange. Like thinking of capitalism in terms of markets, this too is a common mistake, but it is still a mistake. But I will try and say something more about money and finance when I have time because clearly there is alot of confusion that stems from this.

It's about profit. — frank

It is about profit, but it is not just about profit. And it's not about 'hitting capitalism with one dart'. It's about understanding the specificity of capitalism, rather than drowning it in ahistoricisms. Again, profit has also been around since forever, and is not specifically capitalist.

Four things capitalism is not: profit, markets, interest, and money. Can we add more?

The headache with capitalism is the concept of profit tied to the accumulation of currency. If the currency is connected to some real economic base then that makes sense in that its accumulation will be restrained by real world transactional value. However, when it becomes solely imaginary numbers, then the association with currency and profit is not truly capitalist. — ASmallTalentForWar

Again, this is another thing that is straightforwardly wrong and ahistorical. Money is yet another thing that has been around long before capitalism.

So that's at least three things we can now say capitalism is not: markets, interest, and money (or finance rather). These kinds of confusions are fun to clear up.

I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. (I read the thread three times) And I don't mean to say that this is the fault of Streetlight. I mean, my reading comprehension, for some reason, is low when reading this thread. I take this seriously; and I don't have an answer. I'm sure this is a well thought-out thread. — L'éléphant

Damn. I tried to make it as clear as I could. @Tom Storm is exactly right to pick up the production/exchange distinction as the key to it all though. Maybe I should specify: "production" literally just means: the making of stuff. And exchange just means: the moving of stuff from one person (or entity) to another (and vice versa). And that one problem with thinking about capitalism is that alot of people think capitalism has to do with how stuff is exchanged, and not how stuff made. Or rather, where or what stuff is made for - for markets, or for other, social reasons?

Interest, or the realization of profit, or increase in capital. without having to produce anything, seems to be the essence of capitalism. — Janus

But this is straightforwardly wrong. Interest has been around long before capitalism has. To imagine that interest is the diffentia specifica of capitalism is simply to ignore history and pretty much anything anyone has ever understood by capitalism. If you want to call that capitalism you can - I can't stop you - but you and I - and most of the rest of the universe - would then simply be talking about two entirely different things.

That said, there is a grain of truth that the OPs presentation is somewhat outdated. Something strange has indeed occured with the ascension of finance, which is the shift from commodification to assestization as the key driver of the economy. I mentioned this in my 'note on financialization'. It's true that this deserves to be further thought though, but the OP's focus was to distinguish markets from capitalism above all, rather than be a proper diagnosis of the present. We can talk about the latter of course.

Hopefully you know what the US nuclear triad means. Hence two of those legs of the triad aren't in any NATO country, but in CONUS and on (under) the seas. What are deployed in NATO countries are the old free fall nukes, which also can be dropped by some aircraft of NATO countries. But these are limited and notice that the nuclear weapons haven't been deployed to Eastern NATO states (the map above). So it's extremely unlikely that they would be deployed (meaning that they are storaged) into Sweden or Finland. — ssu

Yeah and ths US and NATO "likely have not thought about" this, but you, random ass person who says wrong things all the time on the internet, have. Please excuse me while I laugh to infinity.

Oh good, coming from you, this means I am exactly correct.