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?

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

Strangers asking for directions in the street and co-workers passing pens to each other across the room are examples of incorporating markets into wider circuits of social life?

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

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."

They found freedom from servitude in profit-making. Their markets became cities. They tore down Christianity and built back a version that accepted them as being just as human as the nobility.

It wasn't about efficiency. It was about becoming human. — frank

You're getting into deeper philosophy here which touches on Hume, Hobbes and Locke and Emerson. It is hard or even impossible to separate both utilitarianism and transcendentalism from capitalism as it became expressed in the ages after the dominance of aristocracy and royalty.

Essentially, people that found themselves with the means to compete with aristocracy wanted to express and manifest their own desires but without the constraints of a heraldic order. It is important to remember that the nobles and royalty were as constrained by social standards - even moreso than the commoners were.

The early "capitalists" or "bourgeoise" may have been preaching fraternity and liberty for all men, but they really just meant all men like themselves. "All men (like myself) are endowed by certain inalienable rights" but not my slaves or women or the laborers from overseas.

An interesting point in this is the "free labor" movement that brought Abraham Lincoln to power.

Of course, there were abolitionists that simply argues slavery was immoral. However, Lincoln was not one of these. Instead, he had been born in Kentucky, a slave state, where his laborer father could not make a living competing with slave labor. His family moved to Indiana and finally to Illinois where his father could make a minimal living wage since he did not have to compete with slaves.

The argument against slavery that Lincoln typified was not essentially moral but based in capitalism. Labor was a commodity that workers should be able to market unencumbered by other men. Even Marx would write pro-Lincoln articles in this regard. Therefore, slavery - though it was the engine of capital especially in the form of the most valuable commodity of the age, Cotton - was inherently anti-capitalist in the view of Lincoln and most Republicans of the time.

So, it is a paradox that slavery provided the basis of our modern capital but at the same time was abolished by capitalist principles.

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. — Streetlight

I didn't say capitalism should be understood as being all about finance. Neoliberalism put finance at the center of the global economy.

This is probably wrong, but it's the best I can do right now:

1. Embedded liberalism exists post WW2.
2. This, along with active labor unions results in high wages.
3. This leads to a problem with capital accumulation. For some reason, the point is reached where banks can't make a profit and credit starts to disappear.
4. Stagflation arrives due to an oil supply shock, and this opens the door for the "manufacture of consent" for an economic overhaul that ultimately destroys the power of unions.
5. Eventually America has reduced industrialization, a much more timid workforce, a new elite, and a new middle class that fully embraces neoliberal principles.

6. 2008 arrives, and we've been in limbo ever since. Real wages, which were already low, are even lower post 2008, and this is supposed to have caused Trump's election.

7. High inflation is now setting in and real wages are dropping even further.

I think neoliberalism was supposed to create social stratification for the sake of capital accumulation. The stratification didn't end up being linear over time. It's accelerating?

This is utter nonsense. — frank

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

:snicker:

The beauty, if it is, of capitalism is that you can lend the same money to 10 different people, at least that's how it is in the US according to Yuval Noah Harari. That's called killing two birds with one stone or for the more animal rights oriented, feeding two birds with one scone. It's a most ingenious scheme if you ask me. By the way I'm a poor person!

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?

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

The argument against slavery that Lincoln typified was not essentially moral but based in capitalism. — ASmallTalentForWar

Do you have an example of Lincoln expressing this perspective? Specifically the free labor angle.

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? — Streetlight

I think essentially it is similar to trying to define any concept. It only has meaning in relation to the context in which it functions. Capitalism obviously asserts capital, but what is capital? Capital is at heart the ability to take some sort of action. The ability is the legitimate right to take that action. So, it is a question of what conveys that right. In mercantilism, it was the aristocratic or royal power inherited by familial descendance. In capitalism, it was the free choice of men by their own personal wealth (owners) or the application of their own labor (workers). Even though that wealth may have originally been generated by the aristocracy, the transformation was that it moved freely separate from the strictures of aristocratic social structure.

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.

Do you have an example of Lincoln expressing this perspective? Specifically the free labor angle. — frank

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor – the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all – gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. — Abraham Lincoln

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.

And where does he condemn slavery specifically because free laborers have to compete with slaves?

And where does he condemn slavery specifically because free laborers have to compete with slaves? — frank

He didn't. His arguments had two objectives. First, he did not oppose slavery in the south, he opposed slavery in any new territories. Second, the slave owners made the argument that "wage slavery" in the North or free states was even worse than slavery on plantations(it wasn't really) so he had to argue that even though wage labor could be very oppressive, the worker still had the opportunity to escape it while slaves never had such an ability.

Lincoln did not condemn slavery in the sense that the abolitionists did before he was elected, and his actions against slavery were never on philosophical grounds but to, in the end, weaken his opposition. Nevertheless, the free soil and free labor movement are what put him in power and eventually what won the civil war.

But this is quite wrong. Capitalism can only take root where it's 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 constarined by the fetters of feudalism. The articulation of liberalism was an effort to express that in ideational form. — Streetlight

However, even where capitalism can take root, it does not do so without the liberal ideology to support it. Mercantilism or feudalism can also express itself in exactly the same conditions. So, the explanation why capitalism expresses itself arises in the liberal ideology rather than the conditions.

Nevertheless, the free soil and free labor movement are what put him in power and eventually what won the civil war. — ASmallTalentForWar

This isn't true, but it's off topic to pursue it. :wink:

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.

What we had in the American south was a pseudo-Aristocratic society producing the essential material for the industrial revolution (cotton) based on capitalist and liberal principles. Even in the south, we had people that were not planters (slave owners) suffering under the political dominance of the plantations as they controlled not only their own votes but the limited voting accountability of their slaves (2/3's of a white man). The northern mill-owners wanted to break the economic dominance of these southerners and the moralistic abolitionists were not going to be able to do that.

Lincoln was a moderate in this sense and his principles aligned with theirs. This is what gave him the advantage in his pursuit of the presidency. The abolition of slavery was essentially an economic necessity and he even for a time proposed sending all the slaves back to Africa so America's workforce would be entirely white and free.

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. — Streetlight

But that is not capitalism in the ideal sense. Class positions break down to aristocratic without the ideal of social mobility - and infinite development. The constraints of the real world will tend toward accumulation of wealth that ends in an aristocratic and royal system, but capitalism is based on an infinite frontier that can provide opportunities for all free men. For capitalism to flourish, there always needs to be a "new world" or "digital frontier" but we always seem to regress or settle back into the normal hierarchies of king and commoner.

Additionally, even in the oligarchical system - or robber baron - which is the aristocratic version of capitalism, the oligarch will not be able to pass on his wealth to a genetic heir - or more to the point, whatever heirs he may have will not be able to hold onto it, so a new frontier opens up as soon as the oligarchs pass away and it opens a new surge of capital for the opportunity of the next class of capitalists.

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.

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

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.

This is what gave him the advantage in his pursuit of the presidency. — ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Southern Democrats walked out of the 1859 Democratic National Convention and subsequently ran their own candidate, splitting pro-slavery vote. That's how Lincoln won.

The abolition of slavery was essentially an economic necessity — ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Dred Scott decision promised to nationalize slavery, and the wisdom of the time was that once this happened slavery would never be uprooted from the USA.

Lincoln was a moderate in this sense and his principles aligned with theirs — ASmallTalentForWar

Lincoln made his principles known. He believed that slavery was a threat to the vision of the free society. Once people get used to someone else doing their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom.

This is what gave him the advantage in his pursuit of the presidency.
— ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Southern Democrats walked out of the 1859 Democratic National Convention and subsequently ran their own candidate, splitting pro-slavery vote. That's how Lincoln won.

The abolition of slavery was essentially an economic necessity
— ASmallTalentForWar

No, the Dred Scott decision promised to nationalize slavery, and the wisdom of the time was that once this happened slavery would never be uprooted from the USA.

Lincoln was a moderate in this sense and his principles aligned with theirs
— ASmallTalentForWar

Lincoln made his principles known. He believed that slavery was a threat to the vision of the free society. Once people get used to someone else doing their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom. — frank

None of that contradicts my assertions.

How did Lincoln get into the position so that the split vote gave him the advantage? The defining characteristic of his campaign was the free soil movement.

The Dred Scott decision threatened the economic interests of his supporters who wanted the frontier to be primarily free labor.

A free society to Lincoln essentially meant free labor.

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.

How did Lincoln get into the position so that the split vote gave him the advantage? — ASmallTalentForWar

The Whig Party fell apart after the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln was instrumental in gathering all the anti-slavery groups together into the Republican Party. It was said that the more experienced politicians chose him as the presidential candidate because he was politically naive and they thought they would be able to control him.

The free society to Lincoln essentially meant free labor. — ASmallTalentForWar

That's incorrect. It meant social mobility.

I don't know what you are talking about. — Streetlight

Back at you. It feels like the old idea of someone asking what something means but providing no real context.

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.

It's a simple process determined by both markets and currency value as measures but not inherent elements of the process - essentially the game and the scoreboard.

That's incorrect. It meant social mobility. — frank

Mobility by what process other than the fruits of one's labor?

Mobility by what process other than the fruits of one's labor? — ASmallTalentForWar

The vision of the free society is about social roles. No one is locked into a particular role.