Yet even here, neither the generalization nor the reproduction of the conditions impersonal production is enough to get us to capitalism. One further, crucial step needs to be taken. And this involves looking not at ‘exchange’ - how goods or money circulate - but production. In the absence of impersonal exchange, the production of stuff often does not take place for the market. Rather, one produces so that one can pay the lord’s taxes; or else one produces so that one can feed one’s family. And so on. However, once impersonal exchange becomes wide-spread enough, it brings with it a change in the ‘who’ or ‘what’ production is geared towards: no longer lords and family, but markets. — Streetlight

I believe modern day capitalism is derived from the practise of mass production. It came upon us hand in hand with the industrial revolution. Huge factories to produce huge quantities of goods required huge amounts of capital to establish. Technical advancements propagate capitalism, assembly line appliances, cars, airplanes, these factories all need to be retooled each time there's a change in the marketplace, and change requires more capital. Our throw-away society produces a greater need for goods, and the new ones must always be an upgrade from the old.

Inherent within capitalism is the practise of making profit from a loan, what we call interest. This is a side-shoot of capitalism, and it can be apprehended as a sort of easy-money, which gives privilege to those already endowed. That creates the appearance of a financial inequality amongst people, allowing for a privileged class of those who have the freedom of easy-money.

So, I decided to self-diagnose the affliction I contracted reading this thread ( :sweat: sorry for lack of a better metaphor. I posted previously that I did not recognize the kind of capitalism I had in mind when reading Streetlight's OP and succeeding filling-in on this thread).

That said, I really like threads like this because there's truly a great effort made (on the part of Streetlight) in bringing out issues that require understanding of nuances.

Here's my objection to the prevailing sentiment within this thread:

Yet even here, neither the generalization nor the reproduction of the conditions impersonal production is enough to get us to capitalism. One further, crucial step needs to be taken. ....

It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism. Markets bear upon issues of exchange: how goods move from one set of hands to another. Capitalism..., cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. — Streetlight

I am challenging the bolded sections of the passage above because these are simply not what define capitalism. Rather, they occur despite capitalism. So, my confusion is brought about by these two features that were already present in other economic systems that are not capitalism.

So what are these other economic systems that somewhat resemble capitalism except in the most crucial, essential way? The socialist economic system and planned economy or centrally planned economy or command economy, among others. Mode of production and impersonal markets are features of these economies, too. Except that there is a central authority that makes the decisions as to the production and distribution of goods. So, the shift in decision-making and control are what distinguish these non-capitalist economies from capitalism. Put another way, all economies have the generalized impersonal markets and production for market. So the truly distinguishing features aren't those, but who has control and decision-making over production and distribution of all goods and services. (There's a lot to unpack here, but I hope this vague description drives the point).

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding? — Xtrix

Thank god I wasn't thinking of Marxism. And I don't know if this is even relevant to say, but I took economics in graduate level and political economic system in the undergraduate level, so I'm pretty sure my confusion did not come from that.

1. George buys a car for his own use. There's no capitalism there.

2. George buys a car to sell. This is capitalism. — frank

This distinction is meaningless and pretends economic activity consist of an atomic structure instead of a web that influences and affects everything around it. There's no capitalism in the first because George can also buy a car in North Korea and there's no capitalism in the second because that's just an example of speculation, which people did well before the rise of capitalism.

Then your earlier example of financialisation misses the point. Only a profit driven system will create increasing financial abstractions to increase market efficiency (and therefore profit) without creating anything of added value - eg. only wealth but no welfare is "created" or as anti-capitalists will point out "extracted" from, at least, the real economy if not just labour. So we have complex derivatives like the"ever-rolling snowball" (until it doesn't roll) and MBS but also high speed traders that really don't add anything but a fraction of a basispoint off your mortgage but a fraction of a few billion in mortgages adds up to a tidy profit. However, it's not a service consumers need or indeed makes their lives any better because increased complexity is married to a minimum of risk controls (cost cutting) and balance sheets aimed at business continuity (dividend payments instead of buffers).

One potential consequence is that our political governance changes along with corporate governance. Externalities and foreign trade would still exist, but would be much less of a problem — because the state would be acting under different pressures from a different set of interests. It wouldn’t be “profit over everything”, there would be less short term thinking, more investment in communities and general welfare. — Xtrix

It won't be profit over everything sure. For those part of that specific corporation. But they will continue to externalise costs where they can and there's also the nimby-principle. Don't get me wrong, I think stakeholder capitalism is already an improvement but I don't think it's enough. An additional step I would include is a dynamic equity system. That way every employee becomes a capitalist.

For instance, you have 10 corporations with stocks that compete. As it currently stands in the world we have, if one of these ten corporations desires to invest some of its profits in being non-toxic to the environment, it will make less profits in the short term. Stock owners will then tend to invest in any of the other 9 corporations, resulting in this one environmentally sound corporation loosing out and, quite possibly, going out of existence. The corporations with short-sighted interest profit at the expense of those with long-sighted interests, as so too profit those investors in stocks who don’t care about long-term consequences but about their short-term profits. — javra

This suggests shares trading affects investment but that's not how it works. Share trading doesn't result in investment, that already happened when the shares were issued. Reduced profit expectations will lead to some sell off leading to a lower share price and therefore a lower market capitalisation.

Put another way, all economies have the generalized impersonal markets and production for market. — L'éléphant

Capitalism does not succeed in creating impersonal markets, The personal relations are just disguised, so as not to appear as part of the actual market. Consider advertising for example, it's nothing but a personal appeal. This we call marketing.

The closest capitalism gets to an impersonal market is the stock market. But here the only goods being exchanged is the capital itself, being marketed for a return on investment. The appeal is the appeal of easy-money which requires no advertising.

It appears like the only way to escape personal relations in the market is to market something which is not a true "good" in the first place, easy-money. Or is it the case that goods which require marketing are not true goods, because they won't sell without advertising, and the only true good is the one which everyone desires (easy-money) without the need for advertising?

So, has anyone here actually read some attempts to define what makes an economy capitalistic? Because it would probably cut down alot of verbage. I'm not seeing many references.

So, starting from the top (i.m blanking on who started this thread), here's a question. Where is the capital in this definition of capitalism? By capital, I mean resources or money which are employed in order to purchase the materials for the production of commodities (raw materials, tools) and labour, commodities being items being produced to be sold on the market at a profit (hopefully, for the seller). This doesn't seem to be in the definition above, but if we don't have this, we can't distinguish between capitalism, and some kind of society where everyone is self-employed.

This is what we get in Marx, and other classical economists. Now I don't want to say other economists aren't available, but this is what I'm most familiar with at least.

We need to get the basics right before going off into what kind of effects these economies have on people, where they come from historically, and so on.

Also - command economies aren't market economies. There is a whole - very famous - economic debate about whether central planning can compete with the market in terms of information distributions between the producers, with Friedrich Hayek, Von Mises etc. on one side, and Oskar Lange and others on the other. Check out the wikipedia entry on "Economic Calculation Problem"

This is inaccurate on so many levels I can only advise you to read an actual history of Europe during medieval times and the renaissance.

This suggests shares trading affects investment but that's not how it works. — Benkei

I don't want to bicker on the details of how things work; it's not a field I deem myself to be sufficiently knowledgeable about.

But I am curious to know if you disagree with the overall conclusion that current markets by and large select for short-sighted / short-term interests at the expense of long-sighted / long-term interests.

The gas prices of tomorrow verses the global economic insecurity of global warming as one, granted simplistic, example.

Capitalism does not succeed in creating impersonal markets, The personal relations are just disguised, so as not to appear as part of the actual market. Consider advertising for example, it's nothing but a personal appeal. This we call marketing. — Metaphysician Undercover

For purposes of expediency, let's stick to the description below that Streetlight provided, see quote below. I'm cool with it. So, if that is so, then capitalism and other economic systems do necessarily form impersonal markets. Not to be confused with market economy whose umbilical cord is tied to capitalism. As you can see, the latter is a special term given to describe what happens in capitalism.

A market is, first and foremost, a site of what might be called impersonal exchange. It is ‘impersonal’ insofar that those who participate do not, for the most part, have any pre-existing obligations, bonds, or relations to one another. This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. — Streetlight

command economies aren't market economies. — RolandTyme

I don't know if you're directing this to my post. But my response to this is, at the moment I can't entertain inchoate comments as this thread has too many important points and already several pages long.

The socialist economic system and planned economy or centrally planned economy or command economy, among others. Mode of production and impersonal markets are features of these economies, too — L'éléphant

Two things. First, and least important - it is a mistake to conflate command economies with 'socialist economic systems'. This is a caricature, one often pushed by Americans for whom state control counts as the antithesis of capitalism. It is not. But this is a minor point. In any case capitalist economies are shot through from top to bottom with 'planning', albeit planning for the sake of profits, rather than anything else.

Second and far more important: a command economy is the opposite of impersonal exchange: it thoroughly personalizes (or rather, socializes) a market such that exchange in a command economy are precisely not spot exchanges. Market 'control' by a central state means precisely that such markets are anything but impersonal, and that exchanges under such conditions are embedded in social and political relations which dictate them from without. So it is wrong to say, as you have, that impersonal markets are features of command economies. I don't say this in any kind of defence of command economies. But it does point to a misunderstanding of either impersonal exchange, or command economies on your part.

Where is the capital in this definition of capitalism? By capital, I mean resources or money which are employed in order to purchase the materials for the production of commodities (raw materials, tools) and labour, commodities being items being produced to be sold on the market at a profit (hopefully, for the seller). This doesn't seem to be in the definition above, but if we don't have this, we can't distinguish between capitalism, and some kind of society where everyone is self-employed. — RolandTyme

Capital is precisely what orients production towards the market: it is that which takes control of production. As I said in a further post in this thread:

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.

Or, since you asked for a reference:

"We suggest a useful distinction can be made between capital as a ‘simple’ transmodal social relation and the historically specific capitalist mode of production. Or put more simply, a distinction must be made between ‘capital’ and ‘capitalism’. While capital – as we have seen – refers to a social relation defined by the relation between capital and wage-labour, capitalism refers to a broader configuration (or totality) of social relations oriented around the systematic reproduction of the capital relation, but irreducible – either historically or logically – to the capital relation itself.

...These broader relations of power oriented around the systematic reproduction of the capital relation enable us to distinguish between ‘antediluvian forms’ of capital from the historically specific epoch of capitalism. In antediluvian forms, the capital relation was reproduced within a broader configuration of relations that pertained to non-capitalist modes of production. As such, antediluvian capital was subordinated to the non-capitalist social relations within which it existed, and could not posit itself as the condition of its own reproduction: that is, as self-valorising capital." — Anievas and Nisancioglu, How The West Came To Rule

For purposes of expediency, let's stick to the description below that Streetlight provided, see quote below. I'm cool with it. — L'éléphant

Obviously, advertising qualifies as a pre-existing relation, so that the exchange cannot be called an impersonal exchange. The type of relation which advertising is, needs to be further expounded to draw out the affect which it has on the exchange.

A market is, first and foremost, a site of what might be called impersonal exchange. It is ‘impersonal’ insofar that those who participate do not, for the most part, have any pre-existing obligations, bonds, or relations to one another. This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. Or else different to relations of patronage or villeange, in which labour or goods are exchanged for protection or use of land.

One might say that what defines the ideal market is the ‘spot exchange’. The exchange ‘on the spot’, of goods, money, or labour, after which the participants no longer have any social relation to one another at all..
if a market is defined by impersonal exchanges, what defines capitalism? Well, a few things. First, capitalism implies a generalization of impersonal exchange to all spheres of the economy. That is, impersonal exchange must begin to replace all kinds of regimes of personalised and social exchange...
the generalization of impersonal exchange involves an increase in commodification: making things commodities for the market. — Streetlight

This account of the birth of capitalism is significantly influenced by structuralist or classical liberal lines of thought: the market is an impersonal sphere of exchange, organized and regulated by a rationally constructed structure of norms and rules; there is a movement from chaotic and haphazard world to the managed and predictable system, and the progressive improvement aims to satisfy human needs more effectively and efficiently. Yet, the widespread image of how the market works is related to what Marx called commodity fetishism. Far from being the site of equilibrium and rationality, the capitalistic market and production are founded on excess, waste, transgression, and limitless expansion. Disguised by impersonal and beneficial exchange, there is a system of disequilibrium and anti-productive forces. "What is produced today is not produced for its use-value or its possible durability, but rather with an eye to its death, and the increase in the speed with which that death comes about is equalled only by the speed of price rises. This alone would be sufficient to throw into question the `rationalistic' postulates of the whole of economic science on exchange, utility, needs, etc. Now, we know that the order of production only survives by paying the price of this extermination, this perpetual calculated `suicide' of the mass of objects. This operation is based on technological `sabotage' or organized obsolescence under cover of fashion or innovation." (Jean Baudrillard, 'The consumer society')

It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism. Markets bear upon issues of exchange: how goods move from one set of hands to another. Capitalism on the other hand, cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. — Streetlight

Before producing goods and commodities, there has been the production of the personal sphere itself. In parallel to the continuous process of decoding, destroying, and reconstructing archaic social, institutional, economic, and individual norms and relations, there has been the ongoing activity of producing economically effective consumers and subjects of interest.
The inmost dimensions of individual existence are linked to the market environment
and the economic field of life. Therefore, like founding the market, capitalism produces an individual’s self-relation to its determinant quasi-chaotic conditions.

This account of the birth of capitalism is significantly influenced by structuralist or classical liberal lines of thought: the market is an impersonal sphere of exchange, organized and regulated by a rationally constructed structure of norms and rules; there is a movement from chaotic and haphazard world to the managed and predictable system, and the progressive improvement aims to satisfy human needs more effectively and efficiently. — Number2018

None of what I said implies any of this, or at least, anything you wrote after "impersonal sphere of exchange".

Obviously, advertising qualifies as a pre-existing relation, so that the exchange cannot be called an impersonal exchange. The type of relation which advertising is, needs to be further expounded to draw out the affect which it has on the exchange. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Advertising to the public does not create a legal or binding relation with the audience. You could ignore advertising. I think it's clear from the definition here that those relations that would create personal relations are ones that are binding -- financial obligations, for example, as in loans or extension of credit.

Two things. First, and least important - it is a mistake to conflate command economies with 'socialist economic systems'. — Streetlight

I did not. My use of "or" means that you could take any one of those listed to use as example. I hope we are clear on this-- command economy is not the same as socialist economy.

Second and far more important: a command economy is the opposite of impersonal exchange: it thoroughly personalizes (or rather, socializes) a market such that exchange in a command economy are precisely not spot exchanges. Market 'control' by a central state means precisely that such markets are anything but impersonal, and that exchanges under such conditions are embedded in social and political relations which dictate them from without. So it is wrong to say, as you have, that impersonal markets are features of command economies. I don't say this in any kind of defence of command economies. But it does point to a misunderstanding of either impersonal exchange, or command economies on your part. — Streetlight

Then you are changing your definition of impersonal exchange, which is against the rules of argumentation. Again, an impersonal exchange exists in command economy. The target buyers do not have to have binding relations with the authority in order to purchase, nor a personal relations must exist in order to make the purchase. I think we need to revisit the definition of command economy. Just because a government controls capitals and production, it doesn't mean that the public must all be bound one way or another.

I don't want to bicker on the details of how things work; it's not a field I deem myself to be sufficiently knowledgeable about. — javra

I don't want to bicker either. It was just what I hoped to be a helpful clarification.

But I am curious to know if you disagree with the overall conclusion that current markets by and large select for short-sighted / short-term interests at the expense of long-sighted / long-term interests. — javra

I'm not sure this is particular to current markets. All market transactions, even before capitalism, aim at that short term goal: profit.

What we see that in the pursuit of profit new ways of generating profit are "invented". Day trading, high frequency trading, various ways that increased risk (leveraging) etc.

I think this comes from there not really being more demand in the real economy for actual investment and resulting growth but shareholders expect financial institutions to continue to perform and preferably better than last year. So I think there's just more of it rather than that we've become more shortsighted than in the past.

No. Advertising to the public does not create a legal or binding relation with the audience. You could ignore advertising. I think it's clear from the definition here that those relations that would create personal relations are ones that are binding -- financial obligations, for example, as in loans or extension of credit. — L'éléphant

Who said the relation must be "legal or binding"? Most relations are not, especially personal relations. By using these terms, you are trying to make the personal relation into something impersonal. Then you say the relationship which advertising seeks to establish is not such an impersonal relation, such as a legal obligation. It makes no sense for you to take that tact, to limit "relations" to impersonal relations, then say that a lack of such impersonal relations constitutes an impersonal market.

I think it's clear from the definition here that those relations that would create personal relations are ones that are binding -- financial obligations, for example, as in loans or extension of credit. — L'éléphant

I think this is a clear misunderstanding. "Relations" includes family, friends, or any other emotional attachment. Advertising very clearly, often seeks to establish emotional attachment. Therefore the person entering the market seeking to purchase the advertised good, has a prior, "personal" relation to the seller.

I don't want to bicker either. It was just what I hoped to be a helpful clarification. — Benkei

Thanks. :smile:

I'm not sure this is particular to current markets. All market transactions, even before capitalism, aim at that short term goal: profit.

[...]

So I think there's just more of it rather than that we've become more shortsighted than in the past. — Benkei

To my mind, there is such a thing as the delayed gratification of profiting more from long-term investments. Which requires more forethought. Short-term investments do not require the long-term sustainability of the business, or even of the business model for that matter. It's what populates the world with pyramid schemes - be these hidden or out in the open.

Then again, to me, an economic model axiomatically founded on infinite growth and resources which unfolds in a finite world is, simplistically addressed, itself a large scale kind of pyramid scheme.

I don't know enough about the subject to explore the nuances of how things have changed over the span of decades and centuries, but I do find this to be the current state of affairs. And, in so being, to be detrimental to our long-term benefit.

Hence my opinion that forethought, such as in the form of long-sighted interests in regard to profit, is not something which is selected for via optimal profits in our - at least - currently held, global economy.

As I initially commented, I'm all for a meritocratic economy of competition, but am opposed to the current, by now almost ingrained, outcome of those who are greedy being most deserving of the greatest profits (and along with these, of greatest financial power over others). Again, though - other than the vague, sophomoric, and overly idealistic notion of "raising human consciousness" or some such - I don't know how this problem could be corrected via the implementation of a different economic model in a democratic system.

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 — Streetlight

Couldn’t feudal arrangements then be counted as a form of employment between lord and vassal? This relationship was a kind of contract too.

Like I said, this is a matter of definition. Perhaps it's all just a matter of scale, in the end. I think the word predominant there is important. Once that relationship rises to the degree that it does -- to the point where it's central to the socioeconomic system -- then we can call it a new system. It's no longer feudalism, even if feudal relationships still exist.

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. — Streetlight

As you rightly point out in the title of this thread, markets aren't capitalism and in fact pre-date capitalism. It's market-dependence that you highlight. But market-dependence follows from the existence of markets in the first place. Yet this fact doesn't negate your point that there's something sui generis about the emergence of this dependence.

I think I'm making a similar point about the employer/employee relationship that emerged. True, dispossession of the means of production comes first -- as does the idea of property, ownership, profit, etc. -- but the fact that it is a necessary condition doesn't make it a sufficient condition to define capitalism by. (After all, we can imagine a worker-owned company being market-dependent too.) I would only say that I think it's imprecise to say an enterprise is still a capitalist one without the capitalists.

As with forms of government, I think the classification comes down to who has the power -- viz., who gets to make the decisions in a state or in an economy. In the case of the latter, the current world economy is dominated by the corporations. Corporations are controlled by their owners, and are governed undemocratically, as essentially an oligarchy. The owners are capitalists. Let's get rid of the capitalists. No capitalists, no capitalism.

No doubt there will still be the question of production, markets, profit-making, private property, and so on. But that's another discussion, in my view.

These distinctions are primarily analytic before they are strategic. — Streetlight

Agreed.

how mitigate market-dependency? — Streetlight

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. — Streetlight

I'm in favor of all of the above, wholeheartedly. So regardless of how we define matters, we can agree on the goals. Any steps leading towards these ends would be beneficial, no matter how we taxonomize things.

I see what you mean, though what you'd need here is stakeholder ownership, rather than just worker ownership... but I suppose if you define capitalism that way, then yes, eliminating the owning class would eliminate capitalism. I'm just not sure capitalism is sensibly defined that way. — Isaac

Sure. Worker ownership is just one logical step towards a more inclusive system. There should be community involvement on every level, ultimately.

I try to avoid "stakeholder" because of the recent rise of "stakeholder capitalism," endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable. But your point is taken.

private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making.
— Xtrix

Well... with limits. It's not the mere existence of private property that's a problem, but the effect of private property in constraining the decisions people make to those dictated by a market. One only need remove that private property which is effecting that constraint. — Isaac

Sure, but removing private property is not necessary to eliminate capitalism, in my view. It certainly would, but there are other ways you can do so as well. If workers own a business, that's a form of private property too. But that takes away the power dynamic central to corporate governance that (again, in my mind) basically defines capitalism. From workers you can go to a community, like a town. One can go to town hall meetings across the United States and give input/talk to representatives, etc. No reason this cannot extend to things like utilities (and often do) or supermarkets or drugstores or factories. There are all kinds of ways to organize business -- I'm not even particularly knowledgeable about it, but it happens.

while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction.
— Xtrix

Interesting. I kind of see the two as quite separate (although I agree that worker control is a great thing). How do you see them as linked? — Isaac

For the reasons above. I think of it much like a form of government. Easier to get to, say, direct democracy from a republican form of government than it would be from an absolute monarchy. Right now the economy, as a system, is governed as a plutocracy. If we chip away at that by giving workers control, while we're not eliminating private property, we can see that it's not as big a jump to make towards a system run by the community as a whole.

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding?
— Xtrix
Thank god I wasn't thinking of Marxism. — L'éléphant

The fact that you weren't thinking of it was my point, really.

And I don't know if this is even relevant to say, but I took economics in graduate level and political economic system in the undergraduate level, so I'm pretty sure my confusion did not come from that. — L'éléphant

What does "that" refer to? Not reading Marx?

I would say this comment isn't relevant though, yes. You could have a Ph.D. in economics and not been assigned a word of the critics of capitalism. If anything an education in this matter, on average, would make it harder to understand this thread.

It won't be profit over everything sure. For those part of that specific corporation. But they will continue to externalise costs where they can and there's also the nimby-principle. Don't get me wrong, I think stakeholder capitalism is already an improvement but I don't think it's enough. An additional step I would include is a dynamic equity system. That way every employee becomes a capitalist. — Benkei

I'm not really talking about stakeholder capitalism though.

I don't think I'd say I'd want to make every employee a capitalist either, really. But that's a tricky one. I think I wouldn't want to because the worker, by owning the factory he works in, has now taken control over his workplace. The capitalist is simply the owner/employer who doesn't have to set foot in the factory.

I'm not really talking about stakeholder capitalism though. — Xtrix

I'm afraid it's not clear to me then what you're proposing. Could you expound on it? Thanks.

I'm afraid it's not clear to me then what you're proposing. Could you expound on it? Thanks. — Benkei

Sure. I’m only proposing democratizing the workplace. Two points on this:

1) I eschew “stakeholder capitalism” because of the connotations, as mentioned above to Isaac.

2) more importantly, I don’t consider worker ownership or community ownership to be a form of capitalism. While it will still involve private property, profit, and markets— it will be run democratically, rather than oligarchically (which is our current business governance model).

If by stakeholder capitalism you mean democracy at work, the entire community being involved in business, etc., that’s fine — then it’s just a matter of usage and personal preference. I’m thinking this is probably the case based on what you’ve written in the past.

The fact that you weren't thinking of it was my point, really. — Xtrix

Could you tell me why that is surprising to you? Why should I be thinking about marxism in this thread? It's not an economic system, just so you know.

If anything an education in this matter, on average, would make it harder to understand this thread. — Xtrix

Why would this be?

Could you tell me why that is surprising to you? — L'éléphant

It’s not surprising. That’s my point.

I brought up Marx because he is a well known observer of capitalism, which is what this thread is about. You said you were struggling with understanding this thread. I think one reason could be that you’re unfamiliar with certain analyses of capitalism which much of this thread takes for granted.

Frankly I’m not interested in discussing this further. If it doesn’t apply to you, fair enough. I don’t care.

I brought up Marx because he is a well known observer of capitalism, which is what this thread is about. You said you were struggling with understanding this thread. I think one reason could be that you’re unfamiliar with certain analyses of capitalism upon which much of this thread takes for granted. — Xtrix

I discovered that I was struggling understanding this thread because of Streetlight's incorrect attribution of what makes capitalism a capitalism. And I'm not wavering from it. I made my point and if you disagree with it, then I agree that you disagree.

So what if marx is a well known observer of capitalism? You eschew someone who studied or has a phd in economics. Yet you bring up marx here. Make up your mind for the sake of honesty, and not just to win on this thread.

I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. I’m not asking you to waver in anything, nor did I follow your conversation with Streetlight, nor am I avoiding anyone with a Ph.D. You’re the one who seems to want to argue what was initially a complimentary response. I was brainstorming possible reasons for the “lack of understanding of capitalism.” My mistake for assuming you were sincere, I guess.

In case you’ve forgotten:

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with.
— L'éléphant

It's commendable that you admit this rather than pretend the opposite. I think our way of life (including economic way of life) often gets overlooked precisely because it's taken for granted -- like gravity. "Just how things are." When challenged or questioned, it takes some getting used to. — Xtrix

Odd that you want to pick a fight with me for no reason.

I think I pretty much agree with @Street, so I'm just chiming in to chime in.

I would say the class relation is the defining feature of capitalism, but that the classes are bourgeoisie/proletariat and specifically *not* employer/worker. Not everyone is a member of the proletariat that is an employee. The proletariat are thems who are paid just enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough to become workers themselves and start the process all over again. If you have more than that then even if you have nothing to sell but your labor you're a worker -- but not a proletarian.

This isn't to fetishize the proletariat either, like it's a noble place to be. It's a terrible place to be. It's the end-point for most everyone in capitalism. And, most importantly -- this is where I'd draw the distinction especially, and not just on definitional grounds -- it's global.

The problem with co-ops and worker owned places in the United States is that capitalism is a global phenomena, and no matter how well-meaning an individual firm may be the rules are harder than our intents. Even together, we are just a small group in a large international system. You can, as everyone tries to, make moderate improvements. But an undermining of capital it is not only because the global system of private ownership over the workplace, and the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat remains.

I reread capital recently, and I've nixed my original project, but something that really struck me on this reading was how the scope of political economy is often missed in these conversation. Like, especially because we're talking about classical economic theory, right? So "The Wealth of Nations" pretty much covers the topic de jure - it's right in the title! :D But it's not markets and firms that are the units of analysis -- it's the state, and how wealth is generated by state-level actors. (like classes, for instance ;) )

bourgeoisie/proletariat and specifically *not* employer/worker. — Moliere

The proletariat are thems who are paid just enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough to become workers themselves and start the process all over again. If you have more than that then even if you have nothing to sell but your labor you're a worker -- but not a proletarian. — Moliere

The proletariat are wage-laborers. I'm not sure why you're restricting the usage to those who are "paid enough to live and make sure their kids live long enough."

From CM, footnotes by Engels:

1. By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.

By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.

Emphasis mine.

A better argument might be what some call the managerial class, a class below the owners, being somewhat separate from your average worker despite also being an employee of the owner class. There's a case to be made for that, and I think Michael Albert has written about this. Otherwise I don't see much merit in your re-defining the terms.

The way I've characterized the proletariat is the way they're characterized in capital -- the genesis of value is labor-power, labor-power is commodified when there's a class of owners over the workplace, and that class has power over that one special commodity which generates value (labor-power) and is able to pay them less than they generate. While there's a milieu of classes from proletariat up to bourgeoisie -- petty, lumpen, professional -- the proletariat specifically is this class of workers who are the targets of exploitation. It's this position within the economic flow that gives them revolutionary potential, whereas other classes have more to lose from overthrowing the owners of capital the proletariat is the class required for the whole dance to keep going.

All proletarians are wage-laborers, but not all wage-laborers are proletarians.

After all, the employees at Steam -- a sort of anarcho-capitalist company -- just aren't proletarians even if they don't own one stock in their business. Their business would collapse without the international system of trade which ensures metal is cheap.