• Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a bit disingenuous arguing that capitalism is somehow a new concept, and colonialism isn’t.

    I mean the terms capitalism and colonialism are both coined way after the practice of those systems. I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.

    Colonialism is the same, as you seem to intuit, considering other people and subduing them didn’t need a philosophical framework in order for it to be enacted.

    In most civilizations wealth tends to accumulate at the top of the societal pyramid, which is capitalism. The pharaohs and sumerian kings alike are capitalists. They profit of the labour of others.

    There’s a reason you’re unwilling to entertain other arguments, because you’re moving the goalposts and are afraid they will fall off the field.

    • fkn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is such a weird take… how far removed from reality are you to actually believe that authoritarian feudalism is a form of capitalism?

      Wealth accumulation is not capitalism. Capitalism enables wealth accumulation, but the opposite isn’t true in the slightest.

      All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      arguing that capitalism is somehow a new concept, and colonialism isn’t.

      I am not sure how you reached this conclusion. Yes, capitalism is new in comparison to Mesopotamian culture, and therefore the idea of property ownership. No, it’s not new in comparison to European colonialism.

      I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.

      I have never heard or read any theories that try to make an argument like this. I would be very interested if you had some that you could point me to, but offhand this seems like it would require major stretching of the definition of capitalism in order to make recorded events fit into it. I think it would mostly be an exercise in confirmation bias.

      Accumulation of wealth is not inherently capitalism, nor is simply profiting from another’s labor. This definition is so broad that it would make anyone in history who ever acquired anything that they did not previously own into a capitalist.

      There’s a reason you’re unwilling to entertain other arguments, because you’re moving the goalposts and are afraid they will fall off the field.

      Which other arguments am I unwilling to entertain, and which goalposts am I moving?

      My argument is, as from the beginning, that the concept of private ownership of property and legal rights attached to such is not born of capitalism but is in fact as old as recorded history. Because the conclusions in the cartoon depend on this initial faulty idea, the whole thing is nonsense.

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ownership of the means of production and power aren’t inherently new either. As private property is as old as civilization, the appropriation of capital is too.

        Be that in the country of the ruler (the state didn’t own marble quarries in Egypt, the pharao did) out abroad (gold mines in what we would call Ethiopia), which could be called colonialist.

        To name something colonialist before the Greek policy of colonies in the Mediterranean, is as debatable as calling an ancient economy capitalist.

        However, capitalism is very pervasive. Levi Strauss showed in Tristes Tropiques that if there are isolated civilizations without a system of ownership and wealth accumulation, any contact will destroy that state.

        • fkn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I jive with most of what you write… but you have weird things sprinkled throughout…

          Like, differentiating between the pharaoh and the state… the pharaoh was the state. I mean, there was more of a state than just the pharaoh… but practically the pharaoh was the state.

          It’s like saying that there is a difference between the Russian state and Putin… technically yes, but practically no. Putin is the Russian state. Obviously there is bureaucracy as well, but is just a weird separation.

          • Akasazh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The big thing imho is that for the prolitariat it is the same. As long as there is an oppressive regime plucking the fruits of the labour, there is exploitation.

            Feudalism was the main capitalist system Marx argued against.

            That feudalist system is very old and embedded in our history.

            • fkn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Obviously we have different definitions of capitalism… which makes the rest of the discussion difficult.

              Fundamentally, serfs in a feudal society did not own the right to their own labor for the portion of their labor assigned to their lord.

              Fundamentally, people in modern capitalist societies do own the rights to their own labor.

              Practically, the ability to exercise those rights is severely limited (which is what the meme is trying to point out). There are reasonable arguments that the poor in modern capitalism have less freedom than serfs of feudal societies… but that doesn’t make them equivalent.

              And, for what it’s worth, Marx wasn’t arguing about 12th century feudalism… that was some 700 years before the form of capitalism that was present in his time.

              • Akasazh@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think that the main factor is that I am off opinion that capitalist structures are present before the industrial period. But that the exploitation mechanism is different. I thought too have read something of the kind in Marx, but I stand corrected.

                However the hooks of the mechanism were always present. I think that to say that capitalism was absent in history, while capital (in form of possession of wealth, production or time) was present is a bit myopic.

                • fkn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Forced labor is not capitalism… Egyptian pharaohs did not practice capitalism. Feudal lords did not practice capitalism. Black Americans in the south did not participate in a capitalist economic system for themselves (the white slave owners may have practiced capitalism amongst each other, but the slaves did not). To suggest that they are equivalent systems of economic activity is insane.

                  Elements of capitalism certainly existed prior to the industrial revolution… but that is like saying that socialism is basically capitalism with regulations on ownership of corporations that employ more than a handful of employees. Or that communism is essentially capitalism except there is communal ownership of all property.

                  There are fundamental differences between them that is a strawman to say they are the same. It is incorrect to say that the Egyptian pyramids were built in a capitalist society because “the pharaoh owned the mines”. I can’t even express how inane that sounds.

                  We can certainly compare the difference in the lives of the common people in these societies and, like I said before, there are reasonable arguments that modern commoners have worse situations than some did in historical system… but we can do that without conflating nonsense.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Marx identified feudalism as a system distinct from capitalism, separated historically by a transitory system called mercantilism.

              Mercantilism may be considered as a kind of proto-capitalism, because it entails the employer-employee relationship, but lacks the systemic consequences of capital accumulation, which depends on continuous growth enabled by the changes in production following the industrial revolution.

              Marx identified feudal and capitalist societies both as characterized by “class struggles”, that is, having multiple classes with mutually antagonistic interests, as had “all hitherto existing society”.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you could argue that capitalism even entered the human world before even currency was a thing.

      I’d love to see your citations and reasoning on this, assuming it doesn’t fall into “capitalism is when anyone owns anything or sells anything”

      Because this

      In most civilizations wealth tends to accumulate at the top of the societal pyramid, which is capitalism. The pharaohs and sumerian kings alike are capitalists

      Is ridiculous.