According to the modern (very intentionally altered) definition of capitalism,
“a system allowing the exchange of goods and services for currency, where different skill sets can result in different compensation”
… everything, including the USSR [1][2] has been capitalism. And even most Marxists are pro-capitalists.
The definition above encompasses everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be. (And that’s only a slight exaggeration)
Which – just fyi – makes the word one of the most useless words in the history of language.
If, however – just hypothetically – you wanted to have a productive dialogue with a self-described anti-capitalist, you would need to carry out the entire conversation pretending the word “capitalism” referred to something a hell of a lot more specific. A single mechanism within market society. A single kind of contractual relationship between worker and company.
Which is an exercise in imagination and in the algebraic concept of substitution that most people have a rather stubborn aversion to.
The barter system before currency was invented wouldn’t fit that definition, and strictly speaking Marx wanted Communism to do away with currency so if that ever happened anywhere, that would also be outside of that definition.
That being said, yeah the modern definition of “capitalism” is over-broad and mostly useless as a concept.
Right. That is a good point. Although Marx didn’t see the elimination of currency as a realistic goal attainable within the first few decades (possibly even the first century) of communism, he did believe a post-scarcity humanity would eventually transcend the need for currency.
However when it comes to barter, the thing is: even in societies dominated by barter, some commodity tends to become the standard against which the values of other commodities are measured. Cigarettes in POW camps, cacao beans in Mesoamerica.
By an admittedly-loose definition of currency, a currency does always emerge and end up being directly exchanged for goods and services, even in barter systems.
A hybrid system Whereby capitalism in a regulated form can go on pretty much as usual, but government run companies provide affordable alternatives for basic necessities (food, water, housing, communication, mass transit etc). The government run companies hire anyone who wants a job. Unemployment is reduced, cost of living is reduced, and no ones freedom is stepped on.
People only overthrow the government when they get really desperate. Your mistake is comparing communist Russia to capitalist USA. If you compare communist Russia to either tzarist Russia or the cluster fuck Russia is today then yes communism was imesurably better. Unless you were a learned fella.
deleted by creator
What is the alternative to capitalism?
Depends on how you define capitalism.
According to the modern (very intentionally altered) definition of capitalism,
… everything, including the USSR [1][2] has been capitalism. And even most Marxists are pro-capitalists.
The definition above encompasses everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be. (And that’s only a slight exaggeration)
Which – just fyi – makes the word one of the most useless words in the history of language.
If, however – just hypothetically – you wanted to have a productive dialogue with a self-described anti-capitalist, you would need to carry out the entire conversation pretending the word “capitalism” referred to something a hell of a lot more specific. A single mechanism within market society. A single kind of contractual relationship between worker and company.
Which is an exercise in imagination and in the algebraic concept of substitution that most people have a rather stubborn aversion to.
The barter system before currency was invented wouldn’t fit that definition, and strictly speaking Marx wanted Communism to do away with currency so if that ever happened anywhere, that would also be outside of that definition.
That being said, yeah the modern definition of “capitalism” is over-broad and mostly useless as a concept.
Right. That is a good point. Although Marx didn’t see the elimination of currency as a realistic goal attainable within the first few decades (possibly even the first century) of communism, he did believe a post-scarcity humanity would eventually transcend the need for currency.
However when it comes to barter, the thing is: even in societies dominated by barter, some commodity tends to become the standard against which the values of other commodities are measured. Cigarettes in POW camps, cacao beans in Mesoamerica.
By an admittedly-loose definition of currency, a currency does always emerge and end up being directly exchanged for goods and services, even in barter systems.
A hybrid system Whereby capitalism in a regulated form can go on pretty much as usual, but government run companies provide affordable alternatives for basic necessities (food, water, housing, communication, mass transit etc). The government run companies hire anyone who wants a job. Unemployment is reduced, cost of living is reduced, and no ones freedom is stepped on.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
People only overthrow the government when they get really desperate. Your mistake is comparing communist Russia to capitalist USA. If you compare communist Russia to either tzarist Russia or the cluster fuck Russia is today then yes communism was imesurably better. Unless you were a learned fella.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod