Has capitalism every actually worked...

I hate capitalism, but the frequent innovations that happen are only due to capitalism.

A lot of countries were "practicing capitalism" (an odd phrase in reference to the time period, capitalism was not something people said they were doing) in the 19th century. Something else seems to be the major factor.

Yes, but overall it's a failure. A slap to the face is better than a punch to the balls, but neither is best.

Yes, why do you ask?

Yes it had nothing to do with two world wars. Or the literal slaughter and conquest of the natives.

Things in history don't "work," they just are. Marx pointed out a number of contradictions in capital that lead to crises ("recession" "revolution" "war").

>innovations that cover up it is[sic] bloody and oppressive structure?
Marx doesn't discuss "oppression" he discusses exploitation. Oppression is some cultural shit, exploitation is a material relationship.

FUCK OFF TO

So did you miss the "2009 recession" news?

Brain drain, a certain religion(protestantcucks) and no competition. Us continentals had the option of hard-on Nationalism to modernise but it comes with a less strong capitalism.

Stop tipping your fedora. You know what I meant

>You know what I meant
If you can't be bothered with precision, I can't be bothered not slitting your bowel and spilling your shit on the linoleum.

The OP if capitalism has actually ever "worked", and I answered.

How does the recession of 2009 constitute evidence of capitalism not "working"? Periodic financial crises are an inherent sideeffect of capitalism.

What is it that you don't understand?

>precision
>in regards to a translation

Kek

Yeah, nah, there's a hunded fiddy years of use of Marxist terms in English mate.

I mean has capitalism ever worked in the sense it portends to, I.e. Hayek efficient markets, competition etc

capitalism isn't an intentional human structure but an emergent property of relations.

Hayek's attempts to import intentionality to an unchosen relation is reification.

Is there? Still pretty new to Marx so you'll have to forgive me then

>2016
>a technological wonderland where major diseases are eradicated and obesity and diabetes has replaced starvation as the main problem in the developing world
>but user, what GOOD has capitalism done?

Capitalism is like that computer program on top of which they slap the "it werks on my system :^) t. developer" ribbon and pretend it's not a badly written piece of shit in the first place.
With that being said the central idea isn't that bad, it's just that for those with sufficient means it's extremely easy to work the system and cheat, providing more means for themselves and denying them to others. Today capitalism has become gentler in appearance, but possibly even more brutal in application than before.

Alright, so I'll ask the question again to reflect what I mean.

Has capitalism ever worked in the sense of free trade, efficient markets, and competition, I.e. the way capitalism claims it works? Or does it always produce crises?

Define "worked"

>>a technological wonderland where major diseases are eradicated and obesity and diabetes has replaced starvation as the main problem in the developing world

>claims major diseases are eradicated
>mentions major diseases are still a problem
>acts as if obesity and diabetes are somehow superior diseases
>doesn't recognize the material cause of obesity is a product of class relations

Don't try and be authoritative when you lack the fucking reading then.

You're still reifying capitalism.

No: free trade, efficient markets and competition have never existed. Yes capitalism always produces crises. Yes: even with free trade, efficient markets and competition capitalism WILL produce crises. No these crises do not mean that capitalism "does not work" in the sense of failing to ensure its own reproduction.

Jesus fuck, read first year before posting again.

Capitalism has gone through innumerable different forms. Each time it fails, it creatively reinvents itself

I'm asking if any of the ways in which capitalism described itself were ever honest or true, or is capitalism always mistaken (thus leads to crises) or intentionally misleading in it's descriptions

Theory, and practice, are complementary counterparts of the same concept. Capitalism has been working for centuries. The OP (you?) asked if it has ever "worked", not that if it is an optimal, or "good", economic system.

>bloody and oppressive
human relations are often bloody and oppressive

unless you think a non bloody non oppressive utopia can exist, you are just pissing in the wind calling capitalism bloody and oppressive

all alternatives to capitalism, when implemented have resulted in bloody oppression

fags never learn: just because something is bad doesnt mean any alternative is better

>equating diabeetus with diptheria, smallpox, polio etc
>becoming ill from having TOO MUCH food isn't superior to dying from not enough food

Commie logic.

Capitalism's attempts to describe itself have been through political economy and economics. Its descriptions of itself have been insufficient because they have been ideological attempts, not praxical critiques.

Capitalism is NOT a set of virtuous behaviours, but the actual set of living behaviours. It is not the ideological self-mistaking that leads to crises, but the actual material relationships.

Capitalism reworks itself after crises (cf: Lenin in England etc.).

>Capitalism is responsible for scientific progress.

>science just magics itself out of things air

what texts should i read to get into marxism?

Anti-dühring ("socialism, utopian & scientific")
Family, Private Property and the State
Condition of the working class in England
Contribution to a critique
Capital 1-3

Add the 3 volumes of Kołakowski

No financial system will EVER lack crises.
The goal is to be able to avoid those losses and minimise them.

Stop eating so much fucking food fatties.
Bamn, solved.

Of course it isn't. Catholicism is responsible. Capitalism just makes it so, that it advances faster.

thanks user

brain drain, war opportunity, after war opportunity, mass industrialization

did karl marx believe socialism would not lack crises?

The heuristic argument is that growth stage capitalism is fantastically effective, but you cannot stay in a state of perpetual growth.

Late stage capitalism tends to degenerate into authoritarian plutocracy. Although that might not be so bad

I will go try find concrete references of this.

Has communism ever actually worked? Or is it's history a long stream of "innovations" that cover up it's bloody and oppressive structure?

Why do people conflate capital with markets?

This really bothers me.

what am i missing?

In theory you can have a socialist market system, where capital is nominally socially owned, but prices are set by a competitive market, where suppliers have equal opportunity access to capital, but compete on labor. Or something.

You also have capitalism without competitive markets, such as those found in company towns, such as traditional mining towns, where the capital is privately owned, but there is a lack of a competitive market, and while there is monetary exchange, prices are set by a monopoly, the company's lodging rents and general goods store. Although I suppose that's still nominally a market system. If you want a more extreme example, slavery. You become the capital and are wholly owned, and your labor or remuneration is not subject to market forces. If you're a born slave, and not an auction slave, there's no market involved except for the value of the goods you produce in trade. It's just a cost-benefit analysis if you pull your weight and then some. If you had a self-sufficient slave plantation using only born slaves, you would have a completely non-market capitalist system.

What has never worked/ happened is comunism that is a vague meme defended only by retards

Crisis are natural. There has been crisis through out history,in every civilization that you can imagine. Is so stupid to assume that crisis are just a result just one thing

>you cannot stay in a state of perpetual growth.
Human history is basically a state of perpetual growth.,in every aspect (demografically,economics,scientifically,culturally,etc)
The idea that growth is not natural,is one of the dumbest asumptions that you could make

D A R K A G E S
A
R
K

A
G
E
S

>such as traditional mining towns

#Deadwood

It's also widely understood it is unsustainable.

Most economists prefer not to use the term "capitalism" for the reasons this thread exemplifies. I recommend reading up on your Polyani and using terms like "markets" more.

this. most "growth" is unnecessary

The middle ages is a pretty misunderstood yime period.
The most important empire in history just fall. And the new leaders were way sophisticated,and instaured their new dinasties through brutal wars. After a period of relative stagnation,lots of prosperous and wealthy places,and the population rised significantly minus when there were epidemics.
It is also worthy yo note that the dark ages in Europe was a golden age in the middle east and parts of Spain.

Why? The tendency for all of the history of humanity has been the one of mostly continous growth. Only a huge pandemic/ war, have stopped this tendency,there are usually crisis,but usually crisis and depressions are small periods of contraction after long periods of growth.

Has technology been levelling off?

No, if you had 2-3% economic growth consistent since Jesus' day we would have filled half of the solar system with crap.

>competition has never existed
>preventing people from buying cheaper and better foreign products by forcing them to buy my brothers shit products is a good thing

Using coal and fossil fuels while you research better, renewable sources using energy from fossil fuels, is not sustainable? Before you run out you get renewable sources of energy?

>New resources don't appear and waste can't get treated.
We are growing faster right now than 1000 years ago,but this growth is linked to technological developments and advances.

some of it is legitimate, but some of it is linked to fat retards buying kawaii japanese dolls from their favorite animu.

also i did some math, assuming 2000 years ago we started with an economy that produced 20,000 loaves of bread per year that measured 6"x6"x12", and grew at 2% a year, by today they would have to be producing a volume of bread equal to the volume of the moon. even small amounts of growth can't be sustained.

Is this post supposed to be serious? The growth that we are experiencing right now is linked to our technological developments. 2000 years ago the technology was smaller so the overall growth was smaller too. New technologies are appearing constantly,and right now if we wanted we could survive using only none polluting technologies.

No, not all of the growth is linked to technological development.

>No, not all of the growth is linked
Growth comes mainly from the increase in productivity,population growth and the expansion of new markets.All of those 3 things are related to technological advancements