Has capitalism ever been successfully defeated?

...

Yes. We live in a Rentier state now.

On a macro-scale, private ownership of property is an emergent phenomenon that almost always manifests itself, whether through private wealth or beaurocratic autocracy. Call it what you will but some control the means of production and some do not. Even in the noblest of socialistic governments.

In every society. Since the dawn of time this has been true.

Oh fuck off
Private property is property you owned for yourself, the individual, for profit gains for yourself. You hire people for wage labor so they can work up the property for you. While it is a "phenomenon" but I wouldn't say it has always "manifest itself" and wasn't always in the dawn of time. Ever since the dawn of of modern humans you had tribes, communities, and even towns had there ways to ungrateful feudalism to fair commmulism. Though ever since the industrial revolution factories poped up the means if production where becoming a thing. People had ideas on how to regulate them like private handling(capitalism) workers ownership(socialism) or state control(statism). Since we humans are greedy we want something that belongs to us that gives us money like you don't work it so people look at capitalism and went for it. But everyone can control something, if you work for it you should owned it, if you and your fellow co-workers work it you should all democratically owned it, its sounds fair. But we just want to be in the top while others in the bottom because we are selfish and would rather not share.

Capitalism might be about human nature, because we humans are truly greedy and selfish.

>Capitalism might be about human nature, because we humans are truly greedy and selfish.

No such thing as "human nature" and "humans are greedy and selfish" is literally a Capitalist meme.

Before Capitalism, in Feudalism, 90% of the population had no fucking problem living their lives as serfs with zero social mobility and giving almost all of their wealth to the aristocracy. Were these people "Greedy" or "selfish"? No, their consciousness was defined by the ideology of feudalism, they believed they needed to give all the fruits of their labour away because god willed it and the aristocracy had divine rights.

Humans simply change for whatever system they live in. For people to pretend that Capitalism, a system that has only existed since the 1830s is "human nature" is absurd.

Some form of hierarchy remains, which seems to be an intrinsic part of humanity. Even the hunter gatherers communists love to point to have a pecking order and hierarchy. Rule or be ruled seems to be imprinted in the human brain and communists always dance around this making pretend it's a non factor when history contradicts them every step of the way.

What I meant to say is that the whole point of "Capitalism being human nature" is stupid. I agree with 100% that poeples thoughts could ultimately change when a new ideology dominates the globe. Everyones was greedy ever since capitalism was brought up

>90% of the population had no fucking problem living their lives as serfs with zero social mobility
It's the same today.

>Capitalism is not designed. Capitalism is not ordained. Capitalism is not created. Capitalism is a force of nature

That would be Adam Smith, "Wealth of Natiuons"

Why do you corruption lovers think everybody is dumb and culturless?

Capitalism is such a flawless and perfect economic model that it had to be saved by socialism in 2008.
How life would be if the "natural way of life" would have been allowed to continue and all those banks wouldn't have been bailed out

Communism has never been tried, anons :^)

Nothing about how the banking system is set up is even free market. Depositor insurance is a perfect excuse for wanker bankers to gamble

>For people to pretend that Capitalism, a system that has only existed since the 1830s is "human nature" is absurd.
This, this, this.

At bank shootouts that actually pull off I guess.

>no, but then again neither has Communism.
Go away, /leftypol/ Nobody said anything about your Sacred cow

>No such thing as "human nature" and "humans are greedy and selfish" is literally a Capitalist meme.

It's not a capitalist meme, only leftards could be this delusional.

This just makes it very clear that there is no difference between the far left and far right in their lack of economic understanding. The edgy /leftypol/ and "alt-right" kiddies are both the same brand of authoritarian collectivism.

Get AIDS commie scum

Please die of cancer

It's only been around for like 150 years and already on the verge of collapse.

Psychopaths always claim everyone is secretly like them. This is a prime example.

> lack of economic understanding.
Guy got the fucking Nobel Prize for proving that current economic theories know jack shit about human psychology, so it hardly matters.

If capitalism is ever "defeated" it'll be an effective self-destruction; time will tell whether the final blow will be perpetuated by resentful third-worlders or the market itself.

>already on the verge of collapse.
"it'll happeny anyday now, I swear"

That's sort of like asking: Did Germany lose in the World Cup final in 2014?

Capitalism is the term we use for the system that currently rules the world, the thing that won the Cold War. It's never existed before, and it has not been defeated or replaced by anything yet.

>bait

>The Chinese accepted her as a reality in an albeit slanted sense.

No, Hayek.

The bank bailouts were not socialist in the slightest. They were Keynesian. Are you honestly defending the bailouts, though?

No one claimed Capitalism to be flawless. It is however adaptable and fluid. It's a reflection of the decisions made by millions of people independently interacting through the market. If people had more awareness of this they might make better decisions.

No one said everyone is a capitalist or approved of capitalism. I merely made the point that it capitalism, or at the very least some form of market economics is an inevitably no matter what state action is taken against it.

;^)

Free markets have existed since the first caveman realized he could trade his goods for the goods of another. Traders, whether they accepted furs or gold as intermediaries have roamed in every corner of the globe since the dawn of history.

This is capitalism in it's original form. What you socialists think of as capitalism, with big factories and fat cat investors, is just a 19th century caricature of the phenomenon. Seriiously you really should read some books on the subject of pre-industrial markets.

Even in feudal times they were capitalist. If you had wealth you could trade it for whatever you pleased. Sates then actually had less control over the markets than they did now. What control they did have were just exercised in extremes as they had less scruples about violent intervention on their home soil.

Many did not have wealth as the state stole what everything it could from the bottom 90% but that is not a lack of capitalism. That is a lack of market access due to state (socialist) intervention.

>hey believed they needed to give all the fruits of their labour away because god willed it and the aristocracy had divine rights

You couldn't be more wrong. They gave their property away because they had no other choice. The state had a monopoly on violence and exercised it regularly,

>ENCLOSURE NO REAL
>VAGABOND LAWS NO REAL
>FUCK THE NATIVE AMERICANS
>FUCK INDIGENOUS AFRICANS
>FUCK UNIONS

"force of nature"

Those are examples of states intervention.

Capitalism exists irrespective of the state. Is this really such a hard concept to understand?

Define capitalism

>capitalism
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

This is the dictionary definition. And even a cursory examination of the subject through an economics perspective will elucidate the reality that capitalism emerges with or without the help of the state. Often in spite of it (ie large black markets in socialist economies)

Not that guy, but isn't that an utterly useless, completely vacuous definition? It seems basically designed to make it sound as though everything is capitalism, disregarding its nature as a historical phenomenon arising out of British industrialism.

Well thats a very broad definition, covers pretty much every economic system that isnt actual communism

It is overbroad. A little more accurate, maybe, would be to characterize capitalism as a market system in which *firms* rather than individuals or governments are the primary agents.

>disregarding its nature as a historical phenomenon arising out of British industrialism

That is not the origin of capitalism. You have bought into socialist propaganda. That is however, definitely the starting point for both consumerism and political-industrial blocs. We could certainly discuss the merits of those systems if you like.

Capitalism is simply a system of free market economics with private ownership of goods and property. Markets were arguably less free after British industrialism consolidated greater economic controls into the hands of a few industrialists and politicians despite the wealth it created.

meant for
aswell

I would say that capitalism is the ownership and control of capital by private entities acting for their won profit

The profit-motive is important, but I don't think it completely or even adequately explains the behavior of firms or individuals.

It doesnt need to at this point, we are just trying need to meaningfully differentiate capitalism from other economic systems

Also how does profit or personal gain fail to adequately explain the behaviour of capitalist agents?

>implying capitalism is not a natural instinct
>implying it can be defeated

/thread

U wot
First of all, the capitalist system wouldn't die if the US government hadn't intervened in 2008. It would have been a more serious blow to the world economy, more people would have lost their money, yadda yadda yadda. But the system would live on.

And bailing out the financial companies didn't make everything better. It just perpetuated the illness of the current model. In order to get rid of the moral hazard, the government should have let the banks go bankrupt and then create completely new banks. It could then pass some of the liabilites to to those new companies and give a share of stock to each american citizen.

It's not a political system.

>naturalizing capitalism
>using the worn-out lex talionis meme

Capitalism is not fatally set up in the order of things. It is not biologically based, it is not in our genes, and even so it would be suggest to evolution.

It is a production and consumption model based on material sustainability. It works but it also leads to waves of intense recession which is part of its inner orgazination. Without government intervention, capitalism claims everything he needs to grow bigger without a break regardless of what he destroys (employment rate, value of work, entire ecosystems).

Capitalism cannot be maintained in the long-run without having laws that'll fix it on a regular basis.

The only natural instinct is to want stuff for free i.e. welfare socialism.

You did not understand anything he said, or you just disagree for the sake of it.
Nature does not imply biologically pre-dispositioned. He also literally said it is a product of evolution in his very first sentence.

Since the rest of your post attacks a strawman it falls flat. It does not contradict anything he actually said.

>implying homo oeconomicus hasn't been completely BTFO during the formalism vs. substantivism debate

>implying you can back that statement up with actual empirical evidence that isn't an ideological narrative

>empirical """"""""""""""""""""''evidence''''''''''''''''

try to crack a book in philosophy of science

I understand what he tries to do is giving a natural credit to capitalism.That's the first thing I've pinpointed and contradicted by saying it's an economy hence it's a human construct.
>inb4 human is naturally constructed

Indeed the rest of the post attacks a Hayek strawman with an opposite Keynes strawman. I advance the fact that the "large scale" argument ends up being irrationnal because it carries on cycles of production/recession. Also reminder that I've refuted it before by suggesting that capitalism is not inscribed in the order of things, meaning it's not an intangible "natural" choice to grow societies as we do. If you say that, you convene a "divine law" type of argument which is absurd.

Have you even read my post ?

Now I'd want to know what you hear by
>Nature does not imply biologically pre-dispositioned.

What is Nature and any referring to Nature to you ?
Maybe the heart of the misunderstanding lies here.

Anarchist Spain maybe

>Free markets have existed since the first caveman realized he could trade his goods for the goods of another. Traders, whether they accepted furs or gold as intermediaries have roamed in every corner of the globe since the dawn of history.
Wat? That not what what capitalism is, that's the barter system. Cavemen didn't privately own big ass factories for profit.

Yeah. Because cavemen didn't have big ass factories you fucking mong.

But they owned those days equivalents of those things. Simple tools, clothing, pelts, food. They traded these things freely and for their own benefit if possible.

>that's the barter system

Yes. That is capitalism. Start off with cavemen trading furs and flutes n' shit and 100,000 years later it develops into non-cave men trading factories, trains, trucks, planes and sandwiches. The use of money as an intermediary evolved as it expedited the process and made society more efficient.

Lmao that's how you spot a rich daddies girl city slicker. Most people that eat pheasant these days are the people that hunted them, and wine (At least the one's at the liqour store) is almost as cheap as water these days.

Anarchist Catalonia*

I'll never understand communists. If people want shit, people will trade things of value. Using currency is just there to simplify trading.

How are you going to get rid of that? This same thing happens in every communist regime.

slogans aren't literal user.

...you don't know what capitalism is. But you totally think you do. Because some commie shit said so in school and you ate it up because you didn't know any better.

Capitalism = free enterprise.

I'll never understand agriculturalists. If people want food, people will hunt for food. Using plants is just there to simplify foodstock during migration period.

How are you going to get rid of that? This same thing happens in every agriculturalist society.

This
The use of money as a token for work which can be traded or stored did speed things up a little, but the whats mine is mine principle seems to be deeply rooted within mankind.

Also, with money, economy is self organizing and does not need any central planing, still doesn't work perfect, but at least it seems to be better than any other option yet tried or suggested.

So just embrace capitalism and enjoy laughing at delusional commie threads on tibetian woodcarving boards.

>Using plants is just there to simplify foodstock during migration period.
Plants are, unlike cattle, non migratory.
>your argument makes no sense

This could be the clumsiest metaphor I've seen on Veeky Forums.

Congrats!

>Capitalism is a force of nature

No, it's a dynamic that emerges from human choices

>thinking there are forces of nature that sit around waiting to be activated
>thinking there are forces of nature that appear when people move certain objects according to certain rules

Dungeons and Dragons is not designed. Dungeons and Dragons is not ordained. Dungeons and Dragons is not created. Dungeons and Dragons is a force of nature. You could no more defeat it than you could defeat the forces of gravity or electromagnetism.

>the first and second law of thermodynamics
>human choices

No you fucking idiots, capitalism isn't about "MUH freedumbs" and doing business freely. It's about about private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and property for an individual who gains profit for it. That what capitalism is, capitalism didn't exist during the cavemen era because craven didn't gave rent to people who where living in there property and capitalism was made when the industrial revolution happened.

>It's about about private ownership of the means of production,
Wasn't different during the last couple thousand years, or since there was something to produce outside of hunting gathering. So your orthodox marxist approach might be faulty. Not that there was rich and poor during the renaissance for example.
The industrial revolution just did speed things up, and 20th century did slow it down again witch workers rights, social insurance and public health care.

Agreed, there ought to be rules to protect the weak, but still, a self organizing system is way more efficient than have all economics ruled by the grand commie poobah and his cronies. It is more democratic, offers more choices and more chances, also it develops according to the needs.

>unironically answering to a kid in his commie phase

"Capitalism" is an empty buzzword.

>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5]

But this is the definition, I even met a lot of ancaps saying this is true. So tell me, was there private property back in the day? Medieval Europe won't count since it was obviously feudalism.
>Wasn't different during the last couple thousand years, or since there was something to produce outside of hunting gathering.
Ha now your just trying to change definitions, so tell me what is the definition of capitalism for you(bet it has something to do with "muh freedumbs" doesn't it?)

I would say so, yes. For example:
In the 16th century, the Dutch underwent a period of great economic growth as well as cultural flowering which led to what many have called the Dutch Golden Age, and not just that, but also the very first modern economy. This age even spawned the first stock market crash due to extreme speculation in the tulip market! This was because the Dutch were able to, due to their resources, geography & cultural background, pioneer technological advancements in two very important fields for economic growth, those being investment & shipbuilding. As well, they benefited from the advances in navigation & charts brought about by the Spanish & Portuguese, in the new world as well as around Africa & the East Indies.
Investment was important for the creation of new industries, which obviously leads to economic growth, just like it does today. Shipbuilding was important much as oil is today, because it facilitated transport of goods, specifically overseas goods. The advances in navigation were similarly important, because they basically were the reason ships could be used in this manner in the new world, Africa, & the East Indies.

c

Overseas goods were so much more important than domestic ones because there was much more room for investment and they fetched a higher price, obviously because domestic goods were more easily available. However, it was often difficult to acquire these goods, especially the most valuable ones, because a) ships were expensive & b) the sea is a treacherous bitch. But these problems were able to be solved by advanced shipbuilding technology lowering ships' prices & advanced investment techniques making losses to the treacherous sea less damaging. While it used to be that you financed one trade mission & either took all the profits or lost everything based on how things went, now merchants were able to group together and finance trades collectively; it was a lot better to lose one ship out of ten and 10% of your profits than to lose one ship out of one and 100% of your profits, even if you only get 10% of the profits of the ten ship mission. In that way, new investment techniques were better able to balance risk & reward which increased investment opportunities and furthermore increased profitz, which were reinvested to acquire more capital which obviously led to more profits. Dutch merchants were able to bring raw materials & luxuries in from colonies everywhere; furs from North America, sugar from the Caribbean, gold from South Africa, spices from Indonesia, etc, etc. This system worked so well that the Dutch became the preeminent global trading power, forming the famous Dutch East India Company & changing the way finance was done in Europe & beyond for the rest of history.

c

This system also lead to a capitalist society. The urban merchants, or the bourgeoisie, were able to provide for the lower classes far better than the nobility had been. The bourgeoisie were more apt leaders because, despite a fair bit of privilege, they were able to get where they did not because a bloodline granted it to them but because they provided a service to society. They eventually were able to take political power as well and make the Netherlands into a republic. Elected regents in provinces around the Netherlands took the places of kings & nobles, though there was struggle & nobility still clung to some power. The elected regents came to be in conflict with the landed stadtholders, but regents' power was based in useful things like capitalism rather than non-useful things like traditional values & war, so they ended up ousting the stadtholders - for a time. Eventually, however, after several successful wars against its naval rival England, the eternal Anglo was able to claim victory against the Republic of the Netherlands through alliances against her with France, Cologne, & Münster. While the Republic was barely able to defend itself & was not conquered, the newly-risen bourgeois class were weakened, & many questioned the regents' ability to defend the country in wartime, and the noble stadtholder descendants (with aid from their English relatives) were able to rise to power again. There was a later period of rule by the regents, but so weakened were they by war & by the loss of the people's faith in them, they were unable to bring back the Republic's old prosperity & were eclipsed by the rising power of England. Later, due to even more war & an embarrassing invasion by France, the nobility wrested back power in the Orangist Revolution.

tl;dr: Due to economic & commercial advancement, the bourgeoisie were able to take power in the Netherlands and lead it into a golden age of wealth & power, bringing about the rise of the first modern capitalist society. However, political machinations of the English and destructive wars on the continent allowed the old nobility to take back power & effectively defeated capitalism in the Netherlands.

>Ha now your just trying to change definitions, so tell me what is the definition of capitalism for you(bet it has something to do with "muh freedumbs" doesn't it?)
No, modern capitalism according to my definition is started with the renaissance in northern italy in the 15th century. Freely exchangeable precious metals currency / goods economic in somewhat republican setting of numerous city states with their own overland and overseas trade. at that point in european history the system of exchanging work for money and the accumulation of wealth in the local citizenry kicked off. since then it was a gradual process to where we are now.

Well definitions are definitions, to me capitalism and socialism are two ideologies and economies that always looses its meaning every. single. day.

>Capitalism is not designed. Capitalism is not ordained. Capitalism is not created. Capitalism is a force of nature.
Fucking no, user. Do you eat American propaganda for breakfast by any chance?

Capitalism is the new kings > nobles > mechants > peasants. It's not new, it's a result of people in economic power not knowing what to do with life. The system fucks over the majority, turning them into economic slaves. I'm not against capitalism, it provides great economic growth to a nation. But there's a reason why the best places to live right now are places where socialism is added to fill out the blanks created by capitalism. Where people at least get the same opportunity at life from the go, something capitalism alone does not guarantee at all.

I'm not going to pretend socialism on top of capitalism is the ordained natural perfect economic system for human civilization. But it's damn well better than capitalism alone.

Naturally evolved =/= perfect.

No one claimed it was perfect or that socialist measures can't be beneficial to society. Stop thinking about societies from the sole perspective of social class.

Capitalism has nothing to do with kings or serfs. Feudalism is not an economic system. It is a system of government. Like I said in Capitalism existed in Feudal societies. It existed in the Roman society that came before that and the pagan societies that predated the Romans. Private ownership of property and production along with free trade emerges as societies advance past hunter-gatherer clans and even exists to a certain extent in those groups. It even emerges when strongly suppressed by state controls, be they communistic or dynastic in nature.

Human societies are an emergent phenomenon. If you examine this phenomenon honestly, with no preconceived biases you'll see that Capitalism is a cornerstone of the emergence of civilization. I had no opinion on any of these subjects before I started reading over the subject of economics. I have been convinced by evidence alone.

Put down the Marxist rhetoric and pick up some books on the subject of market dynamics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

>perfidious albion at it again
THEY CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

Social liberalism is cancer

>feudalism
>state
nice meme bro

It defeats itself.
In every instance of capitalism, left unregulated, wealth will gravitate to a small percentage of the populace. This continues until wealth becomes so concentrated that either the government has to step in and redistribute or people simply end up being unable to purchase goods, which in turn stops production and causes a depression.

There needs to be targeted legislation essentially correcting this imbalance through various means such as taxation during times in which growth has become stagnant.

IDK tho I'm just some guy.

This.

Capitalism has long been understood as a series of escalating boom and bust cycles keyed to the ebbing and concentration of capital flows.

The very forces of capital accumulation which drive tremendous periods of growth under capitalism ultimately taper off as capital becomes concentrated in higher proportions, and then essentially just sits there in the pockets of rich people (or in tax-free offshore bank accounts.)

When the whole system reaches capacitance like this, it releases a discharge in the form of mass layoffs and recession or depression.

Capitalism can also be defeated by its tendencies to leave processes to market swarm psychology, which has been shown to be in many cases irrational and panic driven. Allocating decision making to a formless swarm of traders may be an efficient system in day to day trades, but during moments of crisis or stress it can lead to critical market failures and runs on the bank.

This meme simply isn't true. You might have seen statistics showing economies with very low median incomes have low inequality compared to emerging markets. First it is up to debate whether inequality is the absolute worst thing in the world ever, some parts of the country developing faster than others is to be expected. Second, the Asian tigers, European miracles and other rapidly developing countries often saw inequality increase then decrease during the course of their growth, after the initial flurry of activity there are few opportunities left for entrepreneurs to hit it big and they start to face competition from the growing educated middle class.

>Capitalism has long been understood as a series of escalating boom and bust cycles keyed to the ebbing and concentration of capital flows.
Wrong. Booms and busts are caused by the central bank printing currency.

Capitalism can't be defeated, as it is a set of rules that emanates from the order in which riches are distributed. Should society collapse (i.e. governments) the system will revert to a state in which the interactions of agents will result in a new equilibria.

Be the new equilibria better or worse, is another debate.

No, capitalism has not been defeated and never will be.

Dog bless capitalism.

>Capitalism existed in Feudal societies. It existed in the Roman society that came before that and the pagan societies that predated the Romans. Private ownership of property and production along with free trade emerges as societies advance past hunter-gatherer clans and even exists to a certain extent in those groups. It even emerges when strongly suppressed by state controls, be they communistic or dynastic in nature.
Quite. Spouting. This. Meme.

It's true. Capitalism is a system of free markets which they had in Feudal Europe. Most people just lacked access to to those markets because they were forced into serfdom by the people with all the horses and swords.

Calling my argument a meme doesn't invalidate it. I'm sorry your belief in propaganda about capitalism being an invention of nefarious investors and industrialists in Victorian England is erroneous.

Reality doesn't always fit our expectations. It might be time to grow up, user.

Just because they had markets doesn't mean there capitalist user. A market is its own thing, it can exist in capitalism hence free-market capitalism, it can exist in socialism hence market socialism or mutualism, or even fascism hence corporatism(although corporatism can exist anywhere it's just more associated with fascism). I called your argument a meme because the meme that anything with a market us officially capitalism is stupid and needs to die.

It was p fucked up