If there is a Cultural Marxism, why isn't there a Cultural Capitalism?

There is, it's called blue jeans and rock n roll

Both are based on money.

This. Marxism is founded on the works on Marx, Capitalism is not a philosophy or political/economic system invented by Mr. Capital.

No because there were no School of Frankfurt for Adam Smith.

That's what they want you to believe.

>mfw this nigga doesn't know Adam Smith exists

This.

>lelaughingyellowsmileyface.jpg

>capitalism is already the base state of natural life and culture
>saying this in a history board

there actually is, it's called consumerism

Adam Smith isn't exactly the inventor of Capitalism, he wrote on it, but thats that, the System was already developing without him.
Why, he is right. Behavioral Economics proofed this.

I don't know if you are trolling or just retarded. Modern humans have lived under capitalism for about two hundred years and existed for tens of thousands. Not to mention capitalism was forced by the state and industrialists upon people, it didn't develop naturally. Behavioral economics studies the economic behavior of modern normal people, it's not an anthropological field. You might as well be a feudal peasant thinking that the feudal order is the natural divine order.

basically yeah

explain to me how cultural marxism is bad

Spooks are bad. Cultural marxism is one hell of a spook.

Thank you. Sick of the "capitalism only means private persons control capital" arguments.

I'd say capitalism ideological mate is liberalism though.

>Modern humans have lived under capitalism for about two hundred years
No, they lived much longer under Capitalism than that, just the modern theory on Capitalism is about that age.
Medici, Fuggers etc. where bankers and capitalists long before Adam Smith and the industrial revolution.

And Behavioral Economics also played with primates like Chimpanzees, guess what, they are capitalist to.
Now back to your academic safespace.

Most states practiced mercantilism, which is *cough cough government protectionism and planning cough* therefore not capitalism.

"Ideological m8" is underestimation. Capitalism is part of liberalism.

Capitalism is an emergent phenomenon that occurs when people are allowed to buy and sell under specific conditions. You cannot have Cultural Capitalism because Capitalism isn't an ideology, as points out.

>Chimpanzees, guess what, they are capitalist to.
lmao

Are dogs feudalistic serfs?

Are ants communists?

Lmao kiddo

Most states like France. And who else? O yes, France.
And mercantilism was mostly for import export, during a time when there wasn't that much international trade. Local economy back then never was mercantilistic, it was plain old Capitalism and it was that way since at least the 13th century, likely much earlier.

If the vast majority of the economy produces for self consumption instead of producing commodities and wage labor is not widespread it is certainly not capitalism. And merchants don't equate capitalism, the defining characteristics of capitalism are production related, as the name itself implies, trade exists in any economic system.

>Chimpanzees are capitalists
>this is what capitalists actually believe

Why don't you ask google, they have tons of articles on the subject. Maybe you learn something.

>it was plain old Capitalism and it was that way since at least the 13th century
This is honestly hilarious.

Well, that certainly explains why the Medici and Fuggers became the richest and most influential dynasties then. You are free to read up on the norther Italian Republics and their Banking industry in the 14th century, or about the Duch Golden Age or the Eceonomy f the Free Cities in the HRE.
Capitalism as a system, with private owned property, money as exchange medium etc. did not start with the Industrial revolution nor with Marx's theories.

Your just imposing human constructs on nature. It'd be you who's like the ant, not the ant who's like you.

chilren itt don't even know the majority of Americans 100 years ago didn't even work for a wage

Yet capitalism is supposedly eternal

rofl

Feel free to proof that the wool merchants and bankers of the old Italian republics where not capitalist.

Farmers do not work for a salary. What news. Also the US in 1916 was about as capitalistic as it gets.

>Well, that certainly explains why the Medici and Fuggers became the richest and most influential dynasties then. You are free to read up on the norther Italian Republics and their Banking industry in the 14th century, or about the Duch Golden Age or the Eceonomy f the Free Cities in the HRE.
Irrelevant to the discussion.

>Capitalism as a system, with private owned property, money as exchange medium etc.
Lel, nice "etc" to avoid mentioning what doesn't fit your narrative.
>Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
All of these changed drastically in the last two/three centuries and most of them didn't exist at all or were extremely limited in scope. And, as said before, it didn't emerge naturally. At all.

>Irrelevant to the discussion.
Everything that doesn't fit your narrative is irrelevant, right?
Here have some history instead; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Italian_bankers
Yes, thats right, every single trait of modern Capitalism, just in the 14th century. And this was the predominant form of economy in Europe ever after.

Another nice example for pure Capitalism way before Marx and the Industrial revolution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_history_of_the_Dutch_Republic

>Cultural Capitalism
[SNIFFING INTENSIFIES]

>Everything that doesn't fit your narrative is irrelevant, right?
No. Feel free to prove that "private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" were widespread before the XVIII century and it will be relevant.

>Yes, thats right, every single trait of modern Capitalism
>every single trait
>

If capitalism was eternal why is the emergence of these systems considered special enough to write a Wikipedia article about them?

The Dutch economy of the 17th century fits every single point of that definition. So do several other European economic areas of the time.
The Dutch even had to invent the Stock exchange because so much Capitalism.

So far your argument is "there are merchants and banks, therefore capitalism". Try again when you have a more compelling argument.

Because the economic behavior of humans is eternal, not the society that allows for modern Capitalism. Several points of modern Capitalism where not possible in a feudalistic world with largely subsistence farming. Thats why only certain traits where developed back then.
When the early modern period came, you can find more than enough Areas in Europe that developed all traits of Capitalism.

They had wages, accumulation of wealth, international exchange rates for goods and services and capital markets to.
Please note what points of the Capitalism definition do the 17th century Dutch not fit?

>private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets

All of this could be applied to ancient Rome.

>There is a growing realisation that the trend in the Hellenistic world, and even more so in that of Rome, was to allow these regional societies to be run by wealthy landowners, merchants and bankers, and other entrepreneurs (Rizakis1996). It was largely their activities and interests that drove the imperial economies. If a town lacked energetic elites, it declined or stagnated. In turn, wealth creation may often have been met by specialist production that did not necessarily stimulate high populations as producers or or consumers within its associated region. A mosaic of wealth,poverty, dense and low population across the map of these states posed no problem and was a consequence of a new economic system with a very strong emphasis on
laissez−faire
.This imperial mosaic of prosperity and of key export regions is increasingly being characterised as a proto−capitalist economy

academia.edu/5279248/Bintliff_J._2013_._The_Hellenistic_to_Roman_Mediterranean_A_proto-capitalist_revolution_Economic_Archaeology._T._Kerig_and_A._Zimmermann._Bonn_Rudolf_Habelt_285-292

the cuban regime calls it cuentapropismo (something like "going your own way", in a pejorative sense, like a total egoist dick). It´s applied to people who starts small business selling stuff or offering services.

> be hunter gatherer neanderthal
> live under primitive communism
> while being eternally capitalistic

So we have every trait of Capitalism, safe for the ones that where only possible post Industrialization?

Let me ask you, how widespread do you think wage labor was compared to traditional production?

I'm confused as to what part of the paragraph do you think supports your point. I'm not denying the existence of commerce or finance, which are the main issues the author addresses and you seem to be obsessed with. There is no capitalist mode of production though. Lending money and trading does not equate capitalism, and i'm getting bored of saying this.

>Let me ask you, how widespread do you think wage labor was compared to traditional production?
Very widespread in the cities and with anyone who wasn't a farmer back then.

Again, what points of the definition of Capitalism does the Dutch economy of the 17th century not match? Please answer.
Take your time, I'm off for the pub but will monitor the thread.

The majority of the country wasn't under a capitalist system of production:
>A defining characteristic of a modern economy is diversification and an advanced division of labor. By the mid-17th century under 40 percent of the labor force was employed in agriculture, whereas 30 percent was engaged in a highly diversified industrial sector, the balance of the labor force being engaged in commerce and other service industries. The numerous cities formed a complex web of interdependencies, with the lesser ports performing specialized functions to the major ones; the industrial towns specializing in specific types of production; the countryside becoming highly differentiated by agricultural specialization, with the villages evolving into service centers (or later sometimes centers of outsourced industrial production). However, the integration of specialized agriculture and industry with the growing entrepôt functions of the ports (at least before these functions became disaggregated again in the 18th century) imparted a special dynamism to the Dutch economy during the Golden-Age economy.
>Dutch "merchant capitalism" was based on trading, shipping and finance rather than manufacturing or agriculture and marked the transition of the Dutch economy to a new stage. The accumulation of capital in the enormous amounts generated in this period caused a demand for productive investment opportunities beside the immediate reinvestment in the own business.
Of course, despite having half the population under traditional production and being focused on commerce and finance (which you seem to be obsessed with) instead of commodity production, which is the center of capitalism, the netherlands were relatively speaking a lot more advanced towards capitalism than any other country, including england. Which should make it obvious that capitalism wasn't widespread at all before the XVIII century.

>capitalism is the natural mode of human existence

In beginning to think zizek has a point.

youtube.com/watch?v=4YGnPgtWhsw

>that capitalism wasn't widespread
Aha, now we go from "did not exist" to "not widespread".
Basically you are accepting that Capitalism is older than the Industrial Revolution then.

It's called pop culture

>Aha, now we go from "did not exist" to "not widespread".
Don't be so fucking retarded, i've been saying the same thing throughout the thread:
>
"the vast majority"
"extremely limited in scope"
"widespread"
"widespread"

There were some proto capitalist characteristics here and there, while being limited in scope and not having all the characteristics of capitalism, but that's it.

Let me also point out that the entire debate, in which you are wrong, started as a giant non sequitur to try to prove that capitalism is natural. Not only are you unable to prove your claims in the debate, but i'd like to see how, if true, do you deduce that capitalism is natural. This would read some "four hundred years" instead of "two hundred years", now what?

The definition you use for Capitalism isn't taht important when it is evident that human economic behavior has not significantly changed in the past. Industries, technologies and societies have changed, but not behavior.
Thats why describing Capitalism as a school of fought or a man planed economic system is wrong.
The economic behavior we show to day is the result of what we are and how we act. And no economic theory will change that.

>This would read some "four hundred years" instead of "two hundred years", now what?
Thats a 200 year difference, and also proves that the classic Marxist theory was off regarding the origin of Capitalism.

>The definition you use for Capitalism isn't taht important
>economic behavior has not significantly changed in the past
Then your point is not that capitalism is natural, but that commerce and finance are natural, since those are the things you seem to care about in your example. But that is false, as any anthropology book would tell you (read for example libcom.org/files/Sahlins - Stone Age Economics.pdf). And, primitive humanity aside, i'm sure you know that a couple of specific and limited examples doesn't prove a ubiquitous behavior, the average joe wasn't capitalist in any sense of the word a couple hundred years ago. Claiming that economic behavior hasn't changed is outright retarded.
You are just generalizing your own life as natural.

Just for info, there is at least two guys answering to your posts, the proto roman example is not mine.

Fair enough.

>the average joe wasn't capitalist in any sense of the word a couple hundred years ago.
No no, absolutely not, they where altruistic saints, unspoiled by capitalistic greed and totally not into money at all.

>justifies dystopic economic system with revisionist history.

Protip: "capitalist" is not a codeword for "greedy and self interested".

Just saying your point is bullshit. 15th century, 16th, 17th or 18th, all the same greedy counts, from 19th century onwards just with steam power and on a larger scale.

P.S. For your info, both Medici and Fuggers made their fortune with metals mining monopolizing, namely copper. They had a large labor force which worked for wages.

No, it isn't, but the human economic behavior is. And we where talking about that currently. And that behavior has not changed one bit, only the economic circumstances to some part.

Going to sleep now, will monitor for your reply.

Why take feels > reals man seriously?

bamp

Marx didn't really give a shot about culture, besides conspiracy sites I can't really find any origins and information in the term, it's just a fear-endorsing term used by right-wing conspiracy theorist to make ~5-10% of a population look like catastrophic society killers.

I hate muslims, but saying the migrant crisis is related to Karl Marx is retarded.

Neo-Liberalism.

It exists and is very present in the West, Cultural capitalism only embraces culture aspects that can be sold best and makes opportunism it's only ideal

...

>Chimpanzees, guess what, they are capitalist to
>a real person thinks this

>definitions aren't important
Boy, this whole argument is centered around asserting a certain definition of capitalism over another. Definitions have an almost singular importance in this discussion. Your lack of the understanding of language games disturbs me.
t. Wittgenstein

There is no capitalism without surplus stockpiles, without resources that are avaiable for investment. For most of humanity's existence most resources were taken up for basic subsistence. Trade wasn't about accumulating wealth so much as exchanging that of which you have a surplus for that which you had a deficit of.

Farming kept developing until that changed very slowly, but most land was still devoted to subsistence farming rather than making a profit.

Only at the point when cash crops outweighted subsistence crops, or at the point most resources were devoted to profit-seeking rather than subsistence-seeking, you could say that capitalism became the dominant system.