Was capitalism inevitable, or could a different system have risen to prominence at the end of the feudal age instead?

>Capitalism has always existed since time immemorial
wrong

no it wasn't

Free market has always been there. Capitalism has already existed, albeit in an unrealized and repressed form. Without free market, they wouldn't be able to prosper in the first place. This very truth is evident, no matter how much greedy kings and tyrants wanted to repress and control them. Just like how freedom and justice has always existed, free market too, and is even more real than any perverted machinations every tyrants designed in the past.

>Without free market, they wouldn't be able to prosper in the first place.
weird. I thought that the embargoes of the muslim world on Europe caused the age of discovery, and that Spain's economic sanctions against Egnland then helped spur them into causing industrialization. But apparently John Locke who invented the concept who was born 300 years after it started is responsible for all of that.

Best post in the thread

/thread

Like I said, free market always finds a way, because humans naturally seeks freedom. Unfortunately European trade companies made the same mistake because they still didn't realize the essence of capitalism, despite there had been a renaissance and humanist ideas emerging.

Capitalism has existed in some form since the beginning of civilization. It will die one day but it will not lead to communism just world wide chaos.

What is your ethnicity

Not true, how could capitalism have existed before jesus invented it?
Checkmate

Care to explain why? Or else I'm /free/ to ignore you, bud.
See

Tannu tuvan

>Free market has always been there.
Where? When? Surley you need like money and competition for a free market, amd regulations and a government to enforce contracts? Where was all this in the great lakes region in 1000bc?

holy fuck I didn't even think the most ardent capitalists thought that capitalism ALWAYS existed. you guys are next level retarded

guys guys you are both over-reducing this issue

Italians had a trade monopoly with the muslims that were middlemen between Europe and the Far East. The Age of Discoveries were kickstarted to open new trade routes and control a bigger % of the distribution chain, by bypassing the italians and muslims. But trade came to be handled mostly by companies that were actually state monopolies backed by the crowns. These didn't have quite as many rules as corps do today, since they communication and travel times made them have basically no accountability, they were vested with the power to declare war like sovereign states do and they forced people into labour. The leading economic theory of the time was mercantilism. They had something like an Austrian conception of wealth, and each country was focused on hoarding as much precious metal as possible. Tariffs were some of the largests sources of revenue for states. Stuff like income taxes didn't come into play for centuries because most people couldn't reliably produce surplus value. But large merchant operations could.

Jesus himself preached so that all servants of God make use of their talents and anyone who doesn't will be banished. Notice that the unproductive servants would remind you of any statism or govt. control of the economy. Though I'd stop speaking from a religious perspective here, since. Not everyone here is Christians (that doesn't mean other religions didn't know of it).

THere's always been bartering, and coins or seashells or some other medium coincide with litterally every civilization that progressed past mudhuts

Not him but in church they told me that jesus said the poor were blessed and charity was sacred, you know the whole 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needel than a rich man to get into heaven'. Kinda sounds like welfare to me

Yes it was imbecile. Feudalism got formally abolished in 1860s, and even before that a lot of the serfs were freed.

>no mention of private property at all
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

Capitalism is always evolving, just because it was still in its infancy doesn't mean it didn't exist. Do you not consider babies and foetuses as humans, just because they're still growing? One thing for sure, every govt. control will always fail and free market will find a way for those wanting to pursue happiness and opportunities. It's not that hard. In fact it's even harder to be control-freaks, with regulations all over the place.

Well for one you admit that there were humans who existed without currency as a concept so there you go, the free market didnt alway exist
Furthermore barter economy isnt exactly free trade, capital accumulation, investment, debt, etc are all essentially impossible, and contracts even dont make that much sense. Not to mention that for most of this to happen on any significant kind of scale you still basically need some sort of state

The concept of private property is even more intuitive than free trade not even commies deny it so I didn't mention it, assuming anyone worth talking to already understood it beforehand.

the end of serfdom isn't the introduction of capitalism

Yes it is, as slave labor got replaced by wage labor.

The poster said what came out of feudalist russia was not capitalism and all you're saying is that feudalism ended at a specific year. How does that support your point at all?

Explain to me exactly how was late 19th century Russia not capitalist.
>inb4 capitalism means democracy or some other amerishit meme

>Capitalism is always evolving, just because it was still in its infancy doesn't mean it didn't exist.
By that logic literally all the technology and ideas we have today, including government control of the system, have also always existed
>One thing for sure, every govt. control will always fail
>hes an ancap

It is more or less the major trait of capitalism, not mentioning it is pretty retard

>commie
Oh wait, don't tell me you don't know what personal and private property means

>including government control of the system
Except for the fact that there were many societies which didn't have strong central power, or a government that ruled over the land its inhabitants.

Jesus was talking about greedy influenial sorts who hoard all the money, instead of making good use of their money. Through free trade, investment naturally create wealth itself for the surrounding and your own countrymen. Charity also means you need money beforehand, otherwise how would you distribute them to the poor if you don't have them in the first place? It's usually the govt. who is responsible for controlling the market, alongside some rich feudal aristocrats. Those are the ones responsible for creating a perpetual system of poverty in the first place, since they need useful idiots as a tool to hammer down any nails sticking out from society, that might possibly brings something like creative destruction. After all, it's all manmade and fakes.

That's what they understood, but that's just wordplay without any conceptual differences between them.

>Do you not consider babies and foetuses as humans
I consider the economy as the 'human' in this metaphor and capitalism is just one of its stages (feutus/baby/teenager/adult etc etc)

Strong centralized is always evolving, just because it was still in its infancy doesn't mean it didn't exist. Do you not consider babies and foetuses as humans, just because they're still growing? One thing for sure, every govt. control will always succeed and central planning will find a way for those wanting to pursue happiness and opportunities. It's not that hard. In fact it's even harder to be capitalist, with the bourgeoise all over the place.

no it isn't. most people did not even work for a wage even in 1900. you're talking as if the whole economy went from mostly serfs to mostly wage laborers overnight which is nonsense.

Ah so instead of actual ignorance it is a willfully one

Strong centralized government*

>Strong centralized is always evolving
False, hence why I used it as an argument. Several societies throughout history didn't evolve that way.

>free trade, capital accumulation, investment, debt, etc are all essentially impossible, and contracts even dont make that much sense. Not to mention that for most of this to happen on any significant kind of scale you still basically need some sort of state
That all comes with agrarian societies. What you would call the means of production would be the land, mills, metal tools, etc, that could be bought, sold, loaned, leased, etc. They had oral contracts rather than writen ones, for starters, of course. Warrior aristocrats and priestly types would feel the role of states or courts of law, in that they would usually function as arbitrers in solving disputes. The OT already had instructions for practicing the Law (the convenants between God and mankind). That book is pretty opinionated on debt and taxes, ahah.

>gather up band of bros
>move in and take your shit
what now capitalists

Most Russians were still subsistence farmers, not wage workers. Blue collar types weren't a very big slice of Russian pops until much later.

>Capitalism has existed in some form since the beginning of civilization.
t. brainlet.

Barter or Gift Economy is not fucking capitalism.

You probably read the post three times and still didn't understand yet you decided to post a reply.

And several societies evolved into command economies, like the big Bronze Age ones.

Not that I'm arguing for those, I'm anti-totalitarian, but credit where it's due, they had a good run.

>Steong centralized
Ah-ah, you're afraid of using the term 'command economy', didn't you? Because it already failed the last time they tried it. Just admit it, buddy. Find a good job and save money, then start a business yourself. Ain't that hard, y'all just can't handle freedom aren't you? Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither. It's that simple, really.

You probably think capitalism is simple economic exchange when it isn't.

Indeed, some did evolve just that way but farm from all societies did.

>Several societies throughout history didn't evolve that way.
>there are examples of societies that did not involve in this way
>as in not all societies evolved in this way
>as in some societies did evolve in this way
>as in some societies evolved a strong centralized state and not capitalism
Basically you just admitted that capitalism wasnt always a thing in every society as you have been contending

No but serious talk now, there was of course proto capitalism for a long time, but full blown indusdrial capitalism did not exist before 1700, this isnt really a point on which there is any debate. Furthermore one person beating up 2 other people and telling them what to do / taking their grain is basically a proto stalinist state if you think about it so strong centralized states have sssentially existed since the dawn of time

I'm not the same guy, mind you.

What he argued, if I understand him correctly, was that the concept of capitalism has always existed. We've seen this throughout human history where people tend to move towards markets and free trade when not hindered by say a state with the monopoly on violence.

>One thing for sure, every govt. control will always succeed and central planning will find a way for those wanting to pursue happiness and opportunities
> govt. control will always succeed and central planning will find a way for those wanting to pursue happiness and opportunities
>central planning will find a way for those wanting to pursue happiness and opportunities
>central planning
Learn to read

>I'm not the same guy, mind you
I dont care, you defended his points and criticized mine

The concept of capitalism has not always existed, point me to a single primary source mentioning free trade or any form of proto capitlaism pre song dynasy china

I'd argue the opposite. We see trade flourish under Leviathans. Pax Romana, Pax Britanica, Alexander's empire, the first caliphate, et cetera. It's when the central authority collapses that petty warlords parcel up large markets into tiny turfs where they each run their own protection racketts and run tolls on every mile of road. This stiffle not just the transfers of wealth (sometimes necessary calories, sometimes luxury goods) but also the exchange of ideas and innovations thereof.

Capitalism isn't just people buying and selling. It's a system wherein the property and contract rights are enshrined and upheld by law, where Capital can be accrued and invested for profit. The existence of merchants isn't a 'free market' nor is it evidence of capitalism.

No commies deny your abstract notion of "free trade." Some communists deny commodity production in favour of a gift economy, but not even Stalin did that.

"Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism?" - Stalin

Wouldn't that definition make the Roman Republic capitalist, also?

No one denies that trade cannot and have not flourished under less free regimes, but rather that they become ineffective and crumble under themselves, as all those examples you mentioned suffered from.

No because their laws regarding property were tenuous and there was nothing really in the way of capital investment because practically the only wealth producing activities were land and slaves.

Cringe

Dude what? The abolition of Serfdom didn't end anything, the Serfs were still tied to their land and forced to work through redemption payments

Capitalism is the natural result of a system where a large group of people control only information.

This is easy to understand when you think of pin numbers and passwords. More abstractly it means the plethora of things you need to now to run a competitive business, trade secrets, connections, ongoing repeat trades and so forth. Capitalism as it is understood as banks, stock exchanges, property rights and wage labor is the result. All of it serves a purpose and none of it is a big secret or some kind of conspiracy, it is exactly what it says on the tin, it has to be or intelligent people experienced with handling money would never agree to it.

Imagine a medieval marketplace, everyone has gold coins locked in a box hidden under their floorboards which can only be obtained by force or negotiation. The less of the former the more of the latter. Gunpowder and an expansion of trade saw to that. Once capitalists were in control they sought to change the environment to one where the latter is favored.

At any time the masses can seize the means of production, however all they are doing is pulling a thread and unraveling this system, transfering power to the kinds of people who would stick needles under your fingernails even after you've told them everything just in case you're still holding something back and tell themselves you're a "kulak" so you deserve it.

know*

fug

>i would rather have a slow death than a fast one

One of the only intelligent posts in this thread.

This is probably the lowest IQ thread on Veeky Forums, my god.
Explaining the actual meaning of capitalism and the significant features to 3-4 retards who respond by pointing at a squirrel hiding its nuts and saying "dats capitalism."

No.
You are retarded.

That isn't true. They had courts of law overseeing these sort of matters and took contracts very seriously. Many romans owned and traded shares of trade and military ventures. There were quite a few success stories of small time merchants that made it big that we have records of - how many ancient societies had bakers so wealthy they could afford to buy mausoleums for themselves and their wives?

That is life.

Of course capitalism is inevitable, only a brainlet would believe you could somehow bypass human nature and stop markets from becoming freer

Has anyone here read Jean Baptiste Say at all?

"regulation is useful and proper, when aimed at the prevention of fraud or contrivance, manifestly injurious to other kinds of production, or to the public safety, and not at prescribing the nature of the products and the methods of fabrication."