You can’t pwn yourself if you don’t try.
Sure fool, why don’t you cite a non-wiki source that claims capitalism goes back thousands of years. This should be funny!
Clovis,
The problem is not that you don’t know what life was like in the Clovis culture, it’s that you don’t know what Capitalism and Socialism are. What do you mean by society has been trending more Capitalistic for thousands of years? There’s more trade? There’s more technology? You’re begging the question if it’s that there’s more wealth.
Is the trend from independent groups of hunter gatherers to feudal estates a Capitalistic trend? Was 500BC Athens more or less Capitalistic than 1100AD Europe?
Seems like, if anything, in the grand scheme of history, the trend over the last several thousand years is for people to live in larger and larger groups with more and more concentrated and centralized control, whether that is a King or a Nation State. At least by the economic freedom index/Socialism=Big Government Control school of Capitalism this is a trend towards Socialism.
1 Like
Stop trolling asshole !!!1!
I am defining capitalism as private ownership of the means of production and socialism as state ownership of the means of production. Both can have free markets but the former tends to have them more so.
In that case, there is no doubt which way the trend has been. Early hunter gatherer societies all production was at the band level. There was central ownership mixed with some some forms of private ownership. Chiefdom societies increased they central ownership idea (think potlach), but also started creating private ownership of things like fisheries with tax in the form of tribute.
State societies then formed around agriculture which at first were strongly state-owned but in parallel ideas of private ownership began to flourish.
Along the same timeline we move to a greater entrenchment of free markets as the frequency of surplus is increased, especially with the advent of agriculture.
All of this long predates the 16th century.
So you have a notion of Capitalism that’s very different than Sabo’s. (and you’ll see LOTS of people - academics - talk about the 16th Century as the appearance of Capitalism) Maybe @Sabo has a point about defining terms and silly things like calling this Clovisism or whatever.
Private ownership of a fishery sounds like a monopoly, not Capitalism. Have you read Adam Smith?
Monopoly(r) is pretty amazing. The point was that what passes for Capitalism now is not free markets, but rent-seeking. Again, have you read Adam Smith? The game was a satire of Capitalism developed by a Georgist and yet it has become something proudly symbolic of Capitalism. It’s like Born in the USA by Bruce Springsteen.
2 Likes
I have read smith.
Like so much, it’s a continuum not a bright line. Capitalism didn’t spring fourth whole cloth 400 years ago.
Let’s look at a fisheries under some generic unnamed chiefdom. A family creates a weir and restructures a portion of a river to increase fish harvest.
Their fellow community members recognize this labour and as such that they own exclusive right to harvest fish from this spot.
However, the chief wants to throw a potlach from time to establish his power and to redistribute food to those who have less successful fisheries.
This sounds an awful lot like private ownership of the means of production with taxation for social redistribution.
Is this not capitalist?
Counter that to an early unnamed agricultural state. It’s organized around a society level religion with the chief as head. He controls all production. All citizens work to create structures and monuments to solidify the power of the religion and/or in the production of goods and services which are given to the state and redistributed back to citizens. There is some low level free market as some of labour is used directly but most is transferred to the state for allocation.
Is this not socialist?
The wealth of the river becoming the wealth of the family is rent-seeking whether that seizure is enforced by the community or the Chief. The “capital” is the river, the material they used to build the dam and the fish. It wasn’t theirs in the first place, so it’s not really capitalism. Is all of Capitalism a gift of natural resources from the State to some individuals? (real question)
That they own the wealth created from their labor? That’s capitalism? That’s like from the communist manifesto or something.
I’m not sure that communal vs egoistic is on exactly the same plane as capitalistic vs. socialist. There’s a relationship for sure, but it’s not necessarily the same thing.
Are the workers in control? Does labor own the value they create?
No — right?
What you’re talking about is more like Capitalism where the Chief owns everything. (We’re almost there with Jeff Bezos)
The lie that the USSR and Communist China tell is that the State is the worker and the worker is the State. It obviously isn’t. The State is the owner.
3 Likes
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by socialism. Sounds like capitalism but with all companies being employee owned.
Now you are staring to get it. Feels good, doesn’t it?
1 Like
If all companies were employee owned it would indeed be socialism; anarcho-syndicalism specifically.
1 Like
You don’t have Old Bay spice, obv.
I’m going to post this again because it’s so awesome. These guys were/are geniuses.
Dennis is the socialist here. He’s the one who is on the side of freedom. King Arthur is a Capitalist. He owns stuff (and people).
1 Like
I see now why there is so much confusion itt the two sides are talking about completely different things that just happen to be called the same word.
It’s like I was talking about a fun trip cat fishing to catch diner for a BBQ and you were taking about your buddy accidentally dating some dude he met online.
Don’t even start. We kill you guys in chip wars! You don’t even have ketchup chips. It’s barbaric. 
🤷🏼
It’s like you all live in some pre-electricity hellscape.
I came in late here, are you doing a bit?
The Gallic wars and trail of tears all fake news itt.
You know Socialists coined the term “Capitalist”. Maybe using their definition is justifiable. Proudhon, a 19th Century Anarchist (individualist-socialist) coined it. Capitalists embracing the term is a bit like people proudly calling themselves deplorables.