I’ve always believed that capitalism is the default state of human exchange and the opposite of capitalism which I define tersely as empathy at scale takes effort.
Even Adam “the Father of Capitalism,” Smith said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that once capital has ammased enough wealth to be thinking about buying the courts and the governments, it would be time to transition away from capitalism to a more natural and equitable system, whatever that may be.
I’m reasonably certain he would have been screaming for a socialist if not communist revolution back in the gilded age.
Do you take capitalism as being where all values are considered as fungible capital, or where the goal is the pursuit of maximum capital? I was taking the second, but IMO the first is idiocy and the second is greed, and in ‘capitalism’ form I think both are refined versions of what humanity’s had for a long time.
I can understand Adam Smith imagining a bounded degree of this, with a change to a different system/ideology later. And experience shows it can kind of work, and facilitate a lot of development and growth. But I stand by a basic caricature that capitalism is scientifically refined greed.
Capitalism is only a few hundred years old. Trade predates Capitalism. It doesn’t have an “opposite,” rather it’s just another Mode of Production, of which there have been many and there will be more to supercede it.
I’ve always believed that capitalism is the default state of human exchange and the opposite of capitalism which I define tersely as empathy at scale takes effort.
Capitalism ≠ commerce
But capitalism is basically greed refined by scientific logic.
Even Adam “the Father of Capitalism,” Smith said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that once capital has ammased enough wealth to be thinking about buying the courts and the governments, it would be time to transition away from capitalism to a more natural and equitable system, whatever that may be.
I’m reasonably certain he would have been screaming for a socialist if not communist revolution back in the gilded age.
Do you take capitalism as being where all values are considered as fungible capital, or where the goal is the pursuit of maximum capital? I was taking the second, but IMO the first is idiocy and the second is greed, and in ‘capitalism’ form I think both are refined versions of what humanity’s had for a long time.
I can understand Adam Smith imagining a bounded degree of this, with a change to a different system/ideology later. And experience shows it can kind of work, and facilitate a lot of development and growth. But I stand by a basic caricature that capitalism is scientifically refined greed.
Capitalism is only a few hundred years old. Trade predates Capitalism. It doesn’t have an “opposite,” rather it’s just another Mode of Production, of which there have been many and there will be more to supercede it.