/lit/ - Literature

>>22924096
>So what is so different about le BAD capitalism?
One of the big reasons is just economic thinking. Economists didn't really exist prior to the 19th century. Before that, you had political philosophers, who often made economics secondary to their political beliefs and were woefully out of touch.
The other big reason is technology. It's not surprising that socialist thought took off around 1848, when industrialization had already gone for 30 years. Populations exploded, nations rapidly urbanized, and economic output skyrocketed. Economic and political systems had to adapt to this unprecedented level of change. Because this change was driven by technology (i.e. physical capital), the present system was termed "Capitalism" by its critics.

At least one key difference is the value of physical labor, which has dropped significantly since industrialization.

>>22924113
20th/21st-century capitalism is best defined by its governing institutions, particularly central banks, and approaches to policy shaped by (post-1930s) Macroeconomic thought.
>the only _economic_ system that arose in the 19th century is socialism and its close relatives
That's fair. Capitalism was only defined in the 19th century as social consciousness about economic issues grew, but its core properties may have arisen in the 17th or 18th centuries with the rise of corporations and other institutions.
Saying that it "arose in the 19th century" may be poor language on my part, but it's still worth understanding that the post-industrial world is fundamentally different from the pre-industrial world in an economic context.