[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 336x229, 1322452749197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2398821 No.2398821 [Reply] [Original]

>mfw Karl Marx, 'Capital'
>mfw Kant, 'Critique of pure reason'

Is there any reason these fuckers had to be as dry as possible?

Is there an abridged, abridged version of 'Capital' on the market? I just cannot get through this shit, it's not hard to understand he just writes in a way that IS SO FUCKING BOOOOOORRRRRINNNNG.

>> No.2398825

Why are you reading a book you don't want to read?

>> No.2398832

>>2398825
I'm studying economics, so I need to get through Marx. And Kant formed the philosophical basis that the Austrian school devised their praxelogical theories on.

'Capital' has the potential to be good, like with most books on economics. His manifesto was an easy, fun read. Kant I think is just purposely being a faggot with the way he writes.

>> No.2398834

Germans are a dry, boring people.

>> No.2398838

stop using such profound language and then we'll talk

>> No.2398840

>>2398832
If you think Vol 1 of Capital is hard which is really quite elaborate and even literary. You won't make it through vol 2 and 3 which is the point where they become excessively dry.

If you have a problem with Kant. You'll have a ball with Hegel.

>> No.2398845

>>2398840
I'm on Volume II at the moment.

>> No.2398849

>>2398821
how are you studying economy?
Are you going through a degree program or independent?
Any advice? My economic extent is reading/watching the movie Freakanomics and a little essay here and there. I'd very much like to improve.

>> No.2398850

>>2398845
Well there you go.

>> No.2398855

>>2398849
>Freakonomics
>inb4 shitstorm

That being said I found it interesting. Despite what /lit/'s general opinion is about it.

>> No.2398871

>>2398855
I know. I know. Hence why I'd like to ACTUALLY study economic theories.

>> No.2398876

>>2398832
>I'm studying economics, so I need to get through Marx.

LOL???

What relevance does marx have to economics?

>> No.2398878

Just skim the rambling parts. Writers had no sense of concision or restraint. It was a very romantic time. Very sexy. Just look at the way they dressed.

>> No.2398880

>>2398876

I dunno, probably all that stuff having to with society and how it forms out of conflict and blah blah. Just maybe.

>> No.2398883

>>2398880
ya but it was all just his opinion and him being a jew so approaching things in the stereotypical jew way.

Noone in the fucking world actually pays any attention to "marxist economics", so why would you study it at all, i dnno.

>> No.2398885

>>2398883

Perhaps we study it so that the budding economist is aware of it, and doesn't accidentally reinvent his theories thinking they are brilliant and unprecedented.

>> No.2398886

>>2398883
>Anti-Semite
>expects to be taken seriously

Why is socialism any less relevant than capitalism? They are both economic theories/institutions with benefits and faults.

>> No.2398888

>>2398885
You could generalize it tho without actually referring to the source material.

>> No.2398890

>>2398886
>Why is socialism any less relevant than capitalism? They are both economic theories/institutions with benefits and faults.

capitalism is not a theory nor an institution. Capitalism is the natural order, any trade is capitalism.
There are no problems with capitalism, saying such a thing clearly shows you don't have any clue what it is.

and
>2012
>liking jews

>> No.2398891

>>2398890
>any trade is capitalism
You are really dumb, for real

>> No.2398898

>>2398891
depends on what sort of definition you are using.

>> No.2398904

>>2398898
Well I would be using the correct definition.

>> No.2398907

>>2398904
which
inb4 marxist/socialist dogshit

>> No.2398908

>>2398898
No, it doesn't. Capitalism is a system, meaning it's defined by a series of processes. Just trading something is not a system. Bartering is trading, but it's not capitalism and it's not even capitalistic. You're a retard.

>> No.2398918

>>2398908
ya no
that sort of definition is made up by socialists to try to pretend that socialism is some sort of alternative to capitalism.

>> No.2398920

>>2398918
1/10

>> No.2398928

>>2398920
battering IS capitalism.
You don't need a medium of exchange to practice capitalism.
You don't need proper rights either.

>> No.2398932 [DELETED] 

>>2398928
0/10
Go to bed stormbaby.

>> No.2398939

>>2398907
Capitalism itself only really acquired its modern definition from Marx (he wrote the book Capital, after all) which is why the way it is defined by most has a Marxist shade..but even by its own definition, that of a market economy, implies a system of trade, based on the guaranteeing of rights which would create or enable these markets to exist..you may not think this is ideological, but consider the world in which Capitalism emerged and also how much contention it faced in its origins, that is when it formed out of the ashes of the more traditional (for that time) feudal systems..Capitalism is in general the economic dimension to traditional liberalism (that is liberalism in its original sense)...personally, i would prefer empires and kings to the modern liberal, democratic capitalism that we have today (so no need to accuse me of marxism, I'm actually more of a Buonapartist..in a sense)

>> No.2398945

>>2398939
>based on the guaranteeing of rights which would create or enable these markets to exist

wrong

never heard of a black market?

Capitalism did not really form at all, the way you frame it is really a socialist way of looking at history.
All that changed from the feudal age to the more "enlightened" age, is that worker productivity shot up due to factories, industrialization, mechanization, etc.
This allowed greater excess which leads to accumulation of savings and so on.

But this is not a "system" which implies something imposed ala socialism.
This is the natural order which forms spontaneously wherever humans exist.

>so no need to accuse me of marxism, I'm actually more of a Buonapartist
Basically the same thing, napoleon's liberalism was the precursory to the modern decadent liberalism

>> No.2398961

>>2398945
except every political philosopher from Hobbes to Contemporary authors says you're wrong. Society is imposed, whether because we're bad or good w/e. But anything within this system is imposed.
3/10 made me reply.

>> No.2398962

>>2398945
you are saying that capitalism is this system without a system, that it is purely organic, etc..you say it has no ideology..basically you're suffering from confirmation bias..this is evident when you say that the only thing that changed in the transition from feudalism to modern capitalism is an increase in worker production...this is disregarding much of the case simply because some facts are irrelevant to your conclusion...modern capitalism did indeed develop alongside the ideologies associated with it..that these ideologies are non-essential to the mechanical functioning of capitalism is evident (see: china) but you are simply ignoring that they exist..and to say that Napoleon's policy led to ''decadent'' liberalism is again, only partially true..and to the extent that it is true, it is still teleological to equate Napoleon's government with modern liberalism...tl;dr Stop being intellectually lazy..if you need confirmation so badly i would suggest talking to your mom

>> No.2398964

>>2398945
>But this is not a "system" which implies something imposed
You're inferring the imposition. A system implies no such thing, a system, especially in a technical context, simply means a a complex thing composed of many parts-- the only thing the word implies is exactly what I already said, a series of processes.

And bartering is not capitalism. The difference is that in the instance I'm talking about with bartering, there is no monetary value.
If one company trades stocks with another, there is also a monetary value accompanying this trade which represents the stocks, and vice versa. No money was exchanged. It was a trade, not a barter.

And I'm not a socialist, and I don't know why viewing capitalism as a system when it clearly is a system: saying "any trade" is capitalism is reductive and inaccurate.

>> No.2398970

>>2398964
I don't know why viewing capitalism as a system, when it clearly is a system, is socialist or wrong*

>> No.2398974

>>2398962
>if you need confirmation so badly i would suggest talking to your mom

She doesn't know anything and disagrees with me anyways

Can you recognize the fact that the drug trade is capitalism in action, and that state approval is not at all essential to the practice of capitalism?
Was there not capitalism in the Soviet Union in the form of black market trade in food and everything else?

>> No.2398975

>>2398970
Because tautologies are liberal conspiracies.

>> No.2398987

>>2398974

>Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[3][4] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism is a generally defined economic system. You can't simply assign your own meaning to Capitalism however you like.

>> No.2398989

>>2398970
Because by calling capitalism a "system" you make the implication that there can be alternatives.

Capitalism is trade, is human interaction, it exists whether you like it or want it or not.
It exists regardless of what the government does, or what the people want.

If you sell some extra tomato's you grew in the backyard, you are not participating in some fancy capitalism system, you are merely trading.

Also capitalism does not require a medium of exchange. It is merely more convenient(except in the case of fiat currency, where we are forced to use it, so that the government can place hidden taxes on us) to use one.

You could just as easily measure the stocks value in gold, or silver, or boxes of banana's.

>> No.2399003

>>2398987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system

This is why socialists like to refer to capitalism, aka trade amongst humans, aka "the free market", as a "system".

So they can say, well you have a capitalist system, so we will have a socialist system, by calling both a system, they can imply some sort of equivalency between them.

>> No.2399011

>>2398974
The drug trade is essentially a parasite of modern capitalism. It would not exist in the same scale, or even in the same form as it does today without the conditions produced by the existence of the state (legal prohibition, for one). Honestly, I would not begin to imagine what the economy would look like in a post-state scenario, because any such hypothesis would at this time be unprovable. Even in areas/conditions where the state has minimal influence on the local level (for instance, somalia) the influence of other states on the macro level still prevents these conditions from being valuable sources of information regarding what a post-state scenario would look like.

>> No.2399015

>>2399003

Again, you're simply applying your own arbitrary definition to Capitalism.

As the wiki article said...

"There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor."

Given various Socialist economies, several of those elements simply do not exist. Saying that Capitalism is simply human interaction and trade is purely semantic and serves only to contradict modern definitions.

>> No.2399017

You don't need to read the fucking Critique of Pure Reason for economics.

Read The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and the Metaphysics of Morals.

Jesus Christ what are you thinking.

>> No.2399024

>>2399015
>several of those elements simply do not exist

they will exist under a socialist government, no matter how hard they try to extinguish it.

Ok, lets not call it capitalism, lets call it the Free market, who cares about semantics.

>> No.2399025

>>2398989
>Because by calling capitalism a "system" you make the implication that there can be alternatives.
Again, you're inferring this. It is not being implied. You don't understand what I'm saying.
A system is a series of processes or parts which work together to produce a result. There is no inherent implication of an alternative.

>Capitalism is trade,
Command markets engage in trade. Command markets are socialist by definition. You are still retarded.

> is human interaction,
wat

>it exists whether you like it or want it or not.
I do like it, and do want it, because, again, I'm not a socialist and don't advocate a command market system.
But it does not exist just because. Capitalism requires capital, capital requires people engaged in exchange, and the complexities of exchange in the world requires monetary basis for exchanges. Hence monetary systems are the basis of the capitalist system, and capitalism and the concept of money are inextricable.

>If you sell some extra tomato's
If you SELL them, you are participating in the capitalist system. You have provided a good, it has been negotiated and assigned a value, it has been paid for, and the money you have gained from one exchange goes on to other exchanges: it is a part of the capitalist system, your one exchange is based in a larger network of exchanges.

>Also capitalism does not require a medium of exchange. It is merely more convenient
It's not a convenience, it's a necessity, and the necessity is an underpinning of capitalism. Capitalism would not work without the monetary basis of exchange.

>You could just as easily measure the stocks value in gold, or silver, or boxes of banana's.
Yes, you could, but then there would be no basis of value in future exchanges, unless everyone simply agreed on one of these things as a monetary standard. Then you would just be calling your dollars "banana boxes", the underlying principle would be exactly the same.

>> No.2399026

>>2399024
>who cares about semantics
it's /lit/ bro.

>> No.2399030

>>2399024

>they will exist under a socialist government, no matter how hard they try to extinguish it.

I wasn't necessarily referring to an authoritarian implementation of Socialism.

>> No.2399034

>>2399030
>I wasn't necessarily referring to an authoritarian implementation of Socialism.

There is no other form.

>>2399025
>and the complexities of exchange in the world requires monetary basis for exchanges.

Not require.

And certainly doesn't require MONEY, aka fiat currency, which is a relatively new invention.

You are saying that capitalism did not exist before money, which is nonsense.

>> No.2399040

>>2399034

>There is no other form.

Oh boy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

And suddenly, a whole new political theory opened up before your eyes.

But maybe I'm just confused in thinking that voluntary interactions aren't authoritarian.

>> No.2399046

>>2399040
the idea that socialism can be non-authoritarian is based on the delusional rejection of human nature, that people will voluntarily work and give up what they labored for.

>> No.2399049

>>2399046

>that people will voluntarily work and give up what they labored for.

And with this, I'm done. You are arguing from ignorance, so there is no point. I'll leave you with this wonderful little link, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lesigne

>> No.2399047

>>2399046
this x9000

>> No.2399050

>>2399034
>You are saying that capitalism did not exist before money, which is nonsense.
Capitalism did not exist before the concept of monetary exchange. That is not nonsense.

I've been doing this thing called "debating" here in this thread, where I back up my argument with logical considerations. So far all I've seen is nay-saying.

>which is a relatively new invention.
Monetary exchange is almost as old as civilization. The Code of Hammurabi uses the premise.

>> No.2399053

>>2399049
That doesn't explain anything about implementation.

>> No.2399061

Oh, and another thing: there IS an alternative to capitalism. It's called socialism. It exists, whether you like it or want it or not.
I don't advocate it or think it's equivalent to capitalism in terms of efficacy, but if it doesn't exist, we've all been discussing an alternative that doesn't exist because it's not an alternative because it doesn't exist.

>> No.2399063

>>2399049
You know hitler was a socialist, you aren't a nazi are you?

>>2399050
>Capitalism did not exist before the concept of monetary exchange. That is not nonsense.

If you want to arbitrarily define capitalism as what we've been doing, say in the last 40 years since the breton woods thingy collapsed, then i suppose you would be correct.

But this is just a fucking semantics argument, not anything of substance. And since "capitalism" itself has mainly been defined by socialists/marxists as something to blame all their problems on and provide "solutions" for, how can we seriously take their definition as it stands?

>logical considerations
You made a number of assumptions.
If we suppose that "capitalism" is how the economy works in a free market, then no it does not REQUIRE the things you assume that it must. Also "money" can be anything.

>> No.2399064

>>2399061
Socialism is a thought experiment. Not an actual system that might somehow exist in the real world.

>> No.2399066

>>2399064
Command markets existed.

>> No.2399075

>>2399066
A command market is a bureaucrat trying to approximate what capitalism arrives at naturally.

Also: in any tyranny, black markets will exist which operate on free market principles.

>> No.2399077

>>2399064

>Socialism is a thought experiment. Not an actual system that might somehow exist in the real world.

It has existed in the real world, so your argument is therefore null and void.

>>2399063

>You know hitler was a socialist, you aren't a nazi are you?

Only in name, if at all. I am, of course, not a Nazi.

>>2399053

>That doesn't explain anything about implementation.

Then perhaps you should peruse the previous article I linked to that does.

>> No.2399078

>>2399063
>If you want to arbitrarily define capitalism as what we've been doing, say in the last 40 years since the breton woods thingy collapsed, then i suppose you would be correct.
I'm not arbitrarily defining it. Any intro to economics textbook is going to introduce the concept of money, and the specific economics textbook that I had made the point that money is a necessity for capitalism because it solves the problem of coincidence of wants.

>And since "capitalism" itself has mainly been defined by socialists/marxists as something to blame all their problems on and provide "solutions" for, how can we seriously take their definition as it stands?
So economists who think that capitalism is better than socialism have had little to no say in what defines capitalism? I find this idea far-fetched.

>Also "money" can be anything.
This is true, and a part of the system that is my argument.

>> No.2399080

>>2398961
Wow you're really ignorant. Prime example against your point: Hegel.

>> No.2399081
File: 90 KB, 361x500, movie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2399081

>> No.2399083

>>2399075
>implying markets don't approximate

>> No.2399085

>>2399075
Command markets still existed. It's an alternative, just not an appreciably effective one.
Steering my car with my knees is an alternative to my hands. It's not an appreciably effective alternative, but it is an alternative.

>> No.2399088

lol OP, my friend is a diehard philosophy major and even he bitches about Kant. Good luck with that

>> No.2399097

>>2399085
It's more like, capitalism is the steering wheel. And you can steer using whatever you want. But no matter what you are doing, you are using capitalism.

>> No.2399102

>>2399078
>and the specific economics textbook that I had made the point that money is a necessity for capitalism because it solves the problem of coincidence of wants.

Yes, people like to use money. but i would not say it would be REQUIRED or a necessity.
It would be inefficient, but perfectly possible, to operate a "capitalist" economy purely on barter with goods.

>> No.2399103

>>2399102
how would barter deal with the surplus value of labor.

>> No.2399104

>>2399097
Jumping a little late in the debate, but since the subject is in the context of Marx, I would use marx's definition. Capital as he describes it is not simply trade, capital is the unit within the system that is designed to make the system grow, disproportionally to those who OWN capital, as opposed to those who WORK capital. In this context, marx's overthrow of capitalism would still leave a large part of what you would call capitalism intact, only without the presence of capitalist and without the function of capital to grow itself for the sake of the owning interests, rather for the worker's interest. Argue semantics, but in the analogy capitalism is in large part defined by who is doing the steering, which is what Marx had reservations about.

>> No.2399106

>>2399077
>Then perhaps you should peruse the previous article I linked to that does.

You'll notice that the article you linked doesn't actually give any examples of it existing in the real world.
Like i said
Thought experiments.

>> No.2399109

>>2399106
China still operates under a planned economy.

>> No.2399116

>>2399104
The capitalist does not exploit the worker, on the contrary the capitalist ACCOMMODATES the worker by providing him his wages well before any potential profits from his labor and sale of products have occurred.

>> No.2399122

>>2399109
Not really. And anyways, the fact you have tyrants running around destroying things and coercing people, does not change the fact that people engage in trade and "capital accumulation".

>>2399103
First of all: Surplus value of labor is commie talk.
Secondly: where would there be a problem? Both parties gain in a trade.

>> No.2399123

>>2399102
>It would be inefficient, but perfectly possible, to operate a "capitalist" economy purely on barter with goods.
No, it would be so inefficient that it would cease to work. That's been my point the whole time.
Capitalism is a system that evolved over time due to the concepts of debt and monetary exchange being influenced by outside factors like technology and politics.
You really need to read more about the history of economics and money if you're going to engage in arguments like this. Brush up on your anthropology a little too.
Debt: The First 5000 Years might clear up some of your misconceptions, too. You seem to think the barter system could be effective, when it has never been effective, ever. And it's never been in widespread use. Monetary exchange, again, is almost as old as civilization, capitalism is something that arose later to use it.

>>2399097
The steering wheel is the exchanges.

>> No.2399131

>>2399116
It also accommodates them to homelessness and unemployment when it fails, faulty and unhealthy goods when it is unchecked, and disproportionality of resources. It rewards most those who seek to take advantage of it not for the sake of society, or productivity, but for themselves. There is no reason there has to be unemployment, and no reason with all the resources we have to cultivate unhealthy people and make those who do the hardest work to enjoy the least of the benefits.

>> No.2399134

>>2399122
Yes really. And, Where does the surplus value go?

>> No.2399139

>>2399123
>You seem to think the barter system could be effective, when it has never been effective, ever.

It has existed in places. Money is superior which is why it's used.
I do not suggest it would be as effective as using money.
But it would WORK, that is my point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/africa/19zimbabwe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Rentenmark
>and stop the rampant barter and black market trade

Also you need to understand, the reason why these "economists" think money is so important, is because they cannot grasp the idea of an economy they cannot MEASURE.
Trading in money allows them to easily QUANTIFY THINGS which is why they overly value it.

This is also why they reject austrian economics as not being empirical.

>> No.2399142

>>2399139
>This is also why they reject austrian economics as not being empirical.

Or Maybe it's because the Austrians reject econometrics and any form of empirical analysis

>> No.2399143

>>2399134
What? It's distributed to everyone through trade and falling prices.
Commie concepts don't have much place in the real world, you should stop using them.

>>2399123
wow someones mad(and very ignorant), did you just get fired or something?

>> No.2399147

>>2399142
Or maybe it's because they are utter retards who want to shove their heads in basically meaningless data and pretend humans behave in a consistent/reproducible manner similar to physics objects or chemicals.

And so then we get experimentation in the real world to prove their theories, which leads to shit like the great depression or the current financial crisis as delusional idiocy meets reality.

>> No.2399152

>>2399147
I'm curious how you would define "experimentation". Also, rejecting the very data is just utterly stupid. You may disagree with the interpretations, of which there are many, but data does not lie.

>> No.2399156

>>2399139
Wow. Your argument that barter could work _as an economic process_ is poverty-stricken Africans offering anything they can for healthcare and trying to keep each other alive with what little they have? This, first of all, is not capitalism, which disproves the first premise that any trade is capitalism, and second of all it's a desperate measure for a region where monetary exchange is not viable.
Then, to top it off, your second link is to a Wiki which PROVES MY POINT that monetary exchange does not rely on what the money is, that it's a concept and can be anything.
>The Rentenmark was only a temporary currency and was not legal tender. It was, however, accepted by the population
This is why I've been using the phrase MONETARY EXCHANGE. What the money _is_ does not matter. It doesn't matter what you call it, what you use, it's an act of monetary exchange, and saying any act of trade is capitalism is inaccurate because not all acts of trade are established in monetary exchange, and monetary exchange is an underlying premise of capitalism because capitalism evolved out of the complexities of monetary exchange in increasing markets.
What is so hard to understand about this?

>> No.2399157

>>2399152
data is just data.

These "economists" want to ignore the human element in it, so they arrive at nonsensical results and conclusions.

Ultimately there is a direct correlation with federal funding of economists and schools, and their ideological justification for government intervention/spending.

>I'm curious how you would define "experimentation".
What do you mean define?
The chicago school sorts come along and go, "steady inflation will help the economy! and the federal reserve will be our philosophers stone!"
And so they go ahead and do that, we get a bubble, things crash, wealth is destroyed, etc.
Experimenting with their theories.

>> No.2399160

Cambridge Companions. USE THEM.

>> No.2399161

>>2399157
You've never even opened up a book about economics, have you?
Economics is about the human element. That's the whole point, it isn't just number-crunching, it's about analysis and concepts of behavior in tandem.

>> No.2399173

>>2399156
Whats so hard to understand that there is no significant dividing line between barter using goods, and using a medium of exchange?

Why do you think governments are so fond of money, why do you think your economists who taught you are so fond of it?
Because with money they can measure, quantify value, and most importantly they can TAX it.
If you had to operate on a barter system, it would be inefficient, but life would go on. Nothing would ESSENTIALLY CHANGE about the world we live in.
However, data based economists would go "AHHHH CHAOS! WHERE IS MY NUMBERS?!?!".

>> No.2399176

try these lectures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk

>> No.2399177

>>2399161
I read mises.org every day so i know what i'm talking about.

>> No.2399178

>>2399157
Your idiocy is showing. You go from talking about inflation to the 08 collapse as of they had anything to do with each other. The guy above me is right. you espouse as much knowledge as a YouTube vid watching paultard. Good day.

>> No.2399185

>>2399178
>You go from talking about inflation to the 08 collapse as of they had anything to do with each other

They are exactly related.

>> No.2399195
File: 28 KB, 370x333, 1296388874606.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2399195

>>2399173
>If you had to operate on a barter system, it would be inefficient, but life would go on. Nothing would ESSENTIALLY CHANGE about the world we live in.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on /lit/.

And this entire time I've been trying to fucking tell you that the quantification itself is an effect of capitalism. Capitalism reinforces the quantification that is based in monetary exchange. I have tried and tried and tried to explain to you one of the most basic components of capitalism to you, and you still are not capable of grasping it. I'm hoping that you're just stubborn, and are not actually this incapable of learning something.

>However, data based economists would go "AHHHH CHAOS! WHERE IS MY NUMBERS?!?!".
Economists would study the way the barters, work, then. It wouldn't be capitalism, because, again, there would not be an exchange based upon the concept of capital as value, and capital as value is expressed best through monetary exchange.

>> No.2399201

>>2399195
I don't know why you continue to argue about the definition of capitalism.

>> No.2399203

I'm done arguing with you, you fucking moron. This entire time I've been trying to explain that capitalism is the obviously better system because of its basis in monetary gain, that calling "any trade" capitalism is reductive and actually distorts what is truly ingenious about capitalism, and this whole fucking time you've been arguing using the exact same methods socialists in the goddamn 30s and 40s used. You sound like a fucking Stalinist, you're just using the wrong words.

>> No.2399210

>>2399203
I'm not sure how accumulating capital has to do with using money. But you have somehow concluded they are intrinsically linked, that this is a "system" which is capitalism, and must be done in this specific way.

>> No.2399226

>>2399210
Wow, you got Behemoth's jimmies rustled, good job.
Now go to bed, Deist.