385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
385 points (98.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43760 readers
1127 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Depends on how you define capitalism.
According to the modern (very intentionally altered) definition of capitalism,
... everything, including the USSR [1][2] has been capitalism. And even most Marxists are pro-capitalists.
The definition above encompasses everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be. (And that's only a slight exaggeration)
Which -- just fyi -- makes the word one of the most useless words in the history of language.
If, however -- just hypothetically -- you wanted to have a productive dialogue with a self-described anti-capitalist, you would need to carry out the entire conversation pretending the word "capitalism" referred to something a hell of a lot more specific. A single mechanism within market society. A single kind of contractual relationship between worker and company.
Which is an exercise in imagination and in the algebraic concept of substitution that most people have a rather stubborn aversion to.
The barter system before currency was invented wouldn't fit that definition, and strictly speaking Marx wanted Communism to do away with currency so if that ever happened anywhere, that would also be outside of that definition.
That being said, yeah the modern definition of "capitalism" is over-broad and mostly useless as a concept.
Right. That is a good point. Although Marx didn't see the elimination of currency as a realistic goal attainable within the first few decades (possibly even the first century) of communism, he did believe a post-scarcity humanity would eventually transcend the need for currency.
However when it comes to barter, the thing is: even in societies dominated by barter, some commodity tends to become the standard against which the values of other commodities are measured. Cigarettes in POW camps, cacao beans in Mesoamerica.
By an admittedly-loose definition of currency, a currency does always emerge and end up being directly exchanged for goods and services, even in barter systems.