The Term Capitalism
Hey, all.
Smith, in Wealth of Nations, never mentions capitalism, and Marx, in Capital, mentions it as if it were a known term, but what he describes is essentially what Smith describes as mercantilism. Anyone know the history of this shift? Why didn't Marx use "mercantilism" too?
Smith, in Wealth of Nations, never mentions capitalism, and Marx, in Capital, mentions it as if it were a known term, but what he describes is essentially what Smith describes as mercantilism. Anyone know the history of this shift? Why didn't Marx use "mercantilism" too?
Fear of plagiarism would be an explanation for misusing terms relative to then contemporary standards. He actually establishes a definition and then uses the term that he established in a way that contradicts his definition. He literally contradicts himself within the span of paragraphs.
To call him a "synthetic thinker" is almost circularly irrational: he thinks like a moron because he's the product of moronism; it is true that a man is a moron as a consequence of moronism because the subject moron declared it. It's ridiculous.
To associate him with "greats" is to attempt to establish an appeal to authority, but that's irrational since such an appeal has merit only in the absence of superior evidence, such as his demonstrated difficulty in communication.
You're not a supporter of his economic rules, are you?
Regarding mercantilism and trade unions impositions against the masses: 18th and 19th C. are the context of the discussion.
And, to be frank, I don't know how you could honestly not follow my thought on the question of trade unions since Smith writes about them in relation to mercantilism and you claim sufficient authority on the subject of mercantilism to give an explanation of its development to capitalism.
My question was directed toward the subject of trade unions. Are the impositions initiated by trade unions against the people considered mercantilism, as you have defined it.
If it makes you feel better, the reason that he's difficult to understand is that he's frequently irrational and just as frequently misuses fundamental terms. For instance, the term "use-value" is sometimes a noun, sometimes an adjective, and has an "evolving" definition. It gets worse from there. What I'm finding is that every time he makes a new claim, I must go back to find contradictions or missing premises that are never established.
To be frank, though there are some really good pages, this is amounting to the stupidest thing that I've ever encountered. I could tolerate the idiocy of the relative value equation being one directional, but he makes conclusions based on that being true when it's self-evidently not the case.
He's a f'ing moron with a few good points. I've never read anything seriously reliant on ad hominems. He ad hominemed Aristotle! Lol.
I’m not following your thought. What impositions and specifically what trade unions? Are we talking about the time period of 1880’s? Earlier? Later?
Calling what Marx had developed a theory, as I too had always done, is turning out to be one of the most pervasive and flagrant abuses of language of which I've ever been conscious. He's not articulating an explanation of natural human interactions; he's articulating a set of rules by which a market ought be controlled. He's deranged; he's articulating the labor rule of value!
@Mimi
Thank you for helping. You don't believe that the controls of the trade unions imposed against the people were part of the mercantilist system?
Thought that you'd like to know that it appears that Marx uses the term "capitalism" to refer to any philosophy that considers non-utilitarian desire as part of its theory of value.
“What’s this? This is great! Let’s build our economy around whatever this is.”
With the rise of nation states, Mercantilism was dead by the time Marx arrived on the scene.
using this definition, it encompasses mercantilism. broad strokes here, no expert
Marx's use of the word led some libertarians to prefer "free enterprise" or "personal enterprise" or "market" or "free market" and so on and so on. Ayn Rand just relied on the basic and correct meaning.
I read a "white paper" by a successful CEO of a very good company. He called the next untapped market the "last bastion." Once driving through a snow storm a friend said that he could not see because it was "pitch white outside." People misuse words all the time.
Like "selfishness", "capitalism" is a good word, but it does have a specific meaning, regardless of how some people misuse it.