Comment on We live in a post scarcity information society and we still haven't moved on from capitalism.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 months agoCertainly more hierarchical than Socialism, but also more than Capitalism. Fundamentally, the lack of a market for Capital separates Capitalism from Monarchism, the class dynamics of today are different from before. This is helpful to understand IMO when trying to see how to solve it.
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Does the exchange of land between kingdoms via wedding dowries/treaties/violence fulfill the definition of a “market for capital”?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Not really. Capitalism allows anyone to buy and sell Capital, whereas these more primitive exchanges aren’t the same. The Bourgeoisie are fundamentally different from the Aristocracy.
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s pretty fair. It may feel impossible for me today to afford any capital, but if I were somehow able to accumulate enough money I would be legally allowed to own capital. Under monarchy, even if I got that much money, it would be illegal for me to purchase capital as an individual. That’s enough of a distinction to make them different for me, thanks for bringing it up.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Yep, that’s the idea! Functionally, Capitalism is more revolutionary and progressive than Feudalism, which is why it’s a good thing that Feudalism is fading and Capitalism is the status quo, just like it will also be a good thing when Capitalism is fading and Socialism becomes the status quo.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Kinda. It’s not a very efficient market, but a market doesn’t have to be efficient to be a market.
I guess technically any system of trade could be thought of as a capital market, as long as capital is for sale.