• Croquette@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalism isn’t trading good for/with currency though. Socialist and Communist societies would still use currency as it is a lot easier than bartering everything. And in Socialists society, you can still have lending and investments.

    Capitalism is the means of production and trade owned by private entities (be it a person or a corporation) to make profits.

    You are right though, inevitably, capitalism leads to consolidation and monopolies which we see today.

    • Imotali@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This “barter” economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It’s a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.

      In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.

      The proper term you are looking for is “gift economy” and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.

      It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        TIL that during the 16th to 19th centuries the aristocrats benefited from a “gift economy” because no one who ever says this knows what Mercantilism was.

        • Imotali@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where did I mention the 16th or 19th centuries? And mercantilism was 100% not a barter economy. It was a form of market economy controlled by the state… so I’m pretty sure it’s you who misunderstands what mercantilism is.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mercantilism was purely extractive, and thus completely immoral, I agree. However, trade does predate capitalism because capitalism was not a nominal economic system at the time and mercantilist countries traded with one another.

            • Imotali@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Trade is not barter. And if it involved coinage or it isn’t barter. It’s a form of market economy.

              Market Economy ≠ Barter

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are only how the means of production/trade is owned. Wage labor can still exist.

        In capitalism, the means of production and trade are owned by private entities. Worker trade their labour for a set wage. All the profit goes to the owner/shareholder.

        In socialism, the worker owns the means of production and trade. If a coop is more profitable than the next one, the worker of the first coop get more money. The profits are distributed amongst the workers that produced the goods. The workers own the coop/company.

        In communism, the state owns the mean of production. The profits of the coop/company goes back to the state and are then redistributed in the society.

        Socialism can still have investment, but the returns necessarily be money. A certain good is needed. The worker pool their money to build a factory and make a successful product. The workers then get a return on their investment (they make more money than they initially had).

        • CompassInspector@invariant-marxism.red
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          All those examples are capitalism and changes absolutely nothing for humanity except the shape of the slave driver. Your mistake is thinking of commodity production and wage labor as unchanging, eternal states of being which comes from the bourgeois economic ideology taught to you, a notion Marx already destroyed. There was a “before” capitalist production and there will be an “after”

    • Hanabie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trading with currency is the basis for capitalism. Capitalism is lending/investing. When you don’t have any actual wares at hand, but currency, virtual value, you trade for higher future virtual value.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could barter cows and still be in a capitalistic society. It just wouldn’t be

        Currency is just a way to simplify a transaction. I have a cow thatis valued at 100$. I get 100$ that I then spend on whatever. I don’t need to trade a cow for a 100 eggs, then keep 10 eggs and trade for butters.

        Lending isn’t inherently capitalistic. I can lend a 100$ to my friend to start a business and he gives me back a 100$ after a time, no interest.

        • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Communism is when the government steals your cows and gives you back the milk as rations.

          Capitalism is when you have somebody milk the cow for you and then you sell the milk and get rich and everyone calls you Mr Milkman the Millionaire.

          As you can see capitalism is a much preferable system.