AVN said:
You use a definition of capitalism here which IMO is quite uncommon, because even with heavy redistributions (as in social democratic countries) you still consider the system capitalistic (at least that's the way I interprete this paragraph and other statements you made in this thread).
But that means IMO that the only system we have ever had on earth is the capitalistic system, because people have always strived after becoming as wealthy as possible, to get as much possessions as possible. The people were only limited by the rules of their period.
For example in the feudal system the vassal and the serfs both tried to acquire as much possessions as possible, only the serfs were unfortunately forced to pass a great deal of their acquired possessions to the vassal.
So my conclusion is therefore that with your definition of capitalism, feudalism is a form of capitalism (whereas you consider them two seperate systems).
Sorry for taking too long to reply. I'm in a very busy place of life right now, and while I did intend to answer ASAP, only now I managed to get proper time to do it.
I can see why you needed clarifications on this, so here we go:
My definition of capitalism, undeniably, is somewhat broad; nevertheless, still, there are defining traits that I follow for this, and I'll line my guidelines below.
Before anything, let me assure you this: damn straigth I consider "social democracies" to be capitalistic - at least, in their primary setting - for still, the "heavy distribution" is yet to disnature the primary guidelines of my classification.
Let's have a look:
First of all, all economical system have common caractheristics - at least one common caractheristic, there is - they aim to produce. Certainly, some are more effective at that than others, but still, if we use only this as the criteria, communism and capitalism are the same - both aim to produce, regardless of how effective they manage to be at that.
This said, we have to agree that feudalism also have this caractheristic; it aims to guarantee the capacity of society to produce, being indistinguisheable from either of the above mentioned under this guideline only.
But there are other caractheristics that allow us to perceive ideological/practical differences between the systems. I'll skip communism here, as it's not necessary to deliver my idea, and focus only in the two you compared:
Feudalism:
The system of feudalism was a historical contingency. Born from the remains of the barbaric wars, after the fall of Rome, it was the most able production system, for Europe, at the time, due to a few circunstances, the primary of them being the lack of safety to produce freely, the second being the lack of centralized power (which not only boosted the lack of safety, it also failed to deliver comercial standards and made the practice of trade very difficult - the many different currencies in a small land area being a practical example of that).
Well than; there are several differences between capitalistic and feudalistic caractheristics when it comes to property. See, in Feudalism, the owner of the means of production was the Feudal Lord. He used to exchange the allowance of usage of his land to peasents, trading it for protection against criminals, enemies and barbarians, as well as a (large) part of the production.
What we have, then, is a system that is very different from what we are used to deal with when it comes to relation with means of production - like today, still, the most valuable part of it was still in the hands of an elite - and perhaps that's why under my definition (without this clarification), the systems look alike - but see, in feudalism, the Lord was not *buying the force of labour to produce goodies that belong to him* (like modern capitalists do); quite differently, the labour force belonged to the worker all the time, and he used it at his own discretion. Only that he - the worker - rented the means of production from the Feudal Lord with the duty of surrendering a significant part of what was achieved with the appliance of such force.
The boundary, than, was between
man (worker or Lord) and
land; and the flowing of the wealthy was dependent on which position the person occupied in his relation with the land. Should a Lord die, or trade, or loose, his lands, for whatever reason, the worker would go with them, and have the same linkage with whoever now possessed the means.
Also, the bondage between Lord and Worker was different from now - they weren't "equal" (legally speaking); there is, two parts making a deal with what they owned; the position of the Lord was inherently, not practically, superior, and the decision to call off the arrengement belonged to the Lord only. Also, it was invasive of the workers life, as the power of deliberation of the Lord surpassed the economical sphere, and he actually ruled all aspects of the life of the vassals.
Capitalism:
In capitalism, we see a very different realationship. The boundary now is still between man and possession, but no longer a triple "vassal-land-Lord"; the link is now only between "capitalist" and "possession". There is also a link between ordinary worker and his own possession (what for the most lacked in feudalism, as then people owned no productive possession - so while now we have "micro-capitalists", back then there were no "micro-lords").
The working link now, however, is no longer between man and land; it's now between "man" and "capitalist". A relation between people, and a relation between *formally* equal people, that can theoretically be undone by any part at any given moment. Now, work is no longer the currency the worker use for the privilege to dispose of the land - Now, work is a *commodity*, bought by the capitalist for appliance in a mean of production that is handled, but never is at disposition, of the worker. This is a very distinct linkage than the one of feudalism, and a quite smarter one, for it allows for the protection of owners rights without the blurring factor that is a "third party" possession, a relation that would be troublesome if the parts were not unequal in feudalism.
The mindset differences:
While these are the practical guides to separate the systems, still, your critique of my definition would be meritorious if it was not for this aspect that I'll now handle - for this is where the systems really separate one from the other.
First, let me bring the key aspect of my definition:
Capitalism is a system where the right of ownership, and the disposition of such ownership, to commercial or personal purposes, are the primary guidelines for the civilian relations.
Well, in capitalism, that is true. When a farmer grows plants, it's not the growth of the plants "
per se" that he wants. What he wants is to maximize his level of ownership, what he does through the appliance of the workforce over the work mean. Theoretically, the desire for wealthy and profit is superior to the desire of the pratical result (a good crop), and hence, a farmer would burn his production to the ground if someone payed him more cash to do it than what the crop was worth.
Now, in feudalism, also, it's not the product "
per se" that is desired; what is desired is survival, that the product (crops) will guarantee. Also, someone would burn the crops for a larger crop, but you see, "owning" the "production" (not the weathy) is the finalistic goal. In feudalism, exchanges happened strictly due to necessity, not for the desire of the enlargement of the level of ownership.
Also, as said, the relation was an unequal one, where the boundaries between people, ordinarily, were friendship, and these between vassals and Lords were relations of subservience. A vassal would not (and could not) leave his Lord for another Lord offering better conditions; he was bound to the land he was born at (as good or bad as it was), and indirectly, to whoever owned it.
Hence, in feudalism, the "primary drives" for civil relations (not human relation, but civil relations, there is, those between man and means of production) were subjective (family ties, friendship, and subservience/power between Vassal and Lord), and not objective (to acquire more wealthy). Sure, more disposition of goodies were welcome, but a man would not have an urge for more than the strictely needed - like we have today - nor, generally, even the theoretical capacity to enhance - these been the main factors that determined it as a inferior system.
Social Democracies are capitalists:
Well, given the concise clarification above, I think you should have no problem understanding why I consider "social democracies" as capitalists. Nevertheless, just in case, let me put it in clear words: they are capitalist because, in them, the relation man/capital follow the basic structure of capitalism. The dread consequences that are inherent to capitalism - the tendency to over-accumulation, and the exclusion of a significant part of human beings - are mitigated by state intervention. Still, this mitigation does not alter the quality of the mindset behind it.
See, capitalism is very adaptable, and had many variations (pure metalism, mercantilism, laissez-faire
and social democracy), these being just the approach on how the mindset of accumulation is dealt, and what are the limits it finds... but not a challenge to the essence of the mindset.
Well, I hope that the lines of my overview is clear now, but if it isn't, please feel free to ask whatever you wish (just don't hope for a fast comeback).
Regards
.
) the less powerful, which brings me to your next point...
