was capitalism inevitable?

[TruXta]

exactly - and "governed by" need not mean "sole and absolutely determining cause of".

Thanks for clarifying, articul8. However, see my reply to belboid - I'd appreciate a response from you as well: What is the analytical worth of a concept such as "the totality/aggregate" of social relations? Can you even define that in an empirically meaningful way? How would you count it?

 

[Blagsta]

Blagsta - talking about capitalism as the only economic, political, social, or cultural context that is worth considering strikes me as nonsensical and contrary to even a quick look out the window. Gift economies still exist in Western Europe. Honor is still a socially structuring cultural system of note in the US south. Neither stems from capitalism.

Your example of playing football exists in a gift economy? Your footie boots, ball, the jumpers you use for goalposts, the park etc were all produced and exchanged in a gift economy?

 

[fredfelt]

Utterly rubbished by the Chinese/East Asian experience - international trade and the tributary system served an entirely different purpose - tributary trade missions like Zheng He's actually cost the Chinese state money but achieved other goals in terms of state presitge, political stability etc.
ETA: There was a fascinating bit in the part I just read that has some bad timing in the Ming state withdrawing from the south sea trade just as they were in a technological/military position to dominate it - they didn't care and wanted to develop the inland agricultural economy. Muslim merchants from SE Asia weren't in a position to fill the gap, which left it wide open to the arriving Western powers of the Dutch and English East India companies etc.

In the short term stage prestige and political stability are all well and good, but I would have thought for a long term benefit to be derived from trade it has to be profitable?

 

[belboid]

belboid - can you please point out for me "the totality of social relations"? Using "society", or "the totality of social relations" as if it actually has analytical meaning begs a whole lot of questions.

JimW gave some good examples in his post just above. Capital does determine an awful lot about how we might use our social time - it determines how much we have of it, what spaces are available to use, how much energy we have, not to mention how much money we have. All of those have a very clear and significant impact upon how we might spend our leisure time. The individual decisions are all taken within the limited context of what capital allows (whether by law or by practicality) us to choose between.

Where do gift economies actually operate in the west? to a small extnt they do (blood donors, and open source software most notably0 but onl yin a very very limited way, no?

 

[TruXta]

Well, no, I don't play football due to me participating in a gift economy. But that's hardly the point is it? The point is that some of the social relations that govern what I do when playing football have nought to do with economics.

Besides, I'm sure ball-games and other similar types of play are and were alive and well in gift economies.

 

[JimW]

...What is the analytical worth of a concept such as "the totality/aggregate" of social relations?...

That will depend on the question you're after answering surely. I would have thought that the analytical worth has only become more prominent as time has gone on, as one of the features of the modern 'totality of social relations' is that it's more intrusive than ever, as the technological reach of the state and culture works to reduce local diversity - whole school of history that looks at 'bodily practice' and notes how even basic things like the way we dress are affected - why are Chinese kids now playing in shorts and t-shirts not trad Chinese clothing? Why is their hair cut Western-style? And so on.

 

[TruXta]

As an aside - if you want to see modern-day large-scale deviations from a capitalist model look here for example here
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/01/credit-crunch-leads-nations-to-barter.html

 

[TruXta]

Further on non-capitalist exchanges: Reciprocity, whether in barter or gift-giving, is very much alive. When you go and have dinner with friends, do you normally expect to ask for the bill at the end of the meal? There's a range of economically relevant phenomena that take place outwith the scope of accumulation of capital. Take corruption for example. Doesn't have to involve money at all, can be all about status and power (which granted, might lead to greater wealth, but the two/three aren't synonymous).

There's an open access (see! free!) paper from some Oxford chap here
http://hicks.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Economics/History/Paper3/gift3.pdf

 

[articul8]

What is the analytical worth of a concept such as "the totality/aggregate" of social relations? Can you even define that in an empirically meaningful way? How would you count it?

Is everthing of value empirically "countable" - Justice, for example?

As you probably know this would take us round the houses of a familiar debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute
or
/http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Totality-Adventures-Concept-Habermas/dp/0520057422

Anyway, as Jim says the short answer is that it is necessary because of the immanent logic of capitalism - the lack of a space from which to stand outside it.

 

[belboid]

TruXta - can you give me a specific example of large scale gift economies in the western world? Other than linux type deals?

 

[Blagsta]

Further on non-capitalist exchanges: Reciprocity, whether in barter or gift-giving, is very much alive. When you go and have dinner with friends, do you normally expect to ask for the bill at the end of the meal? There's a range of economically relevant phenomena that take place outwith the scope of accumulation of capital. Take corruption for example. Doesn't have to involve money at all, can be all about status and power (which granted, might lead to greater wealth, but the two/three aren't synonymous).

There's an open access (see! free!) paper from some Oxford chap here
http://hicks.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Economics/History/Paper3/gift3.pdf

Did your friends not buy the food from a supermarket, cook on gas, have electric lights on etc?

 

[JimW]

Further on non-capitalist exchanges: Reciprocity, whether in barter or gift-giving, is very much alive. When you go and have dinner with friends, do you normally expect to ask for the bill at the end of the meal? There's a range of economically relevant phenomena that take place outwith the scope of accumulation of capital. Take corruption for example. Doesn't have to involve money at all, can be all about status and power (which granted, might lead to greater wealth, but the two/three aren't synonymous).

There's an open access (see! free!) paper from some Oxford chap here
http://hicks.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Economics/History/Paper3/gift3.pdf

Which is all further evidence that capitalist exchange is neither human nature or inevitable, but again, such practices now take place embedded in a larger capitalist framework which would be foolish to ignore. Is corruption less prevalent in the West because we're more honest (even taking into account how hidden what does occur is) or Asians and Africans are more bent by nature, more interested in status and power? No - the workings of capitalism reduced the necessity/power of patronage networks in certain aspects and the state and law backed them up.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, it's in the production of suplus-value (which entails a chain of previous conditions - dispossesion of the producers from the means of production etc).

Indeed. And the question shouldn't be was capitalism inevitable, but when did capitalism become inevitable.

 

[TruXta]

TruXta - can you give me a specific example of large scale gift economies in the western world? Other than linux type deals?

Well, according to the chaps to which I link below, the value of the free software economy as a whole was about €26 billion in 2006, with a projected value of €69 billion by the end of next year. Big enough for you?

http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/elmargeese-the_freedom_of_success.pdf

 

[TruXta]

JimW: "No - the workings of capitalism reduced the necessity/power of patronage networks in certain aspects and the state and law backed them up."

Tell that to the Italians.

 

[JimW]

JimW: "No - the workings of capitalism reduced the necessity/power of patronage networks in certain aspects and the state and law backed them up."

Tell that to the Italians.

Not a serious comparison; the aspects of Italian society where corruption prevails (still far less than in Asian/African societies by and large) are precisely those peripheral to international capital, as by and large is Italy.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Roman Empire - frontiers saw increasing industrialisation and investment in technology/equipment; emergent proto-capitalist economy as manufacturers rely increasingly on salaried workers due to competition for manpower and difficulties holding on to slaves.

Was capitalism inevitable in 'the west' ? Yes, but several important contributing factors needed to be present.

 

[belboid]

Well, according to the chaps to which I link below, the value of the free software economy as a whole was about €26 billion in 2006, with a projected value of €69 billion by the end of next year. Big enough for you?

http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/elmargeese-the_freedom_of_success.pdf

difficult to tell from the limited info there, I strongly susepct they are exaggertaing somewhat, tho perhaps not much. Even if it is accurate it is still only a small part of the whole ICT economy, let alone the wider world economy. Whilst it is significant, in a limited way, does it really afect the world economy particularly? Does it influence, say, car manufacturing? Or any sphere outside of ICT?

There have always been some examples of what might be called 'mutual aid' practises within society, but they are overwhelmingly peripheral.

 

[danny la rouge]

Romans Empire - frontiers saw increasing industrialisation - emergent proto-capitalist economy as manufacturers rely increasingly on salaried workers and invest in technology/equipment

Those are precursory conditions, but are you saying they are sufficient? That from that point on capitalism was inevitable?

 

[butchersapron]

difficult to tell from the limited info there, I strongly susepct they are exaggertaing somewhat, tho perhaps not much. Even if it is accurate it is still only a small part of the whole ICT economy, let alone the wider world economy. Whilst it is significant, in a limited way, does it really afect the world economy particularly? Does it influence, say, car manufacturing? Or any sphere outside of ICT?

It's not an example of 'an economy' at all. It's just something people are doing with given skills and equipment that a value probably derived from the real economy is being applied to for polemical purposes.

 

[TruXta]

Well, I could always argue that the Internet is an outcome of non-capitalist economic and technical process...

Besides, not that the figures quoted (which are no doubt open to argument) apply only to Europe and the Middle East. Add in USA, Japan ++, and the figures are IMO quite significant. Another take on the same issue is here.

Quote: "Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software market," said Jim Johnson, Chairman, The Standish Group."

It does go on to note the rather small proportion that open software plays in the overall ICT economy, but have a look at how many servers run on Apache, which is partly free. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

 

[Blagsta]

Well, I could always argue that the Internet is an outcome of non-capitalist economic and technical process...http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

Eh? It started as a government defence project!

 

[TruXta]

BA: Not an economy? Not an example of the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services? My my. Your "real economy", is that a bit like "real Americans"?

 

[TruXta]

Eh? It started as a government defence project!

ARPANET did. But that wasn't the whole story was it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#Networks_that_led_to_the_Internet

 

[Blagsta]

ARPANET did. But that wasn't the whole story was it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#Networks_that_led_to_the_Internet

Again, eh? The internet was developed as a joint project by the US military and academia. How is that non-capitalist?

 

[TruXta]

Shoot, got to run. Back later, folks, I like this thread!

 

[Blagsta]

BA: Not an economy? Not an example of the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services? My my. Your "real economy", is that a bit like "real Americans"?

software has to run on computers, yes? Computers produced in a capitalist economy.

 

[belboid]

Well, I could always argue that the Internet is an outcome of non-capitalist economic and technical process...

Besides, not that the figures quoted (which are no doubt open to argument) apply only to Europe and the Middle East. Add in USA, Japan ++, and the figures are IMO quite significant. Another take on the same issue is here.

Quote: "Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software market," said Jim Johnson, Chairman, The Standish Group."

It does go on to note the rather small proportion that open software plays in the overall ICT economy, but have a look at how many servers run on Apache, which is partly free. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

6% of one sphere, significant within that sphere, but can it be replicated elsewhere? I'm really not sure it can, not even in the PC hardware sphere.

I do accept it is 'an economy' btw, just not convinced it is a very significant one. Not convinced by including Apache either, which is simply paid for in a different way

I'm off for the weekend as well, so will return to this later, I'm sure.

 

[TruXta]

Again, eh? The internet was developed as a joint project by the US military and academia. How is that non-capitalist?

Wowowow. How is that capitalist? I wasn't aware that the USAF was privately owned, or indeed in the business of distributing profits to its owners? Nor am I aware of it selling goods or services on an open market. Of course it's part and parcel of an avowedly capitalist nation-state, but that doesn't mean that calling it capitalist somehow explains it neatly or even precisely. It's a military force, paid for by tax dollars the same way the NHS is paid for by tax sterling. Is the NHS capitalist because it buys drugs from privately owned pharmaceutical companies?

If your answer is yes, I'd argue that you have an overly-broad understanding of capitalism.

While US academia is AFAICT adopting more capitalist practices (moving into industry-suppported R&D - a trend increasingly prevalent elsewhere too), the fact remains that the great explosion of science in the US post-WW2 was almost entirely funded by the federal government. Again, tax dollars.

I believe, but cannot be sure, that a US republican would call that socialism, not capitalism.

 

[articul8]

would you like to site an example of US right wingers bemoaning the role of the centralised state specifically in terms of investment in arms and defence spending?