Warp wrote:
> if they are based on free commerce and private ownership, that's capitalism
> by definition.

Technically, I think "capital" has to be included in there. You can have 
(say) nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes that have free trade and private 
ownership without capital.

>   Of course a capitalist society needs a strong government to regulate
> what people can and cannot do, in order to stop exploitation. However,
> that's true for *all* forms of economy and society. 

It's mostly minimal for capitalism, because capitalism tends to go along 
with what people want to do anyway. Contrast with communism, where Marx even 
recognised you'd have to have a brutal and repressive government to make it 
work.

And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the 
"communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay 
to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an 
additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the 
capital of building the thing, would be free under communism.  Show me a 
communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure 
communism". :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message