28 Dec 2022 2:54 am
Capitalism was actually a term coined by Karl Marx describing a "political economy" where capital accumulation and wage labor would begin to take hold. In pre-capitalist societies (agrarian/feudal, slave labor, hunter-gatherer), Marx argued, there was not enough "Surplus value" to create a class of "bourgeoisie" - the owners of the means of production.LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑ Capitalism includes the contribution of those who as part of the agreement provide the tools necessary for more efficient production. If I build a machine to create women's hairpins (to take an example from Adam Smith) this machine and it's proceeds are by all rights mine. If you and I enter into an agreement were you work at my enterprise utilizing my machine in exchange for work I am contributing my labor (i.e. the hairpin machine) as well. Between the two of us we must agree on a free and fair trade. This is true whether I built the hairpin machine or purchased it from someone else with the proceeds from my other perhaps unrelated efforts.
For instance say we agree that I pay you $1,000/week to work 40 hours at my machine and I get to keep the product. I too have contributed to the production of the product. Or we could agree that you pay me $500 per week to use my machine and you get to keep the product. It's completely up to us to come to some kind of agreement. Capitalism is merely free enterprise with a recognition that capital is a part of production. That capital and it's ownership is merely an affirmation that the machine is my rightful property to do with as I please.
At its core capitalism is just the recognition of the Right to Property.
What you describe is not "capitalism" - it is merely individuals participating in market transactions.
I don't blame you for this misunderstanding because your Libertarian propaganda masters misled you into thinking that "capitalism is just a natural state of affairs - people trading with each other through freedom of association." I know this because at the age of 15, I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and participated in some libertarian group discussions. It was only 6-8 months later I de-programmed myself (as a teenager...heh) by reading outside sources.
There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about free transactions - we already know that such market participants conducting trade can lead to "market equilibrium" AKA Pareto efficient outcomes, at least in your Econ 1 classroom whiteboards.
(Whether this happens in reality is debatable)
What you presumably wish to argue is that if 2 people enter into some kind of contractual agreement, some "3rd party" (the State, other individuals) do not have a right to interfere with said terms of contract (e.g. via minimum wage laws) because it violates Libertarian sacrosanct property rights. This is, once again, problematic for the Libertarian since they have never properly defined the parameters of "said property rights."
Back in reality: if (((Monsanto-Bayer))), another corporation owned by (((Tiny Hats))) decides to sue family owned farms because said family farms allegedly violated "seed patent" (intellectual property) rights, then the courts will side with (((Monsanto-Bayer))) almost every time because the courts are stuffed with corrupt/cowardly corporate plants.
(Because seed patents are so sacred...to the Libertarian. lol...and Libertarianism is totally not Jewish-funded propaganda to eliminate any barriers to rent-seeking/parasitic activity)