Currency, and this is going to be astonishing to hear, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the system of economics where owners of capital control the profits from that capital, even if they can’t get those profits without the labor of others. It has fuck-all to do with literal currency which has existed since far before Capitalism and will exist far after it as well.
Neither socialism nor communism are incompatible with currency cause that’s just a way of expediting the exchanging of goods. Instead of social debt, people exchange currency instead for goods or services. Makes keeping everything straight quite a bit easier. Hoarding it is problematic in any system, since the whole point of currency is to, again, aid in the exchange of things.
Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.
And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?
It’s not his definition that’s the definition. Your definition is so absurdly broad as to be meaningless. No since the dawn of Agriculture capitalism has not existed.
Hell since dawn of agriculture it’s been very rare that farmers have owned their own land so your entire premise is absurd.
Currency, and this is going to be astonishing to hear, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the system of economics where owners of capital control the profits from that capital, even if they can’t get those profits without the labor of others. It has fuck-all to do with literal currency which has existed since far before Capitalism and will exist far after it as well.
Neither socialism nor communism are incompatible with currency cause that’s just a way of expediting the exchanging of goods. Instead of social debt, people exchange currency instead for goods or services. Makes keeping everything straight quite a bit easier. Hoarding it is problematic in any system, since the whole point of currency is to, again, aid in the exchange of things.
Still according to your definition we still have capitalism in the Nordic countries and in China. Both allow for private ownership of companies and have their own stock exchanges. So my point still stands.
And when do you mean we didn’t have capitalism? Since the dawn of agriculture it has been possible to own farms where the owner of the farm profits off the laborers of the farm and the land itself, the means of production. Isn’t that capitalism then?
It’s not his definition that’s the definition. Your definition is so absurdly broad as to be meaningless. No since the dawn of Agriculture capitalism has not existed.
Hell since dawn of agriculture it’s been very rare that farmers have owned their own land so your entire premise is absurd.