system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Capitalism is not a political philosophy, but is a natural/perennial part of human society

 

At its core, Capitalism is not a “worldview” or even a “philosophy”, but rather the natural state of human transaction. Certainly since the 1700s in western Europeans come have come to revere this phenomenon, and naming it “capitalism” as opposed to feudalism, communism, etc. Markets, pricing, value, and risk have always been present however, whether whether or not they have the blessing of the regime of the day.

* Ancient Africans bartered services in exchange for goods (or cowrie shells) under numerous kingdoms/tribal regimes
* The silk road that crossed Eurasia was essentially a free market, with various marginal restrictions on commerce depending on which kingdom you found yourself in
* Even in restricted command economies, people will trade goods/services in black markets. Where prices vary based on value, risk, scarcity, etc
* Markets are not a human invention, rather they are a natural phenomenon of how people interact with their material world and each other

Any talk of Capitalism as a philosophy assumes that it is a trend which was invented recently, and can one day disappear/be repealed, or molded.

Maybe I’m confusing “markets” with “Capitalism”? But a world consisting of goods and services exchanged for a variable price is a natural feature of human life.
gpt
>Markets, pricing, value, and risk have always been present however, whether whether or not they have the blessing of the regime of the day.

Well, that depends on what we're considering under the ambit of "capitalism."  Certainly "trade" has always existed, but is "trade" (which occurs under any economic system) the same thing as "capitalism"?

If so, capitalism doesn't stand opposed to mercantilism, socialism, or even communism.  As all of those involve trade, markets, pricing, value, and risk.

But if capitalism is the specific system of free markets, ownership of land and production by individuals, and potential ownership of private (as opposed to personal) property, capitalism is no more "the" natural state of humanity than any other economic system.

You're basically treating capitalism as "existence of markets or trade."  But the technical definition even at a cursory level involves private ownership of those markets and industries.

So, for example, the existence of trade in hunter/gatherer societies would not really be capitalism because there was no private ownership of the land/animals/whatever which people used to create their tradeable goods.

The gold and salt mines of Mansa Musa were not capitalist (despite there being a *huge* market for it), since they were state owned and operated.

>The silk road that crossed Eurasia was essentially a free market

The market for sale?  Potentially (though you seem to be underestimating just how much restriction on trade was instituted at various times) but you're ignoring that the actual silk production was wholly state-run and considered a national security secret.

Under your definition, communism (which still involves the trade of personal property, and even markets for goods produced under publicly-owned means of production) is still capitalism.  At which point the term capitalism just describes the existence of trade, rather than anything more specific about the nature of ownership which is the definition of capitalism.

Capitalism isn't about whether good produced in a factory are sold, it's about who owns the factory.