More seriously, i would accept Papercuts definition. All other systems restrict private ownership in some way. For the discussion of controlling ressources: why shouldn't those control it who can exploit the ressources, that way also adding value to the community indirectly? This is not theory: the Preussische Staat promoted the coal mining in Germany in the 19th century by the rule: if someone could prove he knew how to get the coal out of the earth (means he had capital he would risk, some good idea about coal ressources, and workforce at hand), the farmer owning the land on top of it was forced to move. I don't think that the effect on overall wealth in industrialized continental europe was restricted only to a few (of course it is far from evenly distributed).Unfairness in a capitalistic system from inherited property is not system immanent i think: put 100% tax on inherited property and everybody will have to start at 0 (leaving of course the question how to deal with accumulation of capital on the state side). One could argue that this would again mean restriction of private ownership, thus no more capitalism per definition, but it is after all private "ownership" of dead people which is restricted.

Actors: hierarchically organised; most dependentClients: independent (in this role)Owners: privateTransformation: know-how and properties into capitalWeltanshauung: cummunity as class hierachy with class-oriented input/output relationsEnvironment: market as stage for accumulation of capital, competition is a necessary evil

QuoteOriginally posted by: grafixelMore seriously, i would accept Papercuts definition. All other systems restrict private ownership in some way. As any rational system should.QuoteFor the discussion of controlling ressources: why shouldn't those control it who can exploit the ressources,Because it enables them to destroy competition.QuoteUnfairness in a capitalistic system from inherited property is not system immanent i think: put 100% tax on inherited property and everybody will have to start at 0 (leaving of course the question how to deal with accumulation of capital on the state side). One could argue that this would again mean restriction of private ownership, thus no more capitalism per definition, but it is after all private "ownership" of dead people which is restricted.I agree that inheritance is not the issue. What is at issue is the distortion of markets by the concentration of capital through the manipulation of resources. Capitalism is fundamentally anti-competitive.

Capitalism refers to the exchange of property rights in auctions which are enforced by a police collective.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerCapitalism refers to the exchange of property rights in auctions which are enforced by a police collective.Not in complete disagreement, but there are other types of enforcement collectives.See the "Invention" thread in the OT for a 22nd century example.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Collectorso then what is wrong with owning a lot of cattle? the danger of global warming, all the metan gass?Apart from environmental considerations, such as those you point out, there is little wrong with owning lots of cattle -- as long as your ownership does not inhibit competitive ownership by others. Owning all the world's grass and other cattle-feed, as well as your cattle, would be an extreme example of anti-competitive ownership.Corollary: The supply of cattle-feed needs to be regulated in such a way as to ensure competitive production of beef, leather and dairy products.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorQuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.this definition seems very vague? it opens for many types of capitalism? at least in theory, some good, some bad, some in between?for example private criminal organisations could be matching labor and private investment capital (capital from the same private crime organisations)? would you consider this capitalism, a bad branch of it?A more vague definition is the following: In capitalism a prostitute can claim that "she works", whereas most employees can claim that they are "sort of a prostitute"....

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: grafixelMore seriously, i would accept Papercuts definition. All other systems restrict private ownership in some way. As any rational system should.>Any rational system will fail, and did already. we are talking about human beings, and they are just not rational. QuoteFor the discussion of controlling ressources: why shouldn't those control it who can exploit the ressources,Because it enables them to destroy competition.>who can do, does. who can't : teaches

QuoteOriginally posted by: grafixelQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: grafixelMore seriously, i would accept Papercuts definition. All other systems restrict private ownership in some way. As any rational system should.>Any rational system will fail,That's the sort of self-contradiction that ends any useful dialogue.Quote and did already.Capitalism has failed. It's not rational in terms of human usefulness since it leads to crime and conflict.Quotewe are talking about human beings, and they are just not rational.But humans love to find as much rationality as they can. If we abandon this notion then we might as well go back to the jungle and fight each other with spears.

Post-capitalist thinking - some categories:"Post-capitalism refers to any hypothetical future economic system which are proposed to replace capitalism as the dominant economic system.There have been a number of proposals for a new economic system to replace capitalism. The most notable among them are:Socialist economics, an economic system based on state or public ownership of the means of production. Participatory economics, an economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society. Post-scarcity anarchism, an economic system based on social ecology, libertarian municipalism, and an abundance of fundamental resources.Binary economics, an economic system that endorses both private property and a free market but proposes significant reforms to the banking system. Technocracy, an economic system based on energy economics in regard to Thermoeconomics, is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in administration. Technocracy is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold."

Karl Marx said that capitalism is the system where the capital is owned by privately. if you own capital, you control wealth creation, not only own wealth.hence the concept of exploitation. you are being exploited by owners of capital in the place where you work. you create wealth, but capitalists own the means of wealth creation (which is the firm and its assets), so they own wealth which you create. they give some back to you, of course, in form of salary and bonuses.

Is definition of cap. difficult without thinking in 19th century terms (exploitation, ..)?After browsing through some Umberto Eco books (semiotic).U.E.: might is only a symbol of power.I: capitalism (in the 21th century?) remains only a symbol of economic power?As all formal systems it celebrates rituals. Capitalism impresses the masses especially by the-winner-gets-it-all celebrations.It erects sky scarping cathedrals and the bishop hats of its cardinals, bishops,... are bank accounts, real estates, rare luxury goods, .. And this is also the weak point. In difficult times admiration turns into envy and hate?

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskIs definition of cap. difficult without thinking in 19th century terms (exploitation, ..)?math uses century old terms and it's Ok. what's wrong with social sciences in that regard? you didn't give any definition at all

QuoteOriginally posted by: jawabeanQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskIs definition of cap. difficult without thinking in 19th century terms (exploitation, ..)?math uses century old terms and it's Ok. what's wrong with social sciences in that regard? you didn't give any definition at allNothing. No, really nothing.But we know now much more about psychology, social clustering, market segmenting, growth codes, .... labour has changed dramatically, we think more in output than in efforts, we automate hand and brainwork, we have outsourcing, open sourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, informing, communication (even of things), two-sided markets, ... all things which Marx could not foresee, when he wrote his critics "Das Kapital" and talked about monopolizing markets, production factors, .. He thought all these things are not relevant for the community as long as they violate the dignity of labour ...?IMO, in the 21th century, "marxists" should not preach the dignity of labour but the right of idleness without losing the right-to-exist. But then they are not marxists any longer ... ?And I provoked with the formal-system view, because Marx did not know that our insights are driven by convolutions of object and semantic layers of thinking .... At the other hand I find it important to define and clarify. I see it here in my country, Austria, how jargonizing destroys discussions ....But my major question: do we define something existing, if we say capitalism ?(btw, I tried a multi-dimensional view below ) Edit: see also mackbar's post-capitalism .... below.

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskBut we know now much more about psychology, social clustering, market segmenting, growth codes, .... labour has changed dramatically, we think more in output than in efforts, we automate hand and brainwork, we have outsourcing, open sourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, informing, communication (even of things), two-sided markets, ... all things which Marx could not foresee, when he wrote his critics "Das Kapital" and talked about monopolizing markets, production factors, .. He thought all these things are not relevant for the community as long as they violate the dignity of labour ...?the only that has changed since 19th century is the fact that more people own shares. shares of capital. i.e. more people co-participate in exploitation and at the same are being exploited. the principle of exploitation remains the same: you own means of production through ownership of shares. having these shares gives you the right to grab the wealth produced. at the same time there's this agency issue. it used to be that one dude owned a factory, and exploited all its workers. these days thousands people own stakes in the firm. however, the problem's that these days owning shares != controlling the firm, as it used to be in 19th century. these days management controls the factory, and often they own a lot of shares too. management controls wealth distribution. so this is more complicated exploitation, I'll give that to you, I agree, it's trickier, but the principle is the same: exploitation