Is capitalism antidemocratic? Can it exist without a state?

I don't think it can, because capitalism requires fiat curreny

>>2663749
Depends on what you mean by state. It can't exist without some sort of power structure, to enforce sanctity of private property. It also depends on your definitions of capitalism.

>>2663902
It really doesn't, though. Capitalism existed long before fiat currencies.

>>2663902

Then how did capitalism exist before fiat currency?

>Is capitalism antidemocratic?

Depends what you mean by democracy. Is it anti-representative democracy?

Well obviously not.

>Can it exist without a state?

No. No society can exist without a state. The state is literally just the legitimate use of violence.

What constitutes the legitimacy of violence might change, but not the fact that some people will have it.

File: 1477192563581.jpg (124KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 882x731px

reddit thread

Banking is a refined form of barter and negotiation that relies on standardisation, but choppy systems of weights etc. existed before governments began formally organising them.

As for small-c capitalism, trade and barter are basically outgrowths of human social hierarchies. You be my friend and I'll be yours - even if we have different motivations. Nothing is less natural than a society without negotiation of that kind. Socialist states are rife with political bartering, cushy job offers, and mysteriously awarded dachas by the black sea.

If you believe a bureaucratic socialist economy is an answer to anything, I recommend you watch Yes, Minister to see how those selfless desk men work.

If you believe anarchy is the solution, then this begs the question: What force would stop negotiation and the development of hierarchies in an anarchy? Maybe some kind of government authority with very generous retirement schemes and holiday benefits?

>capitalism is evil! it is anti democratic!
>in my socialist paradise you 'vote' for your choice', by 'choice' I mean 1 of 8 parties of whom all have the same ideology approved by communist elites
>if you disagree with our democracy we will shoot you

wow really takes my brain on a train

>>2663923
Again, it depends on your definition of capitalism. But if we look to Marx for our definition (And I'm not even a Marxist) he says that it has been around since at least the 16th century. The earliest fiat currencies, with some exceptions to emergency cases lasting less than a year and being in addition to the regular currency, dates to the 18th century.

>>2663943
Oh, and furthermore all those fiats collapsed, we have really only had "stable", world-wide fiat currencies since 1971.

Personally I'd say capitalism has been around since we went agrarian, but even if you disagree, you'd have to agree that capitalism existed before '71.

>>2663943

Can you at least explain why capitalism requires a fiat currency?

>>2663963
Oh shit, I'm retarded. I thought you were arguing against capitalism's existence before fiat currencies.

This is me:
>>2663908

>>2663943
>But if we look to Marx for our definition (And I'm not even a Marxist) he says that it has been around since at least the 16th century.

Pretty sure Marx defined capitalism as the pervasiveness of private property and wage labor.

Which wasn't really a thing until around 1750 when industrialization started for real in Great Britain and Germany.

>>2664045
I could be wrong, read here for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#History

The very first paragraph.

>>2664056
Right. In that way it makes sense I guess. Parts of countries or city-states operating more or less like capitalist economies have probably existed for quite some time.

It's pretty evident that whatever is decided by the market can't be decided democratically and vice versa. There is a conflict between democracy and market.

Private property can't exist without coercion. Call it a state or whatever.

>>2664060
Exactly. That's why definitions are important. For example money lending, sometimes used for ventures, and important cornerstone of capitalism, has existed since at least biblical times.

Wage labor is also at least two thousand years old.

>>2664064
True, but perhaps the fact that it has existed in pockets or communities is what allowed it to become dominant on most of the planet.

>>2664071
Capitalism became dominant because it's really fucking productive. Not only that, it allows for civil liberties, that in turn boost productiveness, and creativity, making it even more, you guessed it, productive.

>>2664078
I don't understand why you're posting stuff I already know.

>>2663749
Capitalism is inherently anarchic. It's economic chaos and it's benefits and flaws are shared with the benefits and flaws of a stateless society.