General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Probelm With Capitalism [View all]PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Reduction can be a useful mental tool; I use it myself. One can't rely on it alone, though - humans and chimpanzees clearly belong in a category together, but are not the same (for example). In the realm of economics, I encountered a reductionist idea somewhere in my reading that stuck with me. (I haven't tried to falsify it.) The idea is that all economic activity follows one or more (in combination) of the following three principles: communism (I provide a good or service because I choose to), exchange (I provide a good or service in return for something), or hierarchy (I provide a good or service because someone has the power to compel me). In this framework, capitalism is primarily a combination of hierarchy and exchange.
Two further things:
It's not accurate to say that capitalism developed because of complexity (I think one could make a good argument for the reverse - that capitalism facilitated the development of complexity). Capitalism arose in the context of agriculture due to changes in property relations, and the integration of markets over a larger expanse of territory (making price signals more meaningful). Industrialization followed a bit later. That's the actual historical record.
I still don't see how the comment to which I originally responded is at all relevant. Trade/exchange is not what produced capitalism, it's not exclusive to capitalism, and it's not what separates capitalism from other systems that predate it or other systems that have been attempted since. Those are facts. If you were wounded by my response that's unfortunate, but it wasn't an attack, it was an expression of bewilderment. What is one supposed to say to someone who insists 2+2=7.3?