Kind of. Capitalism is just short-hand for what people do in an economy (without anyone intervening in their activities). And as I said to him, there's no point in bringing up "the means of production" in this context, because even an iPad is one, and that could be in anyone's hands. Besides, even in Uncle Karl's times, a factory could be owned by well-meaning investors, not only filthy slave-driver oppressor pigs. "Some" see it as distinct? Well, the distinction is political power. Take out a tiny minority's ability to (forcefully) benefit at everyone else's expense, and what you're left with is Capitalism, i.e. what people do in an economy (without intervention), as I said in the beginning, and there is no problem whatsoever with that. In fact, the relative freedom enjoyed by the early United States is exactly what brought them all their prosperity. Freedom brings prosperity whenever and where ever it happens. Dig up historical examples (other than America) if you insist, but you don't really need to. Anyone with half a brain can see that people will produce goods and services if you just get out of the way and let them (without intervening with taxes, regulations, tariffs, licences, junk fees, state-maintained monopolies & cartels etc). You've got that right. But it's because we've always had rulers. Therein lies the problem. Get rid of rulers (i.e. political power), and there will be unimaginable prosperity.What you're describing is a market, not capitalism. Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism.
Capitalism is distinct in that the means of production are privately owned, as dublinben said.
As such, "crony capitalism" is capitalism even if some see it as distinct from laissez-faire capitalism.
Really though, crony capitalism is all that has ever existed to my knowledge.
Yeah. That and slavery. And vast, previously unexploited amounts of resources. But it is a good point. When you think about the early days of capitalism, you see growth and prosperity. When I think about those early days, I think about slavery, hellish factories burning through child labor... Pretty much people with monocles and top hats climbing to the top on ladders made out of human misery and broken existences. It's kind of hard to really find a consensus given these slightly different perceptions of what "pure capitalism" means.In fact, the relative freedom enjoyed by the early United States is exactly what brought them all their prosperity.
You're looking increasingly dishonest there. Lots and lots of people immigrated into America, by making a 1-month boat trip that could potentially kill them. Do you think they went through that so that they could be horribly exploited by evil capitalists? Or do you think they came in looking for a better life because that's what they were told was available, because that was exactly what people who came before them had achieved in America?When I think about those early days, I think about slavery, hellish factories burning through child labor... Pretty much people with monocles and top hats climbing to the top on ladders made out of human misery and broken existences
I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't intend to come over as dishonest. At this point, I get the feeling that we are just going to continue arguing back and forth about Marx, early capitalism, the role of early immigrants and so on. Since you already doubt that my points are made in good faith, I predict the conversation only going downhill from here. So I suggest we simply stop. I thought you made some interesting points and enjoyed our exchange so far.