Leaderboard

Yes, I preface this too with “as a non historian” and a non-Marxist's understanding of socialist theory. This seems to be a two part question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your question is essentially, what is the time period in which capitalism first arose, and your reason for asking it is due to the confusion of “progressive” versus “reactionary” by socialists. Before we can answer that, we must begin by differentiating between concepts to better understand the situation. Capitalism, as we wish to establish it (meaning the full laissez-faire, private property society) has never existed obviously, but capitalism in the more loose sense of the division of labor organized around generally secure private property and the general mass production of goods for private profit, has existed in varying degrees and intensities in different areas in the past. But, to get to the heart of the matter, the answer of an exact date really seems irrelevant to the “spirit” of the question, as the accusation is from the socialists: capitalism is old, socialism is new; capitalism is reactionary, socialism is progressive. We don't really need to look at historical dates to compare and sort of to “see which came first” to win the argument, but by more of an examination of the concepts and the referents of capitalism and socialism. Will we have to investigate both questions, (the history of capitalism and the conceptual contrast of capitalism and socialism) to get a satisfactory answer. By the way, I thought Road to Serfdom was a great source of information and argumentation, I'm really surprised by Objectivists that didn't enjoy it. First, we have to examine the default state of nature. Human beings are estimated to have existed more or less in the current form since 500,000 years ago. The general scientific consensus is that they came from Africa and spread around the globe in small tribes and familial groups. At this point, we can say that there is no capitalism, and that the hunter-gatherer groups lived a pretty much hand to mouth communal existence for the most of human history. This is the default state of primitive existence. No capital goods, no credit, no savings, etc. Marx stated that socialism can only come about after the material productive forces raise the class consciousness of the proletariat to a sufficient level for revolution. In this sense, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, the most outstanding contribution to social theory Marx originated is the inevitability of socialism. Socialism can only occur with the capital already accumulated under capitalism. In this sense, socialism is mystical as a philosophy of religious or secular eschatology, Mises points out in his book Socialism. Now, it appears that capitalism in the loose second sense that I mentioned earlier, seems to have its first roots during the Renaissance, mainly in Italy late 14th century. As cities began to cooperate and spread the division of labor and monetary integration throughout and capital began to be accumulated, leading to gradual rise in living standards, and eventually even the Catholic church begrudgingly recognized that the right to private property was unfortunately needed for general prosperity. This is the great period of mercantilism, which mixes some aspects of the above loose definition with heavy state control, taxation, and regulation of commerce. This cannot be capitalism, but certainly the capitalistic elements of trade and production are there. The most relatively pure example of our second definition and the closest to our first ideal was the period of monarchical limitations on state powers which precipitated the Industrial Revolution around the time of the end of the 18th century to WWI. This was the greatest expansion of trade and production, the greatest rise in living standards, and except for the American Civil War, the greatest time of peace mankind has ever known. It was ended by WWI, mass democracy, and the communist revolution in Russia. That is my very brief historical understandings of the different economic systems. Now, we must examine the concepts of capitalism and socialism. Why should a socialist be “progressive” and a capitalist be “reactionary”? I think Hayek provides a pretty good explanation of this in Road to Serfdom. Hayek seems to come into the same understanding of the historical development of capitalism, stating that it had developed during the Renaissance, grew and spread into Western civilization with the direction of freeing the individual man from the ties which bound him in feudal society. Rand reminds us that: The ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. … Statism—in fact and in principle—is nothing more than gang rule. We must remember that the primitive man lacked established private property rights, although he must have had some very basic conception of “this is mine, that is yours” in order to survive. In this sense, socialism is almost identical to the default primitive state of nature, where man organized into tribes and communal life. Indeed socialist theory goes back to at least Plato. The concept of a ruling authority who distributes goods to the group is more closely aligned with the early social organizations of man. (And despite any socialist claims that no ruling authority is really socialist, that is not born out by the necessary implications of socialist theory.) The progress of civilization has always been a progress away from the primitive tribe and towards a society of exclusion and privacy for the individual to control his own life, mind, and body, and those physical goods he had homesteaded, produced, and traded for with this life, mind, and body. Hayek points out the "Background to danger" and "Is planning ‘inevitable’?" in Road to Serfdom that the collectivists began to see the world in terms of the inevitable societal evolution towards the Garden of Eden. They thought it would be automatic prosperity and equality for all, but for the arbitrary economic system imposed on us by capitalists. If we could only gain control of the capital goods, expropriate them from the private owners, then we would be living in paradise. In that sense, capitalism is reactionary, and socialism is progressive. Ayn Rand calls this “pure Attila-ism,” as Marx had substituted “material productive forces” for Hegel's “Geist” in the attempt to live as close to the perceptual level as humanly possible. There is no mind, just matter, expropriate the omnipotent material forces and you are the master of reality. (Cf. Rand, For the New Intellectual) If we examine these concepts, we see that if progress is to be judged by the standard of liberating mankind from the primitive state of natural poverty, then capitalism and only capitalism, the more laissez-faire the better, can be considered consistent with this standard. As Hayek points out, that modern civilization was made possible only by capitalism and that as soon as all around planning is attempted, because of the calculation and knowledge problem which he outlines, the division of labor must necessarily contract. But under the free competitive forces, the division of labor is extended far beyond anything that can be possible under planning. Thus the conclusion, that if “progress” is to be the consideration, then it is all the more important that we NOT have socialism. I know, that's probably a terrible answer, and I wish there is just one lecture I could point you to, but there isn't. You might want to read this book Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, particularly "PART III. THE ALLEGED INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM." http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx Also, if you go on iTunes U, there is a 10 part lecture series you can download for free by another Austrian economist and professor at UNLV, Hans-Hermann Hoppe called "Economy, Society, and History," which you can listen to on your iPod whenever. It's a pretty good series, although beware that he is an anarchist, but it still contains a lot of good historical and economic information about the "problem of production" man faces in his existence, and how violations of private property rights must necessarily thwart progress and lower living standards. http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66

Whether through jury nullification or through forcing a hung jury... when one does not cooperate with the law, one places one's judgement above that of the collective (as manifested in the law). The only difference is how one *acts*. Jury nullification results in "justice now", for the specific case at hand. It may result in a furor in the press and populace and may ultimately result in a change of law. A hung jury nullification may delay injustice for the specific case at hand. It may result in a furor in the press and populace and may ultimately result in a change of law. It may or may not result in justice for the specific case at hand.

This is a great question. I think Capitalism as a system of private property predates humanity. Animals understand private property within a pack and even sometimes value their creation.