Capitalism

One calls “ capitalism ” an economic system which has one or more following characteristics, protected by a system from laws and uses:

  • freedom to undertake with the associated risks, possibly balanced by the systems assurantiels;
  • possible private appropriation of services (for example: supply of water) and Natural resources (more or less with difficulty, slowly or expensively renewable, even not-renewable (e.g.: case in a point which disappears following Surexploitation) or not renewable on human scales from time (Pétrole or coal for example);
  • private Property of the means of Production;
  • some Freedom of the economic exchange S;
  • research of the Profit, for in particular remunerating Shareholder S and/or compensating for their takings risk;
  • possibility of accumulation of Capital and Speculation;
  • Wage-earning and development of a “Job market” .

In the real companies, these characteristics can exist independently from/to each other, and each feature can be more or less marked. The property of the resources and means of production in fact is often shared there between individuals, groupings and State S, giving rise to a continuous range of companies of mixed economy. In addition, separation between the roles of holder of capital (remunerated by the profit) and of Travailleur (remunerated by wages) tends to becoming fuzzier, the latter being able to have a more or less large part of the means of production, in a context more and more mondialized.

In the same way, the private property of the resources or means of production can coexist with an high degree of Interventionnisme on behalf of the State, for example the authoritative fixing of the Prix and conditions of exchange, which the Economic liberalism condemns theoretically. Such practices known as “not-liberal” can be wished by certain private owners or public of resources and means of production who see a means there of protecting and of increasing their profits while asking the State to protect them from the Concurrence, possibly against the will of the Consommateur S.

In addition, in a liberal mode, the owners of means of production can arbitrate various ways between the concern of serving the consumers, the research of the profit and the accumulation of capital. It is considered nevertheless that in capitalist mode, the principal mobile of the economic activity is the research of the profit which finds its counterpart in the risk (Larousse 2000).

One speaks sometimes about Capitalisme of State to indicate a situation where all the resources and all the means of production would be property of a State, which is contrary to capitalism with the traditional direction (see definition). It can be the fact of a group to the capacity which would use them in its own interest, as an individual would do it, and not in the interest of the Collectivité. It must then be based on an autocratic system , authoritative with totalitarian, military or religious to impose its points of view.

Etymology and brief definition

capitalist Capitalism and , derived from Capital , initially meant (1753) the state of the person who has richnesses. The modern direction is given by Richard de Radonvilliers in 1842. It is taken again by Pierre Leroux (1848), William Thackeray (1854, first appearance in English), Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1867), Louis Auguste Blanqui (1869), among others. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels speaks about capitalist form of production (“kapitalistische Produktionsform”), then in the capitalist Capital of .

At the beginning of the 20th century, the term is used more and more, as with max Weber in Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism in 1904. The analysis of the emergence of capitalism according to max Weber is now the reference: the capitalist (for reasons that Weber analyzes as religious) gives up consuming his goods while seeing in their quantity an indicator of conduit of his life; he thus organizes himself in a rational way and methodical with an only aim of producing, and he accumulates and invests his goods to produce some more and more, not with an aim of future consumption or safety, but in a logic of pure growth. It is there, and only there, that it appears a major rupture compared to the former systems, which functioned (except for most primitive) also at least partly on the search for Profit and the accumulation of capital.

It is in 1906 that Werner Sombart speaks about modern capitalism , that of which it is question here.

Capitalism is in the beginning a concept, sociological, of analysis of the economic operation of certain companies.

One then opposes capitalism

  • to the primitive economy, where the exchanges are marginal and each group exploits nature for its own account.
  • with the saving in Potlatch, where the exchanges, even important, do not aim at an accumulation of capital (nor sometimes even to consumption: it happens that the goods are destroyed purely and simply at the conclusion of the exchange), but with a demonstration symbolic system of statutory power.
  • with the Communism, which indicates generally a theory of political organization, social and economic without supposed social class to profit from the pooling of the means of production and the consumer goods to meet the needs for each one (however, few experiments of communist company were carried out).
  • with the Socialism of State, where the private property is to the minimum reduced, and where all the productive capital is managed collectively; however, in this economic context, one finds as the term of Capitalisme of State, as certain Socialists use to indicate the economy where the State is only and single owner of capital, which in fact, from their point of view, which a totalitarian capitalism (foot-note: the expression was born before the diffusion from the ideas from Weber, which has an direct impact on the direction to give to the word " capitalisme" : it is necessary to hear the direction of 1750-1850, and not the modern direction)

It will be noted in addition that the political forms are seldom " pures" in practice, so that capitalism coexists very largely with the other systems. Many theorists recommend mixed forms even explicitly, with the proportionings varied according to the field and the goal.

Capitalism is depend on the system legislative Politique and in place: It requires:

- a legal protection of the Private property and intellectual Property rights (brevetage.)
- means to make respect this property (Justice, Police force, Armed).

It is commonly allowed that a State is necessary to fulfill this role. But in reality, capitalism very largely functions (and even primarily, for the great international business) on the basis of private arbitration, where the State does not intervene that as potential actor in last spring (knowing that one should not neglect the economic effect of simple a possibility of intervention). It will be also noted that the anarchist-capitalists consider that the State is illegitimate and dangerous, and that one can do some perfectly while resting on the natural Right, its own capacity of defense, and the private organizations. For them, capitalism appears at the end of the 18th century, then is described and theorized by Karl Marx in the middle of the 19th century.

Since the end of the Cold war, capitalism tends to be pressed mainly on the financial capital, become the most influential form of capital of the system, in a context of interdependence and increasing universalization.
Les stockmarkets and regulations of the World Trade organization (OMC) being bodies of regulation of the system.

History and forms of capitalism

See also: History of capitalism

The first forms of capitalism to the modern direction gradually appeared in Occident following the Moyen-âge, initially in the commercial cities of Italy and Northern Europe (Ligue of Hanse, Netherlands). The system takes its rise with the Industrial revolution.

Capitalism is the product of initiatives and successive adaptations during time. It took various forms, which for the majority coexist still nowadays and continue to evolve/move.

Forms of capitalism

Many authors distinguish several forms from capitalism, according to the nature of the means of production which prevail or which seem to them to prevail in a company. They locate thus, according to the historical circumstances:
  • a capitalism at land base, exploiting the Revenue S consisted the differences in agricultural output;
  • a mining capitalism, interfering with the international policy when the control of the resources concerns the political power;
  • an industrial capitalism, exploiting a stock of expensive machines concentrated in manufactures or factories; the place granted to the workers is then variable, it can be reduced to a role of object without more importance than a horse or than a coal heap, or obtain more respect and of consideration as in the Fordisme;
  • a financial capitalism bearing on abstract goods (financial credit) not directly related to the equipment of production. This shape of capital, the Capital financier, is the object of many anathemas, including on behalf of capitalist .

The change of the conditions of production calls more and more upon the Capital-knowledge

One also speaks about two archetypic forms of capitalism:

  • the " capitalism rhénan" , characterized by a major weight of the banks (holders of about half of the actions of the companies dimensioned, and very influential on the other companies), and an important influence of powerful trade unions;
  • the " capitalism anglo-saxon" , indicating a form where they are the individual shareholders, often gathered in Fonds of investment, of which the pension funds for the future pensioners, who have the determining influence.

Mechanisms

In a capitalist mode, the goods which form the Capital, like all the Factors of production, belong to private people or Entreprise S. The roles of holder of capital, from contributor of work and Entrepreneur are dissociated there and can be played by different individuals, each one seeking to satisfy its own objectives. So for the theoretical analysis it is convenient to insist on this separation, in practice the same individual can play simultaneously or successively several of these roles, in addition to its role of Consommateur.

One of the essential characteristics of capitalism is to function on the basis of research of the Profit by the capitalist. The profit indeed carried out depends, him, of the reaction of the Marché to the offers of the Entrepreneur S which implement this capital.

In the capitalist mode, the existence of the company is subjected to the judgment of the holders of capital, under the constraint to satisfy the shareholders, who hold the destiny of the company between their hands. The interests of the men as contractors are thus subordinated to their interests as consumers or holders of capital. This pressure undergone by the producers tends to put the factors of production between the hands of those which can best use them for the satisfaction of the shareholders.

Particular case of certain companies

If, in general, the profit is meant like a financial maximization for the capitalist as an investor , there exist particular cases where the capitalist seeks a maximization with another title that of investor (in a certain way, it claims a profit in kind and not silver). It is in particular the case for the companies where the investment in the company is subsidiary because the investor assumes other roles, and that the capital is not completely separated from the other elements of the company.

Free lances

A very important sector in the countries of market economy, are the free lances. The holder of the capital to the characteristic to be at the same time the single worker and the head of undertaking.

An alternative of this method is the family company, whose capital is entirely held by a group of close individuals, which also holds the orders of the company. It does not have of account to return to anybody in-outside group. Important companies, sometimes of world size, are thus apart from the Stock Exchange.

Co-operatives, mutual insurance companies, associations, GIE, and social economy

Very generally, the companies of the social economy, which gather the Coopérative S, the association S and the Mutuelle S:

  • binds obtaining the service to an adhesion (historically often subjected to a condition of statute of the person, but increasingly free); so
  • they have a capital held by the users (mutual insurance companies, associations, co-operatives of credit and consumption) or by their employees (co-operatives of production and SCIC), and
  • they have a variable capital, with the liking of the entries and exits of members.
  • applies the democratic principle “a person, a voice” for decision makings, but
  • prefers to translate the profit into service “in kind”, with the profit of their members (if the recipients of the service are not the members, but a population which it is about " aider" , one can discuss to know if they are still a capitalist form because to take the example of the insurances or paying mutual insurance companies, the garnered profit is higher than the provided assistance - because the payments continue that one meets or not the accident);

These companies can hold an important place in certain economic sectors (for example in France: the Bank, the Insurance, the health; the agricultural cooperative have even a dominant place in the trade and the agricultural transformation).

Nothing obliges the members to be natural persons: thus, of the moral persons and in particular of the companies can also join in this form. A Groupement d'Interet Economique enables them to cooperate on certain nonstrategic points or for which competition with less advantage than the co-operation. That enables them to set up common services (Bank card, provisioning of store, Marketing, Exportation, Recherche, etc). Two of the three plus French great systems of Large distribution are built around a GIE, whose members are the stores distributers, properties of local capitalists.

The term of social economy recovers very diverse companies and groups. This sector accounts for approximately 10% of the Emploi S in France .

Institutions

For historical reasons, there exist particular groups whose political authorities recognize a specific role. The chambers of commerce, for example.

Particular case of the State

The State in the countries " capitalistes"

The State has a " privé" field; , corresponding to the private properties of an ordinary individual or a private group. Very often, the distinction is not well made between this private field and the public domain (the part whose State is manager on behalf of the community). The more so as in certain cases the same good can belong, according to the circumstances, with the private field of the State or the public domain, and that the management of the possessions of the State (public or private) is the occasion of theoretical debates as well as practical.

  • Compared to its private field, the State is in theory in the same situation as an ordinary capitalist. But it is in fact seldom the case: the requirements and the political method of management very generally carry it on the economic requirements .

  • In addition, it arrives, within the framework of an market economy, that the State acts with a capital intensive participation, but by seeking a political optimization and not an economic optimization of its participation: to see mixed economy and Company of mixed economy.

The State in the countries " communistes"

See also: Capitalism of State

The Communists who did not adhere to the designs and with the practices which founded the modes of the " Communist bloc " , have as of the end of the 19th century indicated by Capitalisme of State the case where the State is owner of all the capital (or almost).

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Soviet states having practiced this economy, function under a mode of economic liberalism with a practically total privatization, in general with an appropriation by the old elites.

The Impérialisme and the Colonialism

L´ Impérialisme and the Colonialisme was sometimes presented like extreme forms of capitalism, in particular by Rudolf Hilferding ( the financial Capital , 1910), Rosa Luxemburg ( the Accumulation of the capital, contribution to the economic explanation of the imperialism , 1913), or Lénine ( supreme L´Impérialisme stage of capitalism , 1916).

The existence of capitalist countries which are neither imperialists nor colonialists, for example the Suisse and the Scandinavian Pays, can be presented like a refutation of this thesis. That, the Marxist authors answer that these countries are in fact integrated into a larger economic unit, in whom there is a certain division of the labor between the States.

With the argument reverses that there exist countries imperialists which are not capitalists, for example the ancient Rome or the Soviet Union, the Marxist authors answer that they do not claim that the imperialism is exclusively capitalist, but that at a certain developmental stage, capitalism is inevitably imperialist, which is extremely different.

An economic power and technique (in particular armament logistics) higher are a factor necessary to the expansion imperialist and colonial of a State, and from this point of view, because of capitalism, the European States were the first and best equipped out of guns, ships and railroad, preserves and means medical. In the other direction, such an economic power can seek resources which it does not find or more on its territory, and the peaceful trade is not the only means of reaching that point.

One can also notice that, in the case of England victorienne, the exchanges with the colonies (importation of the colonies towards the raw material metropolis, of agricultural and textile goods, pushing the production in metropolis towards more elaborate goods) were a factor favorable to the development of capitalism. On the other hand, contrary, for Spain of XVIe and XVIIe centuries, the richnesses drawn from South America rather constituted a brake that an engine of economic development.

Lastly, the practice taken by governments to off-set (or to force to flee) towards the colonies the criminals (what included in their eyes of the political opponents) can also be mentioned like political factor favorable to capitalism, although of another forms of repression without bond with the colonies could have the same effect.

Critics of capitalism

Capitalism is the object of many controversies. These controversies can carry:
  • on the accumulation of the capital in itself,
  • on the property of the capital,
  • on the behavior of the owners of the capital,
  • on the consequences human, social, ecological and economic of a system whose logic of operation is the growth of the Capital.

One finds under a capitalist mode of many inequalities of income, of inheritance, imbalances of imposition supporting the capital with the detriment of work, etc Beaucoup there see a scandal specific to capitalism, and recommend other systems.

Another characteristic advanced for capitalism is a form of Schizophrénie: because of the separation of the roles, the same individual inflicts himself with itself, via the social and economic machine, a good part of the torments of which he complains (the example archetypic being that one cannot at the same time claim of the low prices and the services constantly day and week, and to complain about the “delocalizations” or negative consequences for the Travailleur S). See on this subject Devereux for which schizophrenia is a ethnic psychosis, nourished and maintained by civilization .

Recently, of criticisms saw day in front of an exacerbated form of capitalism, as that of Jean Peyrelevade which speaks about " capitalism total". This author in particular proposes to prohibit the stock-options like leaves the remuneration of the leaders to avoid the conflicts of interests and to offer more advantageous dividends to the old shareholders in order to limit the outward journeys speculative returns.

The judgment of the currents of economic thinking

Marxism

The analysis Marxiste, inspired by Karl Marx through several works, whose most known the Capital is , is that in a capitalist company, the Prolétariat is obliged to sell its Labor force to provide for its needs. They are constrained to work to live. This dependence the place in a situation of Exploitation (domination) by the capitalists, owners of the Capital . The labor force alone produces only practical value, not of Valeur of exchange, it requires raw materials and means of production, therefore the use of capital, held by the capitalists. The alive Travail (the use of the labor force) is transformed into dead Travail (the capital). In the companies which survive the competition, the wages are less than than carried out work created like exchange value, a share being taken by the capitalist (individual owner, or shareholders) with the title of the “return on the capital” (the benefit of the company). In addition to this benefit, the capitalist regains the funded capital, which turns over then to the accumulation of the capital (development of the company which will enable him in its turn to buy other groups, which will benefit to him their turn, tools of marketing, publicities…).

Capitalism implies also crises of Surproduction, because the goal of the capitalist economy is not to answer a Demande, but to increase the Profit S of the Capital. To that, the Marxists oppose the socialization of the means of production, which should be controlled by the Collectivité in the interest of the whole community and either of a having Classe. This transformation of the reports/ratios of production must involve from the Marxist point of view disappearance for the social classes.

According to the Marxists capitalism opposes the human beings between them (in particular by the Class struggle), they thus wish the abolition of capitalism, in order to replace the competition by solidarity (it would be then the passage of a capitalism largely developed towards the Socialisme - or Communisme).

traditional Liberalism

For the liberal traditional, the system should not be judged (only) in term of utilitarianism, but (especially) from a moral point of view: it belongs to the companies and to the shareholders to determine what they do of their starting capital. The liberals do not deny the economic power struggles, but they deny that one can balance them or to solve them: one can according to them only move them with a loss due to the taking into account of less relevant criteria from the point of view of the optimum allowance of the resources, and without guaranteeing “social justice”. Any concept of arbitration is then regarded as a lure.

Neo-classic liberalism

The neo-classic school of economy sees in capitalism a general co-operation (competition pushing the actors to be positioned as well as possible taking into account the positions of the others) which includes the generations last and future, and a general increase in production which would profit with all. An interference of the political power can only disturb the economic system and cause losses and block the company

Interventionism

The interventionists of left and right-hand side judge the system with its statutory income. According to them, the capitalism produces relationship between rich person and the poor increasingly more unbalanced in term of being able and economic inequalities, and a social sclerosis which harms the general economy. It then belongs to the political power to restore at the same time the balance and the conditions of general prosperity and development.

According to their sensitivity to one or the other aspect and their overall assessment of the situation, the utilitarian ones will recommend an adapted variable political arbitration.

Quotations

  • “capitalism, it is the exploitation of the man by the man; and the Marxism, it is the opposite. ” (allotted to Henri Jeanson).

See too

Random links:Battle of Qadesh (1274 av. J. - C.) | Pentium | Square Co. | Time Sharing Option | Bim Sherman | Nuclear plant of Yonggwang