[On the Instability of Republics]

[Professor X]

Capitalism has existed since long before the Calvinists. Before centralized governments came into being, you always had some groups where individuals would create something to sell or barter with. If someone had great success with something (being a top-notch basketweaver, for example) there were bound to be those who tried to compete with them. Capitalism in its purest form has probably existed for as long as humans have traded with each other.

What you are describing here is not Capitalism, it is simple trading (which even too place in Neanderthal times). Capitalism (in its entirety) means a lot more than that, this is the actual meaning:

capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm|
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

So for trading and capital to be attained, successful governments need to be put in place.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Rota, my problem with benevolent dictatorship is that of succession. Unless I am mistaken, there has never been a case in history of any nation having two in a row....

Actually Ms. FoxyBunny, I can name a succession line of five sovereigns who were benevolent, sagacious and morally upright: the rulers of the Nerva-Antonine Principate [96-180 CE] or Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

[Professor X]

Actually Ms. FoxyBunny, I can name a succession line of five sovereigns who were benevolent, sagacious and morally upright: the rulers of the Nerva-Antonine Principate [96-180 CE] or Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

Very well done!
[No sarcasm intended]

[Rota]

Rota, my problem with benevolent dictatorship is that of succession. Unless I am mistaken, there has never been a case in history of any nation having two in a row....

What about the Dalai Lama? He is the head of the Tibetan people. I think there is corruption in the line of succession when someone is entitled to the throne, like the heir of the previous leader. However, the Dalai Lama successor is chosen, rather than simply handing it a "next in line." You would be hard pressed to find a more benevolent head of state who thinks of what's best for the people before he ever thinks of his own needs.

[Professor X]

What about the Dalai Lama? He is the head of the Tibetan people. I think there is corruption in the line of succession when someone is entitled to the throne, like the heir of the previous leader. However, the Dalai Lama successor is chosen, rather than simply handing it a "next in line." You would be hard pressed to find a more benevolent head of state who thinks of what's best for the people before he ever thinks of his own needs.

Nelson Mandala was a perfect example of that point.

[FoxyBunny]

"Still I am a Marxist," the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.
"(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits," the Dalai Lama, 74, said.
However, he credited China's embrace of market economics for breaking communism's grip over the world's most populous country and forcing the ruling Communist Party to "represent all sorts of classes".
"(Capitalism) brought a lot of positive to China. Millions of people's living standards improved," he said.

Marxism has "moral ethics" he says, but does not help people. Capitalism is what improves their standard of living. While I applaud the man for his civil rights stance and benevolence, I'm not 100% sure he is the best choice for a political leader. Part of the success of the Dalai Lamas comes not from their success as leaders of a country but for their success in encouraging those who are oppressed. Big difference, and no offense meant to any of them.

As for the definition of capitalism, I think you found a definition that suits you, but I have always believed it was closer to this:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses. Capitalism also refers to the process of capital accumulation.

Ancient tribes and groups such as the Vikings were arguably capitalists.

[Professor X]

Marxism has "moral ethics" he says, but does not help people. Capitalism is what improves their standard of living. While I applaud the man for his civil rights stance and benevolence, I'm not 100% sure he is the best choice for a political leader. Part of the success of the Dalai Lamas comes not from their success as leaders of a country but for their success in encouraging those who are oppressed. Big difference, and no offense meant to any of them.

As for the definition of capitalism, I think you found a definition that suits you, but I have always believed it was closer to this:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses. Capitalism also refers to the process of capital accumulation.

Ancient tribes and groups such as the Vikings were arguably capitalists.

No I got my definition from the dictionary and not wikipedia.

[Skirata]

Mind if I give my definition of capitalism? Heh...

[LaoOmologo]

Ancient tribes and groups such as the Vikings were arguably capitalists.

Are you calling us Vikings capitalists? (I am from Norway) ((I am sorry, but I have not much 'smart' to say))

[FoxyBunny]

Vikings were definitely capitalists. They were free traders who established an enormous empire, largely through trade. They elected leaders from among the most prosperous men of the area and a man could rise or decline in social standing based upon his skill in trade. It was, in essence, the business leaders who made the laws and passed the judgments. They accumulated wealth, made trade agreements, had consortiums, and conquered foreign lands financially.

ProfessorX, I only said that definition was closer to my understanding than yours from Merriam-Webster. Here are some other definitions:

I think it interesting that ONLY the one definition you found refers to involvement of the state or country and would depend then upon formed central governments, in opposition to my previous statements. Meanwhile, every other definition I found supports my claim that it is probably as old as trade.

Economic system based (to a varying degree) on private ownership of the factors of production (capital, land, and labor) employed in generation of profits. It is the oldest and most common of all economic systems and, in general, is synonymous with free market system.
Definition by businessdictionary.com


An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com, shared by Thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.reference.com and answers.com.

And from wordIQ.com we get:

Capitalism generally refers to

• in philosophy and politics, a social system based on the principle of individual rights, including property rights.

• in economics, a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.

• additionally, it may mean competing theories that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century, in the context of the Cold War, meant to justify the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire)

• a belief in the advantages of such practices.