✊

I wouldn't use ants as an example considering they constantly wage wars against other colonies and will wipe out any small creatures that are in their way and are constantly expanding. Sure they don't compete within the colony but they will against colonies even of the same species

Hello again,

Yes, capitalism can be described as such, though I have seen some debate among scholars of the issue of whether or not something like State capitalism can exist such as the case with China once the precepts and statutes of capitalism are more closely looked and how china makes use of them even though their enterprise is not entirely private, but I don't know much about Deng's ideas to tell you. However, the definition you provided does necessarily reinforce your original comment.

I agree that capitalism does use the idea of free trade among free individuals, but if that were all that it entailed we would have never made another term for something that already existed. The key word would be profit. What separates capitalism from simple commerce or trade is that surplus value is generated by these transactions instead of just satisfying the needs of the two parties.

Also, although a quick definition might be a good starting point for discussion of the topic, it is also too short and simplified to capture the nuances and intricacies of an ideology that has had books written about it.

In this case, I believe Capitalism is the wrong term. What you are describing is "Commerce" and I do believe there is a significant distinction. In my replies, I have stated that Capitalism is a fairly new model of structuring our economy. Before that was mercantilism, before that bartering, etc. Capitalism distinguishes itself by a heavy focus on profit by trying to imbalance the zero-sum game of commerce. Also, if you look into the field of anthropology, you will see that tribes of humans were very communal, helping each other without seeking profit. I'm not claiming that it was some utopia nor that tribes always worked well with each other, but the claim that capitalism is some sort of innate trait in human society present in our ancestors does not hold well against evidence.

Hi, appreciate the reply!

You're perhaps right that exact equality is hard to determine, so I should have been more specific and said "≈1" instead of "=1" for the example, however while a perfect equality in trade might be outside of human scope, we do take it as a standard by which we judge a trade. Supply and Demand runs on this equilibrium.

Of course I do not deny that specialization of labor is good, however, such specialization predates capitalism and specialization itself does not ensure profit. No matter how efficient I am at making a product, making more of that product means nothing if there is no more demand for it, and if there is demand, it might not be consistent. Basically increase in supply does not necessarily mean increase in demand. People get full, so they don't need an abundance of corn. Enough trees are cut down so that axes are no longer necessary. A scythe is used only for the harvest and afterwards lays idle. Capitalism's solution in this case would be to introduce planned obsolescence in a product, use cheaper material or labor to make the product, or employ heavy propaganda to convince buyers that they need to buy more even if their needs are already met.

You say that capitalism is a basic economic form of competition, but capitalism is a fairly recent economic model in the timeframe of civilization. I don’t deny that from the Bronze Age and before that commerce was a regular aspect of life, but commerce and markets ≠ capitalism.

The basics of commerce is fair trade. You value A as “= 1” and I value B as “ =1” so we agree in our trade that A = B, boiling it down to a zero-sum game. Capitalism is not zero-sum but rather focuses on profit so it must extract surplus value either from an imbalanced trade or from value which does not currently exist such as paying a low wage to produce a valuable product in the case of the former or buying property that is projected to increase in value for the latter.

On the value and virtue of competition, I agree with the other commenter of the higher value of cooperation. Competition could prove useful areas for certain areas of personal or even societal growth, but it might not be the best for solving problems. Especially in such an interconnected society that we have today, the actions of one can have repercussions, many significantly negative, that can be felt across a whole scope of locales that the original perpetrator of the action could not hope to respond to and alleviate. It could be environmental damage, the devaluation of other nations’ currencies, recessions, etc.

Competition itself could become stagnant when a player becomes too large that they could hinder their competitors and keep them low on the ladder, thus turning a game of “making sure I win” to “making sure I lose.” Your example of instability driven by those who hold onto power is precisely an example of this, since holding onto power can be the end result of competition. Why would someone who already obtained the end goal give it up for the others they had always been competing against? Also, what political instability causes is that cooperation breaks down on the National level, and it turns everything into a competition of resources where the other cannot be trusted and thus it isn’t until everyone comes to cooperate again that they can come out of the rut