Once again this runs into the definitional problem. Because social historians would probably argue that it is free wage labor that is important in the development of capitalism. Ancient Athens and Rome were functionally slave states, dependent on slave labor - like up to 25% of the population of both at some points. Now slaves could in fact be wage earners in ancient Rome (in fact it has been argued that being a wage-earner in Rome was considered socially tantamount to slavery), but it was a very, very different economic system.
ETA: Ah, geez already behind in the argument. I type too slow. Anyway…
I don’t think so - I am unconvinced by Goldman’s assertions (and if you look closely he seems to assert re:capitalism, he doesn’t cite a definition or make an actual argument for it). But, eh - I can see a tedious long argument brewing with much digging in of heels. I think I’ll make a pragmatic (cowardly? ) retreat.
Not me, my cites, And of course the Romans paid wages. Salary in ancient Rome « IMPERIUM ROMANUM. For example, blue-collar workers, shepherds, mule drivers and sewage cleaners could only earn 20-25 denarii per day (80-100 sesterces). For this amount, they could buy about 2 libra (about 600 g) pork. Craftsmen, e.g. carpenters, bakers or mosaic makers, received 40-50 denarii per day (160-200 sesterces). A painter received 150 denarii (600 sesterces) per day, and a lawyer received 1,000 denarii (4,000 sesterces) for appearing in the trial.
Just because there were slaves, doesnt mean there werent wages,.
But that still leaves 75% (less a few rich aristos who thought earning a wage was unspeakably vulgar) who were wage earners. Also 25% is probably lower than the American south pre-civil war (10% of the population was enslaved and that includes the populous Northern states), and are you arguing that was not capitalist?
Whatever Marx et al may have thought its definitely true that Roman empire was capitalist to some degree (though one where government spending, particularly on the military, was one of the main drivers.) Its even been argued that it was this economy that actually collapsed when the western roman empire collapsed (so it was apocalyptic for the areas of the Roman empire that were completely dependent on the roman military economy, lke Britain and the Rhine, but much less so in areas that weren’t as dependent on that economy)
Your cite doesn’t define capitalism. In fact, it uses the word exactly 5 times. 4 times are just the title and repeats of the title, and the fifth is this absolute gem:
. Some may call it extortion, but the Romans called it capitalism
Oh, yeah, that’s quite the classical scholar you’ve found, there. Romans didn’t call anything capitalism. They didn’t have the word.
Did I ask for a cite that some people in Rome earned wages?
That some slaves were paid wages doesn’t make them “wage labor”.
And of course the urban population would have a higher percentage of wage-earning workers. But the urban workers were not the economic lifeblood of Rome. That would be the people on the ships, the mines and the latifundia.
Also, a whole lot of the “salaried” workers you described were self-employed, not employed by a capitalist. You’re listing what they would charge for their services or time. You think lawyers were wage labor?
Well they would say that, of course. If your whole philosophy is based on the fact that unfettered capitalism is the perfect, most freedom-y, form of government, you are going to argue the most obvious counter-example of a capitalist society that was famously very very not freedom-y at all, wasn’t in fact capitalist (very much “no true scotsman”)
For the those of us without that axe to grind it is obvious that the antebellum South was a capitalist society, as was ancient Rome (to a degree, it was nothing like a modern capitalist nation state, that doesn’t make it not capitalist though).
I mean it doesn’t really. True I’m sure there are definitions of capitalism that exclude modern American society (with all its pesky regulations and taxes). But its perfectly possible to come up with a generally agreed definition that can be used as a basis for argument without diving into the weeds of what Capitalist means (or “society”, or “time” for that matter).
That was just one random grab. There is in fact quite a long historiography on this subject - here’s a short topic guide that goes through the academic debate fairly concisely. It also briefly mentions the definitional issue .
One thing I can’t forgive Marx for is misappropriating the term “proletariat”, which although it did refer to people who labored for wages was an absolutely different social situation in ancient Rome than in 19th century industrial economies.
I think the most likely answer is that the “best thing” isn’t needed at some point.
I remember reading at some point that as far as salary goes, every dollar (at that time) up to $70,000 was about equal with diminishing utility after that. There are many factors. Some of it is that, that a system that creates gobs of money for a few people simply isn’t optimally efficient from a societal aspect.
Other factors. Captialism started in a more chaotic world. To me, building a country spanning railroad took a lot more work AS A CAPITALIST than building Facebook or being a pro sports star. The later sometimes are innovative, sometimes they aren’t even that, just technically skilled, but often they are simply living off of the infrastructure created by prior generations. The social imparitive to keep creating those outsized gains in a more connected world doesn’t make as much sense any more.
Also back to that $70,000. The more productive your capitalist society, the social factors get undesirable to keep the resources in the hands of the very few. These people have so, so much, you are going to be creating so much more benefit by simply redistributing some of it rather than paying security forces to guard what can’t possibly be used by the very rich. I’m fine with finding ways to tax the idlest of the wealth, estate taxes, but the problem seems that societies that champion capitalism find it undesirable to take it away from the very rich at any point, even death.
What does the ratio matter when that 25% is doing the bulk of the economically productive work?
Sure, sure, the cites that don’t say anything like what you’re claiming. The cites that don’t have the word “wage” and only use the word “capitalism” in a glaringly anachronistic way. Sure, whatever you say…
Slavery was the point, slave society is not capitalist society (unless you consider human beings to be capital assets in which case capitalism truly becomes indefensible) and slave economies are not capitalist (and yes, that includes the South, @griffin1977 . That’s why the capitalist North succeeded in kicking their backwards asses).
Fair enough. In which case it currently appears its always going to be with us in some form I suppose. At least so long as we’re part of a civilization.
) retreat.
. I should note that essay was published on a specifically 
.