Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I think the issue here is a definition of capitalism which is both usefully broad and narrow. Often, given how it is defined and the ills attributed to it, 'capitalism' ends up meaning 'economies with scarcity' which is all of them. Or economies with money - most post c. 500 B.C.
*most of them, post c. 500 B.C. I think we might better define it as 'economies where capital is distributed by market mechanisms rather than political violence' - those being, as near I can tell, the only two options - but then, obviously, I have a preference for the former.
Your definition still, I think, begs a huge number of questions and elides a huge amount of historical contingency! Capitalism isn't coterminous or synonymous with the exchange of goods in a money economy.
I mean, does it? One of the standard definitions of capitalism is "a system based on private (read: not state) ownership of capital, operated for profit." For agrarian/post-agrarian societies, "have no capital" is not an option. So the question is "how is capital distributed."
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
