Draft:Introduction: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Version vom 2. April 2025, 14:54 Uhr

0.1. Historical thoughts on capitalism from a Marxist retrospectiv1

To start a historical overview of capitalist development, I am going back in time to the roots of capitalism, which in my opinion emerged during the 16th century with the rise of mercenary armies. These military entities were among the first to apply the concept of paid labor, marking a significant transition from feudalism toward capitalism. While this does not fit the classical Marxist definition of capitalism—centered on control over the means of production and capital accumulation—the shift in warfare from feudal levies to paid soldiers reflects an early commodification of labor. Observing the wars fought from the 16th to the 18th century, one can see that most conflicts between monarchies were driven by territorial expansion and dynastic succession rather than purely economic necessity. Although some wars had ostensible religious motives, history has shown that these were often pretexts for power struggles—just as Marx would later describe religion as "the opium of the people."

The development of paid labor in warfare was closely tied to the increasing division of labor and the centralization of state power. Monarchs preferred mercenaries over feudal armies due to their rapid availability, professional training, flexibility in movement, and independence from feudal obligations. In that sense, mercenaries were among the first proto-proletarians—individuals selling their labor in exchange for wages, a concept that would later define capitalist economies.

Although the economic aspect of mercenary warfare is not straightforward, one could argue that ownership of the means of production and capital accumulation were implicit in territorial conquest and the exploitation of slaves. The vast colonial ventures of the 16th century, led by Spain, Portugal, and later the Dutch and British, were already driven by capital accumulation, resource extraction, and financial speculation. This economic transformation laid the groundwork for modern capitalism by creating global markets, expanding financial institutions, and increasing reliance on monetary economies over feudal obligations2.

While warfare during this period was largely driven by territorial ambitions and claims to succession, its consequences extended beyond mere personal or dynastic power struggles. The resources and wealth accumulated through these conflicts played a significant role in shaping economic structures that would later align with capitalist principles. However, the wealth generated from these conflicts—through land acquisition, trade monopolies, and slave economies—undeniably fueled early capitalist development. In this way, the shift toward professionalized, wage-based armies reflects a broader transition in economic structures, bridging feudalism and emerging capitalism.

Thus, while mercenaries alone do not define the emergence of capitalism, they exemplify an early shift toward wage labor and the commodification of services, marking a crucial step in the evolution toward capitalist economies.

0.2. Marx critique on capitalism

But let's jump forward in time and arrive in 19th century England to meet Karl Marx and his idea of capitalism. Marx stated that capitalism is defined by three main aspects:

1. Paid labor
2. Ownership over the means of production
3. Accumulation of capital

Marx analyzed the effects of capitalism on various fields which are still valid for nowadays society. In the alienation of labor, he summarized the capitalist system in a surprisingly provident way. Marx's theory of alienation argues that workers lose autonomy and self-determination when they are deprived of control over their labor and its products. Despite being autonomous individuals, workers are directed by the bourgeoisie—who own the means of production—to maximize surplus value for capitalists. He identified two forms of alienation: subjective and objective. Subjective alienation occurs when individuals feel estranged from society, experiencing their lives as meaningless. Objective alienation, on the other hand, refers to societal structures that prevent individuals from fully realizing their human potential3. Marx argued that objective alienation causes subjective alienation, as capitalism restricts human development. Unlike Hegel, who believed the modern state resolved objective alienation, Marx contended that its persistence led to widespread dissatisfaction. He argued that capitalism alienates workers by depriving them of control over their labor and its products. He identified four dimensions of alienation: workers are alienated from the product of their labor, from the act of production itself, from their human essence (species-being), and from other people. This alienation stems from capitalism’s focus on profit, which reduces labor to a commodity and disconnects workers from their own creative potential.

In conclusion, while capitalism has driven economic expansion and innovation, it has also perpetuated systemic alienation. The historical roots of wage labor in mercenary armies illustrate how the commodification of labor predates industrial capitalism. Marx’s critique remains relevant today, as modern capitalism continues to prioritize profit over human well-being, reinforcing both subjective and objective alienation. Whether through historical warfare, industrial labor, or contemporary economic structures, capitalism shapes human relations in ways that often prioritize accumulation over individual fulfillment.

0.3. Breaking down the problem set to solve

Although there are several theories on capitalism almost all of them refer to Marx observation as counter or supportive arguments mainly to reduce the negative effects or to increase the positive effects observed by Marx. The political economy developed socialist concepts to cope with the class struggle and to counter the worst excesses of capitalism. Neoliberal concepts fostered the surplus of capitalism. Even the idea of Marxism from the Communist Manifest was tried out in the Soviet Union and its satelites unsuccesfully while relatively long lasting. The concept of capitalism was not to overcome since the efficiency despite all alienation is incredible4. Therefore it does not make sense to implement an economy that eliminates the concept of capitalism totally. Paid labour is an obviously succesful concept despite the alienation of workers. Accumulation of capital which can be seen as a storage for future consumption is a safety net and a security mechanism for humans. The class struggle is the one to overcome and there are two ways to achieve that goal:

   1. All capitalists become workers
   2. All workers become capitalists

   1. All capitalists become worker 

This idea is grounded on Marx Communist Manifest. The dictatorship of the proletarian revolution eliminates all private property and everyone is working in the field which they like best. This concept is revolutionairy but in my opinion it is also subject to the Zeitgeist of the 19th century that Marx experienced most and was dominated by several revolutions. It would be bloody to achieve such a change which was proven by the Bolshewiki of the Russian Revolution. Just like the French Revolution demanded the guilotine for the aristocrats it requires huge pressure to convince the capital to withdraw from its exclusive position. I discard the idea of bloody revolutions since violence will always produce violence. A civilized solution can be achieved by:

   2. All workers become capitalists

This idea is based on the assumption that workers would be able to acquire parts of a corporation through lifetime savings on stock exchanges. It is mainly fostered by banks and financial institutions that developed a whole market around that idea. Eventhough there are slight adjustments in the classes the concept does not support the idea of all workers becoming capitalists. It is rather impossible as long as paid labor through a third party exists. To make myself clear. I consider a capitalist to be someone who pays for labour, owns the means of production and accumulates capital only and just like I said before the arguments in favor of paid work and the accumulation of capital are still valid. Only the obstacle of class struggle and the uprising class warfare which is always possible, especially in non-democratic countries, has to be overcome to keep the world safe and secure. Therefore it is necessary to reduce the influence of the middle man between the corporation and the worker which is basically the investor.

To avoid class warfare and bloody revolutions I suggest Communismus Oeconomicus: 

0.4. Communismus Oeconomicus (CO)

“There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” - Warren Buffett

The economic model of Communismus Oeconomicus is based on the existing legal framework for corporations, worker as owners with voting and earning rights, the merger of capital and labor in a disruptive but non-destructive process that values the legacy of property and market economy. It is a transformative concept from traditional capitalism towards a human centered economic system. In the next pages you will get an understanding of the model5. The later chapters offer deeper insight into political and societal implications that I expect. It is the first of three books that covers the pathway towards the development of a decentralized-digital society. The most important informations will be found in the footnotes since I argue with the AI response. To ask the AI indefinitely may result in the same but I think it is more important to show the unbiased answers instead of manipulating the AI response.