Draft:Introduction: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Version vom 3. April 2025, 12:09 Uhr

0.1. Historical thoughts on capitalism from a Marxist retrospectiv

To start a historical ^[1] 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 ^[2].

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 ^[3]

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.

Remarks

1. ↑ I introduce this book with a questionable derivation of capitalism from a historical point of view. I am aware that science prefers a different defintion. But as the book itself I am heavily questioning the economic system and therefore it makes sense to start with a bold claim.
2. ↑ Capitalism did not emerge in isolation; it evolved from historical systems of conquest, economic control, and exploitation. A key misunderstanding in traditional narratives is the assumption that workers evolved from slaves. In reality, workers are the descendants of mercenaries, while slaves were the predecessors of the means of production. Mercenaries played a crucial role in shaping early capitalist labor relations. Unlike serfs or feudal retainers bound by obligation, mercenaries sold their military services in exchange for pay. This transactional relationship, where labor was exchanged for wages rather than dictated by feudal ties, prefigured the structure of wage labor under capitalism. Mercenaries were mobile, not tied to land or lords, and often fought for whoever could afford them. Over time, as standing armies replaced mercenary forces, the same economic logic applied to civilian labor: workers, like former mercenaries, did not own the means of production but had to sell their labor to survive. Slaves, in contrast, were not the predecessors of workers but of the means of production itself. In pre-industrial economies, slaves were not merely laborers but assets, treated as capital that could be bought, sold, and exploited for economic gain. This logic persisted into capitalism—not by maintaining human ownership but by shifting the concept of economic production from human laborers as property to machinery and industrial assets. Just as landowners and slaveholders once controlled production through direct human ownership, capitalists came to control production through ownership of industrial equipment, factories, and financial capital. Karl Marx defined capitalism as a system in which the means of production are privately owned, and the primary source of wealth generation is the exploitation of labor. Under capitalism, those who control the means of production—the bourgeoisie—extract surplus value from the labor of workers, who must sell their labor power to survive. This dynamic mirrors the historical transition from mercenary soldiers, who sold their physical capacities for war, to wage laborers, who sell their time and effort for industrial production. Likewise, just as slaves once represented capital in the form of human labor, modern capitalism replaces this with machines and financial instruments, but the fundamental principle remains: the ruling class controls production while extracting value from those who do not. The shift from feudal economies to capitalism was not a simple linear transition. Feudal lords, kings, and rising merchant classes all played their part, but the fundamental transformation lay in the way labor and production were organized. The feudal system relied on inherited social structures, where status determined one’s economic role. Capitalism, however, functioned on the basis of contracts, wages, and markets, elements already present in the world of mercenary armies and slave-driven economies. By understanding capitalism’s origins in war, conquest, and forced labor, we can see that its reliance on exploitation is not incidental but deeply embedded in its history. The system that evolved was not designed for fairness but for efficiency in accumulation—whether of land, wealth, or productive capacity. While forms of exploitation have changed, the fundamental structure remains: those who control the means of production continue to extract value from those who do not.
3. ↑ I relate to Marx only since most economic theories do not consider capital as a feature of capitalism. For more information see Critic on misleading economic definitions