Apparently, Elon Musk's Girlfriend is a Communist

^^^ Missed the point completely.

Then you’ll have to spell it out like we’re 4 year olds. What did you mean, specifically, when you said ‘humans very strangely expect to be rewarded for labor.”
What is it you think is going to happen? And remember, slavery is entirely related to capitalism.

Um...what?

Um...which word are you not understanding?

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'slavery is entirely related to capitalism.' In particular, the word 'entirely.'

Who said anything about currency? I thought we were talking about reward for one's labor.

How so?

What other means of reward for labour is our economy based on?

But the two do have a very closely linked history.

When speaking in terms of “forced labor” and “no pay”, then slavery is inextricably linked to capitalism. If there is no financial gain to force people to make money for you, then the force is not worth the gain.

Slavery has historically been a matter of social status and has little to do with modern financial systems. The dawn of capitalism literally coincided with the sun setting on slavery. I mean...the slave trade was interdicted by the world's first major capitalist power. You're reaching here.

What? Capitalism has been the main economic system for several millennia.

It really hasn't.

What economic system did the ancient Greeks and Romans have? The term "capitalism" was coined in the late 18th Century but that doesn't mean it sprang to life at that moment.

I

I wouldn't call the economic systems of the ancient world 'capitalism' by any means. Not the modern version, anyway. It's my understanding modern capitalism evolved out of the mercantile system, with share ownership being the major innovation.

In any case, a good capitalist will always disavow slavery. There's no money in it. It's inefficient and cost-ineffective. WAGE slavery, on the other hand...well. Point is, capitalism is unethical enough without dragging slavery into it.

Capitalism is the term used for an economic system in which “private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.”

If you have to pay laborers, then you make less profit. This is in direct contrast to your statement

Then I don’t understand what your argument is? Or is it just you don’t like the way I use the word “capitalism”?

There's a fuckload of money in slavery. So much so that the US still engages in it, as do many other "first world" economies. The difference is that the slave labor is offloaded onto the Global South (Africa, SA, southern Asia, for example). All the modern capitalist system did with slavery was hide it much better.

Profit motive has certainly existed from time immemorial (though one wouldn't have called it that), but the whole rest of the description is quite modern indeed. Basically wouldn't apply before the Enlightenment, if not the industrial revolution.

EDIT: ETA moved to its own post

There's a difference between not paying for labor and not paying MUCH. There's no such thing as free labor--you have to take care of your slaves or they'll starve and die. Hence the inefficiency and cost-in effectiveness. But if you pay something, the onus of responsibility for your workers' well-being is off you, and it makes sense to pay workers more than starvation wages because that increases productivity.

I mean, if we're talking about slavery in the sense of 'wage slavery,' fine. But wage slavery isn't chattel slavery.

Sure, it’s a modern definition as I obtained it from a modern dictionary. That doesn’t change that the basic economic system is based on exchanging a currency for goods and services.

As opposed to exchanging labor for goods and services

Or exchanging time for goods and services.

I do not understand the idea that under a different economic system, a laborer would not benefit from that labor. Because that is slavery and that is forced labor and no wages.

Mercantilism is ante-capitalism. Serfdom is ante-capitalism. Despotism is ante-capitalism. There's often been a merchant class that, superficially, resembles capitalism, but tell a Venetian merchant from the 1400s or a silk road trader from the 300s that they can own and control property in accord with their interests, and supply and demand freely set prices, and they would laugh at you. Farmers would think you were mocking them. The upper classes would march you off to be beheaded for spouting dangerous ideas, and the soldiers wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about.

Capitalism and communism are not the ends of a spectrum (well, communism might be, but I can think of worse going in that direction).

Have you ever seen a “slave shack”? I have. I doubt they still exist on the plantations open for tourism as that would detract from the “glory days or plantation life (for white people), but back in the 80s there was a town in Texas that had shitload of them. @Uncle Albert’s studio apartment could house probably 2 or 3 of the shacks. No plumbing, no running water, no heat, no electricity, ... I believe there was two windows in each.

Anyway, the point is, they weren’t housing them at the Ritz.

Did they exchange goods and services for money?

Sometimes; doesn't make it capitalism.

If I was insinuating chattel slavery was anything more than absolute shit, my bad. "Not letting my property die of starvation and/or exposure" is not a high bar to clear.

Either you are being intellectually dishonest or you are not differentiating one form of capitalism from another.

An alternative to capitalism would be an economy in which currency is not something to be collected but shared.

Collection of currency has nothing to do with capitalism. Are taxes capitalism?

Ok. I’m confused. What is it you are arguing? Is it that you agree with capitalism? You disagree with my definition (quoted from google)? Or you just want to argue with me?

Because, I’m not seeing an exchange of information. What is it you wish me to understand from your perspective?

I'm saying capitalism did not exist prior to the enlightenment, maybe even the industrial revolution. Your definition is fine. Your belief that it applies to the distant past, or accurately describes ancient Rome or Greece is terribly wrong, and thus so is your point that slavery and capitalism are inextricably linked.