There's a fundamental misunderstanding. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services and does not initiate violence.
Communism requires violence to be implemented via taxes.
Capitalism is NOT collectivist. You earn your money based on your labor or value produced to society.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding and at the same time a blind eye is turned to the reality of inherent pragmatism of capitalism. The sciolism education of the masses of people is to serve the corporatocracy of capitalism. The requires violence to implement taxation is a good example of that capitalism hegemony. Don't pay your property taxes and you will be removed by force. Don't pay the taxes on your next gasoline purchase for your vehicle and see what happens.
Capitalism IS collective; the cohesion of a free society accepts that, as general rules of society. If capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then why is there a need for a minimum wage that is not even a living wage. It is institutionalized slavery with wage slaves. The free society ideology of capitalism espouses alleged choices of careers, jobs, choices but to an extent, that is to the privileged and prize positions are awarded on merit system that can and has been manipulated. Then there is the occasional "Cinderella" success story of some destitute useful idiot to give 'hope' and meaning on the carrot stick to those same inculcated masses.
Communism is just colossal failure because of the inherent imperialism of its structure and the avarice of power all managed by incompetence of bureaucracy of very fallible humans with no real allegiance to any but the State because of fear and indoctrination.
Capitalism is running on a exchange system of perpetual debt, of keeping the masses in collective retention of economy.
Because capitalism fundamentally functions through the creation of surplus value (a theft of labor value), it eats itself, therefore it requires constant expansion via imperialism (theft of land, sovereignty, and lives) or social control (slavery) and cartelization. You believe in a false, reductive version of capitalism. Capitalism cannot be non-violent.
The US government, among other national governments, is busy creating a victim class. In other words, individuals without value, a class that feels entitled. One that the communist globalists will destroy once power is centralized in their hands. As a class, as a group, you have some value to the globalists. As soon as your usefulness ends you face extinction.
The lesson for victims is, you are being granted privilege to create mayhem. That is your value. Can you feel it? It is what individuals feel when they make a contribution to the society they live in. If you continue to support the communist globalist cause and if they gain world dominance your value to them, as a group, will quickly end. At that point you become a liability to them and your time is limited. Victimhood is just a manufactured government job today and without a job many will perish. Can you think of a way to save yourself while society still has a conscience and some compassion, instead of tarnishing those qualities with pretentious moral superiority and constant virtue signalling.
The dupes of Marxists and their sympathizers often cite the Marxist re-definition of Capitalism - including claiming that Marx invented the term, which he did not. Marx redefines Capitalism as a "collective," which actually applies to ungoverned individuals who all miraculously sacrifice any ambition for the sake of the State. And Marx claims that Capitalism is parasitic, as opposed to the reality, which is an agreement between free people for value exchanged.
It amazes me that even though history has proved the illegitimacy of socialism, some are so ignorant as to prefer to risk that and abandon the pinnacle of social achievement in the US Constitution - the only document in history written to protect the rights of citizens by limiting government.
Going any direction from the top of a pinnacle is down. Any other place than the top of that pinnacle is tyranny, suffering and death.
Just curious. Have you actually even went to investigate the origins of the word Capitalism? Its meaning and its usage?
"Capital is derived from the Latin word ‘kaput’ meaning a head. ‘Capitale’ came to mean a head of livestock in later Latin, By the 12th to 13th centuries it had expanded its meaning to include sums of money, stock bonds etc. The term capitalist devolved from that in the 17th century. It’s found in French and soon afterwards in English in the later 18th century. It meant the owner of a stock of capital.
Capitalists are frequently mentioned in economic discourse in David Ricardo’s writings. Capitalism however seems to have been invented rather later as a word in French by the socialist Louis Blanc (1811-1882) in 1850 and was further used by the French socialist philosopher Proudhon a decade later. Karl Marx (1818-1883) only uses the word twice in the first volume of his Das Kapital also known as Capital: A Critique of Political Economy or sometimes simply Capital." (probably he didn't used it in original GermAn, but English translation after his death contains it)
Answer from Quora by Dominique Dallemagne, I'm a university-trained historian who studied this period of European history
I had a look at the etymology of capitalism and, according to Wikipedia:
The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System) and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867). The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and "capitalist mode of production", which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.
As said in the question, the first German edition of Das Kapital (1867) and particularly page 124 does not have the word kapitalismus (check it here).
However, the second text mentioned above, in its original edition, does have the word. It can be checked here.
This single proof, plus the letters in the other answer, confirm that he did use the word somewhere. In effect, in most of his work he doesn't use kapitalismus but refer to the capitalist mode of production, a significantly more precise concept. Still, the claim by Braudel has so been proven false.
answered Jun 15, 2020 at 0:18
"capital", "capitalist", and "capitalism".Capital - accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods. In the financial world it can mean accumulated possessions, real or virtual (digital) calculated to bring in income.
"Capital is a broad term that can describe anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, intellectual property like patents, or the financial assets of a business or an individual." - investopedia.com
Capitalist - A person who owns capital.
Capitalism - A term often used to describe systems opposite to socialism or communism, said to be free market economics. This is how the term is used colloquially (informaly).
Definition of ism1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory.
Logically, the term capital-ism would mean a whole system in a society that operates exclusively by economic rules of owning capital.
But what about those people who don't own capital or who's primary motivation is not accumulation of capital, or those who work for government (public sector)? How do they function in such a society?
"Despite popular misconception, the use of “capitalism” to refer to an economic system was originally coined by Louis Blanc, not Marx and Engels. The word “capitalism” was derived from “capital,” referring to productive property, and was used to refer to the emerging arrangement in which workers sell their labor to a capitalist (ie: one who owns capital) in exchange for wages. It does not refer to “free exchange” or “the free market,” and it never has. That is a recent politically-motivated redefinition by market fundamentalists."
Answer from Quora by Tyler Johns, BS in Software Development (college major), Western Governors University (Graduated 2021)
(often promoting Laissez-faire - abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market. Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ LESS-ay-FAIR; from French: laissez faire [lɛse fɛʁ] , lit. 'let do' is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies) deriving from special interest groups. But it also does not really interfere with religion and criminal and other laws, otherwise you would not have a civil society.
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms: "the individual is the basic unit in society, i.e. the standard of measurement in social calculus; the individual has a natural right to freedom; and the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system."
Another basic principle of laissez-faire holds that markets should naturally be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire always emphasized. With the aims of maximizing freedom by allowing markets to self-regulate, proponents of laissez-faire argue for a near complete separation of government regulation from the economic sector. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to "let [it/them] do", but in this context the phrase usually means to "let it be" and in expression "laid back." Although never practiced with full consistency, laissez-faire capitalism emerged in the mid-18th century and was further popularized by Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations.
While it sounds good on paper, the inherent problem of laissez-faire is thinking that market forces can solve all social problems, is as misguided as thinking that all social policies can solve market problems.
There has not been laissez-faire system of something close to it in America for centuries, so often those that argue about capitalism have no real understanding where the term comes from, what it means, or how it works in practice.)
Etymology of the term capitalism according to wiki.
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"—which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest. By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.
The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital. In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788, six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792). In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times. English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.
The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" ) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor" ). Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867). Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, much more precise term which appear frequently.
In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital". Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.
It would seem you have very limited and misguided understanding of both the terms "capitalism" and "communism" and probably have even less of an understanding how any of the two Utopian systems work in practice when implemented. The Truth is that they are not all that much different when left to be explored in practice.
“Interestingly, Marxism, Communism and its derivative, Socialism, when seen years later in practice, are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority which is left with virtually no property or legal rights.” ― Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, The Synagogue Of Satan - Updated, Expanded, And Uncensored
“No society has succeeded in abolishing the distinction between ruler and ruled... to be a ruler gives one special status and, usually, special privileges. During the Communist era, important officials in the Soviet Union had access to special shops selling delicacies unavailable to ordinary citizens; before China allowed capitalist enterprises in its economy, travelling by car was a luxury limited to tourists and those high in the party hierarchy Throughout the 'communist' nations, the abolition of the old ruling class was followed by the rise of a new class of party bosses and well-placed bureaucrats, whose behaviour and life-style came more and more to resemble that of their much-denounced predecessors. In the end, nobody believed in the system any more. That, couple with its inability to match the productivity of the less bureaucratically controlled, more egoistically driven capitalist economies, led to its downfall.” ― Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction
You said: "You earn your money based on your labor or value produced to society."
It is an Utopian and unrealistic argument that has never been fully achieved. Noble and simple gesture, but the society you mentioned is never that simply or noble, I'm sorry to say.