der Kapitalismus sei lediglich die Abwandlung eines allgemein verbreiteten Tauschhandels

Aber kein Kapitalismus funktioniert ohne irgend ein allgemeines Äquivalent ...

Klar braucht eine arbeitsteilige Gesellschaft irgendwelche Tauschobjekte.

Dann definiere doch mal bitte "allgemeines Äquivalent".

Das ist aber gegenüber allen bekannten Wirtschaftssystemen keine Besonderheit des Kapitalismus. Solange wir die Menschheit wirklich zuverlässig rekonstruieren können, solange gibt es irgendwelche Geldsysteme oder eben ein Äquivalent.

In the 1940s, an anthropologist, Ronald Berndt, described one dzamalag ritual, where one group in possession of imported cloth swapped their wares with another, noted for the manufacture of serrated spears. Here too it begins as strangers, after initial negotiations, are invited to the hosts’ camp, and the men begin singing and dancing, in this case accompanied by a didjeridu. Women from the hosts’ side then come, pick out one of the men, give him a piece of cloth, and then start punching him and pulling off his clothes, finally dragging him off to the surrounding bush to have sex, while he feigns reluctance, whereon the man gives her a small gift of beads or tobacco. Gradually, all the women select partners, their husbands urging them on, whereupon the women from the other side start the process in reverse, re-obtaining many of the beads and tobacco obtained by their own husbands. The entire ceremony culminates as the visitors’ men-folk perform a coordinated dance, pretending to threaten their hosts with the spears, but finally, instead, handing the spears over to the hosts’ womenfolk, declaring: “We do not need to spear you, since we already have!� [9]

In other words, the Gunwinngu manage to take all the most thrilling elements in the Nambikwara encounters—the threat of violence, the opportunity for sexual intrigue—and turn it into an entertaining game (one that, the ethnographer remarks, is considered enormous fun for everyone involved). In such a situation, one would have to assume obtaining the optimal cloth-for-spears ratio is the last thing on most participants’ minds. (And anyway, they seem to operate on traditional fixed equivalences.)

Economists always ask us to ‘imagine’ how things must have worked before the advent of money. What such examples bring home more than anything else is just how limited their imaginations really are. When one is dealing with a world unfamiliar with money and markets, even on those rare occasions when strangers did meet explicitly in order to exchange goods, they are rarely thinking exclusively about the value of the goods. This not only demonstrates that the Homo Oeconomicus which lies at the basis of all the theorems and equations that purports to render economics a science, is not only an almost impossibly boring person—basically, a monomaniacal sociopath who can wander through an orgy thinking only about marginal rates of return—but that what economists are basically doing in telling the myth of barter, is taking a kind of behavior that is only really possible after the invention of money and markets and then projecting it backwards as the purported reason for the invention of money and markets themselves. Logically, this makes about as much sense as saying that the game of chess was invented to allow people to fulfill a pre-existing desire to checkmate their opponent’s king.

In "ursprünglich" wirtschaftenden Ethnien hat man kein einziges Beispiel eines regelmäßigen Tauschhandels gefunden - obwohl man eifrig danach gesucht hat.

Also von den Aborigines -als wirklich sehr sehr urtümliche Ethnien- ist ein Tauschsystem und Tauschrouten bekannt, auch schon vor dem Eintreffen der Europäer.

Murphy argues that the fact that there are no documented cases of barter economies doesn’t matter, because all that is really required is for there to have been some period of history, however brief, where barter was widespread for money to have emerged. This is about the weakest argument one can possibly make. Remember, economists originally predicted all (100%) non-monetary economies would operate through barter. The actual figure of observable cases is 0%. Economists claim to be scientists. Normally, when a scientist’s premises produce such spectacularly non-predictive results, the scientist begins working on a new set of premises. Saying “but can you prove it didn’t happen sometime long long ago where there are no records?� is a classic example of special pleading. In fact, I can’t prove it didn’t. I also can’t prove that money wasn’t introduced by little green men from Mars in a similar unknown period of history. Given the weight of the evidence, the burden of proof is on the Murphys of the world to produce some plausible reason why all observable cases of moneyless societies fail to operate the way Menger predicted, and therefore, why we have any reason to believe some unknown age would have been any different; and this, he does not even attempt to do.

Eine Ware, in der alle anderen Waren ihren Wert ausdrücken.

In vorkapitalistischen Epochen war Geld ein Mittel, im Kapitalismus ist es hingegen Zweck der ganzen Veranstaltung.

Es gibt keinen, aber auch wirklich keinen Grund, in diese Funde Tauschobjekte hineinzulesen.

Jede Marktwirtschaft ist Kapitalismus

Und ganz im Gegenteil, gerade im Kapitalismus wird der Wert des Geldes auch immer wieder neu verhandelt und ist keineswegs allgemein akzeptiert.

Auf der anderen Seite reagieren Handelspartner heute häufig durch Benutzung unterschiedlicher Wärungen, Schaffung von künstlichen Ersatzwärungen um Währungsschwankungen zu vermeiden etc.

Schon in vorkapitalistischen Epochen gab es immer wieder Gesellschaften, die die Anhäufung von Geld (oder Äquivalent) geprägt haben

Die wenigste Aktivität richtet sich alleine auf der Geldverdienen und auch die wenigste Produktion dürfte das als Hauptzweck verfolgen.

Du redest von erstgenanntem, was aber historisch stets nur entweder dem Erhalt bzw. Ausbau persönlicher Macht oder aber der Finanzierung persönlichen Genusses und Lusxus diente.

da die Einzelkapitale aufgrund der marktförmigen Konkurrenz immer wieder neu investiert werden müssen

What anthropologists have in fact observed where money is not used is not a system of explicit lending and borrowing, but a very broad system of non-enumerated credits and debts. In most such societies, if a neighbor wants some possession of yours, it usually suffices simply to praise it (“what a magnificent pig!�); the response is to immediately hand it over, accompanied by much insistence that this is a gift and the donor certainly would never want anything in return. In fact, the recipient now owes him a favor. Now, he might well just sit on the favor, since it’s nice to have others beholden to you, or he might demand something of an explicitly non-material kind (“you know, my son is in love with your daughter…�) He might ask for another pig, or something he considers roughly equivalent in kind. But it’s almost impossible to see how any of this would lead to a system whereby it’s possible to measure proportional values. After all, even if, as sometimes happens, the party owing one favor heads you off by presenting you with some unwanted present, and one considers it inadequate—a few chickens, for example—one might mock him as a cheapskate, but one is unlikely to feel the need to come up with a mathematical formula to measure just how cheap you consider him to be. As a result, as Chris Gregory observed, what you ordinarily find in such ‘gift economies’ is a broad ranking of different types of goods—canoes are roughly the same as heirloom necklaces, both are superior to pigs and whale teeth, which are superior to chickens, etc—but no system whereby you can measure how many pigs equal one canoe.

Werde bloss nie Unternehmer. Ernstgemeinter Ratschlag. Gibt schon genug Insolvenzen

Am Ende handeln immer Individuen und das Geld auf dem Konto ist bei niemandem Selbstzweck. Nicht bei Königen im alten Ägypten und auch nicht bei Managern der Deutschen Bank.

Und wenn es -zwecks Gewinnvermehrung- wieder irgendwo investiert wird, dann ist ein Verlust im Kapitalismus genauso vorgesehen und gewünscht, wie in jeder anderen Wirtschaftsform zumindest möglich.