491–496 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> argue that capitalism (lower-case) is as old as humans. Was not the shift away from hunter-gatherer a capitalist choice? What's the difference between capitalism and Capitalism? Are you just describing the act of exchanging resources as capitalism? The Soviet Union fed its workers (usually lol), was that exchange of resources "capitalism?" This isn't a really accurate use of terms, and imo is an example of the hype…
And I would like to push back against the idea of "common ownership". Or "collective ownership" in general. How come we say that A, B and C collectively and simultaneously own a resource, but any of them may be alienated from it at any point, presuming a democratic arrangement? Ownership implies final authority, yet none of the individuals actually have it. Instead, it's like a 4th, "juridical", person, who represent…
When land is owned in common, the "private" ownership of a cow is less clear - after all, the cow doesn't eat without the land. The resource is thus available to be used for dowry by the individual during times of plenty, but during times of hardship, hey your cow was eating the grass of our land, we all need it, let's eat! Capitalism doesn't have this kind of fluidity. Hardship or no, private property is enforced through law, not vibes.
But regardless, focus less on the cows ("bro imagine you have two cows" is a bit of a meme outside the Chicago school of economics cult) and more on the land, which is the actual means of production here. That's the bit that's been owned in common basically universally for, as far as we can tell, the last two hundred thousand years. There's not been evidence otherwise and for eras we actually do have history for, it's absolutely the case that societies were organized along primitive communism. It's continued today in e.g. some indigenous Taiwanese tribes, possibly elsewhere as well.
Redefining a village as a corporation to fit your theory that capitalism is forever is another example of capitalist hypernormalization. It's simply not the case. Capitalism genuinely is a very new human invention, not a natural socioeconomic force emergent from human relations.
But, it sounds like you are really interested in this subject. If you want to read a much more cited and intelligent opposition to what you're proposing, I recommend Ellen Meiksins Wood "The Origin of Capitalism," historical analysis of capitalism emerging around specific property relations. Or Karl Polanyi "The Great Transformation" which discusses how though ancient markets existed, these are distinct from capitalist markets since they were more organized along kinship, religious, or redistributive lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I would like to push back against the idea of "common ownership". Or "collective ownership" in general. How come we say that A, B and C collectively and simultaneously own a resource, but any of them may be alienated from it at any point, presuming a democratic arrangement? Ownership implies final authority, yet none of the individuals actually have it. Instead, it's like a 4th, "juridical", person, who represent…
Capitalist ownership is enshrined in law which is defined in rule (written clearly down), and is enforced via the State's monopoly on violence. All distribution of private property is outlined in contract. This includes the means of production. When land is owned in common, the "private" ownership of a cow is less clear - after all, the cow doesn't eat without the land. The resource is thus available to be used for d…
Not to nitpick too much, but even if the land is "owned in common", it is very much possible to to tell whose cow is which, either by memorizing their differences, tagging, branding, etc.
But I digress, even when the owner isn't clear, it's often clear who isn't. In your cow example, if one powerless individual tried to oppose the cow's sacrifice, for whatever reason, and was denied, they objectively aren't the cow's owner, even though no individual owner has been determined. Simultaneously, we see also a glimpse of alienation. This also applies to land, with the caveat that most land was just mostly unowned for most of history, save for civilizational centers.
It should also be mentioned that law was once (and can once again be) implemented through vibes.
Please note I never redefined the concept of a "village", simply explored possible cases. At best, I redefined the concept of a "corporation", given that the definition I'm using is "a group of people combined into or acting as one body under a normative arrangement, such as a formal contract, a constitution or a customs." I don't think this redefinition is unwarranted, given it contrasts the notion of a individual/physical person, while being state-agnostic. This notion also isn't particularly tied to capitalism (in the Marxist sense of the word at least) either. Given that all I did was accentuate that form of privation, I don't think this is a case of "capitalism hypernormalization", but a case of relationships being more broader than they look.
I will keep a note of those books, although I won't deny that I'm really late in my reading list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it soothes you at all, you can think of it the other way around. All members of a society have a duty to pull their own weight. But everybody stumbles. So sometimes we have to pull more than our "fair share" and sometimes somebody else pulls part of our "fair share". But we all agree to it. Anyone who doesn't agree or who is deemed by the community to be dishonest in their contributions is exiled from the society.…
> If it soothes you at all, you can think of it the other way around. I appreciate your condescending attempt to explain your garbled Reaganomics logic. Just by your tone, I can tell your mental framework hasnt changed in the last 30 years, despite copious evidence to the contrary of everything you say. You probably think Climate Change is a scam ... or something. By your tone, I can also tell youre a pretentious per…
I think it is helpful to have cordial discussions and even friendly debates. I reserve the right to be confused and sometimes outright wrong. I don't mind being corrected. That is one important way that all humans can learn. I don't think ad hominem attacks are helpful in advancing shared understanding.
I suspect that you and I agree on economics a lot more than you express here. I hope that in the future we figure out how to listen to each other and express ourselves in ways that facilitate a better exchange of ideas.