Given that wide scope, I'd go ahead and suggest that "This is mine and I will use it to maximize my self-benefit" (=private ownership of capital for profit) is, in fact, a nearly universal feature of agrarian societies, with the proviso that it exists in uneasy balance...
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
...with the alternate system, "this belongs to the state" (which often just meant "this belongs to the king who will use it to maximize *his* self-benefit" since if the history of modern economic systems has shown us anything, it is that state control != community control.)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
Taking that context, capitalism - at this bedrock definition 'private property for personal profit' - appears contingent only to a very limited degree. About as contingent, say, as farming, or the development of the state - also things which sprung up several places.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
Now, what we might call modern western capitalism - finance, joint-stock companies, the like - is more contingent (although I can't help but note that those same institutions spring up in different forms in more places at more times too, suggesting they are also general)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
I suppose sacred ownership - 'a god owns this for its own ineffable purposes" would represent a fourth system, but it shades heavily into the state wherever you see it function. The board of directors at God, Inc. simply end up another facet of state power in a lot of cases.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
Final note: 'No one owns this' as a system, if you scratch away the rhetoric, seems to add up to 'the community owns this' (and is very small) or 'the state (or ruler) owns this' if the community is large. e.g. It is often asserted that this or that group of nomads didn't own...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
...land. But try to graze your herds on that unowned land, or hunt game there, and you're likely to get a violent response from the local nomads. *Individuals* didn't own the land - but the group sure did - and it will violently protect it from outsiders. end.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
Lol Jesus man. This is an essay! Who taught you how to Twitter. There are like 27 things I would have to get into here in order to make satisfactory response. Why would you do this to me?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @PetreRaleigh ja @BretDevereaux
Short version: historical processes like enclosure and accumulation of capital, along with a comprehensive form of private property, produce social relations which are structured in qualitatively distinct ways, and which do not emerge everywhere that money is exchanged for goods.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @PetreRaleigh ja @BretDevereaux
But far more importantly, you are a monster and you must be stopped
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
So, uh, 1) I am self-taught at twittering, and therefore very bad at it. I am generally bad at social media. Or social anything (as you well know!). But second: I think your short version is essentially what I carved out as 'the modern form of this thing.' and that's fair.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
I guess my caution is that a lot of modern theory about that comes from a time when it was assumed that the ancient world emphatically did not have institutions that looked like early modern capitalism. Your Polanyi/Weber/Marx, etc. But...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @PetreRaleigh
...we now know that many similar institutions did exist in the ancient world - this is the modernist/primitavist debate in the ancient economy, and it's fair to say the modernists have largely won. And I don't get the impression that the theories have been revised to reflect...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.