Bret Devereaux

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)

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.

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...

...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.

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?

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.

But far more importantly, you are a monster and you must be stopped

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.