Edit: If so, how was it percieved? How did communities respond if one of its members came down with a case of it?
I think ultimately how it would be treated would show people the nature of how capitalism responds to people who’s lifestyles do not conform to it.
I was reading some stuff and the Mazdakite sect in history may have been one such religion as well as presumably certain gnostic sects if I’m correct. From what I heard they were like an Anarchist or Socialist equivalent of the Protestant Reformists. Had it persisted today it would say something just like that from what I heard. Mazdakites apparently taught the rejection of private ownership of the means of production from what I heard. Conversion to this sect likely involved adopting a new lifestyle contrary to private ownership of the means of production.
Worker co-ops, nomadic or hunter gatherer lifestyles were ok but privately owned means of production and enclosure were apparently a no-no in their religion.
Forcing them and stigmatising them to give up their way of life to participate in Capitalism as such would probably count as religious persecution under any conventions that exist or asking them to deconvert.
> A certain amount of a spinner’s labour-time is materialised, say, in 100 lb. of linen yarn. The same amount of labour-time is assumed to be represented in 100 yards of linen, the product of a weaver. Since these two products represent equal amounts of universal labour-time, and are therefore equivalents of any use-value which contains the same amount of labour-time, they are equal to each other. Only because the labour-time of the spinner and the labour-time of the weaver represent universal labour-time, and their products are thus universal equivalents, is the social aspect of the labour of the two individuals represented for each of them by the labour of the other, that is to say, the labour of the weaver represents it for the spinner, and the labour of the spinner represents it for the weaver.
> On the other hand, under the rural patriarchal system of production, when spinner and weaver lived under the same roof – the women of the family spinning and the men weaving, say for the requirements of the family – yarn and linen were social products, and spinning and weaving social labour within the framework of the family. But their social character did not appear in the form of yarn becoming a universal equivalent exchanged for linen as a universal equivalent, i.e., of the two products exchanging for each other as equal and equally valid expressions of the same universal labour-time. On the contrary, the product of labour bore the specific social imprint of the family relationship with its naturally evolved division of labour. Or let us take the services and dues in kind of the Middle Ages. It was the distinct labour of the individual in its original form, the particular features of his labour and not its universal aspect that formed the social ties at that time. Or finally let us take communal labour in its spontaneously evolved form as we find it among all civilised nations at the dawn of their history. [3] _In this case the social character of labour is evidently not effected by the labour of the individual assuming the abstract form of universal labour or his product assuming the form of a universal equivalent. The communal system on which this mode of production is based prevents the labour of an individual from becoming private labour and his product the private product of a separate individual; it causes individual labour to appear rather as the direct function of a member of the social organisation. Labour which manifests itself in ex
... keep reading on reddit ➡
So in my geography class we're studying capitalism and socialism and the teacher is very antisocialist, which made me very uncomfortable writing the essay, since I didn't want to lose my grade, but i also didn't want to perpetuate capitalist lies and propaganda, so the solution I found was to say that there was a "disagreement" between scholars in respect to the role of the propery owner, and justify my writing as "listening to both sides" while actually picking a side, without being explicit enough so the teacher would call me out, basically the reverse centrist. So the essay goes like this:
One of the main concepts upon which the capitalist system is based is the concept of private property, which needs to be differenciated from personal property. Personal property, in general, refers to property of personal use of the individual [examples of personal property]. Private property, on the other hand, would be the so-called "means of production", that is, stuff like [examples of private property].
In the capitalist system of production, the means of production are the property of the owner in question, while the role of said owner is a controversial topic among scholars and political scientists. there are generally two schools of thought that disagree on this topic, the liberal school of thought, that is, in favour of laissez-faire capitalism, and the socialist school of thought, which opposes capitalism, and, consequently, the concept of private property.
The liberal school of thought defends that private property is necessary in a truly free society, and that has positive consequences for society in general, since it creates jobs, that help moving the economy, and encourages entrepeneurship and innovation, therefore, according to the liberal school of thought, the role of the property owner is a positive one, in which they allow people to work and earn money with it, besides causing innovation.
The socialist school of thought, on the other hand, argues that private property is antithetical to a free society, and it has disastrous consequenses for society in general. For socialists, private property in inherently imoral, because it is a tool of exploitation of the proletariat, since it steals part of the value produced by them, according to the theory of surplus value, which says there is a disparity between the value producedd by the worker and the money he recieves. Therefore, according to socialist thought, the role of the property owner is to
... keep reading on reddit ➡Basically, is Westeros, much like Europe, actually evolving throughout history? Will it eventually see widespread revolts against the feudal order in much the same way that real-world Europe did? Or will it be stuck with a ruling nobility until the end of time?
Also, did the humans of this world evolve from primates and develop through various societal stages (primitive communism, slave society, etc.) like the ones in our world did, or were they actually created and placed in a medieval world like the people of Tolkien's Legendarium? Did dinosaurs ever exist in their world? Was it also struck by a meteor wiping them out? Are dragons some holdover from the time of dinosaurs?
We cannot have constructive debate before we can settle on the simple issue of what it actually is we're talking about - if we're all just going about with different utopian ideas about what we want society to look like, we will only talk past each other.
Increasingly it has dawned on me, although I'm attempting to repress it, that on this subreddit, nobody is interested in a constructive debate about what capitalism is, how it functions, and the implications of the society we live in, but all seem to rather be interested in their own special brand of liberal or socialist ideology, most of it build on utopias of what their ideal society looks like in their heads... and most importantly, on weird ideas about how the other sides ideal society looks. And all sorts of political arguments about taxes and laws and such... what relevance do they have?
Should we not attempt to divert our attention from these ill-defined ideas of future society, and try to settle into a debate about the aspects of what capitalism is, which, in extention, will enable a discussion about what socialism is, as it is, also as shown in the sidebar, most effectively and broadly defined in opposition to capitalism.
I'm new to socialism and I wanted some reading to read to better understand it. I'm interested in how Marx's insight applies to today's economic system as the socialist mode of production is still very much in place. If you were to look at Marx's critique of capitalism (as is often done) you would be forced to make a few broad observations.
Firstly, Marx claimed that capitalism is inherently self-defeating. That is, as Marx himself noted his own position was contradictory to the state of things. The state of things was described by Marx as having two aspects, the political aspect and the economic aspect. However Marx didn't make the same distinction between the political and the economic. The political aspect of the state is the capitalist mode of production which is the source of all the inequalities and conflict.
Secondly, Marx believed that the capitalist mode of production is built upon the capitalist mode of production. This meant that it is at the very least based upon the capitalist mode of production.
So to answer your question, should we consider today's economic system in the same way that we did Marx?
Hey friends, I have a few questions about the origins of capitalism, specifically about the conditions that emerged out of feudalism enabling the capitalist mode of production. This might be unnecessary but I figure I'll mention that I am not new to Marxism and feel I am well-versed in Marxist theory.
Essentially, what changes in the material base of society gave rise to the capitalist mode of production? I recognize that capitalism emerged out of a historical process of a new world trading network along with a wave of primitive accumulation both in Europe and the New World. My understanding is that new property relations emerged whereby property (land) has been commodified. That is, where property relations existed mostly within the landed aristocracy and transference of property consisted of inheritance, conquest or by order of the monarch (side question, how do the commons fit within feudalism?). Now, land is given exchange value and is purchased rather than being tied to familial relations.
My question is, what were the material conditions that gave rise to capitalism and how do property relations fit into this transition? Likewise, to what extent does the superstructure have a part in altering the mode of production; I recognize the superstructure shifts to reflect the dominant social (economic/material) relations at the time, but how might it operate to change social relations giving way to a new mode of production? Can we observe this as well in the transition to capitalism?
Capitalism is the term coined to describe the modern mode of production that developed between 300 - 500 years ago in Western Europe in contrast to Feudalism. Obviously, what one considers "essential features of capitalism" or "what makes a mode of production capitalist vs. something else" is a matter of more thorough analysis. To my knowledge there is no analysis of said system that claims or presumes it requires 100% private ownership, because, as defenders of capitalism are quick to point out... there has never been a case where such has existed.
As such, the capitalism which they refer to is a purely idealist conception which developed much later than most analysis of the system for which the term was coined. There is no disagreement among anyone that I'm aware of that this idealist mode of production has never existed. Consequently, their argument is purely semantic.
This can be contrasted to socialism which historically began as an idealist conception. That is, the idealized form preceded the analytical form (and therefore the existence of a system to be analyzed).
Prior to Marx, "socialism" and "communism" had only idealist or utopian conceptions, none of which were realized. Beginning with Marx, "the communist mode of production" was differentiated from "a capitalist mode of production" again, not by coining or re-coining the term to describe what had come into existence, but by laying an analytical foundation for what would constitute a negation of the mode of production under which he lived (which was already labeled capitalism), i.e. what would be required for the mode of production to no longer be capitalist.
As such, Marx's presentation of a socialist or communist mode of production differed from the aforementioned idealist / utopian conception in that it was not based on how Marx believed the mode of production should operate, but how a mode of production would need to operate in order to no longer function as the currently existing mode of production (capitalism) did. This was done not by creating some detailed blueprint for a future society, but by heavily critiquing and analyzing the already existing mode of production which had already been deemed "capitalism."
Now, of course, you don't have to accept Marx's analysis of how capitalism works and therefore what would constitute its negation, but capitalism, unlike socialism/communism, at least was an existing mode of production. If you claim that modern society is "no l
... keep reading on reddit ➡For a tl;dr, just read the last paragraph or two.
If, you haven't heard, a few tuna manufacturers - Bumble Bee Tuna, Thai Union Group's Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist - have recently caught some legal shit for colluding to keep prices artificially high in the mid-2000s and 2010s. "Legal shit" meaning everything from the companies paying multi-million dollar fines, several executives pleading guilty to price fixing charges, and one company snitching to avoid punishment. Informative article here.
There's a few obvious points to make about this. The first is that this case demonstrates how market systems need to be regulated by the state to maintain competitive practices among producers. I know this is obvious to the sane capitalists, but I'm curious how ancaps will dismiss this issue. The second is that the lawsuit that led to these charges was brought by retailers like Wal-Mart and Target - not consumers - which anecdotally validates my lefty view that the easiest way to receive and lose a lawsuit is to steal from the rich.
But I wanted to single this bit out from the article, as it points to a less obvious nuance in the story:
> Bumble Bee Foods last year pleaded guilty to the same charge and paid a $25 million fine, $111 million lower than prosecutors said it should have been. Prosecutors said they feared putting the financially struggling Bumble Bee out of business with a high fine and agreed to let the company make interest-free payments for five years.
So Bumble Bee Tuna likely made money from their price fixing even after being caught, and the fines simply became the cost of doing business. Let's be generous and assume that it is true a $136 million dollar fine would have actually put the company out of business. In that case, as it was in the 07-08 housing crisis, it actually makes sense to subsidize/be lenient on punishing producers for their irresponsible behavior, because of the potential negative implications for the economy.
Because we rely on these companies to provide jobs and products to consumers, the calculus is that it just doesn't make sense to punish them in ways that would actually risk their existence. This seems insane to me, given that the capacity to produce is clearly not the problem here. If we can find a way to produce for use directly rather than letting exchange mediate and complicate producti
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I found an interesting Twitter thread last night about about how COVID-19 could undermine and even collapse the global monetary system. It postulates (amongst other things) that money is essentially debt, and therefore helicopter money and QE cannot work if the central banks are anticipating an economic bust and rising unemployment. An interesting read if you have five minutes:
Marx believed that the proletariat does not have access to the means of production and whose only means of substance is wage labor. The bourgeoise/ petite bourgeoise refereed to the elite class & upper middle class with financial capital. This was a good description of the rising middle/upper class during the Renaissance.
Today sociologist recognize up to 6 classes while it’s still debated there is some consensus which ultimately contradicts Marx’s ideals.
Today you can Simultaneously occupy both classes bourgeoise & proletariat. In factover half of the U.S. falls under this.
I hope we can move away from using the terms proletariat and bourgeoise because they don’t describe society well today and they are often less descriptive in debate.
-
DOI/PMID/ISBN: ISBN 9781138561465/DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710692
I’m confused about the history of commerce, commodities, and money. Obviously trade happened in pre-capitalist modes of production, I’m wondering how money and prices worked in those modes of production and if there were commodities/if there was commodity production.
For some reason I have this idea that in order for value to exist in the first place there needs to be a mass of dispossessed human laborers who form the social basis for the equation of different kinds of human activity as all being “abstract labor,” but I’m not sure that’s correct. Yet I am aware that wage-labor is as old as the Roman Empire so such disposed populations must have existed.
Another question, how does C-M-C fit into this? Does money as a means of exchange have different characteristics from money as the ends of the of the exchange relation? I feel like Marx covered some of this in chapters 2 & 3 but when I read those sections for the first time it all went over my head. I’m currently making my way through Capital again however so if the answer is “read more” I guess I’m on the way.
For example: me and a friend start a business together. We both invest $50,000 of our own money and use the combined money to purchase a $100,000 machine. We don't hire any other workers and the two of us do all the work. We both have a 50% share of the company, so wouldn't us, the workers, own the means of production?
Would a capitalist business model even be viable in a socialist mode if the former is powered by coercing the worker and the latter defangs capital?
I'm premising this question on the Star Trek series Deep Space 9. While it feels stupid to base a theory question on fiction, the show did make me wonder if Quark's bar was even feasible within the logic of the show. In the episode where his brother unionizes the establishment, it's shown how easy it is for workers to defect. This is given that all their basic needs are met and the station provides a guarantee of more fulfilling work. Since all the checks in capitalism to keep the worker precarious don't exist in the federation (except for a largely unaccountable imperial military BUUUUUUT), why wouldn't all workers simply jump ship to fully-automated luxury space communism?
Extrapolating this, how would it be possible to maintain a capitalist institution within communism?
(Bonus jab: liberals like to point to the lack of socialist institutions within a capitalist mode, but I believe socialism - if widely adopted - would make capitalism obsolete in the same way wage labor phased out previous forms)
