my new theory of capitalism for you to rubbish
- Thread starter peacepete
- Start date
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Degrade it with respect to what?
It's not that I necessarily disagree with the idea behind a lot of these statements, but they are so woolly and ill-defined that I just can't do anything with them.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Indeed. Slogans do not a theory make. Don't assume that everybody will leap with you from one statement to the next with no explicit justifcation for the jump. If you want to make a statement in a theory then make sure you know exactly what you mean by it (which means knowing precisely what you mean by all the words in the statement) and exactly how you arrived at that statement.
I have been led to believe that soil quality is generally dropping quite dramatically. I would say this is an example of where what is perceived to be production is actually just consumption.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Quality to what end?
hey. I'm not expecting anything of anyone. I quite expected people to disagree. I was expecting to have a few of my fundamental thoughts challenged, but that hasn't really happened, we instead seem to be debating whether I've actually managed to say anything.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Show me somewhere that has ever practised 'capitalist' agriculture first and we'll talk! Besides, you're mistaking different farming techniques that can be detrimental to soil, none of which are unique to capitalism (witness the huge state-directed disasters in Russia and China in their attempts to industrialise their agricultural sectors!).
To the end of being able to support life.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Heh.
In truth, I genuinely am befuzzled as to whether you have managed to say anything. Or, at least, anything I can get my teeth into. You seem to want to jump straight to your conclusion, which seems to be "scarcity is inherent within capitalism", to which I can only say, "right, and?"
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Which life?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So all a farmer does is consume seeds and soil nutrients, not produce crops and replenish soil nutrients? And this is a unique form of farming within the capitalist framework, and has never happened in other socioeconomic frameworks, or at other periods in history?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Got any specific examples of a capitalist farmer or collective of farmers deliberately ruining his cropland in order to drive up prices for his grain?
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
You see, peacepete, this is the problem you have by continuously using the abstract noun "capitalism" as if it were a person, talking about "capitalism wants this" or "capitalism seeks that".
"Capitalism" doesn't grow crops and sell them, a farmer does. So you need to address what farmers do or don't do and what a specific farmer gets out of his actions. It's no good claiming that "capitalism does it".
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Not just that, but farming in the EU, US and Japan is more closely modelled on Soviet central planning and support than it is on any model of scarcity...witness CAP wine lakes, grain mountains etc etc, and the collapse of small farms in the US because of crop price support mechanisms...I think peacepete is thinking about monocropping in DevWorld, driven by debt repayment schedules rather than any directed actions to create 'scarcity'...
I don't think capitalist farmers as individuals have a strong influence on the developments in industrial agriculture
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What about as a group? And do you not think that farmers contribute to the development of agriculture.
sort of. I would suggest that you can see this in the development of industrial agricultural techniques, which look to gaining the largest immediate output from a piece of land and sod the consequences. One of the consequences being the future production ability on that land. As the farmer would require your services less in the future if you improved his land now, crutially worse, he would provide competition by competing with your future customers, yes, degrading the land your industrial techniques are used upon works is more likely to bring you towards a monopoly position. monopoly being the aim of the game.
capitalism's influence on agriculture is towards degradation.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
All you keep doing is saying that without actually providing any evidence.
#49 is just confused. You really should learn something about farming first. In the EU, and in the US, price supports/subsidy etc exists purely to ensure security of food supply - the US learned it's lesson in the 1930s, and the EU in the post-WW2 famine.
#49 is just confused. You really should learn something about farming first. In the EU, and in the US, price supports/subsidy etc exists purely to ensure security of food supply - the US learned it's lesson in the 1930s, and the EU in the post-WW2 famine.
What about interest rates limiting long term planning, as maximising profit now and investing the money gives more return than maintaining land...
Copyrights seem a better example of deliberately creating scarcity tho
would you describe those price subsidies as capitalist measures? my feeling is that you're defining capitalism too broadly to include everything that occurs within the borders of a country deemed to be capitalist.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Will you go back and read my last 4 or 5 posts on this subject, because I've already stated that the price support systems in place in the US and EU are closer to planned economys than capitalism as we understand it in the West.
You really need to go and read some stuff on capitalism mate.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Funnily enough, capitalism as a system does create scarcity, but in a way not so far even hinted at. Namely, since it is based around ever-increased production and "value adding", the agents within the society need to create a demand for their products and added value, which they do via advertising and suchlike. This is the scarcity that capitalism feeds on -- the scarcity of the latest "must have" product.
in which case your point doesn't make a lot of sense. just because something else is also degrading to land, why does that mean that capitalism isn't. your attacking my point from both sides at the moment, which is great, but your contradicting yourself.
if you have anything in particular that you suggest me reading then I'm happy to do so.
for me that sounds a bit weak. could a system really become the dominant global political force through mind tricks?
eta: obviously there's no logical reason it couldn't, but I hardly think that's the most likely explanation.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
kabbes said:
AKA creating 'need'. The principle behind it being that, because modern society more than adequately supplies Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there is no scarcity of necessities within these, hence the requirement to create cultural scarcity.
Obviously, this doesn't stop commodity scarcity happening, but this is more related to the inherent inability of capitalism to plan for long term resource needs, whichi is why you see commodity price spiking, not to mention the variety of ways articificial scarcity, or the appearance of it, can drive market prices up (look at oil last year, look at it now).
pete, have a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_kapital
It's wiki's entry on the Big Book of Capitalism by Uncle Karl - try starting with the work someone else has already done rather than reinventing the wheel...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
FARMING TECHNIQUES are what damage land, and bad farming techniques have existed, and will exist, in all different kinds of society, not just capitalism. Besides, cap doesn't necessarily lead to farming techniques that are destructive to the land, which is what you're claiming.
Capitalist economic models can cause degradation of land by encouraging farmers to mono-crop for example. But by that same ticket, it can encourage crop diversity and good farming management because the land the crops grow on is a renewable resource that can serve as a wealth creator for millenia. You're implying that there is a simplistic determinism in the relationship that doesn't exist.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
You think that mind tricks aren't, ultimately, the only things that really matter?
Hmm. This isn't the economic system you are looking for *waves hands*.
Similar threads
