3 ms·

exploitation is the foundational structure of capitalism No it isn't. Trade is. That's like saying rape is the foundational structure of sex. We clearly need

by oskarth 13y ago

exploitation is the foundational structure of capitalism No it isn't. Trade is. That's like saying rape is the foundational structure of sex. We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs Who are we? Why? Do you mean something like communism, "for the benefit of the people"? This is a classical is-ought fallacy. relying entirely on outdated systems like money Outdated system? How so? What is a better system in your opinion? that primarily enforce hierarchies. How exactly does money enforce hierarchies? What is one system that doesn't "enforce hierarchies"? Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases. Well, I am glad that you are one of the Enlightened People. Apologizes if this post came across as hostile, but there are just too many things that irks me with this post.

nzp 13y ago
> No it isn't. Trade is. [snip meaningless analogy] Trade? No, trade is the foundation of any kind of economy, of any kind of organized social life. Exploitation is one of the foundational concepts of capitalism, but the same is true for all past dominant economic systems, so it's true that it's not terribly useful to define capitalism as something that is just about exploitation. The way exploitation is structured, whom and how is exploited, in capitalism is the key point.
- varjag 13y ago
  Nope. Trade is not a foundation of Marxist economy.
- Double_Cast 13y ago
  I'm on the fence about the whole "exploitation" thing. But it's surely false that "trade is the foundation of any economy". I think it's more accurate to say "trade is the foundation of a market". According to Smith, river-valley civilizations arose because of markets. Markets arose because of specialization. Specialization arose because the rivers allowed more efficient transportation of goods than land (by a factor of 50?). But for the paleolithic era, most tribes shared goods communally. No trade needed.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Well, for what it's worth Wikipedia article on the paleolithic suggests there is much evidence of trade during that era (referenced, but I don't have the time to research that ATM). But that's beside the point really. The issue here is how we define what economy is and what trade is. But more to the point, trade in general is not a defining characteristic of capitalism, it's not the differentia specifica of capitalism. But I agree that the statement "trade is the foundation of any economy" is too strong in the sense that it's not only trade that is needed to have an economy (you need production, consumption, etc.).

by oskarth 13y ago

nzp 13y ago

> No it isn't. Trade is. [snip meaningless analogy] Trade? No, trade is the foundation of any kind of economy, of any kind of organized social life. Exploitation is one of the foundational concepts of capitalism, but the same is true for all past dominant economic systems, so it's true that it's not terribly useful to define capitalism as something that is just about exploitation. The way exploitation is structured, whom and how is exploited, in capitalism is the key point.

varjag 13y ago
Nope. Trade is not a foundation of Marxist economy.
Double_Cast 13y ago
I'm on the fence about the whole "exploitation" thing. But it's surely false that "trade is the foundation of any economy". I think it's more accurate to say "trade is the foundation of a market". According to Smith, river-valley civilizations arose because of markets. Markets arose because of specialization. Specialization arose because the rivers allowed more efficient transportation of goods than land (by a factor of 50?). But for the paleolithic era, most tribes shared goods communally. No trade needed.
- nzp 13y ago
  Well, for what it's worth Wikipedia article on the paleolithic suggests there is much evidence of trade during that era (referenced, but I don't have the time to research that ATM). But that's beside the point really. The issue here is how we define what economy is and what trade is. But more to the point, trade in general is not a defining characteristic of capitalism, it's not the differentia specifica of capitalism. But I agree that the statement "trade is the foundation of any economy" is too strong in the sense that it's not only trade that is needed to have an economy (you need production, consumption, etc.).