Strickland33
Well-known member
indeed, i think your own posts refute your assertion that private marketplace is a modern convention
I didn’t claim that it was a modern convention did I? I only claim that it is neither natural nor inevitable.
indeed, i think your own posts refute your assertion that private marketplace is a modern convention
We should save these takes so when Progressive reforms sweep through they can’t claim that AOC destroyed capitalism because there is still a private marketplace.
well, one of thinks that actual coyotes guide mexicans across our southern border.
We can stop just short of that and say she destroyed the economy.
I don't see much equivocating. water-carrying seems to be the preferred descriptor around here.Says the trump equivocator.
I guess I'm just not a fan of historical reductionism when discussing history, but sure the form has existed in a somewhat loose sense for awhile. The "science" of history is to compare modes of production over time, how each understood economic activity, the relationship between public and private, and the ideological and moral apparatus that justified and sustained economic behavior. Myu point is only that what we understand as late capitalism is not a natural phenomenon or set of relations. I suppose that this a controversial take in these parts.
How did credit work, though?
How were markets maintained?
Were norms and values of exchange and commerce similar then as they were now?
Did private ownership of the means of production - and its relation to citizenship - function in a similar way as they have since the advent of industrial capitalism?
What was the relationship between the public and private sphere then as opposed to now (not to mention in any number of important intermediary historical moments)?
Were global marketplaces functioning similarly as they do in the age of truly global supply chains?
Have conceptions of economic action and economic actors remained consistent over time?
Scholars such as Marx, Smith, Arendt, and Weber, among others, offer a variety of interesting answers to these questions. I don't pretend to know all of the answers. I'm not sure that any of us should, either.
Jesus, catamount. She a smart woman with actual policy ideas who was legitimately elected. She is basically the antithesis of Trump.
I'm only pushing back on this because the the idea that Capitalism is modern "problem" to solve because it's unnatural is kind of a farce. Recorded history is a long story of private/public economic partnership.
It may not be inevitable or constant but it's closer to natural for civilizations than not-natural
“Recorded history” is important there.
I think people here are using a much looser definition of capitalism than I’ve heard from all but the furthest left.
“Recorded history” is important there.
I think people here are using a much looser definition of capitalism than I’ve heard from all but the furthest left.
Agreed, and that's without mentioning that she's only 29 years old and has just been elected to her first political office, and is thus a political rookie who's learning the ropes, as opposed to Trump, who is 72 years old and has been a celebrity and public figure since the 1980s. I'll give her a pass while she learns the system. Given how media savvy she is - she gives as good as she takes when it comes to Fox and other Trumpites attacking her - I think they'll find her a more difficult target as compared to olds like Pelosi and Hillary.
I’m no expert on AOC.
But I’ve been watching Trump for decades.
And I’m confident any similarities are dwarfed by the differences.
Who are you referring to, Ph?