Comments on: Marx’s Circularity

By: Don

Don — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:47:02 +0000

OK, My mistake – in interpretation of terminology. I’ll pay closer attention. Thanks. And I agree, with the free market thing and try to live it everyday.

By: David Z

David Z — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:11:49 +0000

hey db0 – agree with your response to Don above.

as far as the “means of production” are concerned, if it’s true that these things can be the product of one’s labor (and without a doubt, they can be) then extending that maxim to these cases; that is the line I won’t cross.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:02:17 +0000

does that maxim extend to items which they can’t immediately use, but which are also the product of their labor?

It extends to means of production primarily.

Are you saying that in the absence of government capitalism cannot happen? Why?

That’s asking me to prove a negative. All I can point out is that historically capitalism in every form required state force in order to create a class of people who had nothing else to sell but their labour. This class of people cannot be otherwise be formed than through force – when starting from an egalitarian situation that is.

By: David Z

David Z — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:57:29 +0000

Don, remember that “capitalism” is a (derogatory) term pretty much coined by Marx. For most american libertarians, it has a slightly different meaning than Marx’s.

I’m not saying that “in the absence of government, free markets can’t happen,” but rather the sort of capitalism referred to by left/continental libertarians can’t happen in the absence of a state.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:29:57 +0000

David Z: IMO it’s government that gives rise to “capitalism” and not vice versa.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Are you saying that in the absence of government capitalism cannot happen? Why?

By: David Z

David Z — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:24:28 +0000

does that maxim extend to items which they can’t immediately use, but which are also the product of their labor?