Tax wrote:TIG - When you say you are reject the capitalist means of production could you clarify exactly which elements you reject? A little bit about why you reject each element would be appreaciated in order to understand your position.
I reject it as a base of society as its progressive role in history has long since passed. The problem with your question is that a binary of "yea" or "nay" about supposedly (?) universal aspects doesn't exist. The base of society, capitalism, determines what these things mean:
For instance, let us say I'm in ancient Rome, where the means of production is large-scale slavery.
Defined property rights? yea or nay
Yes! These rights include slaves, and are defined by the character of the person's family in determining what can be owned as property.
Market economy? yea or nay
Yes! I should be able to sell the products my slaves make.
Fiat currency? yea or nay
Sure! The government must stamp coins caesar, or else there would be chaos and we'd be prone.
Cronyism with the state? yea or nay
No. The senate and caesar should act with virtue.
Forced monopolies via the state? yea or nay
No, not forced. Depending on the monopoly, maybe there's some leeway. How else would you get salt if not a major government operation?
Decentralised production? yea or nay
Of course! How else would it be done?
Free enterprise? yea or nay
Naturally freemen have the freedom to do what they want.
Waged labour? yea or nay
Of course I should be paid for my work.
Corporate welfare / subsidy? yea or nay
Only when absolutely required for the good of Rome!
---
Or with feudalism:
Defined property rights? yea or nay
Yes! All of society should be based on property rights. How else would you know if someone is a serf? Who is a lord?
Market economy? yea or nay
Yes! Otherwise the socage would collapse altogether!
Fiat currency? yea or nay
Yes, luxury goods from the Middle East need to come to the castle in some manner.
Cronyism with the state? yea or nay
No. The king should act with Christ's will.
Forced monopolies via the state? yea or nay
No, not forced. It is the
responsibility of the lord to serve his king in exchange for his fief.
Decentralised production? yea or nay
Of course! How else would it be done? The king cannot do everything, only the king of kings can do that.
Free enterprise? yea or nay
Naturally freemen have the freedom to do what they want.
Waged labour? yea or nay
Of course I should be paid for my work.
Corporate welfare / subsidy? yea or nay
No. Obligation for caring for the king's land should be its own reward.
--
The same answers and justifications can be given for any system, because they're not actually talking about the same things at all. "Freedom" is an abstract concept that cannot be divorced from our relationship with the material—thus asking about "free enterprise" means literally nothing if you deliberately remove the means of production from the equation.
The concept of wages doesn't even make sense since the context of what a person's relationship with the world is removed. A Roman would certainly believe in wages, but be oblivious to the capitalist connotation of it. Same with a feudal person.
This goes even deeper with concepts like "rights," which have no inherent meaning without a context.
So in a capitalist society do I believe in property rights? Sure, they certainly exist as an abstract value that we agree upon. Do I think that this extension is a universal that must be held in exactly the same way most middle class white Americans hold them as of today? No, that would be ridiculous. As ridiculous as Columbus asking the Native Americans what they think about property rights and assuming they'll believe what the Spaniards think.
Or today asking Columbus what property rights are and assuming it will apply perfectly with our concept of it.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!