Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Capitalist Meet-up: 20th and 21st century capitalism (part II: neoliberalism and globalisation) (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thank you for this, that is what I have been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712

    insisting in this ongoing discussion. What you are feeling is extreme gratitude wafting across the ether at you. I was beginning to think that I had severly misunderstood chapter 25 in volume I of Capital, a chapter that I have studied in detail and discussions that I had read on the transformation from feudalism to capitalism.

    No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

    by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:02:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, I didn't pull this out of my hat, you know. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NY brit expat

      There is a body of thought going on that sustains my argument. As for reading Capital, I love reading Capital. Especially on a plane flying out of Albuquerque where I'm sitting next to a nice lady reading her book about Geesus wuz a Capitalist and naturally she's curious about what I'm reading so she discreetly sneaks a peek when I put my book down...

      •  I know that you didn't pull it out of (0+ / 0-)

        your hat; we really disagree about what constitutes primitive accumulation ... Marx was pretty damn clear at least I think so; but we also disagree about whether or not capitalism or feudalism or ancient slave societies can be clearly defined in the sense of certain characteristics that are specific to each system. Capitalism is extremely dynamic, but it has some very clear characteristics ... none of which have been eliminated even in a case where nationalisation of industries have occurred. I have no problem with the disagreement ... my problem is with the way you talk to people as though their arguments have no validity unless they are agreeing with how you see the point. That is inappropriate ... discussion and respectful discussion is the point.

        No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

        by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:15:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  for example, there is a whole group (0+ / 0-)

          of Marxist economists that insist that there is no transformation problem in Marx; I think that are extremely wrong and will challenge their arguments. But I do so by citing Marx and the massive amount of literature on this question, I do not simply say that they are idjits.

          No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

          by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:23:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I really didn't feel I was talking that way, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NY brit expat

          and I'm sorry you took it as you did. I was simply trying to get some counter-arguments to my position out of you because I'm interested in what you think, which in my neck of the woods is usually seen as a sign of respect.  

          •  ok, perhaps I need to drink (0+ / 0-)

            coffee before diaries are put up. I am getting cranky in my old age. You just ate dinner? I swear you have even odder schedules than I do, which is amazing as I am almost nocturnal.

            Do me a favour, why don't you give me some links so I can check out the discussion more, so that I can see in detail where you are coming from ... I am far better when I can read things in detail.

            Sorry for shouting at you! Ignore the wagging finger (I am being possessed by my mother). :)

            No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

            by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:30:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, I can do that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat

              I'll be interested to hear your take. In the meantime, please don't, uh, "insult" me by suggesting I don't know what economists thought about Art in the late eighteenth century. Since I happen to be doing some research on Physiocrat art criticism prior to the French Revolution, your suggestion would wound me cruelly...

              •  I wasn't trying to be insulting ... (0+ / 0-)

                just trying to make a point that art has changed since then; I didn't know you were an artist at the time when I made the comment initially; now I know ... cool, I am really interested in your work on that ... I have no idea that they even addressed this; moral philosophy, the role of gov't, yes ... but art criticism, amazing. Which authors are you looking at?
                I knew that they were involved in artistic circles of the time, but had no idea that they engaged in art criticism.

                No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:47:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NY brit expat

                  a couple of pieces by Dupont de Nemours among others. The guy I'm working on is anonymous. He sounds like Beaumarchais, but if I could prove that I'd be a happy camper.

                  •  that would be a major contribution ... (0+ / 0-)

                    I am an historian of thought and love this stuff; I am certain that you have checked his other writings to look for similarity of discussion ... one friend spent a lot of time looking at original physiocratic and post-physiocratic writings but those were all economic; it is easier with economic writings to trace out the anonymous possibilities as there is often a lot of material to trace out. Even w/o the attribution, this is really interesting and will be a serious contribution (since I know nothing about research in the area, take it as a compliment from an historian of thought)

                    No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                    by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 05:56:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I keep on thinking that several of my (0+ / 0-)

                      colleagues/friends that did work on the physiocrats (the person I mentioned earlier did a lot of work on Isnard) would be really interested in this ... I've used Quesnay's discussion on natural right to bolster an argument on the right of subsistence and the role of gov't to ensure it (which is pretty clear), but I am more of a specialist on British classical economists and the post-ricardian period (perhaps some of the worst stuff ever written about economics).

                      No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                      by NY brit expat on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:00:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (53)
  • Republicans (35)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Elections (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Media (24)
  • Spam (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • GOP (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Law (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site