|
rune:
there's little room to have a productive dialogue if positions are going to be argued from up inside such positions. a dialogue presupposes that you can relativize your positions enough to explain them. you don't seem to have the first idea how to do that.
you also don't seem to be able to read very well. when you bit the section from one of my posts that argued for sense of obligation (i could just as easily have said material interest) that falls on those who benefit from the functioning of a social system to contribute to system maintenance, you bit the response i would make to your odd little tirade about your father which followed from it.
generally speaking, it is good form to not proceed as though you only read one or two clauses from what someone wrote when you "respond" to it.
==========================================================
dunedan: capitalism was destroyed in the 1850s? why wasn't there a memo about that? why is it that no-one else seems to know about what you'd think would be a momentous event?
but capitalism did not include large-scale production? why wasn't there a memo about that one sent out? here we thought that large-scale industrial production kinda encapsulated the basic features of capitalism--you know the separation of ownership and production, standardization of tasks, the emergence of commodity markets...
so capitalism was really something that in our confusion we'd call small-scale local production?
geez, no wonder i'm so confused.
but why didn't that point make it into ANY of the hundreds of books i've read about the history of capitalism?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|