Loved this!! It was clear, concise and serves as a perfect jumping off point for deeper discussion. Thank you!
@Praisethesunson
Жыл бұрын
Lol housing is a commodity today. Even though having a shelter from all the outside is a substance good. Homeless people will *always* intentionally exist in a "market society". Capitalist landlords have a need for that ever greater growth, which you see in the price of rent. You will pay more in rent to your (land)lord, when you literally see what happens to people who don't pay a lord whenever you leave the house your landlord (or a bank/hedge fund) owns. How's that for America's enterprising belief? A good word for American business.
@sojourner4726
Жыл бұрын
Critique: “An economic and cultural system that focuses on private businesses needing to turn a profit and individual initiative.” This definition presupposes the necessary property relations that made Capitalism possible. A part of the development of capitalism was the loss of the commons and the development of the factory system. Both of which required political and legal action to redefine property ownership and ownership of the value produced. Previously, the ownership of the value produce belong to the worker who made the goods and had them sold. And the fundamental necessities to create these resources, where generally held in common or owned by a lord or monarch or the church. With the development of capitalism, the ownership of the goods produced, and their value became the property of the capitalist, and not the worker. This is one of the origin meaning of capitalist alienation. And obviously the change in ownership status of tracts of land in natural resources into a purchase commodity developed or modern property relations that does not defined a difference between personal and private property in any meaningful way. Because the foundational definition used to describe Capitalism does not take in consideration the historical context or proto formations of its development that far pre-date the mid-1800s. I’m going to have to give this discussion an F. although it does fit into American cultural understandings of the subject it is not rigorous, nor is it grounded in a critical fashion.
@facelessman7733
Жыл бұрын
I disagree. And your writing is rambling, incoherent, and lacking in scholarly substance. The video did a fairly decent job of explaining the historical context of American capitalism's development.
Пікірлер: 6