On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not be
> constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies where the
> natives could live freely off the land. Private ownership of all
> subsistence resources was capitalism's answer. Obviously, if only
> two hours a day of not particularly gruelling labour is necessary to
> produce subsistence level resources and that these resources are
> available without the obligation of binding agreements to work 12
> hours to earn 6 hour's worth of wealth, then no one could be
> constrained to work for a pittance in unsanitary and unsafe
> conditions.

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he? I don't buy his
explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to speak of when the
first farms were created - it may have evolved to avoid having to move
around a lot and to try to make sure there was enough to eat always.

Bromo > wrote in
:

> On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
> , "Michel Boucher"
> > wrote:
>
>> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
>> be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
>> where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
>> ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
>> Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
>> labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
>> that these resources are available without the obligation of
>> binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
>> wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
>> in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
>
> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?

Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

> I don't buy
> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
> speak of when the first farms were created

Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.

Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/16/04 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Bromo > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
>> , "Michel Boucher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
>>> be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
>>> where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
>>> ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
>>> Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
>>> labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
>>> that these resources are available without the obligation of
>>> binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
>>> wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
>>> in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
>>
>> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?
>
> Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
> widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

He had explanations for many things - some of which may have validity, some
of which has been largely discredited. For instance, the economic theory of
history may explain a few things, but is rather limited or be a stretch for
other things.

>> I don't buy
>> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
>> speak of when the first farms were created
>
> Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
> by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
> already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.
>
> Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?

Bromo > wrote in
:

>>> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?
>>
>> Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
>> widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are
>> ignored.
>
> He had explanations for many things - some of which may have
> validity, some of which has been largely discredited. For
> instance, the economic theory of history may explain a few things,
> but is rather limited or be a stretch for other things.

I've been reading Marx, specifically Capital, and I assure you that
any discredit which has been attributed to his work is entirely in
the minds of his critics.

>>> I don't buy
>>> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
>>> speak of when the first farms were created
>>
>> Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find
>> that by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism
>> had already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the
>> planet.
>>
>> Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?
>
> To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?

He actually thought that was gone and passé. He was merely stating
that private ownership of land is either outright theft of a communal
resource or it perpetuates such a theft which occured in the past.
After all, (I am extrapolating here) the first person who took land
did not buy it, or if he did, the other person did not have the
authority to sell it. The resource however was taken away from those
who used it freely. "Owned" land can be restricted although why
restrictions are a big issue beyond simply the vacuous exercise of
power is beyond me. the people wo lived off the resources on the now
owned land no longer have access to it. At some point, the system
covers the entire realm and the landless must sell their labour to
survive, which is precisely what the capitalist needs them to do
(well, in the 19th century anyway)...create a pool of cheap labour.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003