Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Europeans blame Jewish people for the financial crisis
I Read This
November 17, 2018, 17:02:18 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
  Print  
Author Topic: Europeans blame Jewish people for the financial crisis  (Read 23396 times)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #105 on: February 23, 2009, 13:11:55 EST »

@Psy:
Uh, hello, reading comprehension!

Quote from: Psy
Thus feudalism had a totally different economic system them capitalism.
Quote from: Andrei
To put it bluntly, feudalism was a political system (...) It wasn't an economic system.
Try answering my point, will you?

Look, you claim feudalism had an economic system, I claim it didn't.

To back up my claim, I've pointed out that the societies of:

1) the early middle ages, where most peasents were landless serfs and most property was the lord's
2) the rural late middle ages, where good parts of the population were free farmers, and even serfs had private property
3) the urban late middle ages, where private property was the law of the land and the economy was commerce and industry-driven

were all feudal, but had very different economic systems.

To back up your claim you... actually, you didn't back it up at all. Do so or forfeit.
The capitalist formula is M-C-M1 (Money-Commodities- More Money) or from a bourgeois perspective M-C-P (Money-Commodities-Profit).  Feudalist production doesn't follow this formula, land owners received commodites without investing money thus they didn't transform money into commodities thus feudal lords were not capitalist.   The capitalist class didn't even exist till the second half of the 18th century (17 hundreds)  with the start of industrial production that created the M-C-P production model that never existed before in human history.  Capitalism didn't even exist in the late middle ages (14th and 15th century), you must have failed history as till the 1760's private ownership of land was basically outlawed in Europe as only people of noble blood could legally own land in Europe at that time.

Quote from: Andrei
What you mean to say is that, since most of Western Europe was rural during the Middle Ages, you can take a (pretty imaginary) "average" rural situation and declare it to be the "feudal economic system".

By the same argument, I could point out that the overwhelming majority of truly democratic societies have been capitalist.

Should we therefore consider capitalism to be the democratic economic system?
No my argument is that capitalism was basically illegal during the Middle Ages as only nobles could own land and they had no intention of being capitalists.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #106 on: February 24, 2009, 15:43:36 EST »

"Capitalism didn't even exist in the late middle ages (14th and 15th century), you must have failed history as till the 1760's private ownership of land was basically outlawed in Europe as only people of noble blood could legally own land in Europe at that time."

Not true, Ratthauses were a-plenty in Germany (it's a city hall, but because the nobles were broke, they would sell their own towns).

Of course, Robberknights weren't often knights at all, but mercenaries that took land and used it to make money.  It is the move towards mercenaries that causes the explosion of capitalism, and the formation of formal armies is almost a direct response to the problem of running out of cash/wars ending, when everyone got jacked up by mercs.

Let's check a list of countries in europe where private non-noble land aquisition was permitted pre 1760's

Spain, as part of the reconquista allowed common folk to claim land, provided they took it from Muslims.
Germany(HRE), see above
Italy, previously explained
Genoa, essentially a merchant nations
Muscovvy, Mir law, in fact, in Great Russia it was tradition that really the land owned by the leaders were the cities, it was the Mir elder council who controlled the land, and there's a whole seperate kettle of fish with the Cossacks.
Greece, always could
Scotland, Clan ownership of huge chunks of land because, fuck it, it's scotland.
Ireland, no-one really wants this land either.
On paper both Scotland and Ireland were owned by the king...but it's pointed out repeatedly by the lords themselves, that the land is clan held and run.
In Netherlands they had a stock market!!! YAY!!!

So that leaves us...
France and the North, with English law swinging in the wind depending on the politics of the time.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #107 on: February 24, 2009, 19:14:25 EST »

Even then since most labor was tied up in the feudal mode of production capitalists didn't really exist as all private land owners did was become private feudal lords. M-C-P was impossible since most labor was bound estates and peasants had access to the commons where they could produce commodities for themselves (the commons is why peasants had no expense to feudal lords, the peasant work on the lords land for nothing then working on the commons to sustaining their family) so peasant had little interest in wages or buying commodites. 
Logged
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #108 on: February 24, 2009, 19:26:06 EST »

I really think that this M-C-P thing is not what capitalism is about. Isn't capitalism really just a system of private aquisitiveness?
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #109 on: February 24, 2009, 21:08:41 EST »

I really think that this M-C-P thing is not what capitalism is about. Isn't capitalism really just a system of private aquisitiveness?
Private acquisitiveness exists in many economic systems so that definition would make capitalism a catch all description.
Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #110 on: February 24, 2009, 22:20:29 EST »

Quote from: Psy
The capitalist formula is M-C-M1 (...)
Did I break the bot?

Seriously though, I have to wonder if the problem is with Psy or with me. Was what I wrote so hard to understand? Was it so poorly phrased that Psy couldn't tell his reply is irrelevant? Or have I misunderstood Psy's reply?

It seems to me how he hasn't even tried to defend his assertion that feudalism had an easily describable, monolithic, exclusively agrarian economy?

Quote from: Psy
No my argument is that capitalism was basically illegal during the Middle Ages as only nobles could own land and they had no intention of being capitalists.
Heq already gave an answer, but there are a few other things worth mentionning:

1) Your assertion is blatantly false even in the case of large estates. Monasteries, for instance, frequently owned large tracts of land even without being affiliated with nobles.

2) Three words (in English) : Cottar, Virgater, Yeoman. Find out what they mean and it will enlighten you.

3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.

4) Whether or not you consider farmers owned their land (more on this later), by the end of the middle ages, they owned the tools they used, a few farm animals, and various other goods, which is quite different from the early middle ages where they directly worked for their lord.

And finally, for one who seems prone to confusing economic and political systems, you don't seem to understand the economic consequences of feudalism.

What you don't understand is the difference between non-landed serfs, landed serfs and free farmers.

Non-landed serfs worked for free for their lord a part of the time, then had to work for others (usually still for their lord) for pay the rest of the time since they had no land of their own to cultivate. This was the situation of most peasents in the early middle ages.

Landed serfs held a plot of land which they cultivated for their own profit but paid rent on. They also had to work for free for their lord a part of the time.

Free farmers owned nothing to their lord save the rent. They were free of their movements and employment.

(Incidentally, it was possible to be a landless free farmer, but since becoming a lord's serf usually came with some land, most free farmers who became landless simply joined a nobleman's service.)

Vassals received protection and fiefs from their lieges, these fiefs they administered and ran for their benefit but in return had to provide their liege with military aid and tribute.

The contract between a free farmer and his lors was similar to the one between a minor noble and his liege, he received a plot of land to use for his own profit and paid rent on it in exchange for protection. Much like the noble's estate, his children inherited it and he could trade land with other farmers provided he had his lord's agreement. He could (and sometimes did) hire landless peasents or transients to work for him.

In what way did he own his land any less than his lord did?

Of course, the land was entrusted to the farmer by a minor noble for rent, but the land had first been entrusted to the minor nobleman by some major nobleman in return for tribute, and it had originally been entrusted to the major nobleman by his king in return for tribute and allegiance.

If you will claim free farmers did not own their land, then neither did noblemen. Only kings were the ones who did not receive land.

And, yes, I am simplifying things, but that's the gist of it.

There is a huge difference between the rural economy of the early middle ages and that of the late middle ages.

In the early middle ages, most peasents were landless or practically landless serfs and worked on their lord's estate in return for a part of the harvest.

It was essentially a controlled economy, with noblemen directing most of the economic activity.

In the late middle ages, a sizeable proportion of peasents were free farmers, and the huge majority of them were free farmers or landed serfs. They spent the majority of their time working on land primarily for their benefit, choosing how to use their land, who/how/when to sell their produce, passed it on to their children, could trade it with neighbours, etc...

Nobles still had great influence on all these decisions, of course, but they no longer controlled much of the economic activity, it was essentially a semi-market economy.

By the Renaissance, rents became monetary (removing most of the influence noblemen had over the decisions of free farmers), nobles preferred hired help over serf-labor, and the whole system was pretty much chucked.

Also, a note on rents. While there were a lot of regional differences, most rents weren't a proportion of the harvest but rather a fixed amount to be paid yearly or monthly, amount determined by the worth of the land.

If this should remind you of modern land taxes, it's probably not a coincidence. Remember that noblemen were, essentially, the state back then.

As for urban economies in the middle ages, land was waaay less important than commerce and industry. Venice, for instance, was one of the wealthiest cities in the late middle ages and Renaissance (and beyond), but its site wasn't optimal for agriculture, to say the least...

Many urban commoners were obscenely wealthy and influent. Being noble was nice and all, but I'll bet being Jacob Fugger (google him) was still more impressive in urban settings (and not only) than being penniless Lord X or Y...

Are you really willing to claim all three of these economies were similar enough to be considered part of the same monolithic economic system?

... and you'll probably just babble some bullshit about 'M', 'C' or other alphabet letters, and I will no longer answer you. I put some actual effort into this post. Until you do the same, the discussion is over.

Quote from: Heq
France and the North, with English law swinging in the wind depending on the politics of the time.
I don't know, I have the impression the whole system never really held in the scandinavian countries... which leaves us with France and England.

Incidentally, I'm not an economic historian, nor do I pretend to be one (unlike Marx). If anyone with a better background in this knows better, I'm willing to learn.,,
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #111 on: February 25, 2009, 11:00:12 EST »

Quote from: Psy
The capitalist formula is M-C-M1 (...)
Did I break the bot?

Seriously though, I have to wonder if the problem is with Psy or with me. Was what I wrote so hard to understand? Was it so poorly phrased that Psy couldn't tell his reply is irrelevant? Or have I misunderstood Psy's reply?

It seems to me how he hasn't even tried to defend his assertion that feudalism had an easily describable, monolithic, exclusively agrarian economy?
Then you don't understand modes of production.  If capitalism is M-C-P then fedualism can't be capitalism as feudal lords did not turn money into commodities for profit since feudal lords didn't start their production process with money.

Quote from: Andrei
Quote from: Psy
No my argument is that capitalism was basically illegal during the Middle Ages as only nobles could own land and they had no intention of being capitalists.
Heq already gave an answer, but there are a few other things worth mentionning:

1) Your assertion is blatantly false even in the case of large estates. Monasteries, for instance, frequently owned large tracts of land even without being affiliated with nobles.
Which were not significant means of production.


Quote from: Andrei
2) Three words (in English) : Cottar, Virgater, Yeoman. Find out what they mean and it will enlighten you.
See above, since they owned a insignificant proportion of the means of production they had to invest their own labor to get commodities meaning once again not M-C-P thus Cottar, Virgater, Yeoman were not capitalists.   Also Virgates were peasants, more accuratly a peasant, that worked 30 acres of land.

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

Quote from: Andrei
4) Whether or not you consider farmers owned their land (more on this later), by the end of the middle ages, they owned the tools they used, a few farm animals, and various other goods, which is quite different from the early middle ages where they directly worked for their lord.
So?  They still did not turn money into commodities for profit thus were not capitalists.

Quote from: Andrei
And finally, for one who seems prone to confusing economic and political systems, you don't seem to understand the economic consequences of feudalism.

What you don't understand is the difference between non-landed serfs, landed serfs and free farmers.

Non-landed serfs worked for free for their lord a part of the time, then had to work for others (usually still for their lord) for pay the rest of the time since they had no land of their own to cultivate. This was the situation of most peasents in the early middle ages.

Landed serfs held a plot of land which they cultivated for their own profit but paid rent on. They also had to work for free for their lord a part of the time.

Free farmers owned nothing to their lord save the rent. They were free of their movements and employment.
Even landed serfs and free farmers were not capitalists as they were not converting money into commodities for profit but converting their labor into commodities for money for other commodities (basically L-C-M-C) profits didn't exist.

Quote from: Andrei
The contract between a free farmer and his lors was similar to the one between a minor noble and his liege, he received a plot of land to use for his own profit and paid rent on it in exchange for protection. Much like the noble's estate, his children inherited it and he could trade land with other farmers provided he had his lord's agreement. He could (and sometimes did) hire landless peasents or transients to work for him.

In what way did he own his land any less than his lord did?
The feudal lord was able to extract surplus value as he owned serfs and could demand rent. Free farmers paying workers didn't work as most commodities on the market were made with free labor so it was impossible for a capitalists to compete (if capitalists existed), capitalism only came into being with industrialization.


Quote from: Andrei
There is a huge difference between the rural economy of the early middle ages and that of the late middle ages.

In the early middle ages, most peasents were landless or practically landless serfs and worked on their lord's estate in return for a part of the harvest.

It was essentially a controlled economy, with noblemen directing most of the economic activity.

In the late middle ages, a sizeable proportion of peasents were free farmers, and the huge majority of them were free farmers or landed serfs. They spent the majority of their time working on land primarily for their benefit, choosing how to use their land, who/how/when to sell their produce, passed it on to their children, could trade it with neighbours, etc...

Nobles still had great influence on all these decisions, of course, but they no longer controlled much of the economic activity, it was essentially a semi-market economy.

By the Renaissance, rents became monetary (removing most of the influence noblemen had over the decisions of free farmers), nobles preferred hired help over serf-labor, and the whole system was pretty much chucked.

Also, a note on rents. While there were a lot of regional differences, most rents weren't a proportion of the harvest but rather a fixed amount to be paid yearly or monthly, amount determined by the worth of the land.

If this should remind you of modern land taxes, it's probably not a coincidence. Remember that noblemen were, essentially, the state back then.
Collecting rent is not a capitalist activity.  Marx pointed out that even a land lord that owned a apartment building and collected rent was not a productive capitalist and simply was leaching off surplus value already in the system.

Quote from: Andrei
As for urban economies in the middle ages, land was waaay less important than commerce and industry. Venice, for instance, was one of the wealthiest cities in the late middle ages and Renaissance (and beyond), but its site wasn't optimal for agriculture, to say the least...

Many urban commoners were obscenely wealthy and influent. Being noble was nice and all, but I'll bet being Jacob Fugger (google him) was still more impressive in urban settings (and not only) than being penniless Lord X or Y...

Are you really willing to claim all three of these economies were similar enough to be considered part of the same monolithic economic system?
All of them were not capitalist as money was not being turned into commodities for profit. Also in all of them you had a land owner that generated commodities or demanded tribute.

Quote from: Andrei
... and you'll probably just babble some bullshit about 'M', 'C' or other alphabet letters, and I will no longer answer you. I put some actual effort into this post. Until you do the same, the discussion is over.
M and C represents money and commodities, it is a abstract of the mode of production.
Logged
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #112 on: February 25, 2009, 15:43:28 EST »

I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #113 on: February 25, 2009, 17:09:43 EST »

Quote from: Andrei
... and you'll probably just babble some bullshit about 'M', 'C' or other alphabet letters, and I will no longer answer you. I put some actual effort into this post. Until you do the same, the discussion is over.
Quote from: Psy
Then you don't understand modes of production.  If capitalism is M-C-P then fedualism can't be capitalism (...)
Am I psychic or what? I should write a book on Atlantis... and healing crystals...

(I once dated a girl who was heavily into new age crap, that's where most of my sarcasm on the topic comes from).

Quote from: Bringerofpie
I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.
It's worse than that, Psy considers Marx the authority on economics, history, psychology, sociology... and probably differential topology as well, we've just haven't had that discussion yet.

And speaking of discussions, as stated above, this one's over as far as I'm concerned.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #114 on: February 25, 2009, 17:44:16 EST »

The problem is I don't know how to react to people arguing against M-C-P that is what I learned in my bourgeois economic course back in high school and collage to explain why capitalism was superior to communism, there was countless capitalist propaganda films from the 1950's that explain capitalism using the M-C-P abstract.  Bourgeoisie economies don't deny that M-C-P is a good abstraction over how capitalism works, ask any economies teacher/professor and they would tell you that the defining characteristics of capitalism is basically capitalists invest money into the production of commodities in order to sell them for more money then the capitalist started with.

To argue against the abstraction of M-C-P is to state capitalists don't invest in the production of commodities in order to sell for more money.  I can only conclude that you never took a economists course and ignorant of bourgeois economic theory meaning you don't even know how capitalists define capitalism.  I have not even gotten into Marx yet in this case other then mention that Marx agreed with the bourgeois economists on these points.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 17:47:33 EST by Psy » Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #115 on: February 25, 2009, 18:48:28 EST »

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

*game show buzzer sounds*

Enclosure was a successful attempt by the state to grab more power. Although towns usually farmed as a community, each farmer, just before enclosure, owned strips of land in the common fields. They were paid out of the common harvest according to how many strips of land they owned in the field that was harvested.

Enclosure, then, was the separating of these common fields into individual farms. The "state ... grab[bing] more power" bit comes in here: the state put up fences and charged for them. People who couldn't pay for the fences were forced to sell the land, usually to the state. Who would then turn around and sell them for more to lords.

I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.

Yeah, well... Getting Psy to see that Marxism is at fault and not reality is something of a trick. Whenever you make a soundly devastating point, he does the creationist thing and restates the point as if you haven't just thumped it good and hard.

Psy: that shit gets old, real quick.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #116 on: February 25, 2009, 19:19:27 EST »

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

*game show buzzer sounds*

Enclosure was a successful attempt by the state to grab more power. Although towns usually farmed as a community, each farmer, just before enclosure, owned strips of land in the common fields. They were paid out of the common harvest according to how many strips of land they owned in the field that was harvested.

Enclosure, then, was the separating of these common fields into individual farms. The "state ... grab[bing] more power" bit comes in here: the state put up fences and charged for them. People who couldn't pay for the fences were forced to sell the land, usually to the state. Who would then turn around and sell them for more to lords.
And your point?

Prior to the enclosure the commons was a way that feudal lords didn't have to pay for labor or pay to maintain labor as unlike slaves the feudal lords could simply get peasants to work on their land then peasants were expected to work the commons to sustain themselves 

Quote from: Medivh
I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.

Yeah, well... Getting Psy to see that Marxism is at fault and not reality is something of a trick. Whenever you make a soundly devastating point, he does the creationist thing and restates the point as if you haven't just thumped it good and hard.

Psy: that shit gets old, real quick.
Yes this shit is getting old, we are arguing not about Marxism we are arguing if capitalist invest money into commodities to sell for more money and if feudal lords that used forced labor invested money into commodities to sell for more money.   You guys are doing the creationist thing as you keep saying M-C-P is Marxist when it is from Adam Smith you ignorant boobs.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #117 on: February 25, 2009, 19:55:24 EST »

My better judgement is telling me not to. But apparently I'm a sucker for pain.

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

*game show buzzer sounds*

Enclosure was a successful attempt by the state to grab more power. Although towns usually farmed as a community, each farmer, just before enclosure, owned strips of land in the common fields. They were paid out of the common harvest according to how many strips of land they owned in the field that was harvested.

Enclosure, then, was the separating of these common fields into individual farms. The "state ... grab[bing] more power" bit comes in here: the state put up fences and charged for them. People who couldn't pay for the fences were forced to sell the land, usually to the state. Who would then turn around and sell them for more to lords.
And your point?

Prior to the enclosure the commons was a way that feudal lords didn't have to pay for labor or pay to maintain labor as unlike slaves the feudal lords could simply get peasants to work on their land then peasants were expected to work the commons to sustain themselves 

Strike two. Read Andrei's posts for the long version of "why".

Villages at the time were not owned by lords. See, funny thing is that England, just before enclosure, was a lot more like communism on a large scale than anything else I've heard of. The major difference being the complete lack of abundance.

Quote from: Medivh
I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.

Yeah, well... Getting Psy to see that Marxism is at fault and not reality is something of a trick. Whenever you make a soundly devastating point, he does the creationist thing and restates the point as if you haven't just thumped it good and hard.

Psy: that shit gets old, real quick.
Yes this shit is getting old, we are arguing not about Marxism we are arguing if capitalist invest money into commodities to sell for more money and if feudal lords that used forced labor invested money into commodities to sell for more money.   You guys are doing the creationist thing as you keep saying M-C-P is Marxist when it is from Adam Smith you ignorant boobs.

Yeah, that's like saying that Darwin was wrong. No shit, we've moved on from there. Free hint: profit is not a motivation in and of its self to most people. Not even many capitalists are motivated by profit alone.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #118 on: February 25, 2009, 20:27:51 EST »

My better judgement is telling me not to. But apparently I'm a sucker for pain.

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

*game show buzzer sounds*

Enclosure was a successful attempt by the state to grab more power. Although towns usually farmed as a community, each farmer, just before enclosure, owned strips of land in the common fields. They were paid out of the common harvest according to how many strips of land they owned in the field that was harvested.

Enclosure, then, was the separating of these common fields into individual farms. The "state ... grab[bing] more power" bit comes in here: the state put up fences and charged for them. People who couldn't pay for the fences were forced to sell the land, usually to the state. Who would then turn around and sell them for more to lords.
And your point?

Prior to the enclosure the commons was a way that feudal lords didn't have to pay for labor or pay to maintain labor as unlike slaves the feudal lords could simply get peasants to work on their land then peasants were expected to work the commons to sustain themselves 

Strike two. Read Andrei's posts for the long version of "why".

Villages at the time were not owned by lords. See, funny thing is that England, just before enclosure, was a lot more like communism on a large scale than anything else I've heard of. The major difference being the complete lack of abundance.
While some villages were not owned by lords the lords still were able to get free labor, you have to remeber the French revolution of 1789 was against French feudal lords and fedualism as French peasants were tired of being tied to the land.


I wouldn't call it communism since in the larger sense commons were a way for lords to not have to give any expenditures to their labor force. 

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.

Yeah, well... Getting Psy to see that Marxism is at fault and not reality is something of a trick. Whenever you make a soundly devastating point, he does the creationist thing and restates the point as if you haven't just thumped it good and hard.

Psy: that shit gets old, real quick.
Yes this shit is getting old, we are arguing not about Marxism we are arguing if capitalist invest money into commodities to sell for more money and if feudal lords that used forced labor invested money into commodities to sell for more money.   You guys are doing the creationist thing as you keep saying M-C-P is Marxist when it is from Adam Smith you ignorant boobs.
Yeah, that's like saying that Darwin was wrong. No shit, we've moved on from there. Free hint: profit is not a motivation in and of its self to most people. Not even many capitalists are motivated by profit alone.
Profit is the motive for capitalist production, the whole point a capitalist invests money into commodities is to get more money back, capitalists don't argue this point and Marx was mostly just parroting Adam Smith over these points.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #119 on: February 25, 2009, 21:54:48 EST »

My better judgement is telling me not to. But apparently I'm a sucker for pain.

Quote from: Andrei
3) By the 16th century, serfdom was practically phased out and most peasents became free farmers.
Wrong, it was not phased out till the 1760's with the enclosures.

*game show buzzer sounds*

Enclosure was a successful attempt by the state to grab more power. Although towns usually farmed as a community, each farmer, just before enclosure, owned strips of land in the common fields. They were paid out of the common harvest according to how many strips of land they owned in the field that was harvested.

Enclosure, then, was the separating of these common fields into individual farms. The "state ... grab[bing] more power" bit comes in here: the state put up fences and charged for them. People who couldn't pay for the fences were forced to sell the land, usually to the state. Who would then turn around and sell them for more to lords.
And your point?

Prior to the enclosure the commons was a way that feudal lords didn't have to pay for labor or pay to maintain labor as unlike slaves the feudal lords could simply get peasants to work on their land then peasants were expected to work the commons to sustain themselves 

Strike two. Read Andrei's posts for the long version of "why".

Villages at the time were not owned by lords. See, funny thing is that England, just before enclosure, was a lot more like communism on a large scale than anything else I've heard of. The major difference being the complete lack of abundance.
While some villages were not owned by lords the lords still were able to get free labor, you have to remeber the French revolution of 1789 was against French feudal lords and fedualism as French peasants were tired of being tied to the land.


I wouldn't call it communism since in the larger sense commons were a way for lords to not have to give any expenditures to their labor force. 

Strike three: you've jumped over to France when we're discussing the English enclosure policy. You're out.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
I think I figured out where the disconnect is. Psy is referencing Marx as an authority on economics, whereas the rest of us dismiss him offhand.

Yeah, well... Getting Psy to see that Marxism is at fault and not reality is something of a trick. Whenever you make a soundly devastating point, he does the creationist thing and restates the point as if you haven't just thumped it good and hard.

Psy: that shit gets old, real quick.
Yes this shit is getting old, we are arguing not about Marxism we are arguing if capitalist invest money into commodities to sell for more money and if feudal lords that used forced labor invested money into commodities to sell for more money.   You guys are doing the creationist thing as you keep saying M-C-P is Marxist when it is from Adam Smith you ignorant boobs.
Yeah, that's like saying that Darwin was wrong. No shit, we've moved on from there. Free hint: profit is not a motivation in and of its self to most people. Not even many capitalists are motivated by profit alone.
Profit is the motive for capitalist production, the whole point a capitalist invests money into commodities is to get more money back, capitalists don't argue this point and Marx was mostly just parroting Adam Smith over these points.

That's because Smith and later recognised that they don't understand people. They saw the profit as the end for the purposes of economics. However, capitalists are consumers. They go on to spend that profit on commodities that are then used for no reason other than personal satisfaction.

Clearly not all of the "M1" factor gets used thus; most capitalists rely on reinvesting some profit to get more profit. This "more profit" is then split between getting another round of "more profit" and commodities that get used up.

It's not as simple as M-C-M1. Repeat it again, and I'll assume you're reading nothing.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!