In answer the the question - no. It didn’t invent housing - obviously. It’s not necessary for there to be housing.
That’s not a creation of housing?
This is such a silly definition of capitalism I can’t tell if you are being serious.
It’s not really stated as a definition of capitalism, but as a feature of it. It’s certainly common and I think it’s not that hard to argue that it’s universal (though you could quibble about the ‘badly’ in front of ‘want’ of course).
Except capitalism is a system of allocation of goods and services. It explicitly doesn’t deny people access to those same goods and services anymore then communism denies people access to them.
Eh, I think it’s quite possible and likely that capitalism in practice results in more people getting more of their needs and desires satisfied, but restricting access to goods and services is necessary for capitalism - it’s why things are profitable. Even if you have employees and are selling services you are denying people access to your employees and depending on the scarcity of their skills.
Your definition is far more broad. Any transaction of any kind involves denying one party something whether it’s a sale, trade or donation.
The point sabo likes to ignore is that the vast majority of capitalist transactions involve increasing the value of some good or service. It’s the increase in value you are selling not the thing itself.
Selling goods and services is not necessarily capitalism.
Sure. Funding the production of useless things, and waste in general, are two things capitalism actually is good at.
But to hopefully drive that state all the way through… as all things capitalist propaganda, we gotta a weasel word working over time here. You should be able to guess that weasel here… as I’ve been consistently scare quoting the gnarly creature. I’m talking about ‘create’, of course.
So let’s say… a bishop decides to spend the tithe money to hire construction workers to erect a church.
Did the bishop ‘create’ the church… without his decision, the church wouldn’t exist. Did the congregation ‘create’ the church… without their funding, the church wouldn’t exist… Did the construction workers ‘create’ the church… without their labor, the church wouldn’t exist. Pretty confusing… which is, of course, the whole point, and that’s why it works as propaganda.
If, however, we avoid using this weasel word, and just speak clearly, we get…
No, landlordism doesn’t magically fund building erection. Renting folk fully fund all that, and everything else for that matter, through the rent they pay.
1 Like
I’m taking for granted the production is privately owned and the increase in value that is being sold is created by private owners., not government.
Yeah, but I think it may be that it’s a rare bunch of renting folk who are willing to pool their money and credit to ‘create’ that apartment building.
The same silly logic allows me to say the people employing the rent payers actually create the buildings.
Or maybe it’s the people who buy things from the places the people who pay the rent work at who actually create the buildings.
Or maybe the people who buy things from the places the people people who buy things from the places where the rent payers work who actually create the buildings.
We can go on like this forever.
If it makes you happy, you can call what I explained here as Clovis-ism instead of capitalism, and above where I referred to Landlordism being a form of capitalism you can read that as a form of Clovis-ism too.
This would remove the word capitalism completely from the discussion, without changing the meaning of said discussion in any way.
Now, do you want to do that in your own pretty little head? Or, would you like me to go back and edit all my posts to replace the word capitalism with the term Clovis-ism.
You tell me. Which would you prefer?
That’s my point. Let’s stop using the word ‘create’ entirely.
I know the most basic definition of capitalism is private ownership of production or something, but when people talk about capitalism originating in the 16th Century or so, they are talking about the profit/benefit arising from the allocation of capital, not the act of improving raw material or providing services. It’s not the value added, it’s the profit on investment that is capitalism.
My apologies I made the silly assumption that your argument rested on the generally understood definition of English words. You know so when you say capitalism you mean capitalism and not whatever random definition each reader wants to bring to the table.
Err, just because you aren’t familiar with a usage doesn’t mean it’s uncommon. Not that this matters in the slightest.
Sounds like to me you are ready to check out of the chat, which is proly for the better, but I’ll give you one last softball to throw at the bowling pins… on the house.
I want to discuss situations where: A necessity can be violently withheld -and- fungible ransom is extracted. That’s the kind of situation I want to discuss. The Waterlord, and Landlord system are both of this form. And, once again, that’s what I want to discuss.
Now, I could refer to these “A necessity can be violently withheld -and- fungible ransom is extracted” kinda systems as A-Necessity-Can-Be-Violently-Withheld-and-Fungible-Ransom-is-Extracted. But I find that awkward. You find it awkward when these “A necessity can be violently withheld -and- fungible ransom is extracted” kinda systems are referred to as capitalism. Fair enough, I suppose. To each his own.
But that’s no reason for you to check out of the chat.
How about this, let’s pick a different term, at least for this thread. That way neither of us need feel awkward. Now I suggested “Clovis-ism”, but I can see how you might not care for that choice. So I’ll leave it up to you…
What do you want me to call these “A necessity can be violently withheld -and- fungible ransom is extracted” kinda systems ???/?
You are correct I do want to opt out as there is nothing to see here.
I’ll leave by saying you are not using a commonly agreed upon definition of
Necessity
Violently
Withheld, or
Ransom
Like I said, it’s proly for the better if you do check out.
Bye bye
For the rest of us, this is a pretty good example of epistemic closure.
I must say it’s amusing you are trying to insult me with the improper usage of a philosophical idea which actually means the very thing you are failing to do itt.
Naw, I was using it in the pop-news manner.
Anyways, be honest… if I would have used any other word, any other word at all, except your “magic” word, you wouldn’t feel such a need to check out of the chat… now would you? This is pretty much exactly how “that would be socialism” thingee works it’s magic on some folks too… and why peeps like me LOL @ peeps like you.
But, for some reason, you haven’t actually checked out yet. Are you fucking stupid?