IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Hi, Gil. Re [OPE-L:3411]: I had previously asked: >I have a hypothetical question for you: Assume an economic system >in which all production is being performed by small producers (e.g. >family farmers and self-employed artisans) who are dependent on >loans from usurers. Assume, further, that all products are produced >with the intention of being sold. The question: do you consider >this economic system to be capitalist? You replied (in part): > Let's assume a system that we would all agree is capitalist--that > of the U.S., for example. * That would defeat the purpose of my question. My question concerned _your_ definition of capitalism and whether the hypothetical system outlined above would fit that definition*. > The reason I pose this version of the hypothetical question is that > Jerry's imposes, in my understanding, too many additional changes > from the status quo that are idiosyncratic to the historical period > in which usury capital first developed. It is a *hypothetical* question and therefore need not correspond to the historical period in which usury first developed. > Of particular significance here are (1) the restriction > to "small" producers rather than labor teams capable of running > even the largest-scale existing production processes, I will amend my question to allow for this possibility. Let's say that some proportion of the producers consist of *large-scale* producers' cooperatives. Assume further that they do not receive wages but instead receive a income based on "profit-sharing". > and (2) the restriction to > usury, that is, loan, that is, interest-bearing capital, which > yields fixed rather than variable income streams. Capitalists > might typically prefer to take the latter, so that the restriction > to fixed income loans could be arbitrary. Then assume a form of "neo-usury" in which both types of loans are possible. Would you consider the above economic system as ammended to be capitalist? In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L:3422] objectivity of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 02 Jun 2000, 15:34 GMT
- [OPE-L:3436] Re: objectivity of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 05 Jun 2000, 12:11 GMT
- [OPE-L:3421] objectivity of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 02 Jun 2000, 15:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:3435] Re: objectivity of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 05 Jun 2000, 12:06 GMT
- [OPE-L:3419] Re: Gil's criticisms, glevy Fri 02 Jun 2000, 14:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:3412] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Rakesh Bhandari Thu 01 Jun 2000, 20:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:3411] Re: Re: Re: Gil's criticisms, Gil Skillman Thu 01 Jun 2000, 20:24 GMT
- [OPE-L:3429] Re: Re: Re: Re: Gil's criticisms, michael a. lebowitz Sun 04 Jun 2000, 17:34 GMT
- [OPE-L:3410] Re: Re: further replies to Gil, Gil Skillman Thu 01 Jun 2000, 19:52 GMT