- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What would a person acting concert both for themselves and to a lesser extent someone else be defined as?
Would their act still not be considered selfish?
I have, both you and Agnapostate assume that individuals inside a community like the one described before will not act in their own self interest against the community at large.
A with a breath of reason and history your claim has been debunked.
Can a king not come to power through militant means?
Seeing as how this has happened so many times in the past, I'm surprised you ignored it.
Capital has developed in societies not built on the academic recognition of capitalism.
Domesticated animals were used as capital, as had gold, shells, beads, etc etc.
You have made claims about the findings of psychology but are only relying on one school of thought to make those claims.
(Edit: only some portions of an individuals development rely on environment)
It depends on the action, but I don't see how this applies to your original definition of the word "selfish," which completely hollowed out all meaning, unless you are conceding to me that I was correct.
I don't think I've ever made such a claim, nor has Agnapostate, as far as I've read. But I'll let him respond to this, as I've only read Mutual Aid once many years ago and am not concerned with defending what he has said.
Of course it can, and I am not ignoring it by any means.
Quite the contrary, actually. The king, in rising to power, must make them recognize him as their King or he will have popular revolt on his hands.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
On the contrary, they were used as commodities, not capital. Also, I am not saying that capital presumes capitalism as a world system; indeed, the development of capitalism from feudalism itself refutes such a claim.
Then aside from instinctual habits which we previously discussed, what do you believe? Why did you not bring up your disagreement earlier and provide some substantiation for it?
Because even though someone can think of a social group before making a decision, there decision is in regards to self.
"What will happen to me if I go against the group, what will happen to me if I go with the group."
For your or Agnapostates society to exist it requires that people make a conscious decision not to go against the cooperative out of personal desires.
The capital can be forced or it can be naturally developed.
In such a society if there is a shortage of something it will hold more value and thus can be considered capital.
Capital develops whether or not someone recognizes it as such.
Commodities can be capital.
If two parties can trade on an agreeable value of the commodity it can be capital.
There are several schools of thought relating to psychology.
I do believe that behaviorism has a lot of relevant information, studies and other works but it is not the only school of psychology to understand.
I'm slightly in favor of cognitive-behaviorist theory, but overall I'm an eclectic theorist.
Eclectic borrows from all schools.
Not really; I don't really think that individuals necessarily put their own needs/wants over the needs/wants of society. Humans are social animals by nature, and because of that I severely doubt that what you are saying is accurate.
No it doesn't. Not at all, actually.
Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.
Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.
Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].
Capital is a social relation, and therefore it cannot develop unless it is socially recognized and socially perpetuated.
This makes no sense. See the above definition. Capital is not simply something you trade for money or for another good.
You have yet to provide me with any information showing the inaccuracies of my assertions.
I dunno... we might end up discussing whether Murray Rothbard kicked Murray Bookchin out of his house. Not topics I'm particularly interested in.
:2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?