tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post2661085220972726498..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: "Of Property" and the Mercantilist FallacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-53744427960002523702015-07-14T13:27:21.833-04:002015-07-14T13:27:21.833-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.D. Ghirlandaiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06283931383770759507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-64223169033420804142013-04-14T19:39:08.008-04:002013-04-14T19:39:08.008-04:00What is this 'greed', if not the dominant ...<br />What is this 'greed', if not the dominant ideology of 'freedom' seen negatively to wit, 'my freedom is dependent on your unfreedom'? The dominant ideology of any era has been the ideology of its ruling class since the dawn of agriculture and animal husbandry. Thus, the rich at the top develop modes of exploiting the producers of wealth at the bottom.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Thus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse.<br /><br />"The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the *individual capacities* corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the *individuals* themselves."<br /><br />from THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY by Karl MarxMike Ballardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410520975856239745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-67915375941955276532013-04-11T18:38:53.743-04:002013-04-11T18:38:53.743-04:00Thanks, Josh. The Commons quote comes from: "...Thanks, Josh. The Commons quote comes from: "Institutional Economics: Comment by Professor Commons" The American Economic Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1932), pp. 264-268. It was also reproduced in his book "Institutional Economics" which I haven't read. "Industrial Goodwill" might be a good place to start. Also "History of Labor in the United States." I like his contributions to the U.S. Industrial Commission reports from around 1900, which are unsigned but whose authorship is easily detected.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-69618826673665980522013-04-11T12:37:49.457-04:002013-04-11T12:37:49.457-04:00This is a brilliant little essay, really wonderful...This is a brilliant little essay, really wonderful. But where does the Commons quote come from? And for someone who -- shamefully I know -- has never read any Commons, where would you recommend to begin?JW Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664452827447313845noreply@blogger.com