Nowhere did I suggest that unfair treatment by property owners was a sui generis thing. Nowhere did I suggest that the institution of private property didn’t need to be abolished.
I will, however, claim that there are ethical dimensions to the present world, and that abolition of capitalism and private property is absolutely an ethical stance.
And my original claim was that actors are not in a state of being maximally forced to squeeze themselves. I would argue that as long as the profit rate is substantially above zero, that there is generally room to breathe in the system.
Oh, I’m fully aware it’s a liberal moralist perspective you’re presenting. My post is Marxist and I’ve tried explaining the Marxist understanding but apparently you’d rather counterpose it to an individualist economism than listen.
Surplus value extraction is universal. Arbitrary cruelty is not. Surplus value extraction is fed into by the market but not a result of being maximally forced. It’s ironic mentioning profit rate given the decline of profit rate is one of the tendencies that objectively compel increased exploitation.
I am merely taking issue with “compelled”, and the implication that the compulsion is total: that the poor struggling business owners just can’t catch a break because the system they’re in takes away all their agency and forces them to do everything they do.
There is a large fraction of firms that may have a contingency plan for competitive pressure, and do lip service to the competitive model, but in practice are not even close to facing any real threat from competitors.
Surplus value extraction is fed into by the market but not a result of being maximally forced.
That’s tantamount to the point I was trying to make. It’s pointless to argue further.
Nowhere did I suggest that unfair treatment by property owners was a sui generis thing. Nowhere did I suggest that the institution of private property didn’t need to be abolished.
I will, however, claim that there are ethical dimensions to the present world, and that abolition of capitalism and private property is absolutely an ethical stance.
And my original claim was that actors are not in a state of being maximally forced to squeeze themselves. I would argue that as long as the profit rate is substantially above zero, that there is generally room to breathe in the system.
Oh, I’m fully aware it’s a liberal moralist perspective you’re presenting. My post is Marxist and I’ve tried explaining the Marxist understanding but apparently you’d rather counterpose it to an individualist economism than listen.
Surplus value extraction is universal. Arbitrary cruelty is not. Surplus value extraction is fed into by the market but not a result of being maximally forced. It’s ironic mentioning profit rate given the decline of profit rate is one of the tendencies that objectively compel increased exploitation.
I am merely taking issue with “compelled”, and the implication that the compulsion is total: that the poor struggling business owners just can’t catch a break because the system they’re in takes away all their agency and forces them to do everything they do.
There is a large fraction of firms that may have a contingency plan for competitive pressure, and do lip service to the competitive model, but in practice are not even close to facing any real threat from competitors.
That’s tantamount to the point I was trying to make. It’s pointless to argue further.