What’s “exclusionary ownership” mean here?
Comment on We live in a post scarcity information society and we still haven't moved on from capitalism.
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 months agoI think the simplest way to put it is “an economic system where individuals are allowed to have exclusionary ownership of capital”
intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 months ago
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s the idea that because you own something, you’re the only one who is allowed to use it, whether you’re actually actively using it right now or not. You can contrast it with usufructuary rights, which are based on the idea that you only have rights to something while you’re actively using it
intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 months ago
So that would be like one of those rental scooters, or a set of scuba gear if you lived and worked on a ship? It’s yours while you’re wearing it, or maybe while you have it checked out?
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yep! I wouldn’t say it would be “yours” exactly because you would never have actual ownership of the thing while you’re using it, but it would be your right to use it and profit from it so long as you don’t destroy it. A good example would be the way Native Americans viewed land use, following herds of wild animals wherever they went and moving from depleted areas to more fertile ones. This clashed heavily with European and American colonialists, who enforced their views of exclusionary ownership with barbed wire fences and violence.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Don’t see the problem in that
Maven@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The problem comes in what you define as “capital”. Food and housing are the biggest issues for the modern world but there still exists the problem of PEOPLE being considered capital that can be owned by other people.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Food isn’t capital. Capital is wealth used to produce other wealth. A house definitely is. Foods just consumable.
Classic “capital” is a hammer owned by a laborer (that situation is one person playing both roles). The classic capitalist separation of layers is a guy who owns a truck full of tools, and he hires other guys to work on things using the tools, but he retains ownership of the tools.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 months ago
You should be able to own a house. Everyone should be able to own a house
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Technically, Monarchism falls under that definition as well, which is why it gets a bit more complex than that.
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 7 months ago
A monarchy can be capitalist as long as peoples property rights are respected. The moment the monarch decides to lop somebodys head off and take their stuff you’ll be back to the old-school feudalistic “might makes right” societies.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Sort of. Monarchism is more about respecting a family’s right to rule, than a claim on economics, though usually Feudalism goes hand in hand historically. The British parliamentary system with a vestigial Monarchy is an exception, not the rule.
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I would call monarchism a form of religious capitalism where the ruling class claims divine right as the methods to accumulate capital, rather than using financial means to accumulate capital
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Certainly more hierarchical than Socialism, but also more than Capitalism. Fundamentally, the lack of a market for Capital separates Capitalism from Monarchism, the class dynamics of today are different from before. This is helpful to understand IMO when trying to see how to solve it.
betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Does the exchange of land between kingdoms via wedding dowries/treaties/violence fulfill the definition of a “market for capital”?