Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/15/20 in all areas

  1. The views of capitalists and liberals historically developed out of opposition to things that came before them. Locke developed the natural rights doctrine and laid the foundation for liberalism, but was a bit of a mercantilist in economics. Late 17th and early 18th century thinkers like North, Cantillon, and Quesnay began to develop free trade movements out of opposition to mercantilism and utilized Lockean and generally Enlightenment-influenced arguments about "rights of man" and "laws of nature." The physiocracts and French liberals in the 18th century were among the first to mix laiss
    2 points
  2. "What about-ism" isn't a counterargument. It's a distraction. Communism and Maoism are more like Marxism+, that is, there are elements of Marxism. What would change about her argument if she mentioned them? She easily could condemn them on grounds of expropriation. An anticapitalist could say that every attack on Marxism should mention imperialism of the US, but you would rightly respond that the essay is about Marxism, not about the ways that capitalism has been corrupted in the US. The essay is about capitalism, so let's talk about capitalism. By the way, my basic response would be wha
    2 points
  3. I don't think Fraser is trying to suggest that none of these things are present. I don't think any of them are subsumed under exploitation or expropriation. Perhaps she would say that any presence of innovation or use of reason is hindered by the exploitation and expropriation inherent in the system. Part of her point is that under capitalism, some will benefit at the cost of others through expropriation and exploitation. Imagine I'm a rich capitalist in California during the 1870s funding the development of railroads and the technology to construct them. I managed to do this by hiring C
    1 point
  4. Which "comes first"? (So to speak). Something I've wrestled with and I'd estimate that if the concept "Leave us alone" Capitalism had not been arrived at, individual rights had to have naturally and logically given birth to it. The simplistic upshot to me is they interact in a symbiotic concert. I.e. the proper relationship of the one to the many and they to him/her ("in a social context": AR) prescribes a (protected) voluntarism of the meeting of minds with minds, in the form of the products of, in mutual trade. The complexity of writings and the ideas of capitalism by many thinkers, can be r
    1 point
  5. If you've never encountered this piece before, I can't recommend it highly enough. Particularly the part about how the UK (and if you'll allow, by extension, capitalism) ended slavery. Which is different from racism...though probably not from Fraser's perspective.
    1 point
  6. Fraser gives three perspectives on capitalism: exchange, exploitation, expropriation. That implicitly sweeps production under a rug or reduces it to exploitation and/or expropriation. She says nothing about using reason, how markets form or change, the role of knowledge and information (such as described by F. Hayek), entrepreneurship, innovation, supply and demand, prices, goal setting, resources, and organization or management. All these are subsumed under exploitation or expropriation. She remarks that using the exchange perspective, others could say that capitalism is indifferent to c
    1 point
  7. "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Marxism was an instrumental theory in African-based liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea Bissau. Amilcar Cabral, the revolutionary leader of Guinea Bissau, linked class struggle to anti-imperialism, demonstrating the necessity of “incorporating the proletarian project into the project of national liberation” (Magubane 1983, p. 25). Also, antiapartheid ideologists in South Africa adopted aspects of Marxist dictum even as they emphasized national and racial identities (see Marx 1992). Marxism continues to inform the spectrum of black progre
    1 point
  8. Boydstun invited “feedback on the specifics as advanced in this paper”. There is near nothing in the paper about what kind of political economy or society that Nancy Fraser advocates or endorses. She asks some questions about capitalism/racism that “form the heart of a profound but under-appreciated stream of critical theorizing, known as Black Marxism.” Here is a clue to what that is. Thus she merely hints at what she advocates or endorses, which is at least very Marxist. It’s much easier to be a critic than to construct and propose a better alternative. To answer her title question, she
    1 point
  9. The presentation admits to definitional considerations and how they weigh in. Starting with Capitalism, the trichotomy between exchange, exploitation and expropriation takes on a different flavor adding to it an Oxford dictionary refinement of: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Per the author racism goes away under the egress of exchange only considerations. The distinction between private or state ownership is set aside. Exploitation of natural resources allows the mate
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...