Sorry, iirc this conversation started with the question about what does free trade look like in a non-capitalistic system, and you pointed to mercantilism. You then seemed to say that the main difference between capitalism and mercantilism is the complexity of the marketplace. Which, if true, seems like a poor example of free trade without capitalism, as they’re largely the same system.
But I do understand your point. When trade is controlled by the state (a la mercantilism), I don’t know that I’d call it free trade, but, really, I’m not too hung up on this point, as I think the real blurring of the line is on the micro vs macro scale. You can have local free trade without large scale free trade (e.g I can sell leather goods, but not be involved in the import and export of animal products which remains the purview of the “government”). I might argue that this is localized capitalism in a non-capitalist system, but typically when we talk about capitalism we are talking about governmental economic organization.
I also really feel like this breakdown is due to trying to map this into the modern economy. Does the definition of the “means of production” breaks down in a service economy like the US? The amount of total jobs involved in any part of cloth production (or other manufacturing sector jobs) is a minority. What does “seizing the means of production” look like when what’s being “produced” are services not goods?
I think, if nothing else, it makes it hard to distinguish the “leather worker” from the “animal products exporter” as those are only different in scale not kind when there is no immutable aspect of nature or industry under control. The difference between my local burger joint and McDonalds is of scale, not kind, so how do I seize the means of production from one and not the other?
Capitalism isn’t the same thing as free trade, we’re talking about literal individual markets. It could be a free market, the lord could be involved with workshops and give them exclusive rights, it could be a guild system, or he might just let the people do whatever
As for the means of production in the service industry… It’s the building, the fryers, the computers, the agreements with suppliers or customers… some of these things are more abstract, but if you swap out the people, anything that’s still there
Keep in mind, supply chains were pretty simple back then. You didn’t make shovels, you have a local blacksmith who takes in iron and makes what you ask for. But everything is done at the prerogative of the lord, if he decides you need to make something you do it, if he decides you’re overcharging he can set your prices, maybe you get ordered to take on apprentices
Think of the town as another resource - the lord gets more taxes the better the local economy is, but can also meddle in it however they like
Does the smith own the smithy? Kind of, but you could also say the smithy kinda owns the smith and the town owns the smithy and lord owns the town
Sorry, iirc this conversation started with the question about what does free trade look like in a non-capitalistic system, and you pointed to mercantilism. You then seemed to say that the main difference between capitalism and mercantilism is the complexity of the marketplace. Which, if true, seems like a poor example of free trade without capitalism, as they’re largely the same system.
But I do understand your point. When trade is controlled by the state (a la mercantilism), I don’t know that I’d call it free trade, but, really, I’m not too hung up on this point, as I think the real blurring of the line is on the micro vs macro scale. You can have local free trade without large scale free trade (e.g I can sell leather goods, but not be involved in the import and export of animal products which remains the purview of the “government”). I might argue that this is localized capitalism in a non-capitalist system, but typically when we talk about capitalism we are talking about governmental economic organization.
I also really feel like this breakdown is due to trying to map this into the modern economy. Does the definition of the “means of production” breaks down in a service economy like the US? The amount of total jobs involved in any part of cloth production (or other manufacturing sector jobs) is a minority. What does “seizing the means of production” look like when what’s being “produced” are services not goods?
I think, if nothing else, it makes it hard to distinguish the “leather worker” from the “animal products exporter” as those are only different in scale not kind when there is no immutable aspect of nature or industry under control. The difference between my local burger joint and McDonalds is of scale, not kind, so how do I seize the means of production from one and not the other?
Capitalism isn’t the same thing as free trade, we’re talking about literal individual markets. It could be a free market, the lord could be involved with workshops and give them exclusive rights, it could be a guild system, or he might just let the people do whatever
As for the means of production in the service industry… It’s the building, the fryers, the computers, the agreements with suppliers or customers… some of these things are more abstract, but if you swap out the people, anything that’s still there
Keep in mind, supply chains were pretty simple back then. You didn’t make shovels, you have a local blacksmith who takes in iron and makes what you ask for. But everything is done at the prerogative of the lord, if he decides you need to make something you do it, if he decides you’re overcharging he can set your prices, maybe you get ordered to take on apprentices
Think of the town as another resource - the lord gets more taxes the better the local economy is, but can also meddle in it however they like
Does the smith own the smithy? Kind of, but you could also say the smithy kinda owns the smith and the town owns the smithy and lord owns the town