• Krafty Kactus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I may have misread the end of your comment but are you implying that a market can exist without private property?

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not implying, outright stating!

      Colloquially private property means like “stuff I have exclusive or near exclusive rights to” but that’s not what we mean when we talk economic systems. Something like your clothing, or that neat pot you made is personal property. Private property is a legal construct wherein someone is allowed to claim ownership over means of production, like “this field is mine, it doesn’t matter if I’m using it or not, I have the legal right to control what happens there”.

      So an example of a market without private property might be something like:

      • a field is held in Commons by a town
      • a farming collective submits to work it
      • they grow some potatoes
      • the community recognises their right to the fruits of their labour
      • they go to potato-lack town and sell some potatoes

      Obvs that’s simplified but it’s a rough sketch of how farming used to work! you earned a right to use land by using it directly and what you grew on it was yours to do as you see fit (often a maniac with a horse and sword would take some portion first though. Because they’re just better than you or whatever)

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      A market can exist without private property by having capital be collectively owned and continuously up for auction to the highest bidder. Basically, each holder of means of production self-assess the price at which they would be willing to turn over that capital to another party, they pay a lease payment based on a percentage of that self-assessed price, and if someone comes along willing to pay that self-assessed price, require that they turn it over to that party

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          In what I described, the differences are:

          1. Buyers can compel current holders to transfer the asset to them if they pay enough. This reduces the power of capital holders.
          2. All self-assessed prices of all capital are public
          3. A large portion of the value of capital flows into a collective fund

          @microblogmemes