When you say the 'interests of capital' do you mean people who wish to invest their spare money in assets such as the share market, bonds etc? If not then please could you explain what you mean, because these people would definitely value their assets in the way I describe, and different people value different assets differently at times leading to profit on the stock market.
This might be a contribution to a debate about what comes after neoliberalism if you had the slightest inkling that what you think is Nature's Way is a result of neoliberalism, but we're never going to get there, are we?
Been here before i think
The UK has been based on an attitude of from cradle to grave for hundreds of years, but the rest of the world is not like that, and as an Elitist system its perpetuation cannot easily be justified. Why would one part of society ensure a high standard of living for the rest when income is going down? They are more likely to cut the funding for the poor at regular intervals.
Nature's Way? What on earth do you mean by that? People are born, they live, they die. The law of the jungle was stopped the moment we invented a system of laws to live by.
It's those social forces that benefit from having "living labour serving accumulated labour as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value" (see here) It's not so much about freezing the cycle that occurs in at some particular point and saying the interests of this or that person, but watching the logic of that relationship play out over time in everyone's lives.
I mean you being quite happy to make bald assertions about how people are because that's how they are.
We do not live in a law of the jungle situation - you do not have people attempting to invade your property because of the property rights you enjoy, and I am sure that if they did you would phone the police.
Privilege exists and the UK is distinctly poor at addressing this. If everyone had a fair start in life to rise to the position which most suited their talents then that would be better and is a principle I have, which leads to a duty of government. However the UK does not have a form of government which would enable this to occur. Marx drew attention to this problem very effectively, and he was right to point out the undeserved nature of the current structure, but none of my analysis has been against this, and assets still exist. The Marx definition of Capital seems (from your link) to include all factors of production, but demand is there, and labour is what everyone needs to do to get food on the table.
No it's not. I'd love you to say why you think it is though.
Only in a model with unlimited factors of production
If only you and I had a mature relationship where we talked to each other without abuse as adults.
What are factors of production gmart?
If only you weren't so thick we could.
You only get to ask questions if we become adults talking without abuse. Otherwise you have to go look it up.
Look what up? Can you please give a hint?
That's blown my entire primitivist project out the water with one blast of the icy ray of your cold intellect, I can tell you.
Spain has been engaged in trade for centuries. The idea that people are owned and therefore looked after as the slaves of owners has rightly been consigned to history. As free people living in a free world we get to choose how we put food on the table, but no one has a duty to provide for us like we are children who cannot look after ourselves. If it were like that we would be keeping the population as an infantilised population and would not be able to expect them to take responsibility for their actions. Which we do.
It is you who asked what are x. It refers to x.
I choose to do that by mugging meritocrats. And no bastard copper will take me alive.
And I stated that I will not engage with you as an adult until you engage with me as one, without abuse. You have stated that you will not do this, and so, as I say, go look it up.
I will not. Tell me what factors of production are.
