[americandream]

That may seem a bit of a wandering narrative but everything in the list is about transportation and trade, no matter what the Marxists may think it is not manufacturing that drives economies. It has always boiled down to ease of transportation from point of origin to point of use.

Great observation and great post, right into the one of the most critical matters of the social development.

Someone said that the US is a country of abandoned towns - as the economy moved on, so the people did. Possibly, this is one of the reasons of the infrastructure decay in some places.

Contrary to widespread ignorance, there was no manufacturing as we contemplate it before capitalism. There were crafts and commissions, but not manufacturing as we contmplate it in our off the shelf society.

So to the extent that transportation is necessary to move things whether commissioned and crafted beds for the local nobleman or mass manufactured goods for Walmart, that is an obvious inference. However, without capital there would be no manufacturing as contemplated by material dialecticism.

It would be useful if people would consider these subtle distinctions rather than go off at a tangent adding to the already confused irrationalisms floating around the net and compounding the ignorance which digs our collective economic and climate graves, day by day.

[americandream]

There are some pretty stupid ideas out there.

[americandream]

SG

Manufacturing, the making of things, not ownership was my point. Manufacturing as we understabd it in the age of the supermarket is unique to capital as it is a function of capital. That is a factual statement and simply addresses the mode of production...as distinct from trades in the age of guilds and crafts, which we refer to as mercantilism.

Mercantilism per se is quite indifferent as regards its socio economic effects being of a diminutive scope and in effect secondary to the core character of the system which is always feudal. Manufacturing in capitalism is in effect capitalism with all the tendencies and contradictions you complain of.....as if we can somehow divorce the system from its essence.

As I have said; it pays to understand history if one is to make sense of it. Flubbering between reaction and radicalism will otherwise stalk your political thought.

[StarvingLion]

Same old PHD wannabe psychobabble.

Getting rid of the coal plants is economic suicide.

Thats all you need to know.

[americandream]

I do understand it. The way I see it though your concern for the semantics comes across as dismissive or undermining without taking note of the point of the thesis, which I iterated on further, as I believe it contains a fundamental truth. Using the loose term manufacturing, as Tanada obviously intends, is apt to the point, which is not at all about semantics, but basic human nature & how skill & mobility are the real basis of development, not the sickness of consumption angle so often trumpeted around here.

You see a part of the picture and not the whole. Yes, mobility is and has been central in some instances in advancing empires and other human social forms but not the sole determinant. Certainly, mobility alone does not account for the resilience of the Islamic Empire nor the swift rise of the Romans, nor the co-opting character of capitalist culture.

These are subtle concepts but not insurmountably so.

[americandream]

Same old PHD wannabe psychobabble.

Getting rid of the coal plants is economic suicide.

Thats all you need to know.

One looks not at the normative but the objective. For example, how sensible are your comments against the backdrop about what we know and see daily occurring about us in:

GLOBAL CAPITALISM

[radon1]

Contrary to widespread ignorance,

I am not sure why "marxists" featured in there at all, but many people certainly think that manufacturing is the key driver of economic development, and challenging this viewpoint is an interesting and useful exercise.

[SeaGypsy]

Have you no respect AD? Your monologue does not belong in every thread, despite your obsession that it does.

[americandream]

Contrary to widespread ignorance,

I am not sure why marxists featured in there, but many people certainly think that manufacturing is the key driver of economic development, and challenging this viewpoint is an interesting and useful exercise.

Nor do I seeing the subject matter involved. But in a sort of round about way it does underline the fundamentally reactionary nature of much of post Cold War nostalgia, schooled as they are on Hollywoodesque notions of past golden ages.

edit. It does expose this post modernist rejection of modern reason (as opposed to caitalism) for the sham that it is.

[SeaGypsy]

Obviously freedom of movement was never a feature of Marxist dialectics. Now could we possibly get to the meat of Tanadas post? Please? One word should not be enough for you to derail a very thought provoking OP.

[americandream]

Obviously freedom of movement was never a feature of Marxist dialectics. Now could we possibly get to the meat of Tanadas post? Please? One word should not be enough for you to derail a very thought provoking OP.

Well, the whole basis of his post is wrong springing as it does from the notion that modernity can be undone on some sort of sustainablity focussed utopian manner. These societies were anything but utopian (bar the oases of primitive socialism).

[americandream]

You are being a nut. The OP is a great wide open conversation starter which you find offensive because it dismisses your favorite brand at the outset, rightly. The narrow point that Marxism misconceives the basis of human progress is correct. One of the reasons there is no Marxism of modern significance is because it is so offensive to all forms of freedom, especially personal adventurism. That's why while I have much sympathy for communist rebels in particular situations, I would be doing what they do, against a Marxist government.

Anyway I am sure Tanada will sort out our chicken's gizzards soon enough.

I will remind you of my reasonable observations as regards the romantically misguided OP and your hysteria....which alternates between loud pronouncements of Quixotic valour as you feverishly fight the worldwide communist conspiracy to deprive you of your freedom to be intellectually vacuous.......and your incomplete understanding of history.

I choose to ignore your nonsense.

[americandream]

.
I'm not quite sure what "manufacturing" means for american dream
it's a French word meaning "made by (many) hands" the word Factory come from it

Large workshops were rare but not unknown before the 18th century
in roman times very large workshops existed ,
Venice armament center , the Arsenal , boasted of a chain assembly for warships , all made with standardized parts
the efficiency was demonstrated when a visiting king of Poland was invited to watch the keel being laid
early in the morning , the evening the war galley , fully fitted out , sailed the grand canal , firing a salute .
Colbert the French finance ministers encouraged the setting up of "manufactures" with taxes and legal privileges
this was followed by all of Europe
large industrial production was often seen in the military and above all the navy ,
it created a market for large subcontractors , often charged with rigging the prices

If you go back through my posts they specifically relates manufacturing, not mercantilist ventures, to JIT modernity which I think even you will admit does not constitute mercantilist suppliying of Royal militias even where the Guilds are factory like formations.

[SeaGypsy]

AD is having one of his brain spasms where everything spins into his personal communist universe he believes rightly he is in the center of, wrongly that we are all part of his black hole anti dynamic.

[americandream]

AD is having one of his brain spasms where everything spins into his personal communist universe he believes rightly he is in the center of, wrongly that we are all part of his black hole anti dynamic.

For the social relations that constitute capitalism to arise,the relations that clearly have you in their grip going by your exceptionally visceral reaction to my posts in general), the conditions for modern accumulation, namely consumerism of the commodities from labour surplus had to have their basis in manufacturing NOT mercantilism.....building ships for Royals do not the conditions for capitalist social relations foster.

To undo these relations and replace them with their Royalist predecessors under the pretext of saving the planet is despicable.

[americandream]

To reiterate my points. The systematic extraction of labour value funds much of what we take for granted, facilitated of course by mobility. The US has led in this are as it was a leader in the urbanisation of labour....that along with its vast resources plus early transport infrasturcture. But all paid for by labour value.

[americandream]

If we were serious about a low waste future the first thing we should do is massively rebuild our infrastructure from homes to roads. But that would require leadership and honest assessment of our situation.

If we are serious about a low waste future, we need to change our social relations. How we relate to things and property. That is the first step. The rest....transport, infrastruxture....all are premised on our commodifying culture.

[ralfy]

Marxist views are seen in the narrative, especially in enclosures and private property, the manufacture of components needed for infrastructure, the dominance of the military, and implicitly the use of money, the formation of credit systems, and the rise of the middle class.

[americandream]

Marxist views are seen in the narrative, especially in enclosures and private property, the manufacture of components needed for infrastructure, the dominance of the military, and implicitly the use of money, the formation of credit systems, and the rise of the middle class.

Absolutely.

The very notion that subjective human systems fly by any other mechanism other than the preservation of preferential resource access is naive and the product of an uninformed mind, education notwithstanding.

The seeds of these early subjectivities are contained in capitalism and were the building blocks of capitalism.

[sparky]

.
@ Americandream , I'm not so sure if the statement
"subjective human systems fly by any other mechanism other than the preservation of preferential resource access"

the crusades had Fu..k all to do with preferential resources access ,
the first one was a rather disorganized rabble of religious enthusiasm ,
the second was still motivated by religious enthusiasm and probably a thirst for a righteous adventure but was composed of hardened warriors and succeeded
the third was a painfully set up of kings who would rather have been somewhere else but had to do their christian duty
the fourth was hijacked by the Venetians ( them again ! ) into a grubby power play
the rest , from the Spanish reconquista ,the Albigensian crusade or the conquest of the East by the Teutonic order could be argued as a mixture of adventure , grab for lordships or Catholic proselytism by the fire and sword

If you define "preferential ressource access " as desire to make a buck , well sure , a great many endeavor would fit into this very large and very loose bag ,
I'm just not sure it was the Mayflower pilgrims first motivation ,
neither was it for the Vikings hard nuts who fled Norway and the heavy hand of its king and settled Iceland
or the Chinese admiral Zen He maritime expedition to the Cape , if anything it was prestige

I can go along with Marxism a fair bit , but it doesn't quite fit all