Economy - now a word taken to mean "the whole flow of money and goods and services in the world." Its origins are more humble, the first written use in English revealing a meaning more like "stewardship and management of a household." But because from that time in roughly the 1530s to now, the power of capital has taken hold as the dominant hegemony of the whole world, and because the conception of private property on which that power is built is based in Roman law, it's intrinsically based on the right of a paterfamilias to abuse and destroy his property and prevent the use or fruits of it to anyone else. Property which Roman law conceived to include land, household objects, the man's wife and children, and slaves. Slaves who the overall cultural perception of propriety thought ought to be war captives, but over time more and more came to be those who couldn't get out of debt any other way. Thus, the notion of management of a household came to be applied as a principle of managing society as a whole, "political economy."
- he/him
one more cute disaster… it’s hard here in paradise
in reply to @IkomaTanomori's post:
I'm afraid I disagree with this for two reasons.
First, the word "economy" is used in a few different ways here that contradict each other. There is "the whole flow of money and goods and services in the world." and there is "that but as it is now." I think this chost is arguing against that second definition, saying that despite how it is presented (like a natural phenomena), our modern economy is a choice and it could be different. I agree with that message. But the issue is that because there is no distinction made between that first and that second definition, it seem like the text is saying that all economies are bad, yet a sharing economy, like the one presented, is itself a type of economy.
Second, it is written that humans are "wired" to share and care for each other. I don't like these essentialitst views of humanity, but ignoring that, the evidence does show that human societies have cared for each other in certain ways in the past, which does contradict the neo-liberal selfish view of human nature. However, we should not make these findings universal. We do need to think about how to distribute ressources and we do need to think about how to have services across massive scale. Sharing will be a part of it, but the evidence does not say that it can be the whole of it.
Some people criticise alternate ways to organise society only to defend capitalism. That sucks, because capitalism suck. I do believe that a society where our basic needs are met and we don't have to work as hard is possible. Ideally, I would love if we don't have to work at all, but I don't know if that is possible. But even if it is (and I hope it is), it is important we give serious consideration to how it could happen and not settle on easy answers.
This is a long comment, but as final note, I do want to say that I liked your chost and I agree with you on the artificial frugality that is valued nowadays, and is enforced by the bourgeoisie.
It's not meant as an essentialist but as a choice of direction. We have tendencies; many sources who wrote to support the current system argue, in the vein of Hobbes, for only understanding humans and treating each other as if we'll act on the worst tendencies. I'm not saying anything new on that point here, I'm continuing the counter argument that the existence of civil society at any time in any place (as defines most of history and prehistory) shows that the better and more peaceful tendencies are more often dominant, and then acknowledging that there is a problem with betrayal but denying that we should therefore let the logic of betrayal control us.
I don't think you parsed why and how I was trying to connect the meanings of economy in the beginning of the chost, which is probably my fault for connecting them haphazardly. They aren't contradictory, I was mentioning them in order to build a case for how they came into existence and influenced the understanding of the word and the practice of economics as justifying how goods and services are kept in some people's control and out of others.
Anyway, I'm just getting up and seeing your comment, and thank you for pushing me to think more. I think your critique is valid which is why I tried to answer you and clarify and refine my thoughts in ways the original text didn't.
Thank you for your reply, it is cool to see calm discussion happening. I agree with your ideas, that what we think is human nature or the natural way of doing thing is a construction and it does not need to be this way, and that the logic of betrayal should not deter us from building society partly based on trust. Thanks again!