[FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Steven A Smith]

I'm not sure if we are in violent agreement or talking past one another
(or perhaps a bit of both)
> There are several hem-and-haw phrasings you use in the below. 8^) For example, when you say "act as owners", you're relying on some concept of ownership that isn't at all present in what you're talking about. If this type of soft, permeable control you're calling "herding" and "symbiotic" is really all there is, then what does "owner" actually mean? Is it some ideal that never obtains in the real world? And if so, then why use the silly term?
>
> And I didn't mean "egoism". I meant "egotism", conceit, an inflated sense of self that one works to maintain.

Without an ego, there would me no "self" to do the "owning", but I think
that is a different discussion?

I used the "hem and haw" words to indicate that *I* am not claiming
"ownership" in the strongest senses of "absolute control" and/or "legal
rights".   Those to me are definitely fictions, although ones which are
exercised all of the time, including by myself.   Treating some objects
as private property that can be maintained for the exclusive use of the
"owner" is very convenient in  many ways, certainly in our culture of
materialistism and private property ownership.  

I am in Austin where there are several species of free-range electric
scooters and at least one species of bicycle.   They are definitely
rent-seeking beasts, or more to the point, are their ostensible
"owners".   I don't understand the details of how they arrange to not be
"stolen" and I suspect a certain amount of vandalism is built into the
business model for those who produce and deploy them.   But at a
convincing level of abstraction, they seem to be fully autonomous,
self-owning, but "Rent Seeking"....   they just exist where they are,
parked willy-nilly, waiting for a human to come along and make a
transaction with them "you motor yourself with me on your back for this
time/distance and I will transfer this amount of $$ from my credit
account to some account "owned" by you".

> That qualitative difference between the cheese and the process/things by which the cheese is made bears some reflection. When teaching someone to, say, build a website with JavaScript or somesuch, they begin with some sense that it's magical or difficult or whatever. And by the end of it, they no longer feel that way. To 
> me this happens with *every* thing I learn. So, the question results: Is that qualitative difference you feel between cheese vs. cheese-making simply one of ignorance?
The distinction I was making was not the difference between the physical
material (cheese) vs the knowledge of transforming a related material
(milk) into cheese, but rather the distinction between the living but
still physical objects (i.e. goat herd) and that which is of value to
humans that can be produced *from* the goats.  I could have used the
example of "sausage" but wanted to have the goats and the plants they
browsed upon to be "renewable resources" which warranted "stewardship"
to try to distinguish the idea of "ownership" in the strong sense of
"control" from a much softer idea of "ownership" which reads more like
"taking responsibility for while extracting something of value for the
self".
>
> Now, I admit there's a scale that matters. Just because I can make a nuclear reactor in my kitchen does *not* mean I can build the LHC. But for all scalable X-making (means of production), the distinction seems purely one of degree, not kind.

A) I place a 1kW turbine in the stream running past my house and use the
electricity to do something I like or feel is important.

B)  I dam up the stream and place a 1kW (or 1mW) turbine, holding back
the water for later use, consequently denying the use/flow of that water
to others downstream.

C)  I do B *and* I set up a storage/transmission network for said
electricity which I then offer to sell/rent to others.

D) I do B, but with the full agreement/cooperation of everyone
downstream of me and we share in the investment of time and other
resources and in the benefits.

I'm trying to understand (with your help) what the *qualitative*
differences might be among these....  are they simply on a quantitative
continuum?   Do they all require a strong egotist sense of "self"?  Are
the distinctions I am trying to suggest simply illusions, or projections?

As a matter of personal practice, I hold many of the same *practical*
habits/perspectives of a strong capitalist/owner, but I do recognize
that much of that is either a personal hallucination of my own, or a
shared one with others around me.   I am traveling in Austin right now
and am acutely aware that if I abandon my vehicle in the wrong parts of
town for too long, it (or at least many of it's parts) will no longer be
"mine"... I will no longer even know where they are, much less have any
illusion of control over them.   The only difference between that and my
"home" where I leave my vehicles unlocked and my keys IN them is that
there I have decades of experience to tell me how likely and under what
circumstances I will no longer continue to "own" my vehicle (or it's
wheels, or catalytic converter or battery, etc.).   At "home" I also
depend on not being as dependent on that vehicle for my convenience and
comfort... and on the collective implicit agreement of my neighbors who
will participate in discouraging others from "re-owning" my vehicle (or
the clothes drying on my line) and will share *their* owned resources (a
spare vehicle, a ride to town, the shirt off their back) in ways that I
*don't* feel comfortable with in a strange (to me) city.

Keep trying to help me understand what it is you think I am not
understanding?


>
> On 11/14/19 4:35 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> So I've moved from killing lizards in the wild, one at a time as I am
>> hungry enough to eat them to domesticating and herding goats that I will
>> guide to better pastures/water and protect from predators...    I am
>> both "steward of" and "owner of" this herd...   the goats might be
>> better off unherded, allowed to disperse and roam free, but for the sake
>> of the example, let's imagine that they and I, with the help of a
>> wolfhound actually do better off as a group than any of us would have
>> done alone.  I and my wolfhound may act as *owners* of this herd and use
>> controlling techniques (fencing, nipping at heels, etc.) to keep them
>> close together and within the range of our ability to protect them from
>> predators.   We also use similar techniques and technology to prevent
>> others from taking control *from* us... be they predators or other
>> wannabe herders who prefer to just take control of part or all of "our"
>> herd rather than work their way up by capturing a pregnant wild goat and
>> hand-raising it's kids so as to habituate/ingratiate them to the herder,
>> etc.
>>
>> And yes, this is a form of "egoism"... the herder thinking they "know
>> what is best" for the goats (and wolfhound)...   but only to some degree
>> since the operative term is "herd" not "krall" them... if the "herd"
>> gets it in their head to disperse or run away, chances are they can... 
>> but presumably a good herder establishes a symbiotic relationship.
>>
>> But back closer to the original line of thinking, the distinction
>> between owning a "thing" (a packet of cheese made from the goat's milk
>> or a hair-shirt spun and woven from their hair) and controlling the
>> means of  production (the herd, the territory within which they are
>> herded/roam) still seems to be a meaningful one... maybe it is merely
>> scale or quantity, but it feels like the extra level of indirection is
>> important