Skip to main content

The Modes of Consumption, Distribution, Production & Property


Here goes nothing...

Humans consume to attain survival, safety, comfort and leisure.

Distribution is the movement of goods or services through space or from one person to another, and occurs in five different ways, or modes, which are sharing, gift, theft, trade and planning.

Production is the transformation of stuff by the application of labour and capital, and also comes in five modes; primitivism, agrarianism, corporatism, capitalism and command.

Property is stuff claimed by a person or a group of persons as under their control or their exclusive control, and tends to be thought of in one of four ways; common, usufruct, state and private.



~~~ CONSUMPTION ~~~

Survival is the mere sustainment of one's existence; the continuation of organic function.

Safety is the sense that one will survive, and/or keep what one values (family, friends, stuff) in the near and remote future.

Comfort is a physical and emotional lack of material unease, say through having comfortable furniture, the absence of discomfort due to disease, and so on.

Leisure is the pursuit of what one enjoys without thought for necessity.



~~~ DISTRIBUTION ~~~

Sharing is the non-association of goods with particular persons so that they continually pass from person to person in a society without any thought for which persons own or do not own the goods in question.

Gift is not quite so open. People claim title to things on an exclusive basis and surrender title to each other on an occasional basis (occasional meaning each individual will do so many times but not constantly, not moment-by-moment).

Theft is like gift but reversed, taking rather than giving.

Trade is like gift but by both parties at once simultaneously, neatly closing the social debt loop.

Planning is the mode of distribution whereby a person or group of persons direct the movement of goods and services amongst others generally not including themselves.



~~~ PRODUCTION ~~~

Primitivism is the mode of production whereby production is for one's own or one's peers' benefit, for example hunting, killing, skinning and cooking animals to eat.

Agrarianism is the mode of production that arises with or after (this is unclear from evidence) private property in land, and takes in production for sustainment but also for trade. Peasant freeholders, manorial systems, and communal private holdings (communal for the owners only) are all examples of agrarianism. Without a bit of agrarianism urbanisation - and thereafter civilisation - is impossible.

Corporatism means production is for the benefit of the head of a body. The body is an industry or an economy, and the head is whoever has organised together, whether a town or state government, an association of guilds, or a federation of trade unions. Mercantilism is a form of state-directed corporatism as opposed to the guild-directed and city-directed corporatism of mediaeval trades, and the total corporatism of Fascist Italy and Germany.

Capitalism is a repeating process of finance and entrepreneurship meeting to implement previously untried plans for the allocation of labour and capital, and leads to rapidly increasing productivity and efficiency, and so falling prices of produced goods and services over time.

Command in this instance is the organisation of an industry - say, steel or textiles or software or whatever - by a centralised governing organisation, like Gosplan in the Soviet Union.



~~~ PROPERTY ~~~

Common ownership is in a sense non-ownership. Everybody owns everything, so nobody owns anything. Some people today believe this is a good way to think of land.

Usufruct is attainment and loss of ownership by starting to make use of, and ceasing to make use of a good respectively.

State ownership is pretty obvious. It's ownership by the state until such time as the state surrenders its claim by sale, gift or abandonment.

Private ownership is basically like state ownership except by a non-state actor like an individual, a household/family or a firm.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iain McKay, Bryan Caplan & the Case of the "Anarchist" Anarchist

In the past I have written blog posts disputing claims contained in the online document called An Anarchist FAQ principally written by Iain McKay. I spent those posts trying to contend with Iain's claims re  the ancap question  and  the mode of production called capitalism . McKay has a bee in his bonnet re anarcho-capitalists' insistence on referring to themselves as anarchists, that much is obvious. Every reference to ancapism runs something along the lines of "an"cap or "anarcho"-capitalism. I find this very amusing because 'anarchist' or 'anarchism' are words (articulate mouth-sounds) first and specific concepts second.  Ditto 'socialist' and 'socialism' friends. Speaking of socialism... In  the comment section of one of his videos  the Youtuber called StatelessLiberty responded to a criticism by linking to Caplan's work  on the Anarchist adventure in Spain in the 1930's . The critic shot back with a  critic...

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in! We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog. By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says  in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky cla...

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...