>If he was reading Locke (even indirectly), he meant the labor
>theory of value. That is: I am not a slave, therefore I can
>labor and keep at least some of the value of my product; of
>this, I can save some and make capital of it (capital in the
>sense of tools to make more wealth). So the body (including
>the mind within it) is the primordial item of capital.
Maybe...but I'm not persuaded.
>"No." He said, "I don't believe in socialism. I'm a capitalist."
>
>"You are?" I queried looking around his apartment, "Then, where's your
>capital?"
>
>That stopped him only for a second,
>
>"My body," he replied, "My body is my capital."
The fact is, he didn't say what we might have expected him to say: "I am my capital" (the whole me, brain and body and the labour that we can perform together), he said "my body is my capital". When he said "I am a capitalist" he didn't, I think, want to imply that he had capital, he simply meant that he believed in capitalism (however he may understand it), and Joanna Bujes's question caught him off guard. But his immediate, perhaps unthinking response to that question was to brazenly place himself in the system that he respects as an object in itself worthy of respect, and for me it is this gesture that is remarkable. Call me romantic, but, coming from a basement apartment, it seems positively rebellious. He does seem to be identifying with the enemy, but he is not resigned. He has not been crushed. Eh? So it seems to me, anyway.
>I realize that there are many objections to this view of
>things; but it's the fellow in San Jose one needs to reach
>with these objections, not the population of lbo-talk.
>Unless we think the effort is worthless, of course. Such
>people are often very stubborn about their funny ideas.
>Perhaps we should just admire him at a distance.
It's just too bad that he was brought up to associate socialism with totalitarianism and capitalism with freedom. The stubbornness of those funny ideas is due to their having settled in so early and long.
As for "Nature" teaching resignation (thanks, Brad), fie on A. Smith and co. It's the very critters who invented "philosophy and reason" who engage in such socially destructive resignation. Seems to me you'd have to go a long way to find another social animal that doesn't know that "kings are the servants of the people, to be obeyed, resisted, deposed, or punished, as the public conveniency may require..."
...Which I suppose begs Doug's question: "Why do people think that way?"
cheers, Joanna S.
PS - Thanks for the Lewis Carroll.
> > I like very much what you say, below, Gordon. I wish you'd elaborate on
> > Humpty Dumpty.
>
>I cannot elaborate what is perfect.
>
> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
> tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more
> nor less.'
>
> The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean
> so many different things.'
>
> `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master
> -- that's all.'
>
>-- Lewis Carroll, _Through_The_Looking_Glass_
>http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html
>
>This fellow may think that _capital_ means "the care and
>feeding of calico cats"; if we want to change his mind about
>it, we must overpower or seduce him in some way, because there
>is no "capital" up in the sky for us to point out to him.
www.overlookhouse.com