This thread has been jumbled by a sort of metanymic sub-text (intended or not) in too many of the posts. It is absolutely necessary to get absolutely straight as a point of DEPARTURE the absolutely peaceful nature of capitalist coercion. If you don't get that peaceful coercion straight to begin with you will never get a clear and powerful grasp of why capitalism is the bloodiest social system in human history. But to talk about that bloodshed in the same sentence or even the same paragraph or group of paragraphs as you talk about the horror of peaceful coercion is to confuse everything.
^^^^ CB; I don't know. This is getting close to calling for a "speak for yourself." And "Peaceful" should be in quotes.
Remember the main explainer of capital had a thing about contradictions, holding two opposite ideas in your head at the same time. With that skill, there is nothing confusing about saying capital relies on both fooling people and forcing them at the same time. Wage-laborers must sell their labor power to eat. Using the threat of starvation or destitution is _not_ non-violent. Passive maybe , but not non-violent. To say so is misleading and apolegetics for capitalism. It ignores that the police are backing up that "peaceful" coercion. In fact, it ignores the criticality of the state power in capitalism.
Passive coercion is probably more accurate than peaceful coercion.
Also, in this respect, capitalism is not unique. Feudalism used knights and religion, which has "peaceful" coercion too. The threat of going to hell is "peaceful" coercion.
^^^^^^
Even the bloodshed in the colonies or the bloodshed in the prisons or the bloodshed of ww1 d& ww2 can't be understood unless you first and preeminently understand and discuss and analyze the peaceful non-violent horror of the system.
Carrol