Message from @My Preferred Pronoun Is Sama
Discord ID: 543108494891679744
europe was suffering from the jihad, china was fragmented into 5 nations, 3 of which on its border with mongolia (they basicly betrayed all of china to let the mongols in to fight a war for unification for them but got double crossed) and the middle east was begining to suffer internal struggle between the caliphs. perfect time for the mongols who 99% of the time are simply tribal warriors who never get along with a population greater than 1000 people to suddenly unite an entire contanent of hundreds of thousands strong and have the largest military at the time with tactics that also favored soldier survival to basicly exhaust everyone around them into total collapse.
how does that correlate to economics being about the exertion of power?
but besiiiides that, money tends to dominate the monopoly of violence in human history
because the state uses violence to parasite off of those who produce
that problem is not production or the free exchange of goods between people, it's the state using violence to extort them to promote its own agenda
But without the state there can be no means of production
If this is "conquerors are often rich", that goes without saying. If this is "mercenaries are good" I'm gonna have to point toward Machiavelli and Italy
of course there can be means of production
There wouldn't be a state without means of production.
of course there would
You can have production without a state, but not the reverse
better your economy = better education, compounds your ability to extract resources as that feeds back into your economy, compounds technological progress as that feeds back into your economy, population expasion, specialization of labor. these factors allow you if you so choose to funnel themselves into military power except maybe extraction of resources but thats basicly what money is based on.
if you're alone in an island, and you manage to create tools to produce, you're creating the means of produciton
no state
Right, and you wouldn't have a state until multiple people are there, and you can provide for all of them sufficiently
your body is a means of production
You wouldn't have a state until a group of people band together to extort the others under the threat of violence
What if the state operates on general consensus for the purpose of rulemaking?
The state is parasitical by definition, it doesn't produce anything
I never said it did, that was the other guy
It doesn't matter, it's still based on the threat of violence, unless there are no consequences for those who go against the general consensus
F.Pazuzu are you communist?
There can be a market as well
Of course there can be market without the state
Trade can exist outside of the confines of state intervention
No, @DarKinGate , quite the opposite'
seems more like an anarchist than a communist
But wouldnt those trading in markets be states within themselves?
I'm an anarchist
what ist someone is doesent matter
No, because there is no threat of aggression if the trade is being doing voluntarily
amen, @Arch-Fiend
How is one person a state?
trade, market, capitalism, whatever you want to call it, it's the free and voluntary exchange of goods between consenting parts
No one is the state lmao
unless you're louis xiv
Right, @My Preferred Pronoun Is Sama implied that those trading within markets are states
But individuals can trade in markets and individuals are not states
So I'm not sure where that assertion comes from
the market is simply the name given to the whole of those free and voluntary exchange of goods