|
I was just talking to a friend about the fatal flaw in Marxian analysis of capitalism Both the analysis and the proposed solution focused on owning the means of production, but none of it says anything about the well-being of the humans, the community, and the eco-system involved. In contrast, look at say, how the Hopi views things. There is a faction among the Hopi that never signed anything with the US government. Their view is that ownership is granted to those that take care of it. It isn’t about the means of production, but rather, your ability to participate in the land’s wel-being. A further implication is that, within this world view, you cannot accumulate capital beyond your personal ability to take care of it. Instead of gaining property rights, and having social expectations for taking care of it, you don’t get those rights until you demonstrate ongoing care. It goes even further. Can you own a person because you “take care” of that person? If you reject that idea, what about any living being? Do you really own the trees, the birds, the bees? Instead, you view this as being in relation within a community that take care of the land. You obtain an yield (one of the permaculture design principles), but you don’t exclusively do so. Other living beings within the land can also obtain a yield, whether it is also the food, water or habitat. |
https://wilderness-society.org/how-much-wilderness-is-possib...