Sorry for the bad picture I kinda scrambled to get it, but yeah my prof went fully into the whole "in communism you don't own your toothbrush" stuff and then put up this slide.
I'm glad that my webcam and mic was off because I couldn't stop myself from rolling my eyes at that.
edit: idk why the pic is rotated and idk how to fix it
But i think that type of aquisitivnes is an inherent human trait. Hunter gatherer societies are often limited by their prodictive forces. Other times they police themselves. But as soon as you get to pastoralism you find these patriarchs hoarding thousands of cattle and other productove forces simply for the sake of amassing wealth.
I think amassing personal wealth is a distinct economic phenomenon from an MCM circuit in a market economy. In most pastoral societies I'd argue the situation is complicated by other strong social forces, and part of the distinct thing about capitalism is that it really is capital breaking free of existing human structures and institutions and reorganizing them according to it's own need for growth. All that is solid melts into air, etc.
I agree there are other social forces acting on pastoralist societies and others. But tbe same can be said of today.. modern societies have their myths and rituals that influence behaviour other than capital. These often reinforce capitals interests but not necesarily. The same can be said from institutions in a pre industrial society that in many cases tend to justify the status of the ruling class.
As for capital reorganizing strucrures. Arent all human institutions organised to maximize economic output in a given context?
When does it become capital instead of a the vast personal wealth of a roman patricisn. Who owns a significant amount of it in stocks of diferent companies?
Yes there are other social forces today, but I think the point is that capital - not billionaires, monarchs, celebrities, or patriarchs - is in the driver's seat.
All human institutions? That's a strong claim unless you have a very narrow definition of "human institution". Just like we agreed above - there are other social forces at play, and many of those have corresponding institutions. Any of them large enough to involve large amounts of people across larger regions usually have to be part of a capitalist world in many ways, i.e. raise funds or participate in a market or something, but that doesn't mean they're all organized to maximize economic output. Also, I'd count everything from big decentralized activist networks down to my little book club as human institutions, and many of those have no economic input or profit whatsoever.
The vast personal wealth of a Roman patrician doesn't circulate in a production economy and is far more fixed to the person/family than capital. Capital is not wealth but wealth with a kind of agency, ripping across the social and economic landscape corralling potential productive forces into it's sway. Capital can't just exist; it has to grow by continuing to circulate and pick up more exploited labour or it goes into crisis.
In a strange dark way capital is like life, a weird algorithmic quirk in a natural space that picks up speed and size through self-replication and mutation. Part of the problem is that the sheer causal power of large pools of capital that have tendrils all across the globe is way stronger than any individual or even individual nation-states, hence the calls for international proletarian solidarity and organization.
I don't know specifically about Rome, but in the patrician's case their wealth is likely more under their control to do with as they please. At the same time it probably comprises a wide array of different kinds of assets, many of which I would assume spend more time travelling vertically through heritage or other lineages than horizontally across the market.