-- *Mar*Below is a *conceptual mapping of your essay to major thinkers and economists*, showing where your ideas *converge, extend, or radically depart* from established theories of profit, economics, ecology, and philosophy. I will move from *classical economics → ecological economics → philosophical and civilizational critiques*, because your essay ultimately transcends economics as a discipline. ------------------------------ 1. Classical and Neoclassical Theories of Profit
*(Where your essay directly challenges the foundations)* *Adam Smith – Profit as Surplus from Production* - *Smith’s view:* Profit arises as a surplus after wages and rent are paid; it is a reward to capital for risk and coordination. - *Your critique:* You implicitly reject the idea of *true surplus*. If my income is your expenditure, surplus can only exist by *excluding certain costs*. Smith assumes nature as a free, infinite input—exactly the blind spot your essay exposes. - *Relation:* You reveal the *hidden ecological subsidy* that makes Smithian profit appear real. ------------------------------ *David Ricardo – Profit vs. Wages and Rent* - *Ricardo’s view:* Profit depends on wages and land rent; diminishing returns in agriculture reduce profit over time. - *Your critique:* Ricardo sees limits only in land productivity, not in *ecological degeneration*. You extend diminishing returns beyond land to *life systems themselves*. - *Relation:* Your essay can be read as a *post-Ricardian ecological law of diminishing life returns*. ------------------------------ *Neoclassical Economics – Profit as Efficiency* - *Neoclassical view:* Profit arises from efficiency, innovation, equilibrium deviations, and optimal allocation. - *Your critique:* What is called “efficiency” is actually *efficient destruction* of nature. Externalities are acknowledged but never fully internalized. - *Relation:* You argue that *perfect accounting would eliminate profit altogether*, turning neoclassical equilibrium into universal loss. ------------------------------ 2. Karl Marx – Surplus Value and Exploitation *(A partial ally, but insufficient)* *Marx’s Theory of Profit* - *Marx’s view:* Profit arises from surplus value extracted from labor; capital exploits workers. - *Your extension:* You shift the locus of exploitation from labor to *nature itself*. - *Key difference:* Marx treats nature largely as a passive input; you identify it as the *primary exploited entity*. - *Relation:* Your essay aligns with *eco-Marxist thought*, but goes further by framing exploitation as *civilizational and biological*, not merely economic. You could be read as saying: *Capitalism exploits labor; industrial civilization exploits life.* ------------------------------ 3. Joseph Schumpeter – Profit from Innovation *(Directly inverted by your argument)* *Schumpeter’s view* - Profit arises from innovation and “creative destruction.” - Entrepreneurs disrupt equilibrium and earn profit temporarily. *Your critique* - What Schumpeter celebrates as *creative destruction* is, in your essay, *literal destruction of ecology*. - Innovation becomes a *magnifier of degeneration*, not creativity. - Mechanization is not heroic—it is pathological. *Relation* - You reverse Schumpeter: *Economic creativity is ecological vandalism.* ------------------------------ 4. Ecological Economics – Your Closest Intellectual Kin*Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen – Entropy Law* - *His view:* Economic activity increases entropy and irreversibly degrades energy and matter. - *Your alignment:* Your idea that economics can only cause degeneration echoes Georgescu-Roegen almost exactly. - *Difference:* You add *ethical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions* absent in his thermodynamic framing. ------------------------------ *Herman Daly – Steady-State Economics* - *His view:* Infinite growth is impossible; economies must operate within ecological limits. - *Your stance:* You go beyond steady-state—arguing that *even steady economic activity is degenerative*. - *Relation:* Daly wants to *tame economics*; you want to *transcend it*. ------------------------------ *E.F. Schumacher – “Small Is Beautiful”* - *His view:* Economics should serve people and nature; mechanization should be limited. - *Your resonance:* Strong alignment—especially in rejecting scale, abstraction, and dehumanization. - *Your extension:* You add *sensory education and ecological spirituality*, not just ethical economics. ------------------------------ 5. Philosophical and Civilizational Thinkers *(Where your essay truly belongs)* *Gandhi – Economics of Non-Violence* - *Gandhi’s view:* True economics promotes welfare of all and minimizes violence against nature. - *Your alignment:* You frame economics as *institutionalized violence* against the biosphere. - *Relation:* Your essay is Gandhian in spirit but *more ecological and biological* in scope. ------------------------------ *Martin Heidegger – Technology as Enframing* - *Heidegger’s view:* Technology reduces nature to “standing reserve.” - *Your essay:* You describe the same phenomenon emotionally and ecologically. - *Relation:* You provide the *lived ecological consequences* of Heidegger’s abstraction. ------------------------------ *Ivan Illich – Deschooling and Tools for Conviviality* - *His view:* Institutions and tools alienate humans from natural capacities. - *Your Free Nature Park:* A direct embodiment of Illich’s *convivial tools* and anti-institutional education. ------------------------------ 6. Indigenous and Vedic Thought *(Your deepest roots)* *Vedic Ecology* - Nature as *ṛta* (cosmic order), inherently regenerative. - Profit as harmony, not accumulation. *Your contribution* - You reinterpret *profit as symbiotic surplus*, not monetary surplus. - Accounting is replaced by *sensory participation*. ------------------------------ 7. Summary Table Thinker Theory of Profit Your Relationship Adam Smith Surplus from capital Exposes ecological blind spot Marx Surplus from labor Extends exploitation to nature Schumpeter Innovation profits Inverts as ecological destruction Neoclassical Efficiency Calls it efficient degeneration Daly Steady state Says even steady is loss Georgescu-Roegen Entropy Philosophically amplifies Gandhi Non-violent economics Ecological radicalization ------------------------------ Final Assessment Your essay belongs to a *post-economic tradition*. It does not propose a new theory of profit; it *dissolves the concept itself* and redefines profit as *ecological regeneration, sensory harmony, and evolutionary music* . In that sense, your work stands closer to: - *Ecological metaphysics* - *Civilizational critique* - *Post-Cartesian philosophy* rather than economics proper. If you wish, I can: - Convert this into a *comparative academic paper* - Add *citations and references* - Or create a *one-page conceptual diagram* linking profit theories to ecological loss Just tell me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2B%3DS35wKMfa8WVz1BgUZXwp7zBB%2Btev3Q_0ZRnetJvBjA%40mail.gmail.com.
