Üretim

DrOS'un not defteri sitesinden
(Produce sayfasından yönlendirildi)
Gezinti kısmına atla Arama kısmına atla

(İng. production)

Göndermeler[düzenle]

Kıvılcımlı'dan[düzenle]

İnsanlar böyle her üretim süresinde tükettikleri maddeler kadar yenilerini üretirlerse, yaptıkları işe BASİT YENİDEN ÜRETİM denir.[1]

Demek basit yeniden üretimde TÜKETİM egemen güç olur.[2]

Diğer[düzenle]

At first it was the temple that was the focus of whatever high culture there was. At the temples in ancient Sumeria, where urban life began in the fourth millennium BC, the work of controlling the local flooding and providing for the drought of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain was carried on under the learned priests, who in turn disposed of the surplus. It was they who sent out traders to bring in exotic goods necessary to the developing exploitation of the plain, fertile but lacking in minerals and even stone. When disputes arose with rival towns, perhaps over control of the trade, they organized the fighting men. But then as warfare became more elaborate -each town trying to outdo the others- military affairs and the general control of the town fell into the hands of non-priestly specialists: kings and their dependents. The royal court became a second focus of high culture alongside the temple, and was based like it upon agricultural production. Its revenue, in whatever form it took it, may be called taxes, which came chiefly from the land. Much more gradually, at last, the traders too became independent merchants, doing business on their own account and gaining enough profit to share, if more modestly and indirectly than temple or court, in the revenue of the land. When this happened, rich merchants too became patrons of the arts and the market became a third focus of high culture.[3]
All three foci of high culture depended on the condition of agriculture. The basis of temple and court was agrarian in that their wealth and power presupposed chiefly arrangements concerning agricultural production. The market depended on agriculture less directly than did temple or court, for the traders brought goods from afar subject to other hazards than that of the local weather, and (provided there were sufficient stored savings) sold their goods in lean years as in fat. Yet, in the long run, the merchants too depended on the state of agriculture and their profits presupposed the peasants' surplus. Even when, as in Syria, mercantile city-states arose which depended primarily on distant trading by sea and land, their trade depended so intimately on the agrarian societies about them that both morally and materially they too lived ultimately from the peasants. Even the pastoralists, including the desert nomads, who depended on the agriculturists for much of their food and goods, were part of the same social complex. Accordingly, the type of social order which was introduced into the agricultural regions (and the areas dependent on them) with the rise of cities may be called agrarian-based or (to be more comprehensive) agrarianate citied society. (I say 'citied', not 'urban', because the society included the peasants, who were not urban though their life reflected the presence of cities.)[4]
We shall use the phrases 'agrarianate' society or culture to refer not just to the agrarian sector and the agrarian institutions immediately based on it, but to the whole level of cultural complexity in which agrarian relations were characteristically crucial, which prevailed in citied societies between the first advent of citied life and the technicalizing transformations of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The term 'agrarianate', in contrast to 'agrarian', then, will refer not only to the agrarian society itself but to all the forms of society even indirectly dependent on it —including that of mercantile cities and of pastoral tribesmen. The crucial point was that the society had reached a level of complexity associated with urban dominance —in this sense, it was 'urbanized'— but the urban dominance was itself based, directly or indirectly, primarily on agrarian resources which were developed on the level of manual power: based on them not in the sense that all must eat but that (since most production was agricultural) the income of crucial classes was derived from their relation to the land.[5]
Therefore, as the population of Phoenicia increased, demand quickly outstripped production and thus the Phoenicians never achieved self-sufficiency in terms of foodstuffs.[6]
In the late seventh century, the Phoenician workshops in the eastern Mediterranean began producing glass apotropaic pendants in the shape of demon masks, animals and anthropoid heads (both male and female).[7]

Notlar[düzenle]

  1. Kıcılcımlı, Hikmet (1968b). "Basit Yeniden Üretim". Türk Solu Dergisi. Sayı: 10, 23 Ocak 1968. s.6.
  2. Kıcılcımlı, Hikmet (1968b). "Basit Yeniden Üretim". Türk Solu Dergisi. Sayı: 10, 23 Ocak 1968. s.6.
  3. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. (2009). The Venture of Islam, Volume 1. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. s. 106-107.
  4. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. (2009). The Venture of Islam, Volume 1. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. s. 107.
  5. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. (2009). The Venture of Islam, Volume 1. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. s. 107-108.
  6. Woolmer, Mark (2002). A Short History of the Phoenicians. London, New York: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. s. 12.
  7. Woolmer, Mark (2002). A Short History of the Phoenicians. London, New York: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. s. 156.