https://capitalaspower.com/2021/05/cherizola-from-commodities-to-assets/
The "Capital as Power" approach has a lot of extremely good properties. This paper discusses the role of assets and how they should inform our understanding of capitalist economics. Pretty great so far (I'm about 1/3 of the way through)
"For a group of sentences to be considered an asset, some members of society must materialize the set of rights that the asset grants."
"An asset will have value only if someone expects that the set of rights/orders it grants will materialize... to have value is to have performative power. Without performative power, an asset is merely a set of sentences."
"Not all transfers of entitlements are economic transactions, but all economic transactions are exchanges of rights/orders." (Cherizola)
Seriously, I'm just gonna quote this whole article into the record here if I don't stop. But you have GOT to read this
"To understand the ontological features of ownership, it must be clearly distinguished from a closely related phenomenon: possession. Possession designates a physical relation between a subject and a thing. Ownership designates a symbolic relation between human beings."
I've been saying for a year or two, after really understanding the Anarchist analysis of capital that @HeavenlyPossum helped me with... That capitalism is a government system in which government grants titles to assets and enforces them with police.
Here the author identifies the title as the asset. An asset is a social construct granting social control over others. A machine or a building is an object, but the asset is a set of "rights" and that is what is traded in the market.
