3 Body No Problem
Well-known member
And likewise for a mixed conomy, and likewise for tr00 socialist command economy...
I agree!
And likewise for a mixed conomy, and likewise for tr00 socialist command economy...
1. We must remove the incentives to hoard money, in fact it should be very much discouraged.
And so it's not "Capital" as such (bluerrgh -- superstitious nonsensical capitalisation), but rather the (abstract) economic 'technology' (be it socialist, capitalist, contested, collapsing, etc) around which social relations are organised that is the "vampire" to which k-punk refers, and indeed, it was ever thus.
Reminds me of k-punk's thesis actually (I think). You ever read that?
And so it's not "Capital" as such (bluerrgh -- superstitious nonsensical capitalisation)
There's a problem with that, and I can sum it up in one word: bubbles.
In fairness, "Capital" is a shorthand for these social relations, as Marx points out repeatedly.
Some of it. It's quite interesting.
There is a much more fundamental problem with it: it's impossible -- in some sense -- to hoard money! The cash you put in your bankaccount is in fact reinvested immediately.
Yeah, that's the whole point...?
If you want to hoard money, just put it under your bed.
Because you know there is no real risk in lending someone money if you know for instance that you are going to be guaranteed in the future stuff that you actually need like food and clothes, as well as your money back, rather than more money.
I'm thinking of the bit where he describes WWII (?) fighter pilots getting machine guns synced into their rotors -- rather than representing man's mastery over nature, the pilot is a mere switch in a circuit.
If you want to hoard money, just put it under your bed.
Nobody does this with serious, socially relevant amounts of money.
If serious amounts of cash were truely withdrawn from circulation, the money in circulation would appreciate in value.
This would seem to back up vimothy's argument that money is a, after all, a resource.
Is the labor theory of value of bullshit?
That was a good post and I thank you for it.In the context of capitalism, the original claim seeks to convince the reader that we are living in a world where human needs are not the key focus of economic and political decisions, but instead server only to reproduce the current economic system.
Are you saying that even though disproportionately large amounts of money that continue to grow are owned by individual entities, it remains in circulation?There is a much more fundamental problem with it: it's impossible -- in some sense -- to hoard money! The cash you put in your bankaccount is in fact reinvested immediately.
In a way I agree with you - the primary focus on capitalism as crux is something I've questioned previously. I guess that approach is inevitably what comes from those parties doing the questioning being mostly immersed in Marxist theory, Situationism, critical theory and so on - i.e. responses to capitalism. Still, it is pretty relevant as that is our situation after all.Clearly, this line could quite be extended into the realms of the madness, Philip K. Dick-style. And Dick was working from a more-or-less gnostic conception of reality, which seems to me reason enough to at least put this notion in question. What I mean is, if 2000 years ago the Gnostics were also saying something like: "Everything we know is wrong!" then it becomes clear that this sort of radical ontological doubt, at least, is not particular to capitalism itself.
I think the idea though is along the lines that cultures use people to replicate virally, as in memetics. So while that class of phenomenon might not have to do with capitalism uniquely, there are aspects that are particular to the instance that is capitalism, and it is those that the critiques concern themselves with.In other words, what I am saying is perhaps this idea does not strictly apply to capitalism; indeed, perhaps it does not apply to it all.
Yeah Vimothy, didn't you read Biggles?"Firing through a propeller was one of the 'advances' of WW I, not WW II."
I think if you look at the world and its economy today it is clear that there are huge problems. The question is obviously "why?" and another more specific question is "have those problems been created or mitigated by capitalism?". The argument goes round in circles as it has become apparent that no other system of organising resources has worked even nearly as well and the only Marxist response to this situation is to say that the wrong question is being asked (in other words that a false assumption has crept in at a basic level). This could well be the case I guess but I think that the onus is on the people insisting on this to demonstrate it - not just say it could be happening but show that it is, otherwise is's nothing but paranoia or wishful thinking on the part of those who don't want to face the fact that the basis for their philosophy is flawed."I was thinking also that Mark's statement was getting at something else that is particular about Capitalism. That at some very fundamental level in our understanding of economies, of the world even, an error has crept in, a fallacy, a false assumption. It is very difficult to see because it is so pervasive, and replicates virally as one of our most basic assumptions."
I think to get an answer to this it would be helpful to consult the fashionable dictionary again:"This would be a form of madness, since the whole hinge of Marxism rests on its efficacy as an economic theory. As Lenin put it: "Marxism is powerful because it is true." What would even be the need to overthrow capitalism - as opposed to this or that particular regime - if it wasn't the case that labor under its reign was inherently exploitative?"
Marxism
Probably not true, but it should be.