Capitalism, Marxism and Related Matters

vimothy

yurp
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?
 

vimothy

yurp
Just noticed this in the other thread, and realised it relates to what noel's saying here...

1. We must remove the incentives to hoard money, in fact it should be very much discouraged.

There's a problem with that, and I can sum it up in one word: bubbles.
 

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
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.

In fairness, "Capital" is a shorthand for these social relations, as Marx points out repeatedly.

Reminds me of k-punk's thesis actually (I think). You ever read that?

Some of it. It's quite interesting.
 

vimothy

yurp
In fairness, "Capital" is a shorthand for these social relations, as Marx points out repeatedly.

But (like we've just said) there is no difference between that and anything else!

Some of it. It's quite interesting.

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.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, that's the whole point...?

If you want to hoard money, just put it under your bed.

...where it immediately starts to depreciate. To say nothing of being vulnerable to burglary!

So I suppose there is a good disincentive to hoard money, at least in this very crude and inactive way.
 

vimothy

yurp
Exactly.

[Just add that inflationary economic policies are generally thought of as being 'leftist' (in economic terms), BTW.]
 

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
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.

This is the most interesting remark! If we were sure that our future needs would be guaranteed, one of the key factors that brought about the current monetary system would be gone. One might call this key factor the <i>pacifying function of money</i>: if you pay for the scarce resources you are consuming, you are in some sense not taking away from others, you are just exchanging one form of scarcity (say oil) for another (for example your labour). Hence, through this exchange, you are not (in some sense) endandering my future access to resources. This is why I don't feel like killing you, or making sure, I got the resource first. Hence monetary exchange has a pacifying function.

It is rarely appreciated just how important this is and bringing about this pacifying function was a great advance in the evolution of humanity. If we find an alternative mechanism that guarantees just future access to scarce resoures, this pacifying function of money becomes irrelevant (there are other functions mentioned in the original thread, risk multiplexing, communication ...). Marx idea was that a communist state makes these guarantees (the idea is much older, Leibniz for example proposes thinking of the state as a kind of universal insurance against all manner of misfortune, that's the oldest source I am aware of, not sure if it originates with Leibniz).

One problem with contemporary Marxism is that all attempts at a communist state failed on a spectacular level. Yet, all they seem willing to offer is another revolution.
 
Last edited:

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
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.

Firing through a propeller was one of the 'advances' of WW I, not WW II.

As I said upthread, one can play similar games with any circular causality: London Underground is just a tool in the perpetuation of rats, Tesco's real function is to ensure there's always more white/blue/red plastic bags, the human body's function is to move air ...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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.
 

3 Body No Problem

Well-known member
This would seem to back up vimothy's argument that money is a, after all, a resource.

Of course money has resource-like qualities in the technical sense of limited availability. Unlike natural resources, money's scarcity is artificial. If money wasn't scarce, it would not work. But that's not the full story as elaborated in the original thread. Money is a form of communication between humans, and the scarcity of money is a key factor that makes it work, for better or worse, the way it does.
 
Last edited:

Transpontine

history is made at night
Is the labor theory of value of bullshit?

Well I think the first chapter of Capital shows how the music industry's attempt to keep the value of music at its previous levels is doomed. Basically Marx has a concept of socially necessary labour, the average amount of labour needed to produce a commodity. Once the amount of socially necessary labour declines, so does value - so because the amount of labour in distributing music digitally is much less than the amount of labour needed to distribute vinyl and CDS (e.g. no lorry drivers shifting product), prices must fall - even of CDs.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
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.
That was a good post and I thank you for it.

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.
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.
Are you saying that even though disproportionately large amounts of money that continue to grow are owned by individual entities, it remains in circulation?

That can't be quite right, surely?
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
"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."​

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. And so the question is raised as to whether there is any grounds to suppose that the global delusion hypothesized by the Gnostics should be considered in our own capitalist era any realer then it was in their pre-capitalist one. 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.

Yes, it is true, and updating the Marxist description of capitalist economics is the most important <i>theoretical</i> problem of Marxism today. However for political purposes (i.e. constructing a sufficiently powerful revolutionary party that carries out the revolution) the existing theory is good enough, because whatever the details of a better Marxist theory of capitalist economics, surely the need to overthrow capitalism in a revolution will still be valid. Hence we can leave updating the theory of capitalist economics for after the revolution.​

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?

Which explanation of money doesn't say anything about why it should be acceptable to make money out of money as far as I can see, and so doesn't actually discuss capitalism as such.


The problem with this is its very difficult to see how one could prevent people from making money out of money. In the middle ages there were prohibitions on usury - in other words, ethical stipulations against lending sums of money at interest - and some of these prohibitions actually still hold in the Islamic world today - which is incidentally why the recent growth of Islamic banking is in some ways so interesting. In any event, though, this particular issue applies only to finance capital, not to capitalism as such, so it doesn't really apply to the whole of the question.


Finally, since no-one seems able to offer a convincing defence of the LTOV, or Marxist theory in general, is it worth asking at this point why, in the absence of logical grounds to support it, it should still enjoy such prestige today, at least within certain circles (especially academics, intellectuals, students, etc) ?​
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
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.
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.
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.
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.

I'm just remembering this from past discussions though, it's not my contention as such - like I say I've argued against the singling out of capitalism as the primary issue before.

Philip K. Dick was brilliant though. Why not consider that he was on to something instead?

That point about it being impossible to imagine anything outside the present order is born out here so regularly these days it's depressing.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Firing through a propeller was one of the 'advances' of WW I, not WW II."
Yeah Vimothy, didn't you read Biggles?

"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 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.

"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?"
I think to get an answer to this it would be helpful to consult the fashionable dictionary again:

Marxism
Probably not true, but it should be.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/dictionary.php#m
 
Top