/gulag/ - Gulag

Meta Board. Where you belong

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(319.97 KB 1008x389 Capital.png)
The nature of money, capital, and capitalism Comrade 05/15/2020 (Fri) 18:43:02 No. 4834
<The following is a continuing discussion between a leftcom and a nazbol that began in the moderation thread on /leftypol/. Outside contributions/shit-flinging are welcome. <Quoth the nazbol: >In regard to the question of how a state pays for things That wasnt the question. What is money? What is legal tender?How does/dit it come into being and what makes it accepted? >Taxes have to come first Chicken and egg >So post-structuralist No. Perhaps this is a semantic problem.By capital,in this context,I'm specifically referring to the form of capital known as currency,hard currency,money and legal tender. >a notion bostered by the functioning of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency Indeed and this is enabled by OIL payments only being accepted in US dollars backed up by the might of the US military. However the function can still operate independently of those considerations within the context of an independent sovereign nation state with it's own currency. >That describes the present economic reality pretty damn well That IS the current reality. But it is a reality created and maintained by arbitrary state fiat.It is not some eternal law or necessary requirement for an economy.Ultimately it is a construct of vested interests in the form of powerful private banking concerns who have been monopolising this system from circa 1750 >The key to understanding why it matters so little Quite the contrary.It is of supreme importance. >It's still labor, even if it is labor of a different kind. Ultimately I agree - but surplus value is being sucked away by financial concerns - not by the functioning of private business/corps/retailers etc in the real economy (as marxists maintain) but by the financial oligarchs who create,maintain,monopolise and dominate the creation and distribution of the monetary system/currency. >The hell it does. The amount of blatant ignorance about money/currency among economists etc is breathtaking - it's probably by design.Both austrians and marxists are still bleating on about bartering chickens to explain the evolution of currency. <The leftcom's retort will be written after he has finished exchanging his labor-power for the means of subsistence for the day.
>>4834 Good day at your labour-power for subsistence today?
>>4834 >Chicken and egg No, there is no question as to whether or not taxes must be prior to the implementation of a national currency. They are a prequesite. When a social institution is introduced there must be certain objective realities in place for it to function. For example, capitalism cannot take root where there is no large group of landless men to serve as a proletariat. >I'm specifically referring to the form of capital known as currency,hard currency,money and legal tender. This right here is why consistent definitions are necessary. Currency, money, and capital are not synonymous, although one is often also another. Currency is a quantity of money during the act of purchase/sale in the C-M-C cycle. In contrast, money sitting in a savings account or otherwise held out of circulation is not currency, because it is not flowing in a current. Think of an electrical current but with value instead of electrons. This concept is useful when considering how much money is needed to facilitate exchange in a given system. Money is a unique commodity in that its exchange value can be used to express the exchange value of all other commodities in circulation individualy each in a different ratio. This allows it to perform the primary function of money which is to set prices. It's secondary function is to act as currency. I am really not explaining this well. Capital is a completely different thing, although money frequently functions as capital. Capital is an investment. It is used to purchase a commodity (labor-power, constant capital, resources, etc.) which are then transformed in various ways and sold for--ideally--a greater quantity of money. Essentially, capital is the components of the M-C-M' cycle. >However the function can still operate independently of those considerations within the context of an independent sovereign nation state with it's own currency. An isolated capitalist society is still subject to the principles of capital. It has to expand. Capital always ends up dominating the state. >But it is a reality created and maintained by arbitrary state fiat. You have that backwards. The reality forms the state. >Ultimately it is a construct of vested interests in the form of powerful private banking concerns who have been monopolising this system from circa 1750 The nation-state is the construct, the capital its creator. A bit of history of early capitalism illustrates that just nicely. >Quite the contrary.It is of supreme importance. In what way? >but surplus value is being sucked away by financial concerns - not by the functioning of private business/corps/retailers etc in the real economy (as marxists maintain) but by the financial oligarchs who create,maintain,monopolise and dominate the creation and distribution of the monetary system/currency. Oh no, both manufacturers and financiers are sustained entirely by the surplus-value extracted from the labor of the proletariat. They are both bourgeois and obtain their wealth by means of controlling the meanns of production. Currently the financiers wield more economic power than the manufacturers, but that will not last. Already you see manufacturers like Bill Gates snd Jeff Bezos eclipsing financiers like Warren Buffett. That trend will continue, as the inefficiencies of capitalism currently lie primarily upon the side of finance. >The amount of blatant ignorance about money/currency among economists etc is breathtaking - it's probably by design.Both austrians and marxists are still bleating on about bartering chickens to explain the evolution of currency. Irony
>>4835 The computer wanted to break every five minutes, but otherwise it was decent. I am drunk on scotch now, so I would say that everything has worked out fine. How did the day's labor treat you?
>>4837 Labor? Covid lockdown here comrade. Scotch drunk? Nice. A man of culture. >>4836 >capitalism cannot take root where there is no large group of landless men to serve as a proletariat. Perhaps,perhaps not. That wasnt the issue. I'll accept your definitions for the sake of this debate. In prior post By capital I meant currency and money C&M >An isolated capitalist society is still subject to the principles of capital. It has to expand. Capital always ends up dominating the state. When the rules/laws governing the creation,issuance and distribution of C&M change,so does the nature and limitations of Capitalism >You have that backwards. The reality forms the state. In the context of C&M the opposite is true. The state forms the C&M. This can be traced back to the first currency in ancient sumeria and later babylon,greece and rome. The governing authority/state creates the C&M , stamps it, and then by fiat demands future payments in tax with said C&M. Hence my chicken and egg quip. >The nation-state is the construct, the capital its creator The capital (C&M) is the construct, the state its creator The state existed prior to both C&M and Capitalism >In what way? In numerous systemic ways which will be elucidated in this debate >both manufacturers and financiers are sustained entirely by the surplus-value extracted from the labor of the proletariat Some manufacturers are predatory - and thus could be said to extract too much labour for too little pay but by no means all. Meanwhile ALL finance capitalists extract surplus value and at a much deeper level >Jeff Bezos A retailer more than a manufacturer but thats me being a pedantic twat >Currently the financiers wield more economic power than the manufacturers, but that will not last. Agreed - theyve bled the system dry >That trend will continue, as the inefficiencies of capitalism currently lie primarily upon the side of finance. Allow me to rephrase That trend will continue, as the parasitism and theft from the real economy (productive capitalism/manufacturing/retail) by finance capitalism continues to be exposed and the deleterious effects on nations,economies,peoples become increasingly difficult to rationalise or cover up. >Irony Indeed
>>4838 >Labor? Covid lockdown here comrade. Scotch drunk? Nice. A man of culture Well, if there is one thing a leftcom knows how to do besides getting comfortable on the Lay-Z-Boy, it's drink. Now, if only I could have remembered when to stop before I polished off a third of the fifth. Hangovers suck. >In prior post By capital I meant currency and money C&M Understandable. That is the way most folks use those terms. >When the rules/laws governing the creation,issuance and distribution of C&M change,so does the nature and limitations of Capitalism Only in regard to the nature of the money commodity itself. The reason that I wrote earlier that the introduction of fiat currency had changed remarkably little is that capital--that M-C-M' cycle--continues to chug along without alteration. A money-holder still purchases labor-power to operate the means of production such that a commodity is produced which is then sold for more that the initial investment. The most significant change that I can see is the subsequent creation of a monopoly on the production of the global reserve currency, which had been gold and well-diffused before. I suspect that is why the American military (including police) has grown to such an absurd size and cost. Not only can it be supported by debt there, but it is centered around the lynchpin to the global capitalist system. It is remarkably precarious, and another civil war in the United States would cause it to disintegrate. >In the context of C&M the opposite is true. The state forms the C&M. Only to facilitate to a pre-existing system of exchange. The Greeks, for example invented arithmatic to calculate sizes and weights of grain and fish which were being traded between villages long before they started minting coins. Until then they had just scratched lines onto stones. A more contemporary example can be found in complex hunter/gatherer societies like Injuns In the Great Lakes region who used shells and beads as repositories for exchange value to ease the process of trade between villages before they even had proper states. Trade must precede money, or there would be no impetus to create money. Societies that do not engage in complex trade never develop money until it is introduced from outside. >Hence my chicken and egg quip. Indeed, but it is an important determination to make, and archaeology has been helpful in resolving it. >The capital (C&M) is the construct, the state its creator Capital is indeed s construct, but who created it? When it first arose following the Crusades, the aristocracy brutally and thuroughly squashed it. They continued to do so until the Italian city-states started turning on one another again, and it ultimately broke loose in places like Florence and Venice where the emergent bourgeoisie siezed the reigns of the state. Still they would have been quashed by the Ottomans had Columbus and DeGama not stumbled upon the two biggest loot bonanzas in human history. The aristocrats were unable to occupy so much territory so quickly, so doing so fell to investors and adventurers, second-sons, bastards, and company men who would return home far wealthier than their aristocratic fathers. In short order capital began turning the middle class into the dominant class. Members of the House of Commons bought up crown lands in Britain. The king of Spain hid from the viceroy of Mexico for fear of being brushed aside by the most powerful man on planet Earth. Across Europe kings and queens were forced by threat of revolution to sign constitutional agreements that stripped them of their power, but in the end those agreements could not keep them from the chopping block. In conclusion, capital was created by desperate and bloody men who had been excluded from the ruling class, and then it exploded when it could no longer be contained by the aristocratic state. Now, if you just mean that money was created by the state that is entirely true. Even wampum, that proto-money of the American Northeast, was recognized by the not-quite-a-state tribal governments. >Some manufacturers are predatory - and thus could be said to extract too much labour for too little pay but by no means all. I would contend that they must all be predatory, as the extraction of surplus-value is inherently a parasitic act. The only way to create surplus-value, systemically speaking, is to make workers work for longer than they need to in order to match the labor that they consume in the form of the means of subsistence. If a bourgeois entity were to not do so then it could not consistently sell the commodities that get produced by its laborers for more than the cost required to produce them. Furthermore, competition forces the bourgeoisie to maximise the rate of surplus-value not only so that they can live large but, more importantly, that they can reinvest a portion of that surplus-value as capital. Capital has to grow. If it ever ceases to grow, then it ceases to exist. >Meanwhile ALL finance capitalists extract surplus value and at a much deeper level They do so in an indirect way, but it is no less predatory. >Allow me to rephrase That trend will continue, as the parasitism and theft from the real economy (productive capitalism/manufacturing/retail) by finance capitalism continues to be exposed and the deleterious effects on nations,economies,peoples become increasingly difficult to rationalise or cover up. More important than exposure, the financiers' ultimate downfall is rooted in the fact that their interests will be brought into conflict with the manufacturers as the rate of profit continues to drop to the point that capitalism cannot sustain the financiers. This was the dialectical contradiction that Lenin and his contemporaries mistakenly saw being played out in the wars between the dying empires. >Indeed You were not wrong that economists of all stripes have been burying their heads in the sand and parroting the words of dead men. Marxists are long overdue to produce a fourth volumn of Capital, and the keynsians keep making predictions that work no better than classical theories about the industrial cycle. Then of course you have the Austrian idiocy, but nobody with any sense takes their magical a priori bullshit seriously. Economics is a seriously derped field at the moment, which is probably why I keep clinging to the words of a dead man.
>>4840 >Hangovers suck. Self inflicted usury. The interest is now due on your profligate spending in relation to biological health units consumed through excessive libation. A vice,alas,I am acquainted with. >M-C-M' cycle--continues to chug along without alteration Although more than familiar with marxism,it's been some time since I delved into heterodox marxist economics. I never really grasped the fixation on MCM which marxists insist will eternally doom free enterprise. Excesses,externalities,monopolisation and expansionary impulses can all be restrained by sound government legislation. The fact this has never been tried,let alone promoted by any party,is no excuse for dismissal out of hand.The choice so far has been between extant capitalism,primarily in the form of the legal construct known as the joint stock company with it's legal requirement to increase share holder value no matter what and within the context of private fractional reserve banking insured by the state (all mainstream parties support this,left,right,and center) OR the marxist solution of total state control and central planning.The rise of the public/private bureaucratic,technocratic,management elite since the 50s is another issue we should address - namely the unholy alliance between government and corporations. Neolib righists contend that govt is stifling business,lib leftists insist the corporations. They're both right and wrong on some level. >Until then they had just scratched lines onto stones Correct.This bolsters my view that C&M developed as a credit/accounting system,and fundamentally remains so.Such a system,no matter how rudimentary, can only function in the context of widespread agreement,usually if not always in the context of some form of imposition by a recognised authority.Let it be clear that such an authority is a "state/government" for the purposes of debate. Tribal chief,elders council,King,Prince all act as governing authorities with power or proto-states ie are de facto states. >Even wampum, that proto-money of the American Northeast, was recognized by the not-quite-a-state tribal governments. Exactly - the state creates the C&M by fiat and anything can be money. Aristotle also wrote on this issue in some depth along with a condemnation of usury as inherently immoral,parasitic and a usurpation of state authority. >I would contend that they must all be predatory, as the extraction of surplus-value is inherently a parasitic act I know.Youre a marxist.I'm not and I don't. >They do so in an indirect way, but it is no less predatory. Indirect as in hidden,even from consideration by academics,economists and marxists. To ensure this debate doesnt get to haphazard where we are talking past each other and preaching to ourselves,let's clarify some terms and also our basic political/economic positions.
>lib leftists insist the corporations *control government*
>get too* haphazard
>Austrian idiocy Austrians would be correct IF C&M was gold backed ie limited. But it isn't so theyre not. Furthermore their autism in regards maximising overall material wealth with no little regard for externalities is typical of excessively materialist ideologies.Marxists suffer from the same vice.Austrians know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Marxists are the same except they can't quite figure out what the price should be :)
>with no to* little regard On the rum chap. Apologies
(136.55 KB 1300x916 InfantileDisorder.jpg)
>>4845 >I never really grasped the fixation on MCM which marxists insist will eternally doom free enterprise. M-C-M' is capital, and its composition betrays certain inevitabilities. Firstly, it must grow. M has to be transformed into M'. If there were no expectation that an investment would produce a significantly greater return, then that investment would never be made. Even the keynsians agree on that. This is the basis for the bourgeois obsession with growing the market, for without market growth the only avenue for individual growth would be for the bourgeoisie to devour one another's market shares. The problem there, from their perspective, is that the world is finite, and right now capitalist production completely covers it. The entire globe is one big capitalist society with only a few tiny pockets doing any other kind of production. Capital has devoured the world, and now it is only able to subsist by intensifying production and--in a very uncapitalistic manner--suppressing the price of the means of subsistence in order to keep the cost of labor low enough that surplus-value can still be produced in spite of the plummeting rate of profit. That is the big reason that capital is inherently self-destructive. It is irrevocably quantitatively approaching what marxists call a fatal contradiction wherin it can simply no longer exist. >Excesses,externalities,monopolisation and expansionary impulses can all be restrained by sound government legislation. The state could train capitalism into a specific form at the behest of the segment of the ruling class that dominates it, but it cannot resolve those qualities of capital that are inherent to it. It cannot stop the big porkies from devouring the little porkies (hence the monopolies). It cannot extract itself from its subservience to capital (looking at you, MLs). It cannot prevent its need to expand. That stuff is fundamentally built into capital, and nothing short of its annihilation can eliminate them. >The choice so far has been between extant capitalism,primarily in the form of the legal construct known as the joint stock company with it's legal requirement to increase share holder value no matter what and within the context of private fractional reserve banking insured by the state (all mainstream parties support this,left,right,and center) OR the marxist solution of total state control and central planning. There is no choice to be had, certainly not by us. We do not control the means of production, so we cannot direct the means of production. The state is only a tool for those who do control the means of production, and the truly frightening thing is that even the ruling class has no choice but to follow capital's lead. It controls their investment of it. Like proles, the bourgeoisie are slaves to capital. It's just that their cages are made of gold and filled with hookers and blow. >The rise of the public/private bureaucratic,technocratic,management elite since the 50s is another issue we should address - namely the unholy alliance between government and corporations. Governments have always, since the first grain surplus was produced, been entirely beholden to the dominant economic interests present. The state is merely the arm of the ruling class. The notion that the state could ever flount the dictates of the ruling class mistakenly assumes that their interests can be seperated. The state, is after all a construct, and as such it can only be the servant of whichever class wields it. Marx himself left very poor and incomplete ideas as to how the proletariat could manage the state, and Lenin's formula has proven to be wishful thinking. How is it possible for an inherently subservient class to wield the state? Total spontaneous organization seems most likely to me, and the explosion of workers organizations during the epidemic has been profoundly heartening to witness. >Tribal chief,elders council,King,Prince all act as governing authorities with power or proto-states ie are de facto states. More or less. Complex hunter/gatherers operate in an unique situation where a surplus gets acquired without actual production. Their money is not quite money. It is used to facilitate trade, but it cannot reliably set prices or function system-wide. Wampum could not be used as debt. Also, chiefs and elders were not a seperate class and could not rule by fiat. As such, a definative state never truly formed among the likes of the Algonquins or the Duwamish. Complex hunter/gatherer societies were like an anarchist's wet dream. >and anything can be money Not anything. Marx wrote an entire book about this. The money commodity requires certain properties to both set prices and to function as currency. Firstly, there must be enough of it to accomodate all C-M-C transactions within the system. Secondly, it must be rare enough that a tremendous lot of it is not required to carry about. Thirdly, it must be quantitatively divisible into an infinite number of fractions. Fourthly, its supply has to be perpetually growing at a sufficient rate to avoid the dangers of deflation. Fifthly, it has to be disseminated to such an extent that it can be readily exchanged throughout the system. Not everything can be money; it has some stringent requirements. >Austrians know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Psh. I am not convinced that they know anything. Nothing that they describe reflects reality, which is often the case with a priori philosophy. >Marxists are the same except they can't quite figure out what the price should be :) The calculation problem is no such thing, as Cockshot soundly demonstrated. >On the rum chap. Apologies No worries. My wife and I are finishing off that fifth tonight, so I can't say shit.
>>4850 >M-C-M' is capital, and its composition betrays certain inevitabilities I'm aware of that.My contention is that a strong state can reign it in by act of law. This can work and is superior to the marxist solution of total nationalisation of the entire economy - a doomed enterprise from the get go - even down to the price problem.It's simply too complex for central planning. >It cannot stop the big porkies from devouring the little porkies Yes - it can. Simply set a limit on a corps size - bust up monopolies. Incentivise small/medium size entterprises,co-operatives,credit unions,self employment. Nationalise the banking system. Spend a certain percentage of gdp in new debt free money into the economy via gov spending to ensure slow steady national growth based on an algorithmic formulation. Eliminate private fractional reserve lending. Total state control of the creation and issuance of C&M and credit - with outsourcing to local licensced credit unions (replacing retail banks) >It cannot extract itself from its subservience to capital It can >That stuff is fundamentally built into capitalISM* As it exists today supported and propped up as it is by state decree >nothing short of its annihilation can eliminate them Elimination of capitalism in it's current form - yes >The state is only a tool for those who do control the means of production Mainly yes - but also vice versa.This is where management elites come in.In any case this needs to be changed. >Governments have always, since the first grain surplus was produced, been entirely beholden to the dominant economic interests present. Highly debatable >The notion that the state could ever flount the dictates of the ruling class mistakenly assumes that their interests can be seperated The ruling class most assuredly was separated from the merchant class - for centuries if not millenia. The development of capitalism (in it's historic and current form) changed that. Change will happen again with the merchant class/bourgeoise/capital being brought back under the heel to its proper place - atleast such is my intent and hope >The state, is after all a construct So is C&M and so is extant capitalism >how the proletariat could manage the state It can't. Only an elite can govern. Futile thinking otherwise. Even Foucault and Althusser concede this. >Total spontaneous organization seems most likely to me Delusion >Not anything You sure? Ever heard of King Henry 1st and the tally stick system? >Secondly, it must be rare enough Well thats western currency buggered then kek >has to be perpetually growing at a sufficient rate to avoid the dangers of deflation Ive covered that however not necessarily. GDP can grow on contract depending on population and people's needs.Eternal growth is only demanded by the current govt+corp+finance complex. It is not required by the nation or people perse. Why insist on reifying the current mode as some holy eternal law.It isnt. >Not everything can be money Debatable.Currently little bits of paper are money. Romans and medieval peasants would be laughing their arses off at that prospect. >Nothing that they describe reflects reality Bit harsh chap.Their analysis is sound and sometimes accurate - but their models still assume gold backed ie limited currency >The calculation problem is no such thing, as Cockshot soundly demonstrated. Soviet's best mathematicians couldnt figure it out. Give me a synopsis of cockshot. > My wife and I are finishing off that fifth tonight Give my regards to the lady of the manor squire. I'm hitting the sack.Drunk as a lord. Til the morrow Also kudos for not being a sanctimonious assumptive prick about nazbols. Appreciate the chance for sincere debate like civilised grown ups.
GDP can grow or* contract
(189.26 KB Cockschott.pdf)
>>4851 >I'm aware of that.My contention is that a strong state can reign it in by act of law. Remember that the state is a construct, not a thinking, acting entity. It must be directed. Who does the directing? Not the proletariat, as you explain further down. No, it must be weilded by an elite, but there is only one elite class now that the aristocracy and the slavers have been relegated to the dustbin of history--the bourgeoisie. The leninists attempted to get around this by creating a bureaucracy that was to at least ostensibly operate in the interest of the proletariat, because civil servants are a kind of prole, right? Of course, the problem was that was of course that the bureaucrats still had to extract surplus-value from workers. They were still beholden to capital and its inherent contradictions. For all that MLs like to shit on dengists for being capitalists in red, the dengists have merely taken central planning to its logical conclusion: the economy ultimately wields the state regardless of the aims of the poor suckers who think that they run the place. >Yes - it can. Simply set a limit on a corps size - bust up monopolies. Trust-busting does not change the quantity of capital in a given industry, and, as the liberals of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century discovered, led to there being many giants to kill instead of just one. Standard Oil being broken up into smaller companies and then forming a syndicate with British and Dutch petroleum producers to become the Seven Sisters is a classic example. Then you have the children of Ma Bell and the hilarious clusterfuck that sprang out of the remains of the Bank of the United States. Breaking up businesses ultimately just accellerates capital growth, which is exactly the case that modern liberals make when they call for it. >Incentivise small/medium size entterprises,co-operatives,credit unions,self employment. How does one provide increasingly large quantities of start-up capital to such inefficient entities with any hope of recouperation? The value of constant capital (Means of Production) in most (but not all) industries has become dizzyingly high with automation being ubiquitous. Offering loans or subsidies in sufficient quantities to cover such enormous costs would put a state in a precarious situation that would tumble into insolvency at the first economic downturn. >Nationalise the banking system. Spend a certain percentage of gdp in new debt free money into the economy via gov spending to ensure slow steady national growth based on an algorithmic formulation. Eliminate private fractional reserve lending. This sounds a lot like the British and American economic system of the early-eighteenth century when the factory system was still young. Also, what would the elimination of fractional reserve banking do apart from pull a large fortune out of capital? Bank runs are hardly a concern when currency is digital. >Total state control of the creation and issuance of C&M and credit - with outsourcing to local licensced credit unions (replacing retail banks) That has been done before, notably by the Bank of England, although it left consumer transactions to private banks. >That stuff is fundamentally built into capitalISM* I left that -ism off for a reason. The contradictions of capitalism are inherent to capital itself and only by extension to the mode of production that it generates. Capitalism cannot be annihilated without destroying capital. Luckily, capital will accomplish that all on its own. >Mainly yes - but also vice versa.This is where management elites come in. So dengist. For real, it is extraordinary how you have managed to come around to all the same economic conclusions as Deng by way of capitalist thought instead of by leninist socialism.
>>4857 Part 2 >Highly debatable That surplus produced the state everywhere that states sprang up spontaneously is largely accepted by archaeologists and anthropologists. I cannot imagine that states first arising among riverine societies is at all a coincidence. >The ruling class most assuredly was separated from the merchant class - for centuries if not millenia. As I noted in >>4840 the aristocracy had been the ruling class prior to the advent of capitalism, and their interests ran contrary to those of the bourgeoisie. The states where aristocrats were the ruling class acted in the interests of that ruling class by suppressing capital. After the bourgeoisie had risen to wield more financial power than the ruling class, they proceded to use that power to lop off the aristocrats' heads and to replace the state with a new state of their own design that would serve their ends. >Change will happen again with the merchant class/bourgeoise/capital being brought back under the heel to its proper place - atleast such is my intent and hope The bourgeoisie will be annihilated utterly, as will the proletariat which is defined by its lack of access to the means of production. It is an inevitable consequence of the self-destruction of capital. >Only an elite can govern. Futile thinking otherwise. Even Foucault and Althusser concede this. The anarchists are right when they point out that an inherent quality of there being a ruling class is that there must be a much larger ruled class, and any state must definatively act against the interests of the latter. I would add that historical examples of proto-states provide excellent examples of how governance can be achieved without class. More modern examples like the communards are also useful. >Delusion Hardly! It can be seen occuring during several long-lasting crises of capital. The IWW was formed spontaneously. The soviets were formed spontaneously years before the Germans shipped Lenin to Russia. The Yellow Vests similarly arose out of nothing. This keeps happening every time capital goes into crisis, and it is only by capitalist suppression that they are tamped down. Capital will lose its ability to supress it eventually, just like the aristocrats eventually lost their ability to suppress capital. >You sure? Ever heard of King Henry 1st and the tally stick system? Do not confuse the money commodity itself with the token currency that represents it. The token can be anything from paper to numbers on a computer screen. What matters is the exchange value of the commodity that is represented. An old note representing one pound sterling possesses no exchange value in itself without the assumption that there is a pound (or some other quantity) of silver in a vault somewhere that it stands for. This is one of the reasons why it is important to differentiate between money and currency. >GDP can grow on contract depending on population and people's needs. GDP is a measure of capitalist production, not a quantity of things that get produced as people often tend to think. That is why it includes otherwise absurd things like rent under the umbrella of production.
>>4858 Part Jesus, look at all the words >Eternal growth is only demanded by the current govt+corp+finance complex. When capital does not grow capital does not exist. That is what happens when a depression occurs. There ceases to be a sufficient expectation of a return on investments, so investors stop investing. Investment resumes in increments as the weaker porkies get culled. Then the cycle begins again. A stoppage of growth is just a depression. >Why insist on reifying the current mode as some holy eternal law.It isnt. Things have properties. Growth is a definitive property of capital. M becomes M'. Third-positionists want to have social production without capital, but the engine that moves social production is capital. That does not have to be the case, but when capital is removed from the formula something has to takes its place. Investors do not invest without expectation of a return. What makes investors invest if doing so does not benefit them? My solution: have no investors at all and produce for use. >Their analysis is sound and sometimes accurate - but their models still assume gold backed ie limited currency What have they gotten right? I cannot help remembering Greenspan being completely befuddled when the bubbles burst. >Soviet's best mathematicians couldnt figure it out. Where does this myth come from? Kantrovich did it in 1939. >Give me a synopsis of cockshot. Cockshott cited Kantrovich's arithmetical method based on production outputs and combined it with Dantzig's simplex method to scale it up infinitely. It is all based upon the point that money is not the only scaling objective function out there. I will include the pamphlet in case you are interested. I am not an advocate of central planning, being a leftcom, but Cockshott makes a convincing case for its plausability. >Give my regards to the lady of the manor squire. I'm hitting the sack.Drunk as a lord. Til the morrow May your headache be light and your bedroom dark. >Appreciate the chance for sincere debate like civilised grown ups. It is both pleasant and unusual to talk with someone here about economics and not have it turn into a memefest two posts in. God, the MLs can cite Lenin back and forth, but once the subject turns to the M-C-M' cycle in Capital and its relation to the state it's all "anarkiddy" and "imperialist."
>>4857 >Remember that the state is a construct, not a thinking, acting entity So is capital.The rules you ascribe to it are a construct too and pur ideology.Capital to marxists is some type of gnostic demiurge with dialectical materialism providing the role of the saviour logos acting throughout history. The state is power over a defined geographical region and population.The question is who/what controls that power.Currently it is management elites who are largely under the thumb of extant capitalism. The question is how to get the right elite in power,preferably in several core western states at the same time ,to challenge global capital and knock it down a peg or 200. >the bureaucrats still had to extract surplus-value from workers This fixation on extraction of surplus value as inherently exploitative clouds all your thinking. Qualitative distinctions matter. >They were still beholden to capital and its inherent contradictions Capital? in what sense? Extraction of surplus value? No contradiction there outside the current capitalist system. >liberals of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century They did so to protect capitalism as we know it - not to castrate it and domesticate it as is my intent.They did nothing else which is required. >How does one provide increasingly large quantities of start-up capital to such inefficient entities with any hope of recouperation Currently SMEs are 80% of the uk economy.No special govt funding is even required.What is required is the evisceration of big porkies ie breaking up monopolies,transnationals and eliminating parasitical privateer finaniers by aforementioned nationalisation of the financial industries - on a pan-national level. >first economic downturn There will be no further downturns after pan-national autarkic control of finance.The "business cycle" is a product of the current govt-corp-finance complex aka extant capitalism - which is an arbitrary construct >This sounds a lot like the British and American economic system of the early-eighteenth century when the factory system was still young. The american system yes.Some similarities.That was back when americans were still wise to the banking oligarchies and their games. >That has been done before, notably by the Bank of England No BOE only monopolised the M1 money supply. Credit was issued by private banks frequently and currently by vast amounts through fractional reserve. 90% of the money supply is created like this in the form of debt.Furthermore it's digital now. An abstraction (digital) on an abstraction (paper) backed by - nothing.Except govt fiat.This creates huge surplus of C&M sloshing about which goes to the capitalist class first and inflates the stock market and real estate.This occurs everywhere.The US is insulated from this to some extent by the petrodollar - world reserve currency status. >Capitalism cannot be annihilated without destroying capital Pure ideology. >it is extraordinary how you have managed to come around to all the same economic conclusions as Deng by way of capitalist thought I would define my thought as independent. >they proceded to use that power to lop off the aristocrats' heads and to replace the state with a new state of their own design that would serve their ends. Indeed.Therefore a new "aristocracy" must arise to repkace the bourgeoise/mgt elites and put them down to their proper level - beneath the state - everywhere - pan-nationally >The bourgeoisie will be annihilated utterly, as will the proletariat which is defined by its lack of access to the means of production. It is an inevitable consequence of the self-destruction of capital. doomer neognosticism >any state must definitively act against the interests of the latter I do NOT agree this is inevitable provided a proper elite has the correct ideology and praxis >It can be seen occuring during several long-lasting crises of capital Mobs cannot govern.The masses cannot govern.Youre to smart to delude yourself otherwise. >Do not confuse the money commodity itself with the token currency There is no money commodity.Pure abstraction.Money is simply a means of exchanging a recognised receipt of stored value mandated by the recognised governing authority >GDP is a measure of capitalist production By gdp in this context I really mean production of material resources for use value >When capital does not grow capital does not exist. Pure ideology.Define your terms. C&M sitting somewhere not growing does not disappear.Stop reifying arbitrary social constructs backed by state decree. >Growth is a definitive property of capital Growth is a property of economic activity ie labour. Growth is an agricultural and industrial phenomena. "Capital" of itself is sterile unless propped up be state enforced usury and fiat ie the current system - which we both agree must be overturned >Greenspan being completely befuddled when the bubbles burst. Greenspan wasnt an austrian - nor were his disastrous policies >Cockshott Will read that pdf On reflection it appears I am some shade of dengist - or rather dengism is some shade of nazbol PS the new "aristocracy" or elite I envisage will be classless or transclass.Based purely on competence,merit and correct ideological foundation. Philosopher kings if you will. Purely devoted to the well being of the nation (people) and common good with no regard for sectional interests
>>4861 >Youre too* smart to delude yourself otherwise. >"Capital" of itself is sterile unless propped up by* state enforced usury and fiat
>>4859 Lets expand this debate beyond just you stating marxist ideology and me disagreeing. It will get circular and dull. Let's bring in some other issues eg social issues,humanbiodiversity,the "women issue",woke capital - the radlib faggotry spewed forth by the current liberal superstructure etc
>>4859 You still alive comrade?

Delete
Report

no cookies?