>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.
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.