The UK banking system

phildwyer · Mar 1, 2006

nino_savatte said:
It's Mills and Boon country for sure.

Och awa' Nino wi your Mills and Boon! Is Burrns nae guid enough for ye the noo? Will ye no come back again?

Wee sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
Oh, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!

But seriously, you haven't yet explained the Savatte clan motto to us - have you, Nino?

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

nino_savatte said:
Aye, it's called "hyper reality"....and?

Enormous socio-economic systems have developed, making huge and real impacts on human beings, both positive and negative. --slaar

simulacrae reproduces the real, hyper-reality

nino_savatte · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
Enormous socio-economic systems have developed, making huge and real impacts on human beings, both positive and negative. --slaar

simulacrae reproduces the real, hyper-reality

That's pretty much what I said, wasn't it? But where were you heading with that notion?

phildwyer · Mar 1, 2006

nino_savatte said:
That's pretty much what I said, wasn't it?

No, it wasnae. But never mind that. Tell us - are you an auld postmodernist, Nino?

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

nino_savatte said:
That's pretty much what I said, wasn't it? But where were you heading with that notion?

what was the reason for the "and???" then?

nino_savatte · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
what was the reason for the "and???" then?

It seems to me that you ignored this part of my post

But where were you heading with that notion?

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

nino_savatte said:
It seems to me that you ignored this part of my post

shesh you praaak

stay focussed.

previous page you posted

Aye, it's called "hyper reality"....and?

what was the reason for the "and???" then?

revol68 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
shesh you praaak

stay focussed.

previous page you posted

Aye, it's called "hyper reality"....and?

what was the reason for the "and???" then?

his and was because you have showed that capital is only a concept not real thing (like anyone doubt that), what you have failed to put forward is a means to usurp the grip this "fiction" has on us. You have failed to put forward how we could hope to throw off the REAL social relations that uphold the myth of the economy, the real forces that put fences round land, that sell of land rights, that see us spending the better part of our lives working for a fiction!

All you've said so far is that we need to disbelieve, i put it to you that people don't believe in the place, infact the present economic system could be seen as prayer or ritual without belief, the only belief it requires is created by the ritual. Therefore a conginitive critique is no threat whatsoever, it will take a real material critique to dispell this fiction, it will require the destruction of the economy and the implementation of communism, a system based on real needs.

118118 · Mar 1, 2006

phildwyer said:
I don't know why you're so confident of this. Not everyone believes in capital. *No-one* believed in it a thousand years ago, and very few people believed in it even four hundred years ago. Marx certainly didn't believe in it. The most cursory glance at history will tell you that *nothing* lasts forever.

Yeah but everyone - even the little baby fetuses? I mean, I would have thought that if we really had to wait for everyone to want capitalism to end we would be waiting for ever. I think if what you are saying is true, to get 8 billion people to agree woud take an act of God.

nino_savatte · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
shesh you praaak

stay focussed.

previous page you posted

Aye, it's called "hyper reality"....and?

what was the reason for the "and???" then?

Well? It's up to you to answer - is it not?

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
his and was because you have showed that capital is only a concept not real thing (like anyone doubt that), what you have failed to put forward is a means to usurp the grip this "fiction" has on us. You have failed to put forward how we could hope to throw off the REAL social relations that uphold the myth of the economy, the real forces that put fences round land, that sell of land rights, that see us spending the better part of our lives working for a fiction!

do you not read my posts??????

an interest free public national banking system and abolish the Bank of England would be a start.

you see, thats a real thing to do.

revol68 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
do you not read my posts??????

an interest free public national banking system and abolish the Bank of England would be a start.

you see, thats a real thing to do.

and who the fuck is going to implement that you daft utopian cunt?

and surely nations are as much a fiction as the economy you two bit pomo poseur!

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
and who the fuck is going to implement that you daft utopian cunt?

and surely nations are as much a fiction as the economy you two bit pomo poseur!

nice reply.

I have answered all your questions and i can answer all your future questions.

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
and who the fuck is going to implement that you daft utopian cunt?

and surely nations are as much a fiction as the economy you two bit pomo poseur!

but you do agree that is a solution, only you dont know how to implement it?

revol68 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
nice reply.

I have answered all your questions and i can answer all your future questions.

well go on then,Ballrootard!

As nations are as much fictions as capital why would we wish to implement a national bank?

And how would interest free money do away with accumulation, surely those who still own the land and means of production (something you don't see as relevant) will still be able to demand people pay for their goods and as such still get people to work the means of production?

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
well go on then,Ballrootard!

revol68 please stop calling names, its not clever and i dont have to put up with it.

revol68 said:
As nations are as much fictions as capital why would we wish to implement a national bank?

We wouldnt be paying interest on money. Money and thus the economy would be neutralised.

revol68 said:
And how would interest free money do away with accumulation, surely those who still own the land and means of production (something you don't see as relevant) will still be able to demand people pay for their goods and as such still get people to work the means of production?

you mean if the monarch didnt own the land and the system of control [interest based monetary system] was abolished, how would democracy work?

or do you want;
an interest based monetary system
monarch claiming ownership of the land
no democracy

what exactly is it you are defending?

revol68 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
revol68 please stop calling names, its not clever and i dont have to put up with it.

We wouldnt be paying interest on money. Money and thus the economy would be neutralised.

you mean if the monarch didnt own the land and the system of control [interest based monetary system] was abolished, how would democracy work?

or do you want;
an interest based monetary system
monarch claiming ownership of the land
no democracy

what exactly is it you are defending?

are you fucking dim?

the monarchy does not own the fucking own all the land and more importantly it doesn't own the factories, ships, ports, trains and land required for the feeding of the worlds population.

Hence communism, that is the suppression of capital vis a vis the seizure of the means of production by the working class and the communisation of production and distribution vis a vis directly democratic communities is still a vital critique of capitalism.

Whilst your silly lil crackpot plan is as much use as Sun block in the arctic.

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
the monarchy does not own the fucking own all the land and more importantly it doesn't own the factories, ships, ports, trains and land required for the feeding of the worlds population.

Hence communism, that is the suppression of capital vis a vis the seizure of the means of production by the working class and the communisation of production and distribution vis a vis directly democratic communities is still a vital critique of capitalism..

re-read what i wrote

"claim ownership"

ownership doesnt exist, it is a myth [i think i have stated that over 20 times]

please keep up

oh and btw;

are you fucking dim?

i have answered all your questions.Your continued abuse forces me to make this my last post in response to you.

118118 · Mar 1, 2006

Why doesn't ownership exist
Why does money having an use value mean it is imaginary?

revol68 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
re-read what i wrote

"claim ownership"

ownership doesnt exist, it is a myth [i think i have stated that over 20 times]

please keep up

oh and btw;

are you fucking dim?

i have answered all your questions.Your continued abuse forces me to make this my last post in response to you.

okay well can we define Ownership as being able to send the peelers, army or courts in when someone challenges this mythical ownership eg by squatting, occupation by the workforce, poaching etc?

I think you'll your pomo flights of fancy are ridiculous nonsense, the worst reworking of german idealism vis a vis switching ideas or logos for semoiology (albeit a very crude semiotics) and hence you can ignore the real material forces at work.

Blagsta · Mar 1, 2006

118118 said:
Why doesn't ownership exist
Why does money having an use value mean it is imaginary?

Its all bollocks. Thats the trouble with academic Marxism and academic psychoanalysis. All very fascinating but actually quite useless in workplace struggles or therapy or understanding groups. Intellectual masturbation.

phildwyer · Mar 1, 2006

Blagsta said:
Its all bollocks. Thats the trouble with academic Marxism and academic psychoanalysis. All very fascinating but actually quite useless in workplace struggles or therapy or understanding groups. Intellectual masturbation.

And thus ever spake Yahoos and know-nothings from time immemorial. "Oh I don't understand, its all a load of rubbish, my head hurts, mummy please make them stop..." Pathetic.

Jazzz · Mar 1, 2006

revol68 said:
are you fucking dim?

the monarchy does not own the fucking own all the land and more importantly it doesn't own the factories, ships, ports, trains and land required for the feeding of the worlds population.

Hence communism, that is the suppression of capital vis a vis the seizure of the means of production by the working class and the communisation of production and distribution vis a vis directly democratic communities is still a vital critique of capitalism.

Whilst your silly lil crackpot plan is as much use as Sun block in the arctic.

But this is the beauty of the scam - they have us debating nonsensically about whether capitalism works, or communism works - it's a false dichotomy, one of several.

The truth is nothing will work whilst one has a debt-based money system. Get rid of that, and very quickly one has prosperity. This is the issue here. It's a simple but devastating mathematical scam.

Here's another good source for articles etc.

People for Mathematically Perfected Economy

118118 · Mar 1, 2006

The way I understand this, is that money has a use value (I assume to the capitalist charging interest) so it cannot be part of the economic form because of this quote

PHP:

To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs to this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form.’ [Contribution,(1859) p.28]

But I don't understand why this means that it is "not real", or that all property would be abolished if we abolished money's use value. Or is that is what your saying, your posts don't seem to have much structure to them, no point seems ton lead into another.
It seems like a bunch of slogans without any attempt to explain why your points are all valid.
Not criticising like.

Azrael23 · Mar 1, 2006

zArk is entirely right you know.

Its all documented its no more hidden than any other truth not aired by trev McD.

Blagsta · Mar 1, 2006

it woz the owls wot dun it

Azrael23 · Mar 1, 2006

Your a cretin blagsta. You`ve done no research and your too arrogant to listen to those who have.

Spineless whelp.

*TUSH

Consider yourself bitched.

zArk · Mar 1, 2006

118118 said:
But I don't understand why this means that it is "not real", or that all property would be abolished if we abolished money's use value. Or is that is what your saying, your posts don't seem to have much structure to them, no point seems ton lead into another.

Money is a commodity and attempting to place this within marxsist theory results in;

use value, exchange value and commodities interlinking.

according to marx
money ---> commodity ----> money

but since money is a commodity

money ----> money ---->money

This system produces everything, even itself.

There is no basis to it, it is completely distanced from the real. It is an autonomous system pretending to be rooted in the real. Money isnt just an exchange mechanism it is a produced commodity, produced through itself.

That marx quote says that 'use value' is separate from the commodity.

To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs to this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form.’ [Contribution,(1859) p.28]

Money is the prerequiste of money, but it is immaterial to money whether it is money. Money as such, since it is independant of money lies outside the sphere of investigation of money.

?????

Marx is non-sense when money is exposed as a commodity.
There is no basis for money, the economy is baseless, it doesnt exist in the real, it is an entirely separate from the real.

Capitalism, communism, labour, tories, class, identity are all produced through this system.

Abolish money as a commodity.

phildwyer · Mar 1, 2006

Azrael23 said:
Your a cretin blagsta. You`ve done no research and your too arrogant to listen to those who have.

Spineless whelp.

*TUSH

Consider yourself bitched.

Aye, Blagsta is one of life's *mockers.* Rather than attempt anything constructive themselves, they take their perverse satisfaction in *mocking* those who do. The type was long ago parodied by WB Yeats:

Come let us mock at the great
That had such burdens on the mind
And toiled so hard and late
To leave some monument behind,
Nor thought of the levelling wind.

Come let us mock at the wise;
With all those calendars whereon
They fixed old aching eyes,
They never saw how seasons run,
And now but gape at the sun.

Come let us mock at the good
That fancied goodness might be gay,
And sick of solitude
Might proclaim a holiday:
Wind shrieked—and where are they?

Mock mockers after that
That would not lift a hand maybe
To help good, wise or great
To bar that foul storm out, for we
Traffic in mockery.

White Lotus · Mar 1, 2006

zArk said:
Money is a commodity and attempting to place this within marxsist theory results in;

use value, exchange value and commodities interlinking.

according to marx
money ---> commodity ----> money

but since money is a commodity

money ----> money ---->money

This system produces everything, even itself.

There is no basis to it, it is completely distanced from the real. It is an autonomous system pretending to be rooted in the real. Money isnt just an exchange mechanism it is a produced commodity, produced through itself.

That marx quote says that 'use value' is separate from the commodity.

To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs to this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form.’ [Contribution,(1859) p.28]

Money is the prerequiste of money, but it is immaterial to money whether it is money. Money as such, since it is independant of money lies outside the sphere of investigation of money.

?????

Marx is non-sense when money is exposed as a commodity.
There is no basis for money, the economy is baseless, it doesnt exist in the real, it is an entirely separate from the real.

Capitalism, communism, labour, tories, class, identity are all produced through this system.

Abolish money as a commodity.

Wow, that's the first time that's ever happened!

Mac Mail screens for junk mail by content, which is okay because the address I use for urban75 subscribed threads is an account which gets little or no spam.

The above post is the first ever notification from an urban75 subscribed thread that Mail read carefully, shook its electronic head and consigned to my junkmail folder. So it's not just me then ...

The UK banking system

Plata o plomo

Banned

No pasaran!

Plata o plomo

Banned

No pasaran!

Banned

what, fucking what?

Banned

No pasaran!

Banned

what, fucking what?

Banned

Banned

what, fucking what?

Banned

what, fucking what?

Banned

Banned

what, fucking what?

Minimum cage, maximum cage

Plata o plomo

the truth don't care

Banned

Banned

Minimum cage, maximum cage

Banned

Banned

Plata o plomo

Provisional Buddhist

Similar threads