It's important, not least because it reveals the inherent tendency of capital per se to develop into autonomous representation.
Anelka's quenelle
- Thread starter where to
- Start date
It's important, not least because it reveals the inherent tendency of capital per se to develop into autonomous representation.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Yes dear...
revol68
what, fucking what?
Andrew Kliman rejects that theory, for the US atleast, but just a common sense look at the UK suggest it's true of here.
Yes indeed.
You should take a good look at yourself. I've never seen anyone so transparently desperate to fit in anywhere. You've even included a jibe at Laurie Penny in your tagline, you sycophantic crowd-following fool.
It's true everywhere. Deregulation happened so fast that most people didn't even notice until it was too late.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Yeah the financial services sector is the largest (or one of the largest) economic areas in the UK isn't it? On a global scale I'd tend to agree with kliman tho
It's by far the largest everywhere.
How can anyone think the financial sector is dominant in the UK but not the USA?
But if financial capital is by far the most powerful sector of capital, why wouldn't one emphasize it? One would be foolish not to emphasize it.
And what do you mean by "dodgy?" This isn't another vague association between critique of financial capital and anti-semitism I trust?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Strange how all these definitely not anti-semitic goons seem to orbit around each other. Must just be a coincidence.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
Wait. Isn't it a myth about how much financial services actually contribute? I recall an article a couple of years back that despite everything from 1980 onwards, manufacturing is still its equal in GDP. I'll try and dig it up.
e2a It was a Guardian article that I can't find.
Wiki backs up the thrust of it though. Manufacturing adds more gross value to UK economy than financial services. It's not the biggest sector, even here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
Well Phil, if you were as all knowing as you think you are, you would know that's actually a reference to an nonsense accusation that was made of me by someone else a few months ago. If it's a jibe at anyone, it's a jibe at them not Laurie Penny. TBH, I'd forgotten all about it and although it's still in my profile it hasn't been my tagline for some time.
Keep on trollin'...
What are you on about? The article you cite says the opposite of what you claim:
"The service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP, with the financial services industry particularly important."
Please explain yourself.
You miss the point.
The point is that you are behaving in an obsequious fashion. In your ardent desire to fit in here, you ape what you take to be the opinions and rhetorical mannerisms of what you take to be the majority or dominant trends.
You're making it so embarrassingly obvious that I assume your motivation is unconscious. Was unconscious.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
How come you have lived this long without being glassed?
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
Fuck. I read that as "How come you have lived this long without being gassed?" Unconscious motivation?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Sounds like something this French clown would say to a Jewish critic.
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
With a Jackie Mason accent "How come..etc"
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Seeing how he gets hIs kicks denying genocide, perhaps.
Maybe things are different in academia, but if someone behaved as Dwyer in real life their chances of not getting a serious slapping would be zero.
And so would yours.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
There's a breakdown of the figures below. You just needed to carry on reading.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Can you quote it please? I can't see it.
My point is that finance is the end of capital, in the senses of historical terminus, true nature and ultimate purpose.
Economists refer to the process by which money has conquered the economy as as "financialization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
But that is a euphemism, designed to disguise the fact that all capital is fictional. Just as it is impossible rationally to define a discrete area of experience as "economic," so it is impossible rationally to isolate a specific sector of the "economy" as "financial."
As even economists themselves are slowly begining to recognize, "financialization" is best understood through more traditional terminology:
"Michael Hudson described financialization as "a lapse back into the pre-industrial usury and rent economy of European feudalism."
^ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/08...-tech-bubble-an-interview-with-michael-hudson
The only problem with that comment is its assumption that financialization is a retrograde development.
Economists refer to the process by which money has conquered the economy as as "financialization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
But that is a euphemism, designed to disguise the fact that all capital is fictional. Just as it is impossible rationally to define a discrete area of experience as "economic," so it is impossible rationally to isolate a specific sector of the "economy" as "financial."
As even economists themselves are slowly begining to recognize, "financialization" is best understood through more traditional terminology:
"Michael Hudson described financialization as "a lapse back into the pre-industrial usury and rent economy of European feudalism."
^ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/08...-tech-bubble-an-interview-with-michael-hudson
The only problem with that comment is its assumption that financialization is a retrograde development.
This is the concept that needs to be criticized.
There is no such thing as productive capital. There can't be, because capital does not exist.
The problem is that many people on the "Left" still believe that financialization is an anomolous development within capitalism. It is not. It is capitalism's true essence laid bare.
Unless and until the "Left" assimilates this fact into its analysis, all that remains of that analysis will be the monosyllabic gruntings of Barney Pig and his ilk.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Ern v2.0 was bad enough, dwyer v2.0 is to trolldom, what a minnow is to a shark.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He has to constantly reiterate his ideas, froggie.
How else is he supposed to make a living, if not by publicising ideas around which his writings are centred?
It's more that Judaism has been constructed (by Christians) as a creed which is peculiarly sympathetic to capitalism, largely on the grounds of its allegedly carnal or objectified nature.
Obviously that has nothing to do with Judaism per se.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Because the phildwyer represented to us on these boards by his professorial alter ego is nowhere near as emollient and oleaginous as the professorial alter ego is.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Even dwyer doesn't behave as dwyer in real life. He's an internet provocateur.
Plus, I'm sure he can handle himself. He is from Barry, after all.