critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

[frogwoman]

Not really. They get round the ban in various ways, but it still makes their brand of capitalism less toxic than ours.

you can't have it both ways and I wouldn't say it was "less toxic" in what way is it less toxic? those countries are still affected by the financial crisis, they still have extremes of poverty and wealth and people still die because of sickness and injury caused by inadequate care from the system, which views workers as simply a tool and if that's broken then you've had it, and police repression in the interests of capital.

 

[phildwyer]

you can't have it both ways and I wouldn't say it was "less toxic" in what way is it less toxic? those countries are still affected by the financial crisis, they still have extremes of poverty and wealth and people still die because of sickness and injury caused by inadequate care from the system, which views workers as simply a tool and if that's broken then you've had it, and police repression in the interests of capital.

Having lived in both, I would honestly estimate that all of the above is now more true in (most of) the West than it is in (most of) the Islamic world. It's all certainly more true of the USA than it is of Turkey, for example. And the Islamic distaste for usury, which is more ethical than practical, is among the many reasons for that.

 

[frogwoman]

I think you are wrong. In any case those countries still trade with the west and make use of western capital.

 

[phildwyer]

So you're saying capitalism has always existed, I really don't think it has. Capitalism didn't emerge until pretty late in human history, there were other modes of production first such as feudalism. People did not tend to work for profit as wage-labourers during feudal times.

No, obviously I'm not saying it's always existed. Money itself is a relatively late invention in human history, let alone usury. Although usury arguably predates money anyway.

And wherever it has existed, usury has generally been a sinister, underground activity practiced by pariah groups.

There were other modes of production before feudalism too, many of them capitalistic in nature. You may be equating capitalism with industrialization, or with wage labor? But the great slave systems of history have been capitalist too, including modern ones like the CSA, and wage slavery is not all that different in principle.

Capitalism is the alienation of human activity in the illusory form of money, and the attribution of magical properties to that illusory form. Enslavement and proletarianization work equally well for expropriation, capital doesn't care much either way.

 

[frogwoman]

Capitalism is about wage labour though, and the money you earn is used to buy goods and services, slaves didn't work for a wage, they were captured and forced to to work, they might have been told that in return for the work they would get accommodation but that's a different thing? they weren't able to use what they earned and surely that's quite fundamental in a capitalist society?

i might be entirely wrong here, but that was my understanding of it

 

[phildwyer]

I think you are wrong. In any case those countries still trade with the west and make use of western capital.

Here's the difference. The accumulation of capital is the raison d'etre of the Western states.

Islamic states may not be averse to hypocritically accumulating a bit of capital. But the accumulation of capital is not their raison d'etre.

 

[frogwoman]

Here's the difference. The accumulation of capital is the raison d'etre of the Western states.

Islamic states may not be averse to hypocritically accumulating a bit of capital. But the accumulation of capital is not their raison d'etre.

i think that's bollocks tbh.

 

[phildwyer]

Capitalism is about wage labour though, and the money you earn is used to buy goods and services, slaves didn't work for a wage, they were captured and forced to to work, they might have been told that in return for the work they would get accommodation but that's a different thing? they weren't able to use what they earned and surely that's quite fundamental in a capitalist society?

They were able to use what they earned, often just enough of it to keep them alive, sometimes considerably more. Some slaves owned slaves themselves.

You're equating capitalism with wage labor. But money accumulated through slavery can be invested as capital equally well, can't it?

 

[phildwyer]

i think that's bollocks tbh.

It's not Iran's raison d'etre. Although it used to be, under the Shah.... accumulating capital for us.

 

[frogwoman]

They were able to use what they earned, often just enough of it to keep them alive, sometimes considerably more. Some slaves owned slaves themselves.

You're equating capital with wage labor. But money accumulated through slavery can be invested as capital equally well, can't it?

Well aspects of feudalism and slavery still exist within capitalist society, the difference is that it's not the dominant mode of production, the majority of people aren't slaves or serfs, the majority of people who work, work for a wage. Although having said that this explanation isn't really sufficient to explain things like workfare etc, but i would argue that it's still aimed at maintaining capital and the "labour market", disciplining the working class and so on and depressing wages, not to get rid of them altogether.

 

[frogwoman]

It's not Iran's raison d'etre. Although it used to be, under the Shah.... accumulating capital for us.

I think most states exist both to perpetuate/"legitimise" themselves and the power of those who run them and to accumulate capital.

 

[phildwyer]

Well aspects of feudalism and slavery still exist within capitalist society, the difference is that it's not the dominant mode of production, the majority of people aren't slaves or serfs, the majority of people who work, work for a wage. Although having said that this explanation isn't really sufficient to explain things like workfare etc, but i would argue that it's still aimed at maintaining capital and the "labour market", disciplining the working class and so on and depressing wages, not to get rid of them altogether.

The only difference is that a slave is sold outright, while a proletarian is rented by the hour.

Either way, their labor is expropriated, translated into the symbolic (and therefore unreal) form of money, and allegedly somehow enabled to magically grow in the bank accounts of the already very wealthy.

That's what capitalism is, that's all it is. It is usury and nothing more.

 

[Blagsta]

Talking about loon theories and dwyer turns up.

 

[frogwoman]

The only difference is that a slave is sold outright, while a proletarian is rented by the hour.

I don't think it's the only difference, slaves couldn't leave their masters and go to another master the way proletarians can leave their jobs and get hired and fired the way they can under capitalism. In addition slaves weren't full citizens, that's partly the point of it. In theory working class people have the same rights as anyone else under capitalism and the state has gone to great lengths to maintain that idea and legitimise the system in a way they simply didn't need to with slaves, for example with the right to vote etc - and there's another difference, slave-owning societies and feudal societies didn't have the centralised state in the way it exists today.

 

[phildwyer]

Talking about loon theories and dwyer turns up.

Ah Blagsta.

Did you just call me an anti-semite?

Answer.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't think it's the only difference, slaves couldn't leave their masters and go to another master the way proletarians can leave their jobs and get hired and fired the way they can under capitalism.

What capitalism would that be? The one with zero unemployment? Guatemala?

A minority of very lucky proletarians have, at rare historical moments, enjoyed the freedom to choose their masters--probably slaves have enjoyed it in roughly the same proportion. But all proletarians have to work for someone.

In theory working class people have the same rights as anyone else under capitalism and the state has gone to great lengths to maintain that idea and legitimise the system in a way they simply didn't need to with slaves, for example with the right to vote etc.

Haha you know as well as I do what happens as soon as any of that threatens capital.

and there's another difference, slave-owning societies and feudal societies didn't have the centralised state in the way it exists today.

Yes they did.

 

[frogwoman]

of course they do but under slavery you usually had one master for life and he could "give you your freedom" whereas most w/c people have lots of different jobs throughout their lives.

 

[butchersapron]

I blame the 60s and then bill hicks for this 3 decade flirtation of the right with the clothes of the left.

 

[phildwyer]

I blame the 60s and then bill hicks for this 3 decade flirtation of the right with the clothes of the left.

Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly circa 1790?

Don't tell me. Let me guess.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly circa 1790?

This is literally the most tiresome smug shit it's possible to say. I bet you enjoy shitting yourself. fuck off

 

[butchersapron]

Hey delroy, did you know that arabs are also semites!!!

 

[phildwyer]

This is literally the most tiresome smug shit it's possible to say. I bet you enjoy shitting yourself. fuck off

Ladies and Gentlemen, exhibit A.

This fool is the reason for the state we are in. Stupid, violent, basically 100% ignorant of everything and probably thinks of himself as on the "Left."

You do think of yourself as a "Leftist," don't you Delbert?

 

[phildwyer]

Hey delroy, did you know that arabs are also semites!!!

Exhibit B. This one's smart enough to know better. Indeed he does know better, but he cannot renounce Delbert and his ilk.

 

[frogwoman]

Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly circa 1790?

Don't tell me. Let me guess.

something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something

 

[phildwyer]

something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something

Exhibit C. Far from a Delbert, even far from a Leader of Delberts, but not far from a Delbertian fellow-traveller either, still has some limited potential, a striver for truth but not there yet.

 

[TruXta]

something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something

You forgot the rational proof of God's existence. Because symbols usury.

 

[phildwyer]

Now, let's put exhibits A, B and C together, and what haven't we got?

A serious opposition to capitalism, that's what we've not got.

Keep up the good work guys.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Stupid, violent, basically 100% ignorant of everything and probably thinks of himself as on the "Left."

This is pretty accurate btw

 

[phildwyer]

This is pretty accurate btw

You forgot "cowardly."

 

[Delroy Booth]

You forgot "cowardly."

I was too scared to mention it