the neoliberal vision of the future

[phildwyer]

Interesting slant but is capital capable of "wanting" anything?

Yes it is, when it is treated as though it were alive. Capitalism treats money as if it were alive as soon as it allows it to reproduce without human intervention, as in usury. From that point on money acquires its own interests and purposes, which very often diverge from those of any human beings.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I didn't mean to imply Marxists don't have a vision, just that there is plenty of scope there for an indefinite delay on delivering on any promises, and hence even a political movement that starts from the most utopian of philosophies can get away with a 'jam tomorrow, shit today' millenarian-type fudge. It was a kind of comment on the uselessness of utopias as anything more than a 'guiding star'.

Answering your actual question, I think you already have the answer - a few of the neoliberal 'movers and shakers' actually believe it to a degree, a few use it to kid themselves that there is some truly ethical dimension to what they are doing, and the rest (any who will ever accept a bailout, let's say) are using it in a purely cynical misanthropic way and don't actually give a shit what happens to anybody as a consequence.

I'm with you now - so you were likening the movers and shakers to the dodgy "Marxist" leaders we've seen across the world who use it as cover for increasing their own power and maybe even kid themselves that theirs is a righteous project? If so I definitely agree.

So, bringing it back to the OP, what does all this actually mean for the future in reality rather than the minds of ideologues? What is it likely to actually look like? Do they have a plan B if/when enough people have had enough to challenge their power?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If Plan A involves having armed forces on your side, I would doubt a Plan B would ever be considered. Lose the power to exercise violence in all its various forms and you lose power full stop. That is what power is.

That said, as a system, capitalism has proved itself to be adaptable, capable of granting concessions to avert revolution.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes it is, when it is treated as though it were alive. Capitalism treats money as if it were alive as soon as it allows it to reproduce without human intervention, as in usury. From that point on money acquires its own interests and purposes, which very often diverge from those of any human beings.

I think I understand - you mean capital as a whole, rather than units of capital - like where Marx used Frankenstein's monster analogies? When I was in the SWP I was lent a book (think it was by Chris Harman) called Zombie Capitalism - there was a lot of this sort of stuff in there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Unless he's changed his view on the matter, phil literally believes that money is the devil.

 

[SpineyNorman]

That said, as a system, capitalism has proved itself to be adaptable, capable of granting concessions to avert revolution.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was talking about. I don't think a police state is an attractive option for them - I think they appreciate that people will be more productive without a boot on their faces. But what might these concessions actually be? Probably a bit of a daft question really but I think it unlikely that it would be anything like the post WW2 reforms, I'd imagine that they'd have reasons to make any concessions more individualised if that makes sense, things like increases to the minimum wage rather than reintroducing state funded socialised services.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And yet, every single one in this thread assumes that *I* am wrong in virtually everything. Pretty arrogant, eh?

No assumptions have been made. It isn't necessary to make assumptions when someone is ignorant enough to post up prejudice and ignorance masquerading as informed comment.

You've had your arse handed to you with reference to the poor quality of the "facts" you argue from more times than I can count on this thread, purely because you've posted up dross that you appeared to believe was gold.

 

[TruXta]

What does capital care for nature?

A great deal, if not mostly for the right reasons. But ultimately, in the same way that capital needs some measure of worker welfare it also needs some degree of ecological integrity.

 

[TruXta]

They are indeed tools to crush or prevent dissent, because they evaluate human activity in quantitative terms.

That's bollocks. Evaluating activity using numbers is a tool that can be used for good or bad. Next you'll be going on about using words to effect changes in the world. FFS.

 

[TruXta]

Yes it is, when it is treated as though it were alive. Capitalism treats money as if it were alive as soon as it allows it to reproduce without human intervention, as in usury. From that point on money acquires its own interests and purposes, which very often diverge from those of any human beings.

You're treading dangerously close to worshipping other gods there, dwyer.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Capitalism treats money as if it were alive as soon as it allows it to reproduce without human intervention, as in usury.

Coming back to this point, I'm not sure that usury is capital reproducing without human intervention, is it? Surely what's happening is the money is being lent out, or invested, and its real value does increase because the borrower uses it to produce commodities, which are of greater value than the sum invested. Usury just covers this up - it's exploitation in the same way as capitalist production is exploitation, isn't it?

From that point on money acquires its own interests and purposes, which very often diverge from those of any human beings.

I still think you've got a point here but I'd say "acquires its own logic" would be a better term.

 

[SpineyNorman]

A great deal, if not mostly for the right reasons. But ultimately, in the same way that capital needs some measure of worker welfare it also needs some degree of ecological integrity.

The thing is capital as a whole needs both these things but it's not in the immediate interests of any individual capitalist to do anything about either - surely this is one of the big problems with the system itself. It seems that they're trying to move away from state welfare provision - when they're doing this why should we expect them to do anything about less immediate environmental issues?

 

[TruXta]

The thing is capital as a whole needs both these things but it's not in the immediate interests of any individual capitalist to do anything about either - surely this is one of the big problems with the system itself. It seems that they're trying to move away from state welfare provision - when they're doing this why should we expect them to do anything about less immediate environmental issues?

Some modicum of sanity?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Coming back to this point, I'm not sure that usury is capital reproducing without human intervention, is it? Surely what's happening is the money is being lent out, or invested, and its real value does increase because the borrower uses it to produce commodities, which are of greater value than the sum invested.

Its real value doesn't increase at the same rate as the interest due, generally speaking. And there is no guarantee that it will increase at all. And whether or not that money is used productively, the interest remains due. There is only one way to pay the interest that isn't generated by increased value, which is to take out another, slightly larger loan. Hence, lending money at interest is inherently inflationary.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Some modicum of sanity?

That's my point - actions that appear sane on the individual level (rational self-interest as they say) are not on the national/world level. Given that they (those with power - neoliberals) are theoretically opposed to state intervention (and practically opposed to it if it means reigning in capital) how is this resolved without a radical change of direction?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Neoliberals aren't opposed to state intervention. They require it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Its real value doesn't increase at the same rate as the interest due, generally speaking. And there is no guarantee that it will increase at all. And whether or not that money is used productively, the interest remains due. There is only one way to pay the interest that isn't generated by increased value, which is to take out another, slightly larger loan. Hence, lending money at interest is inherently inflationary.

This is what you were getting at with Onar wasn't it? I get it now. Sorry to be a pain in the arse.

 

[TruXta]

Neoliberals aren't opposed to state intervention. They require it.

Exactamundo.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Neoliberals aren't opposed to state intervention. They require it.

True but they're against it when it restrains capital, right? That's what I meant with the bit in brackets. Also, they do claim to be consistently anti-intervention (though we know that's bollocks).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is what you were getting at with Onar wasn't it? I get it now. Sorry to be a pain in the arse.

It is, yes. Disappointingly, all he was able to do was to repeat something he had heard once without understanding it.

 

[phildwyer]

Coming back to this point, I'm not sure that usury is capital reproducing without human intervention, is it? Surely what's happening is the money is being lent out, or invested, and its real value does increase because the borrower uses it to produce commodities, which are of greater value than the sum invested. Usury just covers this up - it's exploitation in the same way as capitalist production is exploitation, isn't it?

Not in the same way, no. When you speak of money being "lent out" and its "real value" "increasing" and so on, you are really just using a series of metaphors designed to cover up the fact that nothing actually happens when interest accrues. That is to say, no changes take place in the material world. Money reproduces autonomously, in a sphere that has nothing to do with human intervention or indeed with anything else in the real world at all.

 

[phildwyer]

I still think you've got a point here but I'd say "acquires its own logic" would be a better term.

That too. It acquires its own logic, its own interests, even its own desires.

 

[phildwyer]

That's bollocks. Evaluating activity using numbers is a tool that can be used for good or bad.

No it is not. Translating human activity into quantitative terms is a logical error. Its original form is wage labor, which is the source of all the other dehumanizing modes of numerical evaluation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Failed at what? Surely at nothing that neo-liberals care about.

No. Quite true, but it made some implied promises to the general population.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Not in the same way, no. When you speak of money being "lent out" and its "real value" "increasing" and so on, you are really just using a series of metaphors designed to cover up the fact that nothing actually happens when interest accrues. That is to say, no changes take place in the material world. Money reproduces autonomously, in a sphere that has nothing to do with human intervention or indeed with anything else in the real world at all.

This makes onan seem quite sane.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not in the same way, no. When you speak of money being "lent out" and its "real value" "increasing" and so on, you are really just using a series of metaphors designed to cover up the fact that nothing actually happens when interest accrues. That is to say, no changes take place in the material world. Money reproduces autonomously, in a sphere that has nothing to do with human intervention or indeed with anything else in the real world at all.

I go along with you a lot of the way on this, but not quite all the way. Money increases because interest is due on loans and loans are the way that money is created in the first place. The fact that interest is due requires more loans to be taken out, and so over time the money supply increases. You're right that there is no direct link between money and that which it is taken to represent. I do go along with the idea that rather than representing value, money is in fact the precise opposite of value – it represents debt. But in theory at least, the amount of value and the amount of debt in the world ought to cancel each other out.

Where I think we probably agree is on the patent absurdity of the idea that a crisis of the money supply now is somehow a reason for future generations to be 'paying our debts'. That is to mistake the symbol for what it symbolises. We talk about 'borrowing from the future' but this is in fact an entirely impossible thing to do – the future cannot give us a single bean.

 

[phildwyer]

This makes onan seem quite sane.

You are obviously an ignorant person. You might like to sit out this discussion for a while.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No it is not. Translating human activity into quantitative terms is a logical error. Its original form is wage labor, which is the source of all the other dehumanizing modes of numerical evaluation.

Quantitative measurements are the only way to solve many practical problems. If you wish to run a train network, for instance, you need raw data on numbers of people travelling and where and when they travel to run it efficiently.

You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This makes onan seem quite sane.

I have to say, I have a lot more time for Dwyer's views.

Also, if you have the chops to argue with him fair and square, he'll debate you fair and square, albeit from a rather unusual viewpoint.

His viewpoint is weird, but it does make sense on its own terms and he can argue it without totally distorting history or stretching concepts out of all recognition (although you can see that the devil sometimes tempts him to do the latter)

Which is more than one can say for Onar.

 

[phildwyer]

I go along with you a lot of the way on this, but not quite all the way. Money increases because interest is due on loans and loans are the way that money is created in the first place. The fact that interest is due requires more loans to be taken out, and so over time the money supply increases. You're right that there is no direct link between money and that which it is taken to represent. I do go along with the idea that rather than representing value, money is in fact the precise opposite of value – it represents debt. But in theory at least, the amount of value and the amount of debt in the world ought to cancel each other out.

According to whose theory? Certainly no capitalist would agree with you since the abolition of the gold standard..

Money isn't created by loans: all money is symbolic, alienated human activity. But in usury the symbolic, alienated form of human activity acquires autonomy from what it originally represents. Since it is autonomous, there's no reason why the amount of value should be correlated with the amount of debt (or indeed with anything else) at all.