The UK banking system

[zArk]

You misunderstand the concept of "use-value." It does not mean what a thing is *actually* used for, it means what a thing *is*: its essence.

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.’ [7. Contribution, p.28]

Yes, its essence.
The 'thing' is money that is created and interest is charged on its use. It is a commodity but it is not independent of the economic form and it is always a determinate form and cannot be other.
This as it stands today and in marx's time

Exchange and Use Value co-incide and interlock. Money secrets this by performing as a determinate form called exchange.

If no interest was charged on its use then things would be different but as such it is;
a commodity and an exchange mechamism

Marx failed to identify this, maybe he was too consumed by his mates dads factories in manchester to understand.

 

[118118]

To be a 1. use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but 2. 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, 3. lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. 4. It belongs to this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form.’ [7. Contribution, p.28] Edit/addition: All undelines edits and additions to text

Yes, its essence.

Could you explain why the quote backs up the claim that use value is a commodirty's essence? Sorry to be so SloW.
Edit: These are the 4 points that I think are made in the quote
1. Commodity always has use value
2. Use value not always a commodity
3. Use value in indetenriminate form independent of economics
4. Use value in detenminate form part of economics.
See I've understood the words in the quote. Edit: Or maybe I have not
I thought that essences were necessary and sufficient conditions for group membership. From 2. it is not necesary to be a commodity!

 

[TeeJay]

Mervyn Allister King, Governor of the Bank of England

Finally unmasked as a demon-possessed sock.

What are we going to do?

THE governor of the Bank of England continued his tour of Cumbria with a visit to Keswick’s Theatre by the Lake on Thursday. During a two-day fact-finding visit to Cumbria, Mervyn King also attended a series of meetings in Carlisle, Penrith and Wigton and had an overnight stay at Bassenthwaite. He had talks with around 140 businesspeople over the course of his visit. After his meeting at the Keswick lakeside theatre he said: “Every month I get out of London to visit some part of the United Kingdom in order to sacrifice babies and drink the blood of virgins.” Mr King said: “It is an opportunity for me to practise the dark arts and find out what is going on in the astral planes.” The governor said: “My visit is really just the tip of the iceberg because dark angel Viper's Breath, our agent in this part of the country and his colleagues, live and work in the region.” http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=328195

 

[zArk]

Could you explain why the quote backs up the claim that use value is a commodirty's essence? Sorry to be so SloW.
1. Commodity always has use value
2. Use value not always a commodity
3. Use value in indetenriminate form independent of economics
4. Use value in detenminate form part of economics.
See I've understood the words.
I thought that essences were necessary and sufficient conditions for group membership. From 2. it is not sufficient to be a commodity!

Production of the commodity, production of use value

to be fair though, can you clarify more clearly your question and to whom it is directed.

 

[118118]

Production of the commodity, production of use value

to be fair though, can you clarify more clearly your question and to whom it is directed.

Well. The question was aimed at either you or phildwyer who seemed to be saying that use value is a object's essence, it is what it *is*. I thought you were using the Marx quote (It looks familiar at least) to back up this claim (that I have just pointed out you make), a quote which does not seem to argue for use value as essence because use value is not a suficient conidtion (for an object's essence). IYSWIM.

More importantly, why not sum up the last 15 pages. I pretend that I'm dyslexic so I can't read that much at once

 

[118118]

From the quote you use zark IMHO use value is at the most one from several of a commodity's essences. Can an object have multiple essences? If not then use value is not a commodities essence according to Marx (I think, I still don't know where the quote you use zark comes from).
Or maybe I've completely misunderstood
What do you think

it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity.

means?
A immaterial spirit. Gr8 What exactly does he mean by "whether" (in the above quote)?
Any more loopy interpretations of Marx out there?
I think my interpreattion is a lot more likely considering Marx has already made the point that you can have a use value and not a commodity!
(I'm assuming that its Marx, of course it could just be by a person that explicitly says, use value is immaterial, over and over again, and I would look a bit silly)
TBH I haven't read the thread so I might completely have the wrong end of the stick.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, its essence.

If use-value is essence, then it can't exist to exist, can it? But it can, and has, been *obscured* by exchange-value (which is appearance or representation). The question is how we should *evaluate* this development. To judge from your characterization of the postmodern economy as "demonic" I assume you think we should judge it harshly?

 

[phildwyer]

Well. The question was aimed at either you or phildwyer who seemed to be saying that use value is a object's essence, it is what it *is*.

Use-value is inseparable from the material body of the object. You cannot get milk from a cow that is not there. It does not follow from that that getting milk is the only use-value of the cow, or that getting milk is the essence of the cow. But use-value can only be realized out of an object's inherent properties. Exchange-value, in contrast, is an image that is *not* part of the object's essential properties but is imposed upon it by human convention. So use-value is essence (part of nature, or "phusis") and exchange-value is appearance (part of custom, or "nomos").

 

[revol68]

Use value is not a fucking essence! A tables use value is dependent on it's contextual use, for example it could be for eating your dinner off, doing work on, fucking on or used as a barricade!

The use value is a social determined use that can exist within the commodity or without.

A piece of art can have use value as an image.

 

[phildwyer]

Use value is not a fucking essence! A tables use value is dependent on it's contextual use, for example it could be for eating your dinner off, doing work on, fucking on or used as a barricade!

The use value is a social determined use that can exist within the commodity or without.

A piece of art can have use value as an image.

Use value cannot exist without the presence of the object. It is inherent in, and an essential property of, the object. That is what differntiates it from exchange value, which is *imposed upon* the object.

 

[revol68]

Use value cannot exist without the presence of the object. It is inherent in, and an essential property of, the object. That is what differntiates it from exchange value, which is *imposed upon* the object.

We impose use values on things, there is nothing essential about it.
For example a piece of art, we impose our interpretations on it, we therefore impose a use value.

 

[zArk]

We impose use values on things, there is nothing essential about it.
For example a piece of art, we impose our interpretations on it, we therefore impose a use value.

woah, phil and i were taking marx's explanation.

i was saying that the same mistake that is in Marxist structure is throughout social, cultural and psychoanalytical theory. It is very important to understand how 'use value' is used [sorry for double use.. opps] in sociology, cultural and psychoanalytical theory and how it proliferates through political policy and economic policy.

 

[revol68]

woah, phil and i were taking marx's explanation.

i was saying that the same mistake that is in Marxist structure is throughout social, cultural and psychoanalytical theory. It is very important to understand how 'use value' is used [sorry for double use.. opps] in sociology, cultural and psychoanalytical theory and how it proliferates through political policy and economic policy.

except only the crudest marxist would hold such an interpretation!

 

[zArk]

If use-value is essence, then it can't exist to exist, can it? But it can, and has, been *obscured* by exchange-value (which is appearance or representation). The question is how we should *evaluate* this development. To judge from your characterization of the postmodern economy as "demonic" I assume you think we should judge it harshly?

hmmm judge it harshly. Difficult.

Rather i think it is an entity with its own subjectivity and shouldnt be judged. I am saying it has taken the place of God and is within us and within everything.
use value - exchange value emerge from within the development and cannot be employed to explain the situation.
The obscured - foucault - is its movement within us. Internalisation.
Marxist theory is the development of the system, not the explanation of the system.
If I was say it was daemoic, this would include not only post-modern economy but modern economy.
I think daemonic [in the greek sense], knowledgable, can be a description but doesnt clearly define the system. 'Daemonic' draws the explanation back into the system.

So, no i wouldnt call the system Daemonic but Religious explanations will call it that. While i dont necessarily say that Religion is separate from the system, i would be very hestitant to use 'stories' to explain the structure of 'information' or signs.

 

[revol68]

of course use value and exchange value emerge within the development (as you strangely word it), there is no outside to view the "totality" from.

The point is that the "totality" never exists completely, it is continously produced and destroyed. Marxism is not about Olympian critiques of a totality, but rather an imament practical critique based on examining and expanding the fissures and contradictions of the system.

Post modernism on the other hand is not a critique but rather a crude reflection of the complete rupture of meaning and the embracing of the irrationalism of the market.

 

[zArk]

except only the crudest marxist would hold such an interpretation!

well if that is the case why do marxists, cultural theories, sociologists etc not approach the foundation of industrial society, the economic society, the society that built up out of the 17th century?

There is a fundamental mistake within all social theory that is not being addressed.

 

[zArk]

Could you explain why the quote backs up the claim that use value is a commodirty's essence? Sorry to be so SloW.
Edit: These are the 4 points that I think are made in the quote
1. Commodity always has use value
2. Use value not always a commodity
3. Use value in indetenriminate form independent of economics
4. Use value in detenminate form part of economics.
See I've understood the words in the quote. Edit: Or maybe I have not
I thought that essences were necessary and sufficient conditions for group membership. From 2. it is not sufficient to be a commodity!

ok, marx was a structuralist. Everything in its place and a place for eveything.

The object has a place within society, a place that can change, but also the object has an essence that is beyond society.
He was refering to us, to people.

He was conveying that people become commodities within society, and their place can be shifted and moved [hence class structure and revolution] but also the person exists outside of society as his/her own entity.

Marx moved through Descarts 'body and mind' separation, saying that the body was stable. The mind is fluid and in flux through ideology blah blah blah but the body was static. Arms, legs, eyes, always the same number and position -- generally.

Marx uses the economy as the basis for all this. Making money, capitalism, capital etc etc saying that people are being manipulated into positions of servitude by class ideology, but people must realise that this system is not fixed or essentially truth. Marx described society as production, it produces classism. What he failed to exclaim was that that production of society [a thing, an object] was through money that was produced without a body or an essential self.

Person --- corrupted by society but pure self outside it. society produces
Society -- produced through the economy without a self outside it

This is marxs crucial fault.

sorry to harp on by the way

now if marx had approached the banking system in the same way he would have found a system that completely messes his analysis up

Money is the product. Produced by who?? Not the ruling class because 'Class' is produced through the use of money, not the production of it.
It is fundamentally impossible to apply Marxist analysis to the production of money.

use value and exchange value at this point are one and the same.
sign value.

class is gone, capitalism is gone, ideology disappears,

 

[phildwyer]

Rather i think it is an entity with its own subjectivity and shouldnt be judged. I am saying it has taken the place of God and is within us and within everything.

Yes, it is an entity with its own subjectivity. Yes, it has taken the place of God within us. What I don't see is why you think this means it "shouldn't be judged." What is the name traditionally give to the superhuman entity with its own subjectivity that takes the place of God within us?

 

[phildwyer]

Post modernism on the other hand is not a critique but rather a crude reflection of the complete rupture of meaning and the embracing of the irrationalism of the market.

True. On the other hand, it seems foolish to pretend that the disappearance of essence, the referent, the subject and so forth that postmodernism expresses has not happened. Postmodernism *is* an accurate description of the empirical situation. What it lacks is the ability to *evaluate* that situation in ethical terms. To do that we need to look at *pre*-modern critiques of capital, not postmodern ones.

 

[phildwyer]

THE governor of the Bank of England continued his tour of Cumbria with a visit to Keswick’s Theatre by the Lake on Thursday. During a two-day fact-finding visit to Cumbria, Mervyn King also attended a series of meetings in Carlisle, Penrith and Wigton and had an overnight stay at Bassenthwaite. He had talks with around 140 businesspeople over the course of his visit. After his meeting at the Keswick lakeside theatre he said: “Every month I get out of London to visit some part of the United Kingdom in order to sacrifice babies and drink the blood of virgins.” Mr King said: “It is an opportunity for me to practise the dark arts and find out what is going on in the astral planes.” The governor said: “My visit is really just the tip of the iceberg because dark angel Viper's Breath, our agent in this part of the country and his colleagues, live and work in the region.” http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=328195

Teejay, rather than merely barracking from the sidelines as is your habitual wont, perhaps you'd like to explain why you find it so amusing to suggest that the postmodern economy is Satanic in nature. Are you perhaps still under the naive impression that Satan "does not exist?" Or what?

 

[zArk]

Yes, it is an entity with its own subjectivity. Yes, it has taken the place of God within us. What I don't see is why you think this means it "shouldn't be judged." What is the name traditionally give to the superhuman entity with its own subjectivity that takes the place of God within us?

i understand that it is called 'satan' but wait, when the catholic church was behind this system -- as is the monarchy now -- does this mean that the catholic church was supporting a satanic system.

phew... well .. urmm... ????

Ok, yes, in the sense of losing free will and agency -- yes this system is satanic.
N.B i do not believe in the representation of satan through tradition sources of Satan being this devil beast with tail, horns etc etc but hestitantly say that Satan is an entity that is controlling.
Judge it? How can we judge something that doesnt exist outside of ourselves. To judge it will only empower its existance. It exists because we give it life.

 

[phildwyer]

i understand that it is called 'satan' but wait, when the catholic church was behind this system -- as is the monarchy now -- does this mean that the catholic church was supporting a satanic system.

That is precisely what it means. Are you familiar with the concept of Antichrist?

 

[In Bloom]

*pops head above the parapet*

Is anybody else imagining phildwyer standing on a soapbox on a street corner somewhere, ranting about the NWO conspiracy for global domination, occaisionally pausing to wipe the flecks of spittle from his chin

*goes back to lurking on this thread*

 

[zArk]

That is precisely what it means. Are you familiar with the concept of Antichrist?

anti-christ you mean referring to isis and horus?

the old stories.

a god created out of nothing, producing a mate then producing a child.

the old stories.

 

[phildwyer]

N.B i do not believe in the representation of satan through tradition sources of Satan being this devil beast with tail, horns etc etc

Obviously educated people will understand the difference between the popular image of Satan and the reality. But as you have already discovered there are many on these boards who have not risen above picture thinking, and can conceive of Satan only as a red man with a goatee and widow's peak. Since no such creature exists, they conclude that there is no such thing as Satan. I expect one or more of them will be along shortly to illustrate.

 

[phildwyer]

Obviously educated people will understand the difference between the popular image of Satan and the reality. But as you have already discovered there are many on these boards who have not risen above picture thinking, and can conceive of Satan only as a red man with a goatee and widow's peak. Since no such creature exists, they conclude that there is no such thing as Satan. I expect one or more of them will be along shortly to illustrate.

And right on cue...

*pops head above the parapet*

Say what you like about Bloom, you can't fault his timing.

 

[zArk]

Obviously educated people will understand the difference between the popular image of Satan and the reality. But as you have already discovered there are many on these boards who have not risen above picture thinking, and can conceive of Satan only as a red man with a goatee and widow's peak. Since no such creature exists, they conclude that there is no such thing as Satan. I expect one or more of them will be along shortly to illustrate.

I was lectured by a man called John O'Neil. A canadian professor whos big area of specialism is Monster Theory.

 

[In Bloom]

And right on cue...



Say what you like about Bloom, you can't fault his timing.

Not that what I said had anything to do with iconic representations of Satan as anthropomorphic. At all.

You numpty

 

[phildwyer]

anti-christ you mean referring to isis and horus?

No, I mean the Biblical "man of sin" who usurps the place of Christ and is Satan's vicar on earth. Traditionally identified by Protestants with the Catholic church.

 

[zArk]

And right on cue...

Say what you like about Bloom, you can't fault his timing.

LOL