The UK banking system
- Thread starter zArk
- Start date
revol68
what, fucking what?
Zark would have a point if it was anyway true that Marx held use values to essential, essences in themselves.
Of course Marx would have pissed himself at any such bollox.
Thats the problem with Baudrillard and his post modern post marxist mates, they never had a fucking decent understanding of Marx in the first place. There the kind of fucks who thought Althusser was a radical depature from Orthodox Marxism.
Of course Marx would have pissed himself at any such bollox.
Thats the problem with Baudrillard and his post modern post marxist mates, they never had a fucking decent understanding of Marx in the first place. There the kind of fucks who thought Althusser was a radical depature from Orthodox Marxism.
phildwyer,
I had the odd glance at your proof of the existence of god thread, although I confess I didn't digest it in its entirety - let me say I quite see where you are coming from with the satanic nature of the monetary system.
I'm a bit worried though that the real crux of the issue gets lost here, which is the difference between an interest-free monetary system and a debt-based one. With the former we have prosperity, blue skies and fluffy bunny rabbits. With the latter, satan.
I would really appreciate - and other posters too of course - if you had a look at this
The Money Changers
Do have a look, I know it's probably fun toying with the likes of TeeJay et al but maybe there's something for you to learn too?
I had the odd glance at your proof of the existence of god thread, although I confess I didn't digest it in its entirety - let me say I quite see where you are coming from with the satanic nature of the monetary system.
I'm a bit worried though that the real crux of the issue gets lost here, which is the difference between an interest-free monetary system and a debt-based one. With the former we have prosperity, blue skies and fluffy bunny rabbits. With the latter, satan.
I would really appreciate - and other posters too of course - if you had a look at this
The Money Changers
Do have a look, I know it's probably fun toying with the likes of TeeJay et al but maybe there's something for you to learn too?
Jazzz said:
Thanks Jazzz, it looks fascinating, I will certainly check it out. I wonder if you are familiar with a couple of books that deal with the usury debate in early modern England, showing how usury was identified with Satan by its opponents, to wit: Norman Jones, "God and the Moneylenders," and Benjamin Nelson "The Idea of Usury"? I think you'd find them interesting in this context.
Blagsta said:
Blagsta, I can categorically tell you that you are wrong here. Just because *you* do not understand something does not mean that it is "utter nonsense." What is the point in just braying "ha ha that's nonsense" whenever someone takes the trouble to answer a question that *you* yourself have asked? For the last time, I ask you to explain *why* you describe it as such. If you cannot, we must conclude that you are simply a know-nothing vandal, who delights in inane jibes against unfamiliar ideas simply because they depart from your parochial, common-sense assumptions.
Blagsta said:
So you re-produced the question and you reproduced your retort in order to show that i reproduced my answer????
You offer no argument other than mild abuse.
You offer no attempt to say
"no, zark, you are wrong because blah blah blah"
Cant you produce something valuable to this thread other than slander and limited name dropping?
revol68
what, fucking what?
zArk said:
the social relations that lie behind it.
aka Banks can print money, if I try it I'd get my house raided and be stuck in prison.
And the obvious difference is that money has use only in it's ability to appropriate use values, whilst something like a chair has a use value in without it being exchanged for anything else.
Blagsta said:
Why doesn't it make sense? It certainly makes sense to me, and I think I am a little bit more qualified to judge than either you or your Ph.D.-student "partner." Will you now explain what you think is wrong with Zark's argument, or will you continue to bleat and squeal with empty indignation?
revol68
what, fucking what?
zArk said:
i'm not following, what in the name of fuck has this got to do with Marx holding use values to be essences in themselves?
I'm not an economist but I do know that Marxs idea of use value was fuck all to do with "essence", use value is social constructed.
The distinction between use value and exchange value comes from the gap between how most people experiance the world and commodities ie as things to be used directly and how capital uses everything as a commodity ie to further expand itself.
Therefore use value is not some objective neutral idea but rather a product of subjectivities in struggle.
thanks phildwyer, I have growing respect for some of our old preachers! Looking back over my link, It's not as perfect as it seemed when I first read it, however it's still the piece which started me out on this and is a good read.phildwyer said:
I shall look out for those books, can't seem to find a source for the Norman Jones one, amazon have some used Benjamin Nelsons though.
revol68 said:
Lets take your chair example [regardless of weight and bulk]
A chair is the exchange mechanism.
So a factory is given sole license to produce chairs and when it loans it out then says to the borrower that the use of the chair results in an interest charge. Since a chair is legal tender, the borrower owes a chair and 'a bit'. How can the chair and 'a bit' be paid back without borrowing again from the factory with the monopoly on production of chairs?
revol68 said:
Since money is a commodity AND is an exchange mechanism 'use value and exchange value' co-incide. The economic system is based upon sign value wholey.
Everything in society is produced through the economy, ergo it is all based upon myth.
Marxist essence is baseless, the essential self through marxist theory and its derivatives is myth.
The production of money cannot be analysed using Marx.
TeeJay said:
Frankly yes TeeJay.
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." Thomas Edison
"It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
source
revol68
what, fucking what?
zArk said:
except money is a use value only in terms of exchange value, it doesn't have a use value outside of capitalism, and even then there are things that we have decided socially should not be exchangable for money, now whether this is sucessful is another matter but it clearly shows that money is not an entirely free agent.
But what really bothers me is your baseless assertions that Marx believed in essences of the self. Infact the only apriorist hint marx gave was "species beings" which in itself was that humans are self producing, our essence is to be continously transgressive of any essential self.
revol68 said:Zark would have a point if it was anyway true that Marx held use values to essential, essences in themselves.
Of course Marx would have pissed himself at any such bollox.
On the assumption that we can now proceed, at least temporarily, without the dubious benefit of sage advice from Blagsta's "partner" or the amusing illustrations provided by Teejay, let me note that if you are saying what you seem to be saying, you are wrong. Marx thought use-value was rooted in the essential, physical properties of an object and could not exist apart from those essential properties:
“The utility of a thing makes it a use-value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful."
-- Marx, Capital, Chapter One
revol68 said:
transgressively through [marxist theory] capitalist society! Marx is saying capitalist society perverts the self, causes it to transgress within its system.
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]
there is no assertion.. marx says it himself.
People are commodities in capitalist society and independant of it. Essential self.
This is how feminism and post-structuralism emerged, through this 'essential self'. Descarts was the pre-cursor "mind-body".
revol68 said:
Interest-free money will separate it. Until that occurs, no, money is not a use value only in terms of exchange value.
And there you go again talking of capitalism
bangs head against wall
what is capitalism --- private owernship of trade and industry. Money is exchange value and use value co-inciding, it is baseless. Ownership within this baseless system is fake, false, myth. Capitalism is a lie within this economic system.
bangs head against wall
revol68 said:ahh so capitalism is fake?
perhaps you can explain to my boss tomorrow that I won't be in work as it is a fake economy, then you can explain to my grocer, then the electricity company, and the baliffs.
Of course its fake! The problem is that the people you mention *believe* in this demonstrably illusory entity called "capital."
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
exactly it is real because it is based on real material social relations, on disciplinary regimes, hierarchies, divisions, guns, tanks, cops, control of foodstuffs, electricity, and heating.
Which is exactly why it is about ownership and control because with economic blackmail "capital" would some fall the way of feudalisms "natural order".
Capital is not illusory in the way "god" or religion are too Feuerbach, it is alienation yes, but not an alienation based on flights of fancy which can be overcome with a cognitive shift. Capital can not be overcome by merely refusing to believe in it, but rather by denying it's driving force, our alienated atomised wage labour.
revol68 said:
Wrong. It *could* be overcome by refusing to believe in it, provided that everyone, or almost everyone, refused to believe in it at the same time. This is obvious, because capital does not have any material existence whatsoever--it *only* exists in the mind. It was thought into existence, and it can be thought out of existence (not that I believe this will ever happen). You are, however, right to say it is not an illusion akin to God (for God is not an illusion)--it is an illusion akin to Satan.
Yes, but in my eyes that can only happen by some kind of process whereby we confront capital to a greater and greater extent - surely thats the only way that *enough people* would recognize that they have to do so - its not like we can all agree to by telepathy, or that all people would do so without some kind of confrontation/evidence that everyone else is doing the same. But as a social relation and all that, it would reify it a bit to say that it exists anywhere except in people's minds.phildwyer said:
How do you sugest that you get the capitalists to stop believeing in it? What if God wnats to keep it "alive"?
The mind-body-financial value thing is as loopy as this guy's little eyes
. How many types of substances do you think there are at least 4 - mind, body, god, financial value. Any more? I'm seriously quite interested!Edit: And I reckon it would be called back into existence if people started believeing in it again. Or maybe more properly if our huamn activity (God wasn't it) recreated it.
