On 01/11/2014 05:45 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote: >> 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules >> are set by non-rich people. > Exercising authority or influence doesn't necessarily mean having rules > or setting them. "Off with their heads" ought to get above the bar. > It seems odd and biased to a capitalist world view to talk about the net > worth of a communist society. I would think the Marxists would argue > for revolt because the class structures and their valuation schemes were > suboptimal to the greater good.
Right, I understand. If pressed, I probably agree, as well. But the position I'm arguing, now, is that power = money. (Power is equivalent to money, though I admit it's not identical and the reaction can take time and energy.) I'm proposing that marxists and communists are wrong or deluded in some sense. Money will always (eventually) dominate as the way to store power. Yes, you can seize a government with force. Yes, you can get things done by pure force of personality or influence. And, yes, real assets like guns/ammo, land, actual gold, water, coal, oil, etc. can be "burned" in the execution of power. But only money has the fluidity required for maintaining power and control. Hence, it's futile to try to define a society or a government without money being a central/essential part of it. The inference from that is that for money to work in a predictable way, you need the rules. Even if the rules arise organically from the type of money (promissory notes, scarcity of something like gold, whatever), the rules are necessary. The inference goes like this: Seize power. Transform some/most of that power into money. The define rules so that you (and your clique) keep that money. Hence, the rules are set by rich people. Where the rules are based on something else (hereditary royalty, constitutional republic, etc.), then the rule set will be more stable and can be decoupled from money to some extent. But in the end, the stability comes from competent management of the power storage ... money. E.g. an idiotic King can bankrupt the country and, thereby, lose power. E.g. a communist regime can mis-distribute the money so that the transformations into and out of various assets (military stockpile vs. food for the people) lead to instability or weakness. This is ultimately a failure to set, follow, and maintain the right rules. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Mutant rags and big T.V. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
