In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:27:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com) writes:
What you haven't done is make any coherent argument that would convince
me that the substance has changed that much during the past 130 years. Of
course there are
Substance of what? Finance capital remains fianance capital but it is not
the financial industrial capital of the time of Lenin.
Here's something from 2002.
WL.
Do you even read your own posts? You are the one who used the word
'substance'. I merely echoed it in my reply.
Again what you
In a message dated 11/26/2010 8:20:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_pegdobb...@gmail.com_ (mailto:pegdobb...@gmail.com) writes:
So am I to hope my children are less bamboozled by SW than we by SV? My
son tells me Netflix is useful to him and has higher earnings(that's SV,
right?) than USS
WL:
The quality that has changed is the substance of modern finance capital
that is outside of and evolves based on detachment from production of surplus
value.
...
Wealth today is a very super symbolic abstract thing not riveted to gold or
any tangible.
This is the change.
About the only thing Time is good for now--reading online articles I
can remember reading in my father's copy of Time back in the 70s.
Looks a lot like QE2 to me. Now instead of pegging the dollar to some
sort of imaginary value of gold, we have pegged the value of gold to
the dollar (and the
So am I to hope my children are less bamboozled by SW
than we by SV? My son tells me Netflix is useful to him and has higher
earnings(that's SV, right?) than USS
financial products detached from value production. Valueless production of
symbolic wealth. That is the changed quality in the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote:
As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to
what human relations create such crises.
JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis,
although he went down in history as one of those guys
In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:29:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com) writes:
However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about
the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes
people only acting out
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote:
As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to
what human relations create such crises.
JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis,
although he went down in history as one of those guys
Sorry WL but I have to disagree. For a start, I'm not sure what your
concept of Lenin's concept of banks actually is.
This time around people started to notice the crisis when there was a
run on a building society type bank in the UK.
I predicted something tumultuous would happen when I saw that
Yes, the word predict is a bit crude, but the direction of
capitalism as imperialism = finance capitalism and more and more
concentration of wealth (monopoly) fulfills the trends that Lenin made
famous. ( Lenin made Hilferding's ideas famous). And the
concentration of wealth is in the finance
In a message dated 11/22/2010 9:10:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cb31...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the word predict is a bit crude, but the direction of
capitalism as imperialism = finance capitalism and more and more
concentration of wealth (monopoly) fulfills the trends that Lenin made
I agree that concentration and centralization of productive forces grow out
of the inherent logic of industrial - electro-mechanical, reproduction. In
the Soviet Union concentration and centralization of productive forces
created expanding public wealth without centralization and
Comment
The property aspect of production relations (social relations of production
with the property relations within) have NOT changed or what is the same,
the wage labor form remains the wage labor form. Bourgeois private
property remains bourgeois although this form of wealth is
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM, waistli...@aol.com wrote:
I agree that concentration and centralization of productive forces grow out
of the inherent logic of industrial - electro-mechanical, reproduction.
CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the
.the tendency of imperialism to split the workers, to strengthen
opportunism among them and to cause temporary decay in the
working-class movement, revealed itself much earlier than the end of
the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries; for two
important distinguishing features of
CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the
capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations,
regardless of the technological regime. The computerization of production
doesn't
change this tendency to concentration of wealth. It accelerates it,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:30 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote:
CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the
capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations,
regardless of the technological regime. The computerization of production
doesn't
change
As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to
what human relations create such crises.
JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis,
although he went down in history as one of those guys who helped
overcome it. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the
Marx and Engels predicted cyclical crisis of capital, but never predicted
when its outbreak would take place after their death. Neither did Lenin.
Lenin's been dead for a while and did not predict the financial crisis - of
2008, as it jumped from big financial houses and accelerated
I don't think either CB or myself is arguing for Nostradamus status
here. What you haven't done is shown anything that would convince me
there has been some categorical change in relations of production and
capital that says this time is different different, other than history
doesn't repeat
Certainly, the possibility of reducing the
cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical
improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to
stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues
to operate, and in some branches of industry, in
22 matches
Mail list logo
