Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
(22 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A:</span><span style="position:relative;top:5px;color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (e.g. Objectivism), etc. In ordinary discourse in the bourgeois countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning form outside China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed. RC is the distinctive form based on wage labour, the joint stock firm, and the state and other institutions that serve it.<br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A:</span><span style="position:relative;top:5px;color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (e.g. Anarcho-, Objectivism, ...), etc. In ordinary discourse in most countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) in sole or shared command (typical,y with a clerisy or bourgeois representative system) of the economic heights is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning form outside China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed. RC is the distinctive form based on wage labour, the joint stock firm, and the state and other institutions that serve it as a class conspiracy usurping social production for its private gain.<br>
<br><span style="position:relative;top:-10px;">  In short, capitalism is a metabolic corruption of production while Capitalism is [[:en:Base and superstructure|<span style="color:cyan;">culture</span>]] built on that base.<span></span><br></li>
<br><span style="position:relative;top:-10px;">  In short, capitalism is a metabolic corruption of production while Capitalism is [[:en:Base and superstructure|<span style="color:cyan;">culture</span>]] built on that base.<span></span><br></li>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span></span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span></span></li>
<li style="position:relative;top:10px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
<li style="position:relative;top:10px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly based on #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values.</span></span><br></li>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly structured as in #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values including at every developmental stage of RC and in its momentary circuits.</span></span><br></li>
<li style="position:relative;top:25px;">Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> Don't buying and selling and money imply the Capitalist model of the enterprise/firm, joint stock ownership by non producers, etc.?<br>
<li style="position:relative;top:25px;">Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> Don't buying and selling and money imply the Capitalist model of the enterprise/firm, joint stock ownership by non producers, etc.?<br>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form.</span> </span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form. If you have participated as a worker in wage labor markets unless you are dull or have aspirations to be a master and don't really in the end care about production, you are probably keenly aware of how profit extraction is the only true religion in this form of production and the degree to which efficient production is violated in favor of the expression of the master slave relation between Capital and Workers up to and including CEOs who act as living embodiments of Capital in production.</span> </span></li>
<li style="position:relative;top:35px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?</span><br>
<li style="position:relative;top:35px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?</span><br>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A: <span style="color:lime;">#3 answers the first part, the second haven't done as of last edit of this page. The distinguishing thing is I am in the end, in sofar as the thing delivered at the level of social production is concerned, essentially the sole producer. The fact that I am able to do that upon the basis of considerable prior production notwithstanding, as that's the general condition of production at any point in culture. Continued on discussion page. </span></span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A: <span style="color:lime;">#4 answers the first part, the second haven't done.  Continued on discussion page. I'm a primitive Capitalist in the sense Marx refers to in the final sentence in the quoted passage above (cf. "self earned private property" further down in V I ch 32).</span></span></li>
</ol></blockquote>
</ol></blockquote>
<blockquote>   
<blockquote>   
Line 69: Line 69:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
As commonly defined<ref>[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803124745503 <font color=lime>Oxford definition</font>]</ref>, means token ownership via shares in otherwise received capitalist production whether private, publicly traded, or state cap.
As commonly defined<ref>[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803124745503 <font color=lime>Oxford definition</font>]</ref>, means token ownership via shares in otherwise received capitalist production whether private, publicly traded, or state cap.
<html><div style="position: relative;top:-70px;float:right;"><center><img title="Gissey, c. 4353" style="height:250px;" src=https://meansofproduction.biz/images/Louis_XIV_habillé_en_soleil.jpg><br><audio style="height:12px;" title=" 'Messiah, For Unto Us a child is given' - Handel 1741. " controls source src="https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/ForUntoUs.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> This &sect; has an audio but your browser does not support the audio element.</audio>
<html><div style="position: relative;top:-40px;float:right;"><center><img title="Gissey, c. 4353" style="height:250px;" src=https://meansofproduction.biz/images/Louis_XIV_habillé_en_soleil.jpg><br><audio style="height:12px;" title=" 'Messiah, For Unto Us a child is given' - Handel 1741. " controls source src="https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/ForUntoUs.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> This &sect; has an audio but your browser does not support the audio element.</audio>
</center></div></html>
</center></div></html>


Line 88: Line 88:
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<html><img style="display:none;" src=https://juan.ai-integration.biz/xasppage/xasppage.pl?XASPPAGE_STYLE=0&P=SP></html>

Revision as of 00:21, 9 March 2025