Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<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. Anarcho-, Objectivism, ...), etc. In ordinary discourse in most countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) in sole or shared command (typically with a clerisy or bourgeois representative system) of the economic heights is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning moeity with State Cap very abley represented by 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. Under State Cap the only difference is that Capital does not command the heights, it is rather commanded by them, albeit only indirectly in the form of a party committee, after the earlier debacles. State Cap is really only different from RC at the current stage of development by virtue of its coherence and competence in the single at scale instance.<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 (typically with a clerisy or bourgeois representative system) of the economic heights is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning moeity with State Cap very abley represented by 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. Under State Cap the only difference is that Capital does not command the heights, it is rather commanded by them, albeit only indirectly in the form of a party committee, after the earlier debacles. State Cap is really only different from RC at the current stage of development by virtue of its coherence and competence in the single at scale instance.<br> | ||
<br><span style="position:relative;top:-10px;"> In short, capitalism is a teleological corruption of production which in Capitalism becomes a metabolic moral and ethical corruption of [[: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 teleological corruption of production which in Capitalism becomes a metabolic, moral, and ethical corruption of [[: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 problem¹. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding Faith in Capital³.<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 problem¹. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding Faith in Capital³.<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> | ||
