Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<div style="background-color: black;"><blockquote><center><span style="font-family: 'Michroma', sans-serif;">Ayn Marx-Rant 4719</span></center>
<div style="background-color: black;"><blockquote><center><span style="font-family: 'Michroma', sans-serif;">Ayn Marx-Rant 4719</span></center>
<div style="text-align: justify;width='95%'; background-color: #404040; color: white;">
<div style="text-align: justify;width='95%'; background-color: #404040; color: white;">
<br>
<center style="color: pink;font-size: 14px;">
"Greedom"  (a nick observed 4719-08-08 on libera.chat#libera from NRW .de) &mdash; how perfectly it captures what calls itself freedom in the actually existing Capitalism!</center>
<blockquote>
<center>'Greed(d)om' can also be read as name for the actually existing Capitalism, similar to 'Christendom'.</center>
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible and there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, e.g. use, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, etc. and a rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, they just haven't actually been realized anywhere much like stateless communism.
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible and there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, e.g. use, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, etc. and a rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, they just haven't actually been realized anywhere much like stateless communism.



Revision as of 19:54, 10 October 2021