>As you imply, the hip-bone/thigh-bone discourse is
>not very illuminating. "Empirically inseparable" is
>a meaningless statement, where meaning really means
>something.
>
>I could as easily contradict what you say goes without
>saying, although you felt the need to say it, by
>saying that the whole point of the marxist analysis
>is that finance dominates production. But I have no
>desire to launch a new faction in marxism, at least
>not this week.
>
>At any rate, what matters most is not whatever
>marxist analysis says, but what is true.
Max, you're assuming the role of Mr Practicality, against the rest of us dreamy dogma-hounds, but in fact the positions are reversed: these notions of some entity called "finance" that's lording it over "production" are purely fantastic, as some of us have been trying to show you. Any attacks on the prerogatives of "finance" are perceived by the ruling class as attacks on all that's sacred - because, as you yourself concede, "finance" represents in misleading shorthand the ownership and decision-making aspects of capitalism. Finance dominates production because finance is the means by which ownership is organized in a modern economy. How in god's name do you propose to attack this without taking on the whole capitalist class?
Doug