boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
"So it seems that unless you have a trusted substitute for money, the
money system or some barter-based substitute will rear its ugly head
very quickly and give you all the problem associated with the money
system (inflation, deflation, accumulation)."
Yes. And just because you eliminate currency exchange-- or manipulate or manage it in some bureaucratic way-- doesn't mean you are going to deal with inequity. Currency is the result of inequity, and not the cause. In so-called "socialist" societies like China, capital just changed its personification-- it did not go away, and there was no social revolution.
So it seems to me that there is an enormous deficit in Marxist ideology and that is an almost total lack of Marxist finance. It's almost incredible that an ideology could be so influential while, it seems, basically wishing away the entire social phenomenon of money and proposing no real orderly way to create a substitute for it. Marxism must be a very good idea indeed to survive such a big hole in the boat.
boddi
Actually if you read them most of the Marxists had fairly clear ideas about possibilities for economic organization and "finance," so to speak. They would have been mistaken, though, to plan for a revolution that was due to break out in several different places and times. The bourgeoisie did not plan a financial structure to their society per se; it emerged dialectically out of fluctuating social realities. You can't just play god and make up an economic system and then switch it into 'on' mode by breathing in your nose. Sure, you can theorize as the Marxists did based on socio-historical realities, but it has to emerge out of critical practice.
--adx
---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20051229/9de5f8c3/attachment.htm>