[lbo-talk] more on the psychology of money

[Carrol Cox]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
>  
> Schwarzman's need for more is shaped by American capitalism, for
> sure, but his need for more - every deal Blackstone has done has
> affected the lives of many thousands of people - shapes the world we
> live in too.

Near the end of the Odyssey Odysseus remarks that he can go raiding and
easily make up for the wealth which the suitors have used up in their
carousing. (This is from memory.) Let's say he will land and  pillage a
lot of woolen cloth from Island A.  What happens if he doesn't? Not
necessarily anything: that is, his leaving Island A alone will not
result, necessarily, in someone else raiding it. That _could_ be the
result, but there is nothing in the non-act of Odysseus to trigger
another raider's act. And what will Odysseus do with that cloth he has
risked his life to obtain? He will put it his storerooms until some
important visitor drops by and he will give it away. Why will he give it
away? Because that is what one does with wealth in the World of Odysseus
if one is a bigshot. It is not clear whether giving away wealth ever
increased wealth or power (or at least nothing I remember reading
discussed this), and it is not even clear that giving away was
_necessary_ for retaining the wealth and power one already possessed.
But it is clear that for whatever reasons powerful men in the world of
Odysseus did go to a lot of trouble to collect material for no other
purpose than to give it away to guests.

And Achilles, knowing it meant his death, went to war for Glory, and not
just ordinary Glory but what his mother, a goddess, had promised him,
Glory beyond that ever achieved by any man. And what is Glory? Glory is
not symbolized by Briseis, Glory IS Briseis,  so in depriving  him of
Briseis Agamemnon has destroyed the essence of Achilles, Achilles is no
longer Achilles without Briseis. Nor would the mere return of Briseis
return meaning to his life, for as a mere bargaining chip for his
fighting prowess she is no longer Glory but merely another woman.
[Probably another billion or two would contribute at least in giving
meaning to Schwarzman's life, though quite possibly neither he nor his
therapist nor someone who only knows him through newspaper accounts
could explain the mental state which makes that the meaning of his life.
Again psychology fails.) [The substance of Glory is to kill Hector, the
mightiest of opponents, whose death then seals the death of Achilles.
The whole poem, of course, moves towards Achilles' recognition that the
death of an enemy is also tragic, as he identifies Priam with his own
father, and thus implicitly himself with Hector. The whole foundation of
the poem trembles, and that is why Homer stands so far above Dante or
Shakespeare.

Achilles, Schwarzman reach (at whatever sacrifice) for what _their_
world gives to them as that which gives life meaning. If we could
analyze either in detail we might (but more probably would not) be able
to understand the psychology  involved, but understanding it we would
understand more about that particular person, but nothing more about the
world that made that person possible. There's a horrible mixing of
categories, to the damage of each, when psychology gets mixed up with
understanding the huge sea of social relations within which each
individual, in his/her own (mostly unidentifiable) way lives his/her
history. No materialism is more vulgar than that which fancies it can
build a world from understanding individual psyches. If by some mystic
intuition we were to grasp the heart of Schwarzman's psychology we would
have no additional  knowledge whatever of the social relations of
capital. All we would know at the end of the investigation would be Gee
Whiz, CApitalists act like Capitalists. Who wudda guessed it.

Carrol