> ^^^^^^ CB: A lot of people say somethingsimilar to what you say.I wonder whether you have heardof Marx's concept of "ficticious capital", as far asexplaining the dynamics of financecapital. Then as I pointed out to you,the proposal to nationalize the banks intoa single creditor system is pretty fresh, even though it's 150 years old.
The piece Michael Perelman linked to discussed the fictitious capital
concept. I was partly responding to that.... I think Iceland had a
completely state-owned banking system until the early 1990's, for what
it's worth. I doubt it lived up to the Manifesto's standards.
> Also, are you aware of Marx's emphasison changing the world , not just interpreting or explaining it , that isoverthrowing capitalism, not just reformingit based on good analysis and interpretation? This canmake the comparison of Marxand Keynes a comparison ofapples and oranges.
>
>
>> What is your purpose in perfectingyour explanation of crises and financecapital ? I think maybe that Marxists havea different project than you do, andthat's why they see more value inMarx's writing even though he died125 years ago.
Yes, I do believe I've heard of that. But I thought we were talking about Marx's value for interpreting the world right now, not his value for changing it (although no doubt I'm overlooking the abolition of the distinction between theory and practice). As far as the point of all this is concerned, I'd say (1) pure intellectual curiosity; (2) prediction, insofar as possible; and (3) being able to provide the masses with a plausible and true explanation of what the hell is going on. I guess my main objection to the notions I've been criticizing is that they don't seem either plausible or true to me.
> Also, since Marxthere has been Lenin,Hilferding, Monthly Reviewcomrades ,et al. ,who have built on Marx's basics
> particularly with respectto the rise of monopoly and finance capitalism. Marx's fundamental ideasare stlll valid, like some ofDarwin's ideas in biology, even thoughDarwin died long ago. Much of Newtonianphysics is still valid,even though hedied more than 125 years ago. Surely youdon't think capitalism is totally differentthan in Marx's day. Things change, but somethings take a long time. Until wehave socialism, capitalism is the more things change, the more theystay the same, and thus ancient Marxis on time still.
>
This reification of timeless "capitalism" (yet always changing! - a dialectical unity of opposites, no doubt) is another pet peeve of mine, but I'll spare everyone.....One hugely important aspect of capitalism that has changed since Marx's death, as Doug noted, is the radical separation of ownership from control. In Vol. 3 of Capital, Marx notes this phenomenon - which was at only a very rudimentary stage at that point - and makes the following remarkable observation. He says that in stock companies (corporations),
> The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and
> presupposes a social concentration of means of production and
> labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital
> (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private
> capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings
> as distinct from private undertakings. It is the abolition of capital
> as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself.
Since then, it's become the dominant mode of production. Bet you hadn't heard private property had been abolished!
SA