Secondly, Wojtek is just being deliberately ignorant again when he speaks of collusion: this is as silly as 9/11 conspiracism, for it reduces capitalism itself to a conspiracy. And it also makes it impossible to analyze, _politically_ the interrelationships of education, general culture, the interests of specific capitalists (with names and addresses) and the dynamic of the abstract capitalism which Marx tried to catch up in his analysis of commodity fetishism. Relevant here: first he notes that relations among people appear as relations between things. AND THEN he notes that this is because it really is relations between things, not persons.
Thus when (for agitational purposes) we note how comic it is to see the capitalist as the steelmaker rather than those actually producing it, we are also wrong, for by doing this we obscure the alienation of the worker. The worker sells his labor power to the capitalist, The capitalist then OWNS that labor power: it is HIS power, not the worker's power. And with that power he has purchased (in a perfectly just and fair transaction), the capitalist produces steel. The worker does not produce steel because he does not own his own labor power.
It is the failure to focus on this abstract heart of capitalism that misleads Wojtek and others to make so much fuss over the politicians in Washington. He and others who do not understand commodity fetishism cannot see that in a capitalist society cannot be changed by changing the people who run the corporations or make and enforce the laws. Nor can it be changed by changing the laws or by the nominal ownership of the enterprises which have names and addresses.
It is the relationships that constitute capitalism that must be destroyed because as long as those relations which must be destroyed (essentially, the wages system, not "the" market, because markets are of great importance in many other social systems). Posters on this list have tried to make a distinction between Moral judgments and "Moralism." There is no distinction. Passing moral judgments on social institutions or on groups of people, regardless of one's intentions, constitutes moralism, which obscures and frustrates clear thoughjt.
I don't know, and Wotek doesn't know, what are the private motives of the academicians he scorns. His idea of deliberate collusion is merely absurd and merely serves to make actual analysis possible of the interrelationships that tie together capitalist society, education or thought, and the actual institutions and individuals who constitute the actual capitalism at a given time and place. Though stops with self-justifying sneers at "those others." Substitute "moralism" for "usury" in the Cantos, and it brings that poem closer to empirical accuracy.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Wojtek S Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 8:36 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Inside job
True, but it is the nature of the subject, no? It is all about collusion between academics, businessmen and politicians, and cooking numbers - which does not turn easily into flicks that appeal to popular tastes. Michael Moore's films may have more of popular appeals but they lack the "personal indictment" power that Inside Job has.
For in my view, most of the critiques of capitalism are weak and ineffective because they focuses on abstract systemic features and misses human agency - or men behind the curtain. What Inside jobs shows is that finance capitalism could not exist without its "vanguard party" composed of organic intellectuals showing what is possible and cooking up arguments for it, businessmen who back these ideas with their money, and politicians who pass laws making the implementation of these ideas possible and shielding their implementers from legal liability. It lead to a logical conclusion that one does not need a revo and "withering of the state" to implement far reaching systemic changes - incapacitating a handful of people forming the vanguard party of finance capital will do.
Wojtek
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> It's been out for some time.
> As documentaries go, it ain't that great, its political relevance aside.
> Mostly guys in suits talking.
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, finally I managed to see "Inside job." Two reactions:
> >
> > 1. There were only about 20 people in the theater. I understand, it is
> > xmas, but this is the only one theater in the DC area showing this film.
> > Discouraging.
> > 2. The film did a great job reminding that capitalism is not some
> abstract
> > system - but it has real names and addresses.
> >
> > Wojtek
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk