I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14996212
Oswald Spengler wrote:With this the notion of money attains to full abstractness. It no longer merely serves for the understanding of economic intercourse, but subjects the exchange of goods to its own evolution. It values things, no longer as between each other, but with reference to itself. Its relation to the soil and to the man of the soil has so completely vanished, that in the economic thought of the leading cities the "money-markets" it is ignored.

Interestingly, Spengler was (probably unknowingly) agreeing with Marx on this point. In a famous chapter of Das Kapital, Marx expresses it as the formula M-C-M - money is converted into a commodity (e.g., invested in industry or in the financial markets) merely in order to be converted again into more money. This leads, of course, to production for profit rather than for human need, and to fetishisation of money as the be-all and end-all of human economic activity. In more traditional societies and economies, the governing formula is C-M-C, in which money is subordinated to serve merely as a medium of exchange for various commodities; as a way of liquidising commodities to facilitate trade. In traditional societies, the accumulation of money was not regarded as the sole or even main purpose of human economic activity. And those who did regard it as such were called 'usurers'.
#14996214
No one who spins some narrative about the evils of money ever thinks that applies to his own money just other people's money, lol.

Leftwing thought leader: "Money is evil! It's a capitalist plot! Read all about it in my new book just $9.95 at all good book stores!"
Last edited by SolarCross on 28 Mar 2019 03:07, edited 3 times in total.
#14996215
Potemkin wrote:Interestingly, Spengler was (probably unknowingly) agreeing with Marx on this point. In a famous chapter of Das Kapital, Marx expresses it as the formula M-C-M - money is converted into a commodity (e.g., invested in industry or in the financial markets) merely in order to be converted again into more money. This leads, of course, to production for profit rather than for human need, and to fetishisation of money as the be-all and end-all of human economic activity. In more traditional societies and economies, the governing formula is C-M-C, in which money is subordinated to serve merely as a medium of exchange for various commodities; as a way of liquidising commodities to facilitate trade. In traditional societies, the accumulation of money was not regarded as the sole or even main purpose of human economic activity. And those who did regard it as such were called 'usurers'.


Exactly so. And therefore, whatever I might call myself I continue to be an uncompromising enemy of Capitalism.
#14996217
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, But in a capitalist economy, one needs money to survive. Money is not needed in a socialist economy. You are talking about different conditions that don't apply to the same scenarios that they are in.

It's like saying you hate the man who is pointing the gun at you, but you need his respect so that he doesn't pull the trigger.


A "socialist economy" is slavery.
#14996220
SolarCross wrote:A "socialist economy" is slavery.


I heartily disagree that it would be, as you know by now. It may or may not be possible, which is what I'm dealing with right now, but it certainly isn't ''slavery'' to be free of the grip of private wealth and private interests...
#14996224
SolarCross wrote:No one who spins some narrative about the evils of money ever thinks that applies to his own money just other people's money, lol.

Leftwing thought leader: "Money is evil! It's a capitalist plot! Read all about it in my new book just $9.95 at all good book stores!"

Why do you think money exists, SC? What do you consider its purpose to be? Serious questions.
#14996230
@SolarCross, In socialism, there is no medium of exchange, thus leaving your "trade" point as USELESS. The concept of value also doesn't exist. Slaves were denied "it" meaning that the "it" was under a feudalist economy, which was even less labour friendly than capitalism. Capitalism is closer to socialism than feudalism. But you don't realize that because you're confused you fucking retard.
#14996231
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, In socialism, there is no medium of exchange, thus leaving your "trade" point as USELESS. The concept of value also doesn't exist. Slaves were denied "it" meaning that the "it" was under a feudalist economy, which was even less labour friendly than capitalism. Capitalism is closer to socialism than feudalism. But you don't realize that because you're confused you fucking retard.


You can have your socialism just don't involve me. I'll kill any fucker that wants me for a slave.
#14996233
SolarCross wrote:Anything people value can function as money and it exists to facilitate trade between free men. Slaves are denied it of course.

But modern money has no intrinsic value, SC. It's just bits of paper (or bits of plastic now) with ink printed on them. Or discs of base metal with an image stamped on them. What gives these bits of paper or base metal their value, SC?
#14996235
Potemkin wrote:But modern money has no intrinsic value, SC. It's just bits of paper (or bits of plastic now) with ink printed on them. Or discs of base metal with an image stamped on them. What gives these bits of paper or base metal their value, SC?


Some ancient money was like that and some modern money still has intrinsic value, gold is still a thing btw. Either way it has value because people give it value. All value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
#14996240
Not a derailment of the thread, but an illustration of the sterile and ossified nature of modernist thought. Literally could not have done it quite without you, lol... :D
#14996241
SolarCross wrote:Some ancient money was like that and some modern money still has intrinsic value, gold is still a thing btw. Either way it has value because people give it value. All value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed, but I can't pay my bills with dead leaves I've gathered from my back garden. What is it that gives those specific bits of paper, plastic or base metal their value?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 13
EU-BREXIT

Referendum happened and is gone. The implementa[…]

@annatar1914 , do you also blame the Yazidis for […]

Canadian Federal Election

Just out of curiosity, do Chileans care about Arg[…]

No that's just a scam that has just been debunked[…]