And that isn’t going to last, take advantage of it while you can, America.
You can build domestic industry and jobs without this dumb shit. It’s just going to reduce the purchasing power.
And that isn’t going to last, take advantage of it while you can, America.
You can build domestic industry and jobs without this dumb shit. It’s just going to reduce the purchasing power.
I don’t have the energy for this atm so will try to reply later (if anyone else wants to help me out go for it). But just… No, IMO (as said a bit out of it atm) this sounds incorrect.
Limited capitalization =/= capitalism, I agree (Dengism, or the NEP, etc. are examples of that). But I think we’d need to define what we mean by “capitalization” (the term which I was using since @BashfulBob@hexbear.net used it).
The definition from a quick google alone as an easy (+lazy, as said not quite up for it entirely- someone save me pls
) answer would be essentially… Accounting.
Thats understandably, not the context we were using (maybe innacurately, idk) the term “capitalization” for, given how it was first introduced into discussion (by @BashfulBob@hexbear.net ).
I was using it (and put it alongside the term in parentheses many times) as essentially- “financialization.”
I guess where I’m getting at is “financialization” is not a requirement for industrialization or production.
Also, of course, production (and thus actual value) and trade and/or the division of labor (“the actual economy”) and all can exist without capital, and predate capital. And I’d go so far as to say that capital (not just capitalism- but capital) is not a prerequisite for industrialization, though it is certainly the most efficient and viable mechanism to promote it thus far.
And even if we were to say that “all industry/production requires capital” - that does not mean that industry/production = capital. The two things are different, with the latter meant as something akin to a unit of measurement (and exchange) or the former.
As Marx said:
While I wouldn’t claim that labor = production/industry (though it certainly has far more correlation than capital and production), I think it demonstrates my point…
I think you’re confused about what capital is to begin with (in BashfulBob’s comment at least). Capital is the means of production. It’s the machinery, the tools, etc. Capitalists are called that because they own those things. Under socialism, the workers will own it (directly or via the state), but the capital still exists. You definitely cannot have industry without it.
Financial capital is a thing but this is not what the person you replied to was talking about and it doesn’t make any sense to think the U.S. would need to “recapitalize” if it meant financialization. The U.S. is already a fully financialized economy. Recapitalization here refers to bringing industrial capital back.
You mention Saudi Arabia “swimming in capital” in response to Bob saying that they are trying to build it beyond their oil industry. That’s not accurate. They’re swimming in money, money isn’t the same thing as capital.
Still low energy and woke up (dysfunction) but this cinched it, admittedly- I’m certain now that the confusion is on your end.
Capital =/= the means of production (though under capitalism as a system has control of said means of production).
Hell, the theoretical end goal of communism is to abolish capital- not just “capitalism,” but capital. And certainly it is undeniable if you think of it- the means of production existed long before “capital” ever did.
And yes, money is capital. Whether that “capital/money” be in imaginary fiat currency, imaginary stonks, imaginary ugly digital apes, or gold and silver (which while having true value, all the same are used as a measure and form of speculation).
Think about it. Do you really think communists seek to “abolish” the means of production? Do you think that capitalists simply arbitrarily own the means of production through some magic mumbo jumbo rather than through the mechanism of capital? I don’t know where you got the idea that capital = the means of production from, but I’m sure that it is doing far more harm than good in preventing actual understanding of the subject.
deleted by creator
You should probably take your own advice. I’m not humoring this anymore, hopefully someone else will knock you out of it. Imagine thinking capital = the means of production. You may be communist or think you are (probably are just deeply ill informed) but this is ridiculous, you’ve internalized the neoliberal brainrot concepts over what is actually and tangibly presented within Marxist or even classical liberal analysis.
You are correct, sorry! I was at work when I replied earlier and didn’t read you properly or didn’t comprehend properly what you were saying, so yes, the confusion was on my end. I’ll delete my previous comment.
The use of the word “capital” to mean machinery etc is colloquial and non-Marxist. Marx uses the more specific term “constant capital” to refer to capitalist investment in these things, while “capital” itself is a broader term referring to the social relation of self expanding value of which these things are simply a part. Thank you for setting me straight, usually I’m pretty good at understanding when the word is being used in the colloquial sense vs the Marxist sense but again I was sloppy because I was replying while at work and not paying enough attention.
Now that I think we are on the same page let me try again with the point of my original comment, I was just trying to clear up where I think you were talking past the other user because they were using the word one way and you were using it in the more correct Marxist way. I think when the others were speaking of countries “recapitalizing”, they meant onshoring, or bringing the constant capital back into their own borders.
I- huh. Thanks for clearing it up, sounds like we were both reading each other wrong (speaking the wrong language effectively) then.
NGL thanks for responding on that actually, I actually was disappointed at what seemed like the end result of the conversation (seemed so close and yet so very far). FWIW I also was being sloppy and not paying the most attention (as said in various other comments- tired, no energy for it).
And yeah, their take on it was what I was trying to respond to initially.