As a rule:
Conservatives see banks and financial institutions as rightful stewards of wealth, capital and currency. Unless they are run by Jews who are, sacrosanct Israelis excepted, liberals in good standing. Then, banks are of course institutions for the promotion of social decay. George Soros demands it...
Otherwise, for the run of the mill conservative, a bank is a force of nature, by which he means, immanent supernatural imposition. God ordained banks, in order for the rich to save up their hard work and rugged independence. How else will they "create jobs"?
Liberals understand banks as fundamentally necessary, but unfortunately prone to corruption and mismanagement; if only enough money is moved from banks to credit unions, the managing partners of banks and financial institutions will, obviously, come to their good senses and begin to make choices within the parameters of good corporate citizenship. The problem with a bank, for the average liberal, is not so much the concentration of wealth, but the temptations which that concentration brings to bear. For the liberal, the solution is to be found in struggling against temptation.
For the Marxist, a bank is a future instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat, brought into existence by historically bound human efforts which couldn't violate the Mystical Dialectic, even if they tried. During the (duh, brief...) transitional phase from state socialism to blessed holy communism, the banks will be subject to strict five-year planning. Then, as if by magic, everything will become horizontal and the banks, along with the state, will "wither away." If you believe otherwise, please report for re-education.
For the anarchist, there already are no such things as "banks." What you see is a building, and people inside of it persuaded by their own business in fiddling with screens, ledgers and imaginary numbers to believe they are doing something, anything. What you see is really what you get, though. Everything to do with a bank is pretense, self-deception and fiction, however deadly.
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
4 comments:
Jack, you gotta read more about Marx and his work before you make claims about modern Marxists. That paragraph sounds like something I'd expect from Joe McCarthy. Can you point to anyone who still believes in five-year planning or rule by technocrats?
And your "by magic" phrase would apply better to anarchists than Marxists. What are the practical steps from capitalism to anarchism in anarchist thought? At least Marxists include a phase of democratic decisions being made by the people as they figure out the best way to use their resources.
i dont want to answer for jack, but the practical steps would be 1) stop believing in money, 2) stop believing in the state.
obviously, civil war follows, but civil war is life.
Money is a fine illusion. A means of exchange is a lot of fun and convenience when it isn't believed to be the exchange itself.
Your online handle is a lot of fun, too, but there's still a soul behind it. You use the handles and you use the dollars; there's not a problem there unless you forget what's behind them.
Will,
I am familiar with Marx's original works, having read almost everything translated into English.
I'm not really taking aim at Marx, anyways. Marx, as mentioned below, was far fonder of ambiguity than his prophecy-besotted self-appointed inheritors.
What I object to are still-enduring Marxist epistemic judgments. Marxists share traits, and like anyone, are conditioned by material environments. In the US, especially, that means that they are (a) fucking academics and (b) full of the same shit as their forebears.
I've no argument with Marxist critique of the number of anarchist schools. Lots of that shit is valid. My argument is with the mysticism innate to Marxist philosophizing, and with the tendency of Marxists to ignore materiality in favor of grand plans for a history of tomorrow. I reject that tendency, because it lacks the very material support Marxists claim to embrace.
Nor do I doubt, for a moment, that if Marxists were to "seize the instruments" that we'd be seeing five-year plans and glorious goals of the revolution in short order.
That's the coded DNA of Marxist thought, and it didn't go away just because the Leninist and Maoist state experiments were miserable failures.
*
Anony,
Right. On.
Arka,
Huh? Ah, nevermind.
Post a Comment