I agree with you on everything except one aspect: money is power and control in this system. Abstract authority is meaningless and most of those who seem to have only this are pieces to be moved when appropriate, but the moving is done with money. That’s where the real power is nowadays.
As it were, money can’t buy happiness, but it sure can make it a lot easier to compensate for the sadness.
Yes, correct, money is power in capitalism. However, power is only sought as a means to aquire more money. Power that undermines ones own profits, such as what OP describes in their other post (that they linked), is not realistic and teeters more into conspiracy theory territory.
Said it yourself, “power [is a] means to acquire more money.” And the way society has been structured means we, the workers and consumers, are the product - we are the money (arguably always have been).
As such, it honestly makes sense to establish more and more layers of control, not only as a means of reinforcing and securing their positions (it’s harder to fight against Fascism if you can’t even call it Fascism, for instance), but also to wrangle the cattle, as it were.
I mean, if you’d be making your money off of rearing cows, you wouldn’t want them rebelling in any way. Complicates the road to profit.
Control can help facilitate making more money, but not always. Slavery was horribly inefficient for industrial work, for example, so the industrialists in the Statesian north went to war with the slaver agriculturalists in the south to expand the supply of wage laborers. Wage laborers are under less direct control, but are more willing to do complicated work, as they don’t have an assured existence.
Power is the means to the end, the end being profit. It isn’t the other way around.
Well, what I was saying is that power is intrinsic to money, any way you cut it. Whether it be through using power to acquire money, or using money as a power in itself - money can make anything move, if that’s not power, then what is?
As for the aspect of control, yes, those outdated methods were ineffective, but they’ve had plenty of time to perfect their expression of control since then. I mean, if the people in power owning the means of distributing information and facilitating communication between people isn’t control, then what is?
Money can be used to control, but control isn’t an end, it’s a means to facilitate further money. Capitalism isn’t driven by control or power, it’s driven by capital circulation and money.
I understand and agree with that, but that’s exactly my point, that control is a means to an end, but control needs to be sustained and perfected over time, and it is also necessary when a handful of psychotic apes are making their profits off of other 8.2 billion psychotic apes.
Yes, the ultimate goal is money. Yes, control is a means to an end. But you also have to take into consideration the way we’ve structured things to work so far, how we’ve built society, basically. It’s layers upon layers of influence and control, even down to basic human interactions most of the time. I’m not saying non-transactional interactions are impossible, but in a transactional system, transactional interactions are favoured. And, yes, the system itself is transactional because it is focused and built around the central and supreme value (in its conception, not objectively, to note) - money.
We have built a system of control centered around money, is my point. Because that was the most effective way to ensure stability of profit. And it is much easier and much stabler to ensure the (upward) flow of money if one controls/influences/manipulates those who actually generate the money.
I don’t disagree, my problem was with people suggesting control was the end, not profit. Control is a tool purely to help gain more profit, it isn’t the goal.
As a side-note, I do think it’s worth understanding that there are socialist countries where control is flipped, political power is dominated by the working class against capitalists. We know socialism works, we know capitalism is dying.
Oh, nonono! Control is just the most effective and mass-deployed tool, not the end! Completely agree with that aspect!
And agreed as well in that the pyramid of control should be flipped, with the people who actually generate value (i.e. the workers) at the top! It would make sense not only from an equity standpoint, but in terms of expertise as well! I find practical experience with a process is an absolute must for anyone who is tasked with managing said process, if we desire efficient (and actually useful…) management!
The workers should be dictating how things work, because they’re the ones actually working the things. That sounds a lot more confusing than it is in my head=))
By determining how the base mode of production prioritizes them. It doesn’t matter what an individual prefers, ie we could say Musk as an individual seeks power, but in doing so has to satisfy the laws of capitalism and achieve higher and higher profits to maintain it. Musk isn’t primary, the system he has to abide by is. Capitalists aren’t the masters of capitalism, as Roderic Day says they are the high priests of capital that best abide its laws, ie the pursuit of profit.
No, they aren’t “harmless” either. It isn’t about “getting a high score.” Capitalism is based on profits and selects for those that are most profitable, there’s no such thing as an “ethical capitalism” because even if a capitalist decided individually to stop pursuing profits above all else, others would overtake them and the “ethical” capitalist would go under.
Of course there’s no ethical capitalist, nor are capitalists arithmomaniacs obsessed with gaining money the sake of gaining money. Money is an expression of power, money itself is not the goal it’s the power.
Capitalism is a material, existing system that does not care about power. All it cares about is whoever best achieves profits in the system. As there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, absolute profits must be raised by rapid and continuous expansion. Power is merely a tool for that purpose, a capitalist that doesn’t manipulate the state to its own ends, etc fails to outcompete. In capitalism, even if the action is abhorant, if it’s profitable, it will be done.
By putting notions of power above profit, you utterly confuse the driving aspect of economies based on circulation of commodities and reproduction on an expanded scale, ie capitalism. It doesn’t matter if the capitalists has everything they want as an individual, if they choose to stop pursuing profits, they sink and new capitalists that are willing to continue will take their place, because capitalists are a class, and not just a group of individuals alone.
I agree with you on everything except one aspect: money is power and control in this system. Abstract authority is meaningless and most of those who seem to have only this are pieces to be moved when appropriate, but the moving is done with money. That’s where the real power is nowadays.
As it were, money can’t buy happiness, but it sure can make it a lot easier to compensate for the sadness.
Yes, correct, money is power in capitalism. However, power is only sought as a means to aquire more money. Power that undermines ones own profits, such as what OP describes in their other post (that they linked), is not realistic and teeters more into conspiracy theory territory.
Said it yourself, “power [is a] means to acquire more money.” And the way society has been structured means we, the workers and consumers, are the product - we are the money (arguably always have been).
As such, it honestly makes sense to establish more and more layers of control, not only as a means of reinforcing and securing their positions (it’s harder to fight against Fascism if you can’t even call it Fascism, for instance), but also to wrangle the cattle, as it were.
I mean, if you’d be making your money off of rearing cows, you wouldn’t want them rebelling in any way. Complicates the road to profit.
Control can help facilitate making more money, but not always. Slavery was horribly inefficient for industrial work, for example, so the industrialists in the Statesian north went to war with the slaver agriculturalists in the south to expand the supply of wage laborers. Wage laborers are under less direct control, but are more willing to do complicated work, as they don’t have an assured existence.
Power is the means to the end, the end being profit. It isn’t the other way around.
Well, what I was saying is that power is intrinsic to money, any way you cut it. Whether it be through using power to acquire money, or using money as a power in itself - money can make anything move, if that’s not power, then what is?
As for the aspect of control, yes, those outdated methods were ineffective, but they’ve had plenty of time to perfect their expression of control since then. I mean, if the people in power owning the means of distributing information and facilitating communication between people isn’t control, then what is?
Money can be used to control, but control isn’t an end, it’s a means to facilitate further money. Capitalism isn’t driven by control or power, it’s driven by capital circulation and money.
I understand and agree with that, but that’s exactly my point, that control is a means to an end, but control needs to be sustained and perfected over time, and it is also necessary when a handful of psychotic apes are making their profits off of other 8.2 billion psychotic apes.
Yes, the ultimate goal is money. Yes, control is a means to an end. But you also have to take into consideration the way we’ve structured things to work so far, how we’ve built society, basically. It’s layers upon layers of influence and control, even down to basic human interactions most of the time. I’m not saying non-transactional interactions are impossible, but in a transactional system, transactional interactions are favoured. And, yes, the system itself is transactional because it is focused and built around the central and supreme value (in its conception, not objectively, to note) - money.
We have built a system of control centered around money, is my point. Because that was the most effective way to ensure stability of profit. And it is much easier and much stabler to ensure the (upward) flow of money if one controls/influences/manipulates those who actually generate the money.
I don’t disagree, my problem was with people suggesting control was the end, not profit. Control is a tool purely to help gain more profit, it isn’t the goal.
As a side-note, I do think it’s worth understanding that there are socialist countries where control is flipped, political power is dominated by the working class against capitalists. We know socialism works, we know capitalism is dying.
Oh, nonono! Control is just the most effective and mass-deployed tool, not the end! Completely agree with that aspect!
And agreed as well in that the pyramid of control should be flipped, with the people who actually generate value (i.e. the workers) at the top! It would make sense not only from an equity standpoint, but in terms of expertise as well! I find practical experience with a process is an absolute must for anyone who is tasked with managing said process, if we desire efficient (and actually useful…) management!
The workers should be dictating how things work, because they’re the ones actually working the things. That sounds a lot more confusing than it is in my head=))
In non-monetary historical societies, the rulers still sought power.
They still sought power to obtain more material posessions and luxury goods. Power is a tool, not an end.
Why does someone with €20 billion strive to get €30 billion? Will that get them nicer food or a softer bed?
Because capitalism is a control system that selects for those that are most profitable. If you don’t grow, you die.
You’re making a distinction between
How would we empirically tell which is happening?
By determining how the base mode of production prioritizes them. It doesn’t matter what an individual prefers, ie we could say Musk as an individual seeks power, but in doing so has to satisfy the laws of capitalism and achieve higher and higher profits to maintain it. Musk isn’t primary, the system he has to abide by is. Capitalists aren’t the masters of capitalism, as Roderic Day says they are the high priests of capital that best abide its laws, ie the pursuit of profit.
Didn’t you know all that capis want is a big number? They’re basically harmless little redditors trying to get a high karma score that’s all.
No, they aren’t “harmless” either. It isn’t about “getting a high score.” Capitalism is based on profits and selects for those that are most profitable, there’s no such thing as an “ethical capitalism” because even if a capitalist decided individually to stop pursuing profits above all else, others would overtake them and the “ethical” capitalist would go under.
Of course there’s no ethical capitalist, nor are capitalists arithmomaniacs obsessed with gaining money the sake of gaining money. Money is an expression of power, money itself is not the goal it’s the power.
Capitalism is a material, existing system that does not care about power. All it cares about is whoever best achieves profits in the system. As there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, absolute profits must be raised by rapid and continuous expansion. Power is merely a tool for that purpose, a capitalist that doesn’t manipulate the state to its own ends, etc fails to outcompete. In capitalism, even if the action is abhorant, if it’s profitable, it will be done.
By putting notions of power above profit, you utterly confuse the driving aspect of economies based on circulation of commodities and reproduction on an expanded scale, ie capitalism. It doesn’t matter if the capitalists has everything they want as an individual, if they choose to stop pursuing profits, they sink and new capitalists that are willing to continue will take their place, because capitalists are a class, and not just a group of individuals alone.