Hilo sesudo de economí­a polí­tica, anarquismo y empresarios hijosdeputa

[Putas y barcos]

Speech by Mr Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the Sovereign Investor Institute Government Funds Roundtable, Singapore, 6 November 2014.:
"Haced caso a la parabola del Senhor de este domingo y no enterreis el talento en un hoyo, dadselo a un banco (chinorri) paraque rente interes".
(Uno de los pasajes del Nuevo Testamento mas antiProgre que haya imaginables, pues comola nada sospechosa de believer of Ana Botin, Porfirio, puede corroborar, dice textualmente que le demos la ren)ta de nuestro senhor a los bancos para que de interes, ni fondos justos ni banca sostenible ni pollas, que rente el 100% en el tiempo que el dinero este sin circular.

Yehuda approves this message.

[Ana Ozores]

No me seas literal, cohones. Hablaba de la FE, que tiene que dar sus frutos, no vale conservarla en alcanfor. A ver si voy a tener que interpretarte las parábolas.

[zruspa]

Ven aquí­ que voy a interpretarte las parábolas.

Esta noche se lo digo a mi moza a ver cómo se lo toma.

[k98k]

Ven aquí­ que voy a interpretarte las parábolas.

Esta noche se lo digo a mi moza a ver cómo se lo toma.

Pues bien, si nos aguantan todas las gilipolladas, no te van a aguantar una inofensiva.

[Son of a beach]

Ven aquí­ que voy a interpretarte las parábolas.

Esta noche se lo digo a mi moza a ver cómo se lo toma.

Con la edad tienden a volverse muy literales, cuidao.

[Putas y barcos]

No me seas literal, cohones. Hablaba de la FE, que tiene que dar sus frutos, no vale conservarla en alcanfor. A ver si voy a tener que interpretarte las parábolas.

Cono no voy a ser literar si la metafora es con el dinero del senhor lo metes en el banco y que rente y no el dinero del senhor lo gastas en pan para los jornaleros de senhor que a mejor comidos y bebidos mas trabajaran y mas fruto sacaran de la tierra, anda que no se nota de quien es el evangelio ni nada que diria Yehuda.

[javi]

AnaPi se ha cargado al consejero delegado de su difunto padre

[k98k]

Menuda indemnización se va a llevar el elemento.

[javi]

que se monte una reposteria en un pueblo remoto y haga un programa en DMax

[poshol na]

Le ha tocado la loterí­a.

[ENNAS]

Vaya manera de dar los buenos dí­as. Pero viene a cuento de los dos siguientes artí­culos. Uno de Yorokobu resumiendo el libro "la sociedad del cansancio', de Byung-Chul Han:

"El mundo, no hace tanto, se elevaba sobre hospitales, psiquiátricos, cárceles, cuarteles y fábricas. Michel Foucault lo llamó la ‘sociedad disciplinaria’. Pero aquello acabó. En su lugar llegaron gimnasios, torres de oficinas, bancos, centros comerciales, laboratorios genéticos, ascensores-tumba y aviones. Era el comienzo de una nueva sociedad basada en el rendimiento.

Los habitantes dejaron de ser ‘sujetos obedientes’ y se convirtieron en ‘emprendedores de sí­ mismos’. La sociedad del ‘no-poder’, basada en la negatividad, se transformó en la sociedad del ‘poder’, construida sobre lo positivo, según Byung-Chul Han. De ahí­ surgió el lema ‘Yes, we can’. O, en su versión española, el nombre Podemos.

Pero este paso de lo negativo a lo positivo no implica transitar de lo malo a lo bueno. «Toda época tiene sus enfermedades emblemáticas», escribe el filósofo de origen coreano. «Los proyectos, las iniciativas y la motivación reemplazan la prohibición, el mandato y la ley. A la sociedad disciplinaria la rige el ‘no’ y su negatividad genera locos y criminales. La sociedad de rendimiento, por el contrario, produce depresivos y fracasados»."

http://www.yorokobu.es/sociedad-del-cansancio/

Por otro lado el ministro griego Varoufakis explica algo parecido pero en plan análisis marxista de las contradicciones internas del capitalismo:

«A major reason why established opinion fails to come to terms with contemporary reality is that it never understood the dialectically tense “joint production” of debts and surpluses, of growth and unemployment, of wealth and poverty, indeed of good and evil. Marx’s script alerted us these binary oppositions as the sources of history’s cunning.

From my first steps of thinking like an economist, to this very day, it occurred to me that Marx had made a discovery that must remain at the heart of any useful analysis of capitalism. It was the discovery of another binary opposition deep within human labour. Between labour’s two quite different natures: i) labour as a value-creating activity that can never be quantified in advance (and is therefore impossible to commodify), and ii) labour as a quantity (eg, numbers of hours worked) that is for sale and comes at a price. That is what distinguishes labour from other productive inputs such as electricity: its twin, contradictory, nature. A differentiation-cum-contradiction that political economics neglected to make before Marx came along and that mainstream economics is steadfastly refusing to acknowledge today.

Both electricity and labour can be thought of as commodities. Indeed, both employers and workers struggle to commodify labour. Employers use all their ingenuity, and that of their HR management minions, to quantify, measure and homogenise labour. Meanwhile, prospective employees go through the wringer in an anxious attempt to commodify their labour power, to write and rewrite their CVs in order to portray themselves as purveyors of quantifiable labour units. And there’s the rub. If workers and employers ever succeed in commodifying labour fully, capitalism will perish. This is an insight without which capitalism’s tendency to generate crises can never be fully grasped and, also, an insight that no one has access to without some exposure to Marx’s thought.

In the classic 1953 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the alien force does not attack us head on, unlike in, say, HG Wells’s The War of the Worlds. Instead, people are taken over from within, until nothing is left of their human spirit and emotions. Their bodies are shells that used to contain a free will and which now labour, go through the motions of everyday “life”, and function as human simulacra “liberated” from the unquantifiable essence of human nature. This is something like what would have transpired if human labour had become perfectly reducible to human capital and thus fit for insertion into the vulgar economists’ models.

Every non-Marxist economic theory that treats human and non-human productive inputs as interchangeable assumes that the dehumanisation of human labour is complete. But if it could ever be completed, the result would be the end of capitalism as a system capable of creating and distributing value. For a start, a society of dehumanised automata would resemble a mechanical watch full of cogs and springs, each with its own unique function, together producing a “good”: timekeeping. Yet if that society contained nothing but other automata, timekeeping would not be a “good”. It would certainly be an “output” but why a “good”? Without real humans to experience the clock’s function, there can be no such thing as “good” or “bad”.

If capital ever succeeds in quantifying, and subsequently fully commodifying, labour, as it is constantly trying to, it will also squeeze that indeterminate, recalcitrant human freedom from within labour that allows for the generation of value. Marx’s brilliant insight into the essence of capitalist crises was precisely this: the greater capitalism’s success in turning labour into a commodity the less the value of each unit of output it generates, the lower the profit rate and, ultimately, the nearer the next recession of the economy as a system. The portrayal of human freedom as an economic category is unique in Marx, making possible a distinctively dramatic and analytically astute interpretation of capitalism’s propensity to snatch recession, even depression, from the jaws of growth.

When Marx was writing that labour is the living, form-giving fire; the transitoriness of things; their temporality; he was making the greatest contribution any economist has ever made to our understanding of the acute contradiction buried inside capitalism’s DNA. When he portrayed capital as a “… force we must submit to … it develops a cosmopolitan, universal energy which breaks through every limit and every bond and posts itself as the only policy, the only universality the only limit and the only bond”, he was highlighting the reality that labour can be purchased by liquid capital (ie money), in its commodity form, but that it will always carry with it a will hostile to the capitalist buyer. But Marx was not just making a psychological, philosophical or political statement. He was, rather, supplying a remarkable analysis of why the moment that labour (as an unquantifiable activity) sheds this hostility, it becomes sterile, incapable of producing value.

At a time when neoliberals have ensnared the majority in their theoretical tentacles, incessantly regurgitating the ideology of enhancing labour productivity in an effort to enhance competitiveness with a view to creating growth etc, Marx’s analysis offers a powerful antidote. Capital can never win in its struggle to turn labour into an infinitely elastic, mechanised input, without destroying itself. That is what neither the neoliberals nor the Keynesians will ever grasp. “If the whole class of the wage-labourer were to be annihilated by machinery”, wrote Marx “how terrible that would be for capital, which, without wage-labour, ceases to be capital!”»

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist

Vamos, que el capitalismo es liberticida.

Recuerdo que en "Civilización y barbarie" Gabriel Jackson también señalaba que los soldados voluntarios sufrí­an más trastornos que los reclutas de reemplazo.

O sea, que el capitalismo es liberticida.

¿Eso explica porque los zombis han sustituido a los vampiros y los mafiosos como modelos a imitar?

EL CAPITALISMO ES LIBERTICIDA.

[k98k]

Es decir, tú te empufas, no puedes pagar, tu acreedor te alarga los plazos, te baja el tipo de interés, te da un nuevo crédito para reestructurar tu pasivo a c/p. A continuación le llamas hijoputa, le dices que la culpa es suya, le dices que otra parte de tu deuda se la cubra su hermano, y que además te pague una reforma del piso, que está un poco viejuno, bueno, y que a estas alturas de la pelí­cula que pasas de cambiar de modo de vida. De hecho, que piensas volver a darte la vidorra que te mereces, porque tú lo vales.

La gente los ha clavao.

[ENNAS]

Es decir que te toca un coche en una rifa benéfica y cuando lo recoges descubres que ya tiene 90.000 quilómetros, que el embrague no funciona y que el anterior propietario no pago ninguna letra y te las endosa a tí­. Y cuando vas a reclamar te dicen que no puedes devolverlo, o bueno sí­, deshazte de él si quieres pero las letras las pagas tú.

Siguiendo con el saludable ensayo de Varoufakis, nos viene a decir que Karl Marx rechazaba la izquierda sentimental, la que pide igualdad y justicia, la que dice que hay que acabar con los privilegios y encerrar a los corruptos en la cárcel. Vamos, que según él, Karl Marx dice que no votes a Podemos.

"In the 20th century, the two political movements that sought their roots in Marx’s thought were the communist and social democratic parties. Both of them, in addition to their other errors (and, indeed, crimes) failed, to their detriment, to follow Marx’s lead in a crucial regard: instead of embracing liberty and rationality as their rallying cries and organising concepts, they opted for equality and justice, bequeathing the concept of freedom to the neoliberals. Marx was adamant: The problem with capitalism is not that it is unfair but that it is irrational, as it habitually condemns whole generations to deprivation and unemployment and even turns capitalists into angst-ridden automata, living in permanent fear that unless they commodify their fellow humans fully so as to serve capital accumulation more efficiently, they will cease to be capitalists. So, if capitalism appears unjust this is because it enslaves everyone; it wastes human and natural resources; the same production line that pumps out remarkable gizmos and untold wealth, also produces deep unhappiness and crises."

Marx, como Schopenhauer o Darwin (de quien Marx fué uno de sus primeros defensores) introdujeron la sospecha de que el mundo no se podí­a reducir a un modelo racional cerrado pues siempre dejarí­a un "resto" imposible de cuantificar. Justamente esto es lo que Varoufakis critica de Marx, después de decir que no se puede reducir la economí­a a ecuaciones por ser éstas incapaces de estabular la espiritualidad humana, va él y se pone a montar un modelo teórico que, precisamente por sus propios postulados, no puede ser sino erróneo.

"Marx’s second error, the one I ascribe to commission, was worse. It was his assumption that truth about capitalism could be discovered in the mathematics of his models. This was the worst disservice he could have delivered to his own theoretical system. The man who equipped us with human freedom as a first-order economic concept; the scholar who elevated radical indeterminacy to its rightful place within political economics; he was the same person who ended up toying around with simplistic algebraic models, in which labour units were, naturally, fully quantified, hoping against hope to evince from these equations some additional insights about capitalism. After his death, Marxist economists wasted long careers indulging a similar type of scholastic mechanism. Fully immersed in irrelevant debates on “the transformation problem” and what to do about it, they eventually became an almost extinct species, as the neoliberal juggernaut crushed all dissent in its path"

Pero Varoufakis dice una cosa aún más inquientante. Ya no habla de modelos teóricos sino prácticos. Vivió en pleno el tatcherismo y vió como la polí­tica de crisis continua terminó con cualquier esperanza izquierdista. Acusa con éllo a Merkel y sus socios del Partido Popular Europeo de estar practicando un neotatcherismo en base al austericidio hasta que reviente cualquier oposición polí­tica. La polí­tica económica de la UE no busca la recuparación y no la busca de modo deliberado hasta que la propia UE se convierta por desesperanza en una democracia de partido único. Esta lectura también se puede aplicar a España, donde el gobierno de Rajoy, gracias a su mal hacer, está consiguiendo que implosionen todos los partidos de izquierdas.

"Even as unemployment doubled and then trebled, under Thatcher’s radical neoliberal interventions, I continued to harbour hope that Lenin was right: “Things have to get worse before they get better.” As life became nastier, more brutish and, for many, shorter, it occurred to me that I was tragically in error: things could get worse in perpetuity, without ever getting better. The hope that the deterioration of public goods, the diminution of the lives of the majority, the spread of deprivation to every corner of the land would, automatically, lead to a renaissance of the left was just that: hope.

The reality was, however, painfully different. With every turn of the recession’s screw, the left became more introverted, less capable of producing a convincing progressive agenda and, meanwhile, the working class was being divided between those who dropped out of society and those co-opted into the neoliberal mindset. My hope that Thatcher would inadvertently bring about a new political revolution was well and truly bogus. All that sprang out of Thatcherism were extreme financialisation, the triumph of the shopping mall over the corner store, the fetishisation of housing and Tony Blair.

Instead of radicalising British society, the recession that Thatcher’s government so carefully engineered, as part of its class war against organised labour and against the public institutions of social security and redistribution that had been established after the war, permanently destroyed the very possibility of radical, progressive politics in Britain. Indeed, it rendered impossible the very notion of values that transcended what the market determined as the “right” price.

The lesson Thatcher taught me about the capacity of a longâ€'lasting recession to undermine progressive politics, is one that I carry with me into today’s European crisis. It is, indeed, the most important determinant of my stance in relation to the crisis. It is the reason I am happy to confess to the sin I am accused of by some of my critics on the left: the sin of choosing not to propose radical political programs that seek to exploit the crisis as an opportunity to overthrow European capitalism, to dismantle the awful eurozone, and to undermine the European Union of the cartels and the bankrupt bankers."

[Baku]

Se equivoca en las causas, es absurdo, a estas alturas, acusar a Marx de ser ví­ctima de su tiempo y condición, pero el diagnóstico es correcto.

[javi]

Piratas de la City

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/03/04/actualidad/1425503751_810199.html