A quote worth discussing.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

"That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for (i.e. which money can buy). That I am, the possessor of th money. My own power is as great as the power of money. The properties of money are my own (the possessor's) properties and faculties. What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality. "

I think this quote speaks volumes about the world today.

Thoughts?

[Godslayer Jillian]

I'm not sure if I actually understand it. Is it actually equating identity with capital?

If so, if you are what you concretely posses, who are you when you lose it?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

In a nutshell, it states that so long as creation is done in exchange for money, and not from spontaneous will and desire, then we will forever be judged by our ability to make money, our ability to buy, and overall, our status in the callus cash nexus, will be the sums of our identity, regardless of our individuality. In effect, so long as it persists, we will have no true individuality, we will be alienated from it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Who wrote this?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Who wrote this?

Karl Marx, actually.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I just got it.
I read professor instead of possessor and thought "..the fuck?"

[HumanePain]

One could distill it as:

"The limit of my individual power is proportional to the limit of my individual money."

But this is incomplete.

It would be more accurate to say:

"The limit of my individual power is proportional to the limit of my individual money and the power conferred to me by the organization that pays my individual money (salary)."

This would be valid for say, President Obama, who is paid a mere (relatively speaking) six figure salary, but who also has the power to launch world wide nuclear war, a power that some despots would consider priceless.

[viscus]

Money is not the only way to get things. One can also coerce, flatter, and steal, for example.

[Despanan]

That has got to be one of the most rambling, incoherent things I've ever read.

Is there a better translation? I assume it makes more sense in German.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

That has got to be one of the most rambling, incoherent things I've ever read.

Is there a better translation? I assume it makes more sense in German.

Well yeah, but 160 year old german doesn't transfer well.

[Nike]

Ah, the economic and philosophical manuscript of 1844...

I think it's much easier to understand in context... and the context is rather important here, since Marx is expounding a passage of Goethe's Faust that reads:

“What, man! confound it, hands and feet
And head and backside, all are yours!
And what we take while life is sweet,
Is that to be declared not ours?

Six stallions, say, I can afford,
Is not their strength my property?
I tear along, a sporting lord,
As if their legs belonged to me.”
(Mephistoles, Faust I, scene 4)

You can read the whole manuscript in context here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ipts/power.htm

and here you can read the original:
http://trotsky.org/deutsch/archiv/ma...l/3-4_geld.htm


The German version reads much better, and actually, 160 years old German isn't so much different to transfer than more recent German - and the translation - expecially out of context - seems to be much less clear to me than the original.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Part of the quotes was, "I am stupid, but I can afford the most brilliant thinkers to work for me, therefore, am I not smart?" I think that's faust.

[Nike]

You obviously didn't read the text.

The Faust passage Marx refers to is quoted above. What you are speaking of is this passage now: "I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has a power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?"
And this is Marx's interpretation of the above quoted passage of Faust.

Now go read the whole text.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Nike

You obviously didn't read the text.

The Faust passage Marx refers to is quoted above. What you are speaking of is this passage now: "I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has a power over the clever not more clever than the clever?

That's basically what I just said.

Don't be so pedantic.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

I wrote an essay on this quote:

Jacob Drori Political Science 5 June 2nd, 2009

Marx said many things, and while people, usually blindly, write him off as a communist nutcase, much of what he said transcends communism and hits the very sad core of the society today. One thing in particular plagues our society, and he said it best:

That which exists for me through the medioum of money, that which I can pay for
(i.e which money can buy). That I am, the possessor of the money. My own power is as great as the power of money. The properties of money are my own (the possessor's) properties and faculties. What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that in today's society, as well as his society when he wrote this, money is what society will use to define you, and what you use to define yourself. You can be the dumbest man in the world, yet if you have the money to hire a team of geniuses, you yourself become a genius. You may be the worst painter in the world, but you can buy the best paintings, and then you yourself will become an artist. Money alienates us from ourselves and each other. We are no longer a brilliant man or woman, no longer a fine painter or a great craftsman, we are now simply what we do to make money. A factory worker, a CEO, a merchant, a day laborer. The most rotten, exploitative man in the world, one with no morals or values, will be looked up to simply due to his large amount of money. People who may have one hundreth your intelligence or moral fiber will look upon you like scum because of your money, or lack there of. It's so programed into us that we start to believe it ourselves. When someone asks you what you do, your first response is what you do to make money. When someone wants to learn about you, the first thing out of their mouth is where do you work. We've become nothing more than dollar signs with feet.
Moreover, our individuality and our personality have nothing at all to do with our success or place in society. Ask the average person who they aspire to be like and their answer is usually a rockstar or a lawyer or a doctor. Ask them why and their answer is, "they make good money". That alone proves Marx was right about money replacing people's individuality in society. No longer do people do things based on creative desire or happiness, but upon what yields the most money. If a job makes you rich, miserable, and unsatisfied, it is acceptable so long as you have money. Indeed, you become nothing but your money. When a person says they are a lawyer, people automatically think, "he must be very rich". Not that he must enjoy debating, or at least be skilled in the art of argument, or even somewhat intelligent, but that he must be rich. "That I am, the possessor of the money."
"My own power is as great as the power of money". Today, our rulers are not the wisest, the fairest, the most morally right, the most learned, but people wealthy enough to show a trillion advertisements on TV, even when any intelligent person could see that the advertisements are pure bullshit. Our leaders, in turn, are so absorbed by this concept of money being more important than morals or justice, that their actions are guided by economics and what will satisfy their financial backers. Wars have been waged with no visible cause other than to secure more money in one deviant way or another.
"The properties of moeny are my own properties and faculties." In society, money is being used as a measure of someone's success, intelligence, and overall quality as a person. It has become an all too sad reality that those who are considered leaders are those who are deemed rich and powerful instead of righteous and fair. Not only that, but something of even greater disgust is that money is now used as a deciding factor in romantic relationships. People will often judge the quality of their date by the apperance of their clothing, the cost of their car, and the prices on the menu of the restaurant they take them to. Anyone who splits the check instead of paying the thing entirely is viewed as a cheap skate, and it is rare for people to be interested in people of less money. The institution of marriage itself is nothing more than a business agreement with pretty lace. The concept of a prenuptual agreement is, in and of itself, proof that money is all important to marriage. "I love you and wish to spend my life with you, but incase that doesn't work, I want to make sure I get my fair share of the money we make". That's a true sign of the callousness of money and it's damage on human relationships. If a marriage fails, the first thing people do is run to a lawyer to divide up the assets, to divide up money. The institution itself has become so perverted that it's a wonder anyone even wants to be married anymore.
"What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality". The worst thing of all is that we start metabolizing this bullshit. Unless we go to college to get a degree we hate ourselves. Not because we did not take the chance to learn, but because without a degree you can not get a good job and good money. Education and schooling have long been two seperate things. People go to school, not to expand their mind, but to get good grades so they can get into a good lawschool and bury themselves behind bullshit legal cases for a king's randsom. All dreams of being a musician, a painter, a writer, or a craftsman are thrown aside when realized that they don't produce a lot of money. Indeed, society itself is set up that the only way to survive in it is to make a lot of money so you can buy a big house you don't need, fill it with shit you don't want and raise a family you can't relate to with a spouse you can't stand. Money has alienated us from ourselves.
Indeed, money has permiated into our consciousness so deeply that all of society has become as shallow as a shot glass before the ocean. We spend our lives miserable to get things we truly don't need. Even our concept of needs has become warped. We will no longer be satisfied with the sufficient amount of goods to keep us alive and healthy, but wish to have as much excess as possible, even at the expense of our own individuality and in spite of our better judgements. Families of three are living in houses that could hold six, buying food that could feed twelve, and wearing clothing that costs more than it does to clothe thirty people in clothing that is just as good.
Marx hit the nail on the head. The all too sad reality of it all is that what we are is nothing more than our ability to make money, and in fact, the only reason that is important is to those making money off of us. It keeps us controlled, it keeps us obedient, and it keeps us working. The American Dream, the fabled ideal life, is to start your own business, make good money, buy a good house, a nice car, and a big television so that you will be happy. All those things simply cause you to have shallow goals, toil away in misery, and alienate yourself from the world, including your own self. Another brilliant man, George Carlin, said it best, "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

"That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for (i.e. which money can buy). That I am, the possessor of th money. My own power is as great as the power of money. The properties of money are my own (the possessor's) properties and faculties.

To cause a thing to happen is not the same as accomplishing a thing. For example, no one reveres the man who commissioned the painting of the Sistine Chapel; it is the artist who retains credit for the work and, therefore, ownership (from a historical perspective). I suppose it helps the dreams of the poor or the self esteem of the rich to pretend that the power to possess is identical to possessing the power.

They would be deluding themselves.

What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality."

This section assumes that money is an equalizer when, in fact, money is simply an amplifier. Money doesn't change a person; it only makes them more of who they really are, who they always were. From this perspective, who a person is solely determined by their own unique talents, vices, virtues, and failings. Their environment (in this case, money and what it can buy) may have some influence over the how and the why, but it cannot be the only determining factor in who they are.

I think this quote speaks volumes about the world today.

Yes and no. While the power of money is recognized, most people are aware of the fact that social capital (such as the fame of celebrities or the influence of politicians) holds more power. It could be said that famous individuals or political figures wield large sums of money, and that this is what forms the base of their power within our society. I would say that without their massive social capital, they would not have the same access to the level of wealth their fame or political status allows them.


- Heretic

[HumanePain]

Because one has money to pay the salaries of others does not make one a genius. I think we are all missing the other case of someone with money who spends it.

Remember the proverb "a fool and his money are soon parted".

One can have money and be a fool, not a genius. By being taken advantage by scammers and prostitutes plenty of lottery winners have proven this sad fact.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

You truly think famous people control things? Foolish! I am talking about those who own the capital. The CEOs and Directors steering this massive corporate juggernauts.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Yes and no. While the power of money is recognized, most people are aware of the fact that social capital (such as the fame of celebrities or the influence of politicians) holds more power. It could be said that famous individuals or political figures wield large sums of money, and that this is what forms the base of their power within our society. I would say that without their massive social capital, they would not have the same access to the level of wealth their fame or political status allows them.


- Heretic

I completely disagree with that. Celebrities and politicians get media coverage.
So what?
That's not power.
It's not celebrities who decide to bomb south vietnam to protect American interests from the unraveling o the domino theory.
It's not celebrities who put a total trade embargo on Cuba to bully it into accepting capitalism.
It's not celebrities who commissioned the murder of forty thousand Indonesian farmers that wanted collectivization.
It's not the celebrities who sold nuclear weapons to Iran to fund right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua. You can't even blame SOLELY Reagan in that.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Thank you, Jillian. And, as it is plainly known by most, politicians are often bought and sold like cattle.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I completely disagree with that. Celebrities and politicians get media coverage.
So what?
That's not power.
It's not celebrities who decide to bomb south vietnam to protect American interests from the unraveling o the domino theory.
It's not celebrities who put a total trade embargo on Cuba to bully it into accepting capitalism.
It's not celebrities who commissioned the murder of forty thousand Indonesian farmers that wanted collectivization.
It's not the celebrities who sold nuclear weapons to Iran to fund right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua. You can't even blame SOLELY Reagan in that.

You misunderstand where I was going with this. I was referring to all forms of influence. The form of influence most applicable to the examples you raise would probably be ideology. Money is only a means to an end, a means worth nothing without a governing ideology.

The American interests at stake during the Vietnam War revolved around the Cold War against Communism. Similar conflicts were fought all over the planet for almost 50 years (The Korean War, The Russian War in Afghanistan, etc.). The Cuban embargo was a moderate response to the formation of a Communist government 29 miles away off the coast of Florida, a response that exploded into the draconian embargo we see today following the Cuban Missile Crisis, again another skirmish in the clash of ideologies we call the Cold War.

[You'll need to elaborate on which historical round of killings in Indonesia before I can address this aspect of your post]

And the Iran-Contra affair was the illegal funding of pro-democratic forces in a civil war, again driven by ideology rather than simply money.

I would also urge caution on selling the power and influence of celebrities and politicians short. The popularization of a philosophy or a trend seems silly until it causes huge shifts in our society. How much money did Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr. have to work with? Yet their influence over the laws governing this country and the direction our society has taken is immense.

I call that power money can't buy.

Also, I am very surprised that you would dismiss politicians as nothing more than a kind of celebrity, living off media coverage and having no real power. Would this include Abraham Lincoln, a man who not only managed to keep this country unified, but forced it toward living up to it's own promise of liberty and justice for all? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man who guided this country out of the worst economic collapse in its history, then managed total, all-out war on two fronts, on different sides of the planet? And to I need to go into the backstories of Presidents Obama and Clinton? Both born dirt poor and raised Middle class, they became the most powerful men in the world through uncommon intelligence and sheer force of will.

Money is a tool to be used by the great and powerful; it is not what makes these people who they are.


- Heretic

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

And, as it is plainly known by most, politicians are often bought and sold like cattle.

A misconception. Just as those with money will attempt to buy influence, those with influence will attempt to attract money. Every competing politician has his or her backers. Money is easy enough to come by that frontrunners and incumbents get to pick and choose whose money they accept. This means that more often than not, they accept the money on their own terms and do with it as they please. They are not simply paid for and installed as puppets of the Military Industrial complex, the Illuminati, or whichever power people suppose really governs things behind the scenes.

Not to place too much control in the hands of the politicians. Essentially, what exists is a symbiotic relationship. For example, politician intent on increasing the oil revenue of his or her state as a means of lowering the tax burden of their constituency is predisposed to accepting campaign contributions from Shell or Exxon. Executives for oil companies are inclined to make contributions to political campaigns are predisposed to giving to politicians who will champion legislation that will improve their overall revenue.

The relationship most politicians have with their biggest supporters is predicated on a "win-win" scenario; both sides want to find people who will work in their best interest. Establishing the existence of a common philosophy is essential to producing a winning campaign, and a winning campaign is a sound investment for the savvy investor...er....campaign contributor.

Our political system is not just two competing parties fighting it out under the umbrella of a monolithic bureaucracy; it is a tangle of competing factions, some gaining in power as others fall, some disappearing as others come into being. Each faction has its champions and its financial support structure, all with shifting, even competing loyalties. To say that one critical element of this machine is little more than a powerless commodity is to ignore the complexity of system, both historic and modern.


- Heretic

[Godslayer Jillian]

There's too many points that you raise, but these two are the ones that jumped out the most. Tell me if there's another one you also feel has to be addressed:

First, you mention that "the Iran-Contra affair was the illegal funding of pro-democratic forces in a civil war, again driven by ideology rather than simply money."
As a Latin American who has studied in detail US intervention in Latin America, I find this as offensive as it is incorrect.
The contras weren't democratic at all. They were a far-right downright terrorist group who specifically targeted civilians to force the government to abide with US policy. The Sandinista government was perfectly legitimate, enjoying an over two-thirds popularity even during the 'civil war.' Meanwhile, at the highest point of Contra support (regarding the number of people that would call themselves members of the Contras), of the slightly over twenty thousand of them only became Contras due to the financial assistance the US promised them if they were to be victorious.
So no, it's not ideological, it's more monetary, and it sure as fuck wasn't democratic.

Second: "How much money did Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr. have to work with? Yet their influence over the laws governing this country and the direction our society has taken is immense."
Care to tell me how much? It's also offensive to believe that Martin Luther King WAS the Civil Rights Movement, and pretty naive to believe that that one man caused such an 'immense' difference. Black men still suffered even after Martin Luther King's death, and their struggles have only ameliorated through painfully slow accommodation with the State putting so much friction against it. For instance, you realize how long it took for states to recognize Martin Luther King Day as a holiday?

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

There's too many points that you raise, but these two are the ones that jumped out the most. Tell me if there's another one you also feel has to be addressed:

First, you mention that "the Iran-Contra affair was the illegal funding of pro-democratic forces in a civil war, again driven by ideology rather than simply money."
As a Latin American who has studied in detail US intervention in Latin America, I find this as offensive as it is incorrect.
The contras weren't democratic at all. They were a far-right downright terrorist group who specifically targeted civilians to force the government to abide with US policy. The Sandinista government was perfectly legitimate, enjoying an over two-thirds popularity even during the 'civil war.' Meanwhile, at the highest point of Contra support (regarding the number of people that would call themselves members of the Contras), of the slightly over twenty thousand of them only became Contras due to the financial assistance the US promised them if they were to be victorious.
So no, it's not ideological, it's more monetary, and it sure as fuck wasn't democratic.

I had not intended to offend you. My opinion is based on what I know of this conflict.

You will note that I did not say that the group known as the Contras were paragons of democracy. The series of illegal actions known as the Iran-Contra Affair in fact funneled money to many different groups, much the same way the CIA funneled money and weapons to the various groups in Afghanistan collectively known as the Mujahideen . The requirement for that money was not Democratic reform (look closely at the political philosophies of the Mujahideen and others supported by the US over the past 50 or so years), but opposition to the Sandinista government, a government that, while legitimate, was based on Socialist ideology. Look at the recent ideological friction between Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the former President Bush. The rhetoric has nothing to do with money; it's all about ideology. The 80s version of this ideological battle between allies of Ronald Reagan and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega resulted in the Iran-Contra Affair and the illegal support of revolutionaries intent on the overthrow of a foreign government that the US did not approve of.

Second: "How much money did Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr. have to work with? Yet their influence over the laws governing this country and the direction our society has taken is immense."
Care to tell me how much?

My apologies; I should have elaborated.

Susan B. Anthony was the central figure in Women's suffrage movement. She is the most famous of the prominent figures who fought for women's Civil Rights. The movement she help to lead achieved it's goal with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

This amendment granted women the full rights and privileges of citizenship. What effect did this have? Look at the achievements of women over the past 100 years. The vast majority of those achievements would not have been possible without passage of the 19th Amendment.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was the most prominent figure in the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The crowning achievement of this movement was passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned a wide variety of discrimination against individual citizens on the basis of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity (while it only affected those Federal laws and regulations, it effectively trumped the widely adopted localized race-based laws and regulations known collectively as the Jim Crow Laws).

What effect did this have? Beyond creating protection for the exercise of the full rights of citizenship by African Americans, it guaranteed that this same protection would extend to women (providing additional protections the 19th Amendment lacked), people of different religions, and people of all other ethnic backgrounds.

It's also offensive to believe that Martin Luther King WAS the Civil Rights Movement, and pretty naive to believe that that one man caused such an 'immense' difference.

I never said King WAS the Civil Rights movement, just as I never said that Susan B. Anthony WAS the Women's Suffrage movement. I only used these individuals as examples of prominent individuals who prove my point that fame and influence provide more power than money.

To your point that it would be naive to believe one man could make a difference, examples that invalidate that opinion are too numerous to list. And while there is some room to argue about the impact of a single individual when it comes to political or social movement, you have to ask yourself: was that individual really so interchangeable that any number of others could have stepped into those same circumstances and achieved identical accomplishments?

Black men still suffered even after Martin Luther King's death, and their struggles have only ameliorated through painfully slow accommodation with the State putting so much friction against it. For instance, you realize how long it took for states to recognize Martin Luther King Day as a holiday?

While I can agree somewhat with that statement, the truth of it does not diminish the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was perhaps the greatest African American citizen this country has ever produced. As a Black man, I am very aware of the struggles that have continued after his death. What seems to be missing in that portion of your opinion, however, is some perspective on the way in which social change works within a society. Social change on that level isn't like flipping on a switch; it takes decades, if not hundreds of years for entrenched traditions and social attitudes to change. Looking back over the past 40 years, the change King helped to effected has progressed at an amazing pace. In that time, we've gone from Black men being beaten for sitting at a White's Only lunch counter to an ethnic minority presiding over state dinners in the White House.

The "painfully slow accommodation" you speak of is a matter of context. Consider the fact that slavery in the Americans lasted almost 500 years, and was abolished in the United States only about 145 years ago. Taking into account that fact that African Americans have had legal equality for only about 45 years, I see the speed of change since passage of the Civil Rights Act as surprisingly fast.


- Heretic

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Look at the recent ideological friction between Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the former President Bush. The rhetoric has nothing to do with money; it's all about ideology.

Yeah, the reason why they are ideologically opposed is because of economic interests. If the conflict is between capitalism and socialism, how on earth can you infer that it's not about money?