When Marxists critique capitalism, they are criticizing consumerism and inequality, which are amplified through fiat and credit. Fair enough. But they fail to understand the mechanisms of sound money that can regulate levels of consumerism and inequality.
-
Show this thread
-
Labor theory of value is nonsense. Value is determined by a consensus network of reciprocal exchange. The underlying logic of money markets is mimetic. Marxists are materialist essentialists who fail to comprehend the mimetic nature of our desires.
13 replies 8 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MimeticValue @Ahimsa_Satya_
In my opinion, value combines two different things: 1/ work exchange (money given for your work, money as purchase power, as a mean to buy others work) AND 2/ the law of supply and demand, where, truly, imitation and conflict cans deeply modify value.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GirardForum @Ahimsa_Satya_
There's something here that I've the trouble finding the words for. I think you're mostly right. Question is what is this work you're doing creating? If you're producing a good that's high on Maslow's Hierarchy, then it's still mimetic desire at the root.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @GirardForum
I think there is a confusion even here. Work is done toward a goal. A goal in itself has a value determined by market. There are various means to that end. The effectiveness of those means is valued by markets. The ends are Mimetic, the means perhaps not, tho they spread thus.
3 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Ahimsa_Satya_ @MimeticValue
Work's value doesn't completely depend on markets: you can work for yourself, it's work, it has value, it builds something, but it's not saled. You can also barter. In common experience, many goals of work are no choice goals: needs first and then some mimetic pleasures.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GirardForum @MimeticValue
Even in a market of 1 it is still a market. Barter is still markets. But I am still not sure of that. The Bible speaks of goals aiming toward security are come not from God but from anxiety and lack of trust in God. Is not Manna a sign that desire for food is Mimetic?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ahimsa_Satya_ @MimeticValue
Needs are modified by desire but are also independant: eating is a need but eating this or that can come from desire. We underestimated mimetic desire, we must now avoid to overestimate it. It doesn't explain everything.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GirardForum @MimeticValue
Needs are real, but I wonder if not the search to fulfil those needs comes from a desire for security rather than a need fulfillment. It seems natural to not desire needs to be fulfilled but to simply fulfil them. When food is scarce (always artificially) is when desire enters.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ahimsa_Satya_ @MimeticValue
The search to fulfill needs is a desire to me because needs fulfilled is dignity. When you lack of money you are constantly living humiliating experiences (being unable to pay this or that to your family, friends and so on).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The Bible seems to imply that while this might be a sin of Pride (if God wants you to starve to death, who are you to complain? Harsh but Qoheleth may agree), primarily it is a condemnation of those in power responsible for the withholding of dignity through extortion.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.