M-C-M'.
Money capital is the Eden of capital. From this the motions of all its actors spur, towards its possession they return. From it, the whole machinery of capitalism is set in motion. It is the basic principle of the processes and labour of capitalist society, the true fount of all of these. It is the truly motivating force, the active principle of capitalist processes. Yet it is, despite this, insubstantial, as Marx and others displayed in explaining the 'law of value.' The whole 'system' is hence unstable.
Now, before continuing, let us clarify some things. When Marx and so on derive money from the 'form of value,' they are also describing it historically. They begin from the 'commodity,' seeking to explain what a 'commodity' is in general terms. Value is treated as inseparable from the 'law of value,' which is merely a further examination of value's actual nature. Likewise, money is explained as a function of value, as expressing the abstraction inherent in value. Hence, these are historical categories. They can nonetheless take on different traits in different 'systems' and times.
In capitalism, forms of labour are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to abstract labour, as forms of objects are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to an abstract, exchangeable substance. Nonetheless, stripped of these properties the objects are precisely - nothing. Not can such labour be performed, though it is expected. People are set an absurd task, and hence phrases like 'rigged economy' now prominent do well to illustrate this. However, what counts as 'labour' here might be unclear. A person standing on a road could be labour, especially if on video; a person jumping from a cliff could be labour, suicidal, or both. Hence, it would be more exact to say that capital strips 'human activity' and therefore being of its distinguishing features, or represents its reduction to nothing. This might seem to equate capitalism to death, which we shall comment on in a later post. Capital does not check each specific type of activity, to check if it is abstract or nothing - obviously, it could not be. It reduces them to nothing, then it assimilates things into this. However, this means that money is merely an expression of this nothingness stripped of concrete traits. Its own properties become disregarded, except in general associations - and when Marx for instance tries to examine it in depth they are lambasted, as people would rather money rush from here to there without having to look at it. Hence, as money or investment becomes the primary principle of society, at the same time it turns out to be a chimera, and hollow. Such a society is not stable in its progression. At its heart is emptiness, the mere abstraction from determination.
Well, unless you are me, and are acclimatised.
In money, discordant things are brought into a 'system,' or at least 'pseudo-system.' Hence, alongside human societies you have a 'community of things' which does not care for differences or 'determinate being.' Hence, the tendency of money towards forming a 'society' is evident, and given explicit recognition in 'capital.' Marx also noted that money as a disruptive force had been earlier criticised by many social commenters, who viewed it as at least a hindrance. People like Socrates urged social coherence as a counter to such discordance, as a way of cohering the various aspects of society and the human soul. This is in some ways akin to more modern socialism. They hence emphasised 'planning' and the harmonising of society into a consciously organised system. However, their account was still limited, and acknowledged opposed forces into this despite the inevitability - that they feared - of this Republic and the Greek society dissolving. Nonetheless, the Roman Empire would then distort Greek themes while Jesus likewise distorted Judaism into a new, eerie tone, somewhat like German National Socialism would then explicitly alter socialist themes. They were hence intimidating, dangerous Empires haunted by past ghosts, unfamiliar and difficult to surmount. The Romans absorbed the Greek multitude of deities and 'Romanised' it or turned it in a single direction, so a tendency to monotheism was always implicit in their situation. Even Christianity, in the Trinity, evolved polytheistic impulses, or attempted to peddle polytheism with monotheistic tendencies as monotheistic. In this they were merely a lesser representation of the Roman Empire's strange culture. They should be seen alongside other tendencies, such as Emperor-worship and the tile of Caesar derived from the 'martyred' Julius Caesar. However, while all of these were eventually caught up in a crowded religious maelström, Christianity with its pseudo-monotheism could come closer to synthesising these tendencies.
Christianity was appropriate to the time, and tried to dilute itself enough to seem acceptable despite divergences. It could be said that the weakness of Christianity undermined Rome, this is only partially true. Its 'weakness' meant that it could be integrated into Roman culture more freely, without throwing it off track.Further, it was adopted in part due to the weakening of Rome, and merely had to express these conditions. With the decline of Rome came also the revealing of Rome's inner forces in a clearer form, without the same show of grandeur - although this might not have been clear at the time.
The later significance of these religions might vary. In a time of suicide bombing, for instance, it need be no surprise that religions like Christianity are seen as mere 'Western' or socio-political entities, and otherwise unspectacular. However, it has to be noticed that along with the sacrifice of Christ came a vision of general sacrifice and being outcast, a religion where God is 'sacrifice.' Kierkegaard's later distinction of 'divine' and 'human' concerns, as well as emphasis on 'suffering,' come close to recognising this essence. However, the formulation of capitalist society, with its emphasis on worldly accumulation as a spur for all human activities and on indiscriminate consumption, is often quite far from Christianity. In this sense, Christianity formalised several things inherent to 'suicide bombing' and similar dedication to a cause, nonetheless despite this religious worth it also paralysed them. When one shoots a gun, a bullet is ejected and is no longer there. This is a similar tendency. However, things such as sin are less transferable, and cannot be taken up unless one oneself sins. A religion of forgiveness is, in the West, merely a religion of ignoring religion and other demanding views, it does not matter whether the means of this forgiveness is understood or coherent.
In lieu of religion - the assertion that Christianity is taken seriously across the Western world is unrealistic - society takes recourse once again to objects, yet now without the semblance of the divine. Hence the frequent social pessimism, often reactionary, is in part a result of this 'worship' without worship. There is a certain directionless to it. Capitalism, though it tends against opposed political forces, could profit from them in appropriate circumstances, and hence appears unstable. However, they can also easily be assimilated or 'co-exist peacefully,' while their groups are hence set at each other's throats. They are hence neutralised, in part by their own permission. The flaws of capital are displayed, not used - and capitalism could just as well do this by itself. Capitalism nonetheless is in essence slightly closer to 'Christianity,' forcing people into opposition and exalting in money something that cannot be consumed. Yet it still takes this exchangeability as its central property, it is not non-consumption but indiscriminate consumption. To appraise it from a Christian perspective is to take up a critical perspective, or view its categories in their self-defeating nature and 'exploit' that. In wealth there is dearth, a contradiction that undoes it; in display there is danger, wealth must not dictate over dearth or it destroys itself - its self being merely dearth. In the concept of capitalism's contradictions and decline due to them there is a hint of the 'religious.' Hence, from a Christian perspective, to praise capitalism is to criticise it and posit its self-defeating nature, to attack it is to do that. This perspective is rare among Christians, who even if they are ascetic cater to the capitalistic world often without notable discrimination. Even moreso among paid preachers, who somehow generally consider God reducible to abstract labour in pragmatic self-interest. It need be no surprise that Christ died for money - and yet among Christians unlimited monetary gain is praised.
Where are the Romans when they could be useful, eh?
Of course, countries like America might have an uncanny similarity to the Imperium Romanum, especially with the similarly-named USSR doing their best impression. Curiously, after the 'empire' rising from a nation titled as 'Romanus' or romance, a term with notable connotations, you hence have a pseudo-Empire which aspires famously to a dream of 'marriage' while 'rich.' Of course it would be a pseudo-empire, as to marry in abstraction is merely to remain locked up. This aptly dove-tails with the contradictions of the nation, which divides and locks itself into separate places yet wishes to constitute itself as a nation despite this. Others are also viewed as abstractions. With 'romance,' one might rather wonder whom with and how to do this if it doesn't matter. Which is an apt companion to the pagan multiplicity of Rome. This might be slightly more coincidental than the United States of America, whose name suggests very clear associations. And an atomised state is primarily a name.
It goes without saying that liberalism's trumpeting of 'love' as against a movement for American patriotism, with pop music and other noises, is essentially running backwards on a treadmill. Even moreso, because it is incoherent in a society proclaiming its defence of capitalism, and compared to capitalism. Who are you loving? How? Can you make a politics out of 'love' for an abstraction shorn of traits? Love is ultimately the opposite of that, it deals with traits. Clearly people are to conjure something from this emptiness. Yet to reduce love to an abstraction is rather to negate it. Hence, again, it undermines itself and serves its opposition - nationalism, national sovereignty, radical politics, Corbynism (notice for instance its turning against people like Momentum, in favour of comfortable imperialists like Jo Cox funnily enough), extremists, essentially anything at all radical or anti-establishment in direction. Nonetheless, it tries to persevere, like a disease. People literally tearing themselves apart for nothing in particular or at all, like smallpox (variola major, perhaps.)
Yet capitalism is always allied to this empty worship, albeit not quite in this exaggerated form. From money capital all things flow, to find it people run onwards. It offers control and directing of activities, and forms structures of authority that are nonetheless hollow. A 'Party of Labour' is either asceticism or farcical - labourers do not labour to stay labourers, unless they are ascetic, but would prefer to approach capital. It is either to posit limitation and asceticism - in which case why not go all the way? - or alternatively they are nonsensical. A Party where everyone would rather escape, by design and also according to their continuing adherence to capitalism in any way, is a peculiar formation that no doubt invites its difficulties. Really, without asceticism Marxism is nothing, and with it it is still just a knock-off. In general, of course, representative Parties allow capital and the bourgeois to further dictate what labourers get up to, as if they need that after capital's authoritative mediation in everything they do and consume - hopefully with notable scrutiny. 'Labour' can never hold true authority or even more rule in this system, it is an expression of subordination. If it strives to rule, it will soon undermine - only itself. The other classes have not been caught up in this illusoy striving. However, to express a sense of limitation is, although contrary to the point of labour, at least an opening to people who want to repudiate the values of the system instead. And besides, what is 'labour'? Labour is how rioters are locked up, how an assassin shoots you, how a political deceiver lies to you, it means little. If people were to be paid for videos of rape, then it would be labour. When labourers could well be paid to kill each other, and this is their 'labour,' then for either to act in the interests of 'labour' would be to invite and congratulate the person who wishes to kill you. To posit a unified interest from this particular 'labour' would seem an absurdity on the face of it. Hence, what actually occurs is usually to ignore the labour and instead substitute rhetoric about the 'brotherhood of men' and 'harmony,' which are ultimately just conservative. It is merely some sort of pacifism in radical garb. This renders it essentially empty, in most cases.
Nonetheless, if in a capitalistic or pseudo-capitalistic context people are reduced to undifferentiated things without traits, they are not truly there. Hence, the emphasis on 'love' has seen a massive emphasis on funerals - more and more praise is heaped on the dead. Society is therefore converted into a funeral, which implies that it is misrepresenting its security. However, people are hence converted to money and sought, leaving them powerless to go forwards because they are simultaneously being used. In the process an 'informal aristocracy' builds, with musicians and others increasingly ignoring their competition and proclaiming harmony and close 'friendship' with any nearby, keeping others out. Many old trends have been revived, to make up for the barriers that have been recently erected. However, capitalism relies on drawing people towards money, to take part in a cycle where accumulation and money are central. If people are widely treated as money, directly, then they are forced into stasis and cannot seek money freely because they are under constant surveillance, continually an object. It ends up in stasis. While the abstract person usually existed in capitalism, this was kept at a degree of separation, not turned into an economic and general object to be encountered freely. It were better to be loved by a 'hater,' than an advocate of 'love' in this now reactionary and liberal form, for whom both it and you would truly mean nothing.
We shall discuss soon the ways in which liberalism often degrades capitalism to something below its stature. The economy ultimately obstructs its own goal, it does not allow for people to settle down into the households they aim for. It sets enmity at the heart of this, and decisively prevents people from being secure around others. Capitalism is a system of insecurity and conflict, considered on its own part. If they want crowds, it instead gives them rivals and dangers - if they want law, nonetheless there cannot be a law because nobody looks out for the law and the state, only for their own person. There is no law, merely caprice. Rape is a caprice, the law is also a caprice - if caprice may be treated as law, because it is caprice and leads to one's own pleasure, this were merely to spur on rape and similar things. Hence, capitalism itself sets little stake on the journey which it sets out before humanity. If you wish to please others, then according to capitalism you might as well commit suicide because what they aim for in the system is your undermining. As we will suggest later, the 'way forwards' that capitalism sets for people in its functioning is not one that it emphasises. Hence, the need for 'liberalism' to try and accommodate for the continual need to take capitalism in a direction it does not want to go. In many ways capitalism, by setting a void at its heart, gives no way forwards except to notice its transience.
Hence, capitalism is like being stuck in divestment with no clearly present way forwards. Capital itself must begin with nothing - no traits to defend oneself, no traits that might appeal to others in this context, no traits at all, nothing to offer and usually nothing to receive. Hence, capitalism can often be like people being thrown to sharks. In this sense, the system is often carried out in ways which ultimately are disharmonious with it and undermine it. This is another side of the system, however it is obscured and in its process this is hidden. The system makes demands, yet these are clearly vulgarised everywhere. It lacks 'authority.'
Nonetheless, despite this the process takes a void as its principle, and as the aim where it shall return. People continually, and passionately, enact this in a way that also undermines themselves. In this lemming-like process, however, the possibility of transcending this cycle appears. Yet there must be a certain truth to it, or a connection to humanity, or it could not interact with their societies. The cycles must connect. As such, capitalism is a process, however it lacks a clear direction. Due to this, it must remain a distortion of the process of human society, not directly a form of it. This is its strength, that it continually undermines human aims, tears movements apart (the alternatives to this are rendered artificial and false), and gives processes a deathly pallor and direction. However, it nonetheless remains finite and self-limiting, and must be transcended.
