/lit/ - Literature

>>17424509
Yes

>>17424519
Sorry, Das Rheingold already critiqued usury.

Bump.

>>17424509
Half measures aren’t good enough. Like getting a couple of hits at a dragon you’re trying to slay. Guess why interest comes back.

>>17425597
>Guess why interest comes back.
Because it's a natural price on a postponed delivery of goods. Even socialist countries didn't abolish interest, butters

>>17425626
>socialist countries
The words of the revolutionaries have been reappropriated by the liberals, anon. Soc-dem or “progressive” nation-states use capitalism with pillows of social programs. Honey coated shit.
Charging someone imaginary money in late fees isn’t natural in the least.

>>17425690
I wasn't talking about soc-dem countries but USSR or DDR. They didn't abolish interest and neither did Marx advocate abolishing it

>>17425597
How exactly is the Ring a "half-measure" to money?

>>17424509
Reminder that Das Rheingold is the greatest fulfilment of Wagner's Gesammtkunstwerk and as a result the closest Wagner comes to a play proper. But ultimately the Gesammtkunstwerk is something much larger than all that anyway.

>>17425708
State centralized capitalism isn’t socialism either
I don’t even study Marx. I describe myself as a Bakuninist

>>17425725
Just the idea of not using usury is a half measure. The powers that be will get greedy and reinstate it every time

>>17425746
>I describe myself as a Bakuninist
>literally revolution for revolution's sake
How much do you actually know about Bakunin butterfly?

>>17425788
Why?

>>17425746
>implying Das Rheingold is more about usury than money itself
Nevertheless Wagner was not dumb enough to reject money altogether, he sometimes came close to these Platonic conceptions in statements like these:

>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews. They certainly are virtuosi in an art which we but bungle: only, the coinage of money out of nil was invented by our Civilisation itself; or if the Jews are blamable for that, it is because our entire civilisation is a barbaro-judaic medley, in nowise a Christian creation.

Though again, far more profound in being a general and moral philosophy than what is an essentially Marxian take to political theory by being entirely about particular material ideals, as is yours.

>>17425835
>Nevertheless Wagner was not dumb enough to reject money altogether
Liberals!

>>17425863
Literally what's wrong with money? You know that Bakunin didn't reject money altogether? he advocated for accumulative currency to be replaced by non-accumulative currency

>>17425863
>Wagner
>liberal

>>17425832
I like Bakunin, more than Marx and Engels, but it's pretty well known that he just liked revolution for revolution's sake.

Also he and Wagner were friends during the revolution.

>>17425889
Was the dragon metaphor too deep?

>>17425876
Exactly. The accumulative properties create/maintain unjustifiable hierarchies, institutionalize bribery and corruption on every level. All of history shows this little keystone to be whats poisoning us.

>>17425898
He was friends with Herzen too.

>>17425923
So again - what's wrong with money per se? Do you accept that accumulative properties of money are bad and that it can be replaced by non-accumulative currency?

>>17425923
>Was the dragon metaphor too deep?
How is this related to anything at all that we've just said?

>>17425942
That’s what Cockshott proposes in that book, yeah. Changes the whole nature of currency. Use that.

>>17425923
Answer me you whore!

Bump.