Money as Metaphysics: Deleuze and Guattari on the Two Flows of Capital

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 21

  • @tribebuddha
    @tribebuddha 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    34:19 to 34:54 contains some very important statements that run counter to what is still being taught in economics classes around the English speaking world.

  • @abcrane
    @abcrane 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Regarding Keynes’ assumption that shifting monetary policy will engender a new morale of the people. Albeit a beautiful sentiment, mass psychology is not all that simple. Money is an addiction like any other drug. Hoarding (money or stuff) cannot be discouraged with a tax. It’s a deeply rooted pathology not to mention an instinct (all animals horde for the winter season.) additionally, Keynes paradox of thrift itself is a paradox - by encouraging spending we only shift hoarding of money to hoarding of consumer goods. Credit debt becomes the new beast of burden . I conclude then that it’s not about monetary adjustments but about shifts to new models of exchange altogether coupled with new hands on learning models that prioritize direct survival and artisan skill development. The worker owned cooperative here is an appropriate model for this paradigm shift .

  • @lbjvg
    @lbjvg 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    WTF? Deleuze isn’t even mentioned much less Deleuze and the two flows of Capital

    • @chaosmos24
      @chaosmos24 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Almost through the vid and I haven't heard anything related to Deleuze. Thulis professor is just regurgitating basic bitch Marxism. I feel robbed of an hour.

  • @tristanreynolds5135
    @tristanreynolds5135 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Bout 24 minutes in reminds me of a book I read recently by the d&g scholar Eugene Holland called Free Nomad Citzenship: Free Market communism and the Slow Motion General Strike

  • @jero4059
    @jero4059 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    good lecture. kudos

  • @BuckyHuxley
    @BuckyHuxley 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Really enjoyed the talk, excellent subject to take up. My working thought is money is an instrument of power. I would just say that any attempt to put your system of giving money an expiration date into effect would be considered an act of war---class war--- and would be responded to accordingly. That is a major problem for any scheme to tamper with this volatile and somewhat mysterious substance of abuse, we might say. One of the working ideas I have about this very troubling stuff (money) is to look at how it operates psychologically in everyday situations. It seems to me that we internalize or perhaps the word is introject money. It becomes an internalized Other that makes decisions and determinations for us. Many of our best human qualities and Deleuzian (to mention what wasn't mentioned) becomings are arrested by this omnipresent internalization. So I would say PAY ATTENTION TO HOW IT IS AFFECTING YOU MOMENT TO MOMENT. Thanks for thinking about it and paying attention to it. And thanks for the Keynes and Seaford references. Loved Keynes' quote!

    • @rolyars
      @rolyars 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I think the problem is that if money doesn't represent a trusted value, those with huge amounts of capital will search for other things to store their wealth, such is real estate. Which is precisely what we are seeing as a result of negative interest rates.

  • @love_exegence
    @love_exegence 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Shit starts 3:30

  • @valvequotecultureoyster
    @valvequotecultureoyster 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    This video isn’t worth your time if you’re hoping to learn about D&G. Speaker starts his argument with assumptions that should be conclusions instead. Also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of derivatives and options in financial markets - i.e. “Betting on the failure of the economy of Thailand” requires someone to take the other side of the trade. Seems like he would prefer that market participants only be able to go “long” and that no one be able to go “short”.

  • @ettawhy
    @ettawhy 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The ums!

  • @tcaw8813
    @tcaw8813 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    um

  • @demogorgon4244
    @demogorgon4244 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    i thought the ummm guy at the beginning was annoying but then at least he was understandable. the actual guy needs to take talking lessons because he just mumbles.

  • @jonclark3823
    @jonclark3823 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    You're fired

  • @anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858
    @anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 ปีที่แล้ว

    Harvestable entity. The Kingdom of Heaven is yours

  • @xspartan346x
    @xspartan346x 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Id rather hear a Deleuzean give his interpretation of the austrian school of econ and subjective value theory than just listen to basic Marxism.

  • @fourorthree2
    @fourorthree2 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Money is AI

  • @chaosmos24
    @chaosmos24 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Does this professor just take Marxist analysis for granted? Turn that critical gaze back on itself .

  • @Debord1
    @Debord1 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Professor Joshua Ramey do not sort out what he is talking about, when he talks about value, he confuse it up with moral values, in this lecture. If you can ask the question what money is, why not start to ask the question what value is (social workers power), what exchange is (exchange of comodities) and what the accountability is (a quantified form of exchange value). That was what Marx started to ask in Capital volume one. The solution to devaluate money is also stupid, we already have that, it is called inflation and it is a disaster for ordinary people. If you put that tax on bank accounts, the rich will only go out and bay some gold instead. The solution is still the revolution.