ralfy wrote:americandream wrote:
If you aren't in global liquidity (which is what capital is), you aren't in capital, state or otherwise. You may be an imperfect form of socialism as in being statist. You are either in the global conduit of liquidity flow or you aren't.
Global liquidity is not necessary for state capitalism to exist.
Liquidity is capital as it:
1 It is labour value then amplified via stocks and and other non tangible assets which saw their genesis with the rise of the banks and the stock market (accumulation).
2 Drives the relentless move towards globalisation.
Earlier use of money represented static and fixed wealth such as generational land ownership or rudimentary exchange where no labour value or accumulation existed.
Confusing statist socialism with capital only makes the understanding of this particular system all the more confusing (incidentally statist socialism (the USSR, Cuba, N Korea) should not be confused with bourgeoisie socialism (Denmark, UK etc). The former has no roots in capital, the latter is capitalist with a socialised component. Capitalists prefer no expense in good times {nil socialisation) and some in bad times (interventionism) to ensure stability in accumulation.