Is credit inherent to capitalism?

Is credit inherent to capitalism?

It wasn't before the 70's.

Prove it.

Yes

Okay.

Nope. Read Graeber.

The credit system saved Capitalism in the 70's, it now requires it.

Credit is inherent to any market system. Under capitalism, credit is used to create large amounts of profit for the financial sector while it plunges millions of people into crushing debt, which forces them into the most profitable form of employment available to them, regardless of whether or not that is good for their family. And generally it is not.

However, credit can be used to create opportunities for productive ventures under a market socialist system. Some forms of production are simply too expensive to start up by way of the workers pooling their resources and starting a co-op. That is why the credit union will still exist under market socialism - millions of workers will band together to offer financial services to each other, and the proceeds from those financial services will be distributed to the people.

In this way, the workers are able to start coops that are too expensive to start on their own, and the debt is used to serve the common good rather than the private profit motives of a bank's owners.

jesus christ

which part of Graeber are you referring to, I would have said, yes, credit is inherent to capitalism. Although, credit in fact predates capitalism, but capitalism could not exist without credit, and indeed never has done for any of its history.

I would have said, yes credit is inherent to capitalism, read Graeber

You're right, I should've worded it better.

Do the workers own the means of production?

If yes: socialism
If no: not socialism

It's really that fucking easy.

But credit existed prior to capitalism.

You can't have capitalism without credit.
Like water is inherent to life
But life isn't inherent to water.
Unless inherent have also an "exclusivity" connotation in english i don't know about.

Incorrect. Anyone 'owning' the means of production implies the existence of private property. Private property is an emergent feature of production for exchange. Production for exchange defines Capitalism.

Therefore, worker ownership of the means of production is not the only condition for socialism, far from it.

...

Oh boy. You probably think DPRK is socialist because they produce for use.

The DPRK hasn't abolished production for exchange, that's ridiculous. The DPRK and all the rest of the ersatz 'socialist' states are the perfect example of states that have simply taken the role of sole monopoly capitalist without actually abolishing production for exchange. State ownership of the means of production is still private property.

...

Read his comment before you respond maybe?

Kill yourself.

Ok so, as usual, nobody agrees with anyone, and when some guy posts an interesting answer, everybody insults him?
Cool.

Sectarianism is the weapon that the intelligence community uses to turn the left against itself. I'm all about tearing down capital, regardless of who picks up the pieces. We can argue about the shape of things to come when we get there.

Incorrect. God you are just like nought for three in this thread, yugoposter.

Trying to tear down the current order without a new mode of production set to replace it is a recipe for failure. It can and has only ever led to the re-establishment of the old order in a slightly changed guise.

Not everyone who calls you retarded is FBI, dude. Sometimes you're just a retard.

The workers may manage the firms and capital, but who really runs them? As Marx pointed out, the bourgeoisie are merely the representatives of the abstraction that is capital, capital being what really has power so long as markets exist.

You're completely misrepresenting the point he made, it's almist as if you did it purposefully.
No, he's not saying he has no system ready that is able to handle shit after it collapses by some means, he's saying he will also help to build other conceptuons of socialism.
So either you're retarded or purposefully misread what he said which'd put you on the level of FBI


The people would be the ones that are in control of capital, they would be the ones "representing" it.