for those following the saga of colin drumm vs larry neal, ethan buchman has potentially found the source of his terminology error. Postlethwayt (1774) uses "drawee" correctly at the bottom of this page, but defines it incorrectly at the top. this looks like a typesetter error
my guess here is that "called by some the drawee" was added in superscript in the ms. intended to come after "he who is to pay it," but was incorrectly incorporated by the typesetter into the previous phrase! and here hundreds of years later our literature is confused.
great find by @buchmanster
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Cannot express how deeply hilarious it is to me that this is an active debate in the reception of Marx in the 21st century.
If you ever needed proof that intellectual progress can be negative this is it
But I've recently had a breakthrough about this that explains many of the mystifying comments I've received over the last 15 years. Since I just read Marx and not much secondary literature on him I couldn't grasp why people were so confused about this. But it finally clicked
it should be a simple thing to say that "money is a political problem," but saying that puts you at odds with both marxists and MMT. for Marxists, money isn't political at all, it's just an expression of value. and for MMTers, money is political and therefore not a problem.
the fact that there's all this deeply obvious stuff about money that everyone refuses to see is a sign of deep repression.
why repressed? well because it's about sex and violence, duh. and it's very hard to be normal about sex and violence.
mimbres school is the only place where all of this is being theorized together. it's this enormous, fascinating problem that everyone just... left to us
in a just society everyone would have access to a publicly funded lawyer and accountant who can simply explain to you how you are supposed to follow the rules for whatever thing you want to do. Figuring out HOW to follow the rules is way harder than following them
I want to follow the rules! I love following the rules! Please tell me how!
But of course we live in a fucking tollbooth economy, most of the GDP is generated by tollbooths, so they don't want to make it easy for you to just do stuff if you can't afford to hire private lawyers and accountants to tell you how to follow the rules.
criticism of economics would be more effective if humanities academics scored fewer own goals. e.g. if you are like "economic should historicize its knowledge, it's POLITICAL economy not just economics" that just shows that you yourself dont understand the intellectual history
"political economy" was already the project of containing politics by economics, there is no relevant difference here. there is a methodological difference that is basically just learning calculus but the project is the same
political economy is not more politicized than economics, whether you're talking about ricardo or marx it makes no difference
problem is that there isn't any such thing as "capitalism" w/ its "immanent contradictions" and "laws of motion." these things don't exist, because economic phenomena are nominal and (counter-)performative rather than real and necessarily-appearing. if so, nothing left of marxism
the only responses to this are to a) deny that things are like this, which is empirically false and requires you to refuse to examine what actually appears, or b) deny that marxism claims anything in particular, at all, as opposed to just being kind of a vibe
can anybody remind me of the name of the kind of philosophy where you synthesize a priori categorical schema in terms of which reality must necessarily appear, and if reality fails to appear like that, it's reality's fault?