Ok who gives a fuck about growth. Why would one need economic growth? Well here's the thing. Money is not a good asset. It's abstract. It's worthless. It depreciates. The ruling class does not love money. It's not a miser living in squalor with paper under the bed. The ruling

Class is competing with eachother to attain tangible assets. To own actual wealth: use values including of course the most valuable of all, humanity, who make all the use values. Money is a condition of this ruling class struggle that they inherited from the last. they're stuck

With it. And being clever as they are they have found ways to modify it to make it more a tool than a constraint for themselves. An instrument or class war. But economic growth -- more money changing hands (same house sold, but at a higher price, represents growth) -- is what

The ruling class efforts to get it's hands on all the tangible assets, all the use values in the world, in the system of market organization of production and distribution, was going to look like _UNTIL_ it could _resume_ more direct exploitation. Until it has made certain

gains in the class war.

*inherited from the PAST

Bill Gates has no interest in economic growth . There's virtually no economic activity on Thomas Jefferson's Monticello plantation or in Auschwitz. The slaves made no wages and bought no stuff. That's Gates' dream.

The ruling class today is doing better than ever. It is smaller and has more power, more asymmetry, than ever. It is richer than ever. The fact of the tendency of rate of profit to fall doesn't trouble it. Why? Because it doesn't rely on selling commodities in markets for

its accumulation of tangible assets, of real wealth and power, dominantly, anymore. And it is at the point of never having to fret over this ever again.

Even though Marx explains all this, I feel that some people who have a larping aspect to their communism feel this fact hurts their brand that history continued seems a betrayal of their Bolshevik outfits. Spoils their fantasy. Almost devalues Marx. They want Capital to be a

an evergreen description of the status quo, which it isn't of course, as well as a timeless lesson in the analysis of histical human affairs, which it is. It is not enough for these people that Marx got capitalism right at time of writing, they want it to be in their perpetual

hipster nunc. A magic clockwork like the eternal scheme of Freud, with the unchanging psyche from the dawn of society to the end of time. This profound refusal of the lessons Marx taught somehow usurps the position of Marxist conviction. It's #screendamage

Marx is proven more completely right every day. His theoretical speculations have become empirically proven facts. The polarization of classes. The socialization of labour AND of capital.

But Marx' work was unfinished. We have to remember he had a list of books to write -- about imperialism, about land -- and we should know what these books would have said. In the guise of orthodoxy this larpers take Capital as scripture whose incompleteness is divinely ordained

So that we must conclude that commodity production of goods for market distribution was according to Marx trasnhistorical code and engine of the cosmos, and, er, in petty bourgeois style the allegory of the eternal individual psyche

I'm going to write A Marxism and Mediology 101 using Don Quixote as my heuristic. Because the petty bourgeoisie, who is the true capitalist class really, the capitalist par excellence -- big finance is aristo really not bourgeois -- has that idealist individualism that insists

on seeing social relations as allegories of the Bourgeois Individual Psyche or Soul. Readings of Don Quixote are really revealing of politics, paradigm, anthropology, cosmology of their authors and appreciators