Capital is money... Omnipotence is all powerful.
The question is why. Why is money an all powerful substance and what effect does this have?
Money has a "use value" with that we must purchase certain goods, food, water, electricity, , housing and the list goes on. Not only does it have a use value for "goods" but also for services: education, workforce, maintenance, construction.
The utility of money therefore is a necessary mechanism for "doing stuff" and social mobility. To clarify this,
if you want utility (in anything) you need money. Recognising the need for money to do anything (mobilize utility) is a fundamental aspect of this argument.
Profit and competition are other concepts that need to be recognised. An individual, a company, a nation - all need to make a profit.
Recognising the "use value" of money spoken above, that profit=more money, more money means more "use value". This is circular,
the more "use value" the more one can invest in activities that produce profit.
It is from these key concepts we can spread outwards. Why is capital omnipotent.
The profit motive illustrates a self-interested mechanism of capitalism. Competition also shows itself at the level of the individual, the company, the nation, all are competing at different levels for their gain.
At the level of the individual there is a desire to make profit,
higher wages and lower prices of goods.
Profit is a desire for companies, lower worker wages and higher prices of goods.
It is interesting to note how these two profit motives are at odds with each other, and from here we can understand where Karl Marx was coming from when he suggested the term, exploitative.
Competition acts as a regulating mechanism, several companies means several wages provided therefore individuals choose the highest. Several companies means several products, so individuals choose the lowest. Respective of companies, they must provide higher wages to attract the workers and lower prices of goods to attract consumers. From this point of view free market capitalism makes sense, theoretically.
At the level of the nation, where omnipotence and it's effects really converge: nations politically entertaining their own self interest to compete and grow on an global scale and people doing the same for profit, shapes the contours of the global economy.
Nations want companies to create jobs for people so people get money. This way the nation economy grows , usually at a rate of about 2% a year, (in the uk since the economic crash it is 0.5%) that is on all lending 2% interest is paid. The nation gets more "use value" building more schools, hospitals, roads and can import foreign things.
so now we have a global economy, competition and cooperation between countries for investment (this has the effect of enlarging companies and creating jobs and profit thus growth), jobs (money for individuals & growth) and companies (these equal: profit, growth, investment and jobs) .
If these are economically inaccurate, i apologise. I'm trying to paint the picture where we both understand that people, companies and nations need money and that concerning the idea of a global economy, nations need companies for their jobs and their growth.
The implications of this can be devastating
The state of affairs exist now where nations need companies in their country. They want them for the profit, they want them so their people have jobs, they want them to keep unemployment down, they want them because the greater the nations profit, jobs and employment the better the gov't look.
Many companies are so large they are not hindered by a country, they are so rich they can just leave, these are transnational corporations.
Let me just illustrate my point by analogy- a country thinks they need to protect their workers and their environment, this means (for instance) the minimal wage and waste dumping restrictions. A corporation will just leave for another country with minimum regulations. That's fine right? nooo. As i said, gov't NEED companies. So why would they pursue such policies!?
Corporations can play one gov't off with another for the smallest regulation and greater subsidiaries (welfare benefits for companies) .
E.g. A company will look at a governements plans and say "Your planning on using an environmental tax cap" (taxing companies if they go over a certain amount of emissions) or "using waste dumping restrictions " (implying the company will need to pay to remove waste they make)
They will frown at the countries government and give a sideays glance at some third world countries or some low regulation countries - teasing to go and invest over there...
So what can the governemnt do!? Stick to their guns and use those enviro policies? that'll look great won't it... at the end of their term looking for re-election and standing by a chart that shows greater unemployment and very little economic growth.... (i thinks that's called political suicide)
Well, they either don't pursue those policies or give tax cuts to the corp and be like " come over here, we'll give you money to help you dispose of all that pesky waste!"
I hope this expresses how the political and the economic are so tied up.
As a general problem, exercised by the nature of the material and profit and wealth.
Money transcends ethics.
I vital aspect of it's omnipotence is the limited restriction it has ethically. Money does not chose right and wrong, it chooses profit and loss.
On the occasion that it appears that money has become ethical, whether this is better allocation of resources or services the move is likely to be generated or permeated politically.
In many ways the ground we are fighting on has already been taken. It is much easier to criticise the capitalist system from "outside of the box". When i say this, i want the people following me this far to understand that the "box" is the social world (our identity, practises, understandings, frames of reference and basic ideologies) articulated by capitalism. In many ways, the fight is already over.
A response to the question, "why in a world controlled by money, do we accept that." really a question, why in a world unequal, racked by poverty and exploitation do we accept it's mechanism.... Really... Do we even question it. Is the above common knowledge?
No.
It isn't as though a country can just "not work this way". Money is use value, and that is an almost universal. If these countries have no money then they can't do anything. This does not then follow, as i'm sure few will point out: that money mechanics are therefore right.. Surely the problem is money itself.
There are many people poor on this planet. This means they do not have access to food, water, shelter, warmth - even, god forbid- the internet!
The driver of this problem, namely being poor is defined in itself- no money.
But what can money get us?
Consent?
Do all your friends get into a frothing mouthed frenzy when they hear of money... no..
Do you teachers?
Parents?
The news?
Tv programmes?
Magazines?
advertisments?
no.. i don't think so.
There isn't really that great horde of dissenting voices...
This isn't exactly a simple subject.
Money is not bad of itself, in wanting all forms of things i'm sure it's a great method of reward, a check on efficiency, a method of allocation.
The problem, as i've been trying to articulate, is the current money mechanic.
Money defines and therefore limits: action and use. It holds us back.
Cheers.
