Phoenix Woman

Last active
7 hours, 57 minutes ago
  • Phoenix Woman commented on the blog post Late Night: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad ISIS?

    2014-08-24 20:50:01View | Delete

    Of course. They want the world’s attention focused on the bloodthirsty idiots with pickup trucks zipping around the flat-as-a-pancake plains of the Sunni Triangle.

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the blog post Late Night: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad ISIS?

    2014-08-24 20:48:37View | Delete

    The other Islamic groups are quite eager to distance themselves from ISIS.

    Just today, the Nusra Front, one of Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchisees, made a point of releasing an American journalist it had held for two years.

    Meanwhile, the Saudis are giving their policy of support for ISIS — and desire to topple Assad — an agonizing reappraisal.

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the blog post North Carolina Senate Race Is Extremely Close

    2014-08-21 19:57:13View | Delete

    And the Senate’s what’s keeping the Cruz-controlled Tea Partiers from going full Ayn Rand on us all.

  • Dang, I missed this!

    What would have happened if Ronnie hadn’t stepped out on Jane Wyman with that far-right fascist Nancy Davis pipperoo?

  • Interesting that Charlie finds the puppy-mill angle. NPR this morning was emphasizing the humongous-hog-farm (and correspondingly huge pollution) angle.

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the diary post We Won’t Forget Wisconsin by David Swanson.

    2014-08-06 17:50:38View | Delete

    One of the things that I hope is mentioned is how awful the local media is in Wisconsin. Even in Madison, the local paper is a right-wing hack job.

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the diary post Overcompensation: Tying Corporate Taxes to CEO Pay by Gary Cohn.

    2014-08-06 17:47:55View | Delete


  • The nut grafs:

    The fact that these health care givers become infected because standard infection control precautions are not strictly practiced in no way should suggest that they are uninformed or careless. Instead, Garrett points out in her article the stark realities facing health care providers in the three countries where the outbreak rages:
    To show how [...]

  • Thanks, E.

    Nice to see both this diary and your comments. They’re dispatches from the reality-baesd community.

  • Heh!

  • Good morning!

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the diary post Say Anything: Words Matt Entenza Lives By, Apparently by Phoenix Woman.

    2014-07-28 04:46:09View | Delete


  • Phoenix Woman commented on the blog post Pol Pottery Barns…

    2014-07-28 04:44:12View | Delete

    ‘Morning, Marion! Thanks for the brekkie.

  • Phoenix Woman commented on the blog post Pol Pottery Barns…

    2014-07-28 04:42:34View | Delete

    Exactly. She’s that cynical.

  • Well, it’s past my bedtime. Everyone behave, okay? (Not that you actually will, but I have to ask anyway. ;-)

  • Wow, I had no idea that Jackson had elected a mayor that far to the left. Tells you something about how heavy the hand of censorship is in the nationally-focused part of the American media.

  • And again, I suppose I should emphasize that even though Piketty is not a Marxist and that his book is not a Marxist book, Prof. Harvey actually finds much of value in the work, particularly the data sets provided that show that Marx was right to state that capital tends and has tended since its creation to produce ever-greater levels of inequality.

    The book has often been presented as a twenty-first century substitute for Karl Marx’s nineteenth century work of the same title. Piketty actually denies this was his intention, which is just as well since his is not a book about capital at all. It does not tell us why the crash of 2008 occurred and why it is taking so long for so many people to get out from under the dual burdens of prolonged unemployment and millions of houses lost to foreclosure. It does not help us understand why growth is currently so sluggish in the US as opposed to China and why Europe is locked down in a politics of austerity and an economy of stagnation. What Piketty does show statistically (and we should be indebted to him and his colleagues for this) is that capital has tended throughout its history to produce ever-greater levels of inequality. This is, for many of us, hardly news. It was, moreover, exactly Marx’s theoretical conclusion in Volume One of his version of Capital. Piketty fails to note this, which is not surprising since he has since claimed, in the face of accusations in the right wing press that he is a Marxist in disguise, not to have read Marx’s Capital.

  • Thanks for the comment, Masaccio. Whatever else, the one thing that can be agreed upon is that Piketty is not a Marxist. :-)

    Let us look at the four paragraphs immediately after that passage of Capital, Volume One you quoted, and it becomes obvious to see why Prof. Harvey would think of capital as a process, or like a flowing river, and not a hard, unchanging thing:

    Between the two there is a strict correlation. To express this, I call the
    value composition of capital, in so far as it is determined by its technical
    composition and mirrors the changes of the latter, the organic
    of capital. Wherever I refer to the composition of capital,
    without further qualification, its organic composition is always understood.

    The many individual capitals invested in a particular branch of production
    have, one with another, more or less different compositions. The average of
    their individual compositions gives us the composition of the total
    capital in this branch of production. Lastly, the average of these averages, in
    all branches of production, gives us the composition of the total social
    capital of a country, and with this alone are we, in the last resort, concerned
    in the following investigation.

    Growth of capital involves growth of its variable constituent or of the part
    invested in labour power. A part of the surplus-value turned into additional
    capital must always be re-transformed into variable capital, or additional
    labour fund. If we suppose that, all other circumstances remaining the same,
    the composition of capital also remains constant (i.e., that a
    definite mass of means of production constantly needs the same mass of labour
    power to set it in motion), then the demand for labour and the subsistence-fund
    of the labourers clearly increase in the same proportion as the capital, and
    the more rapidly, the more rapidly the capital increases. Since the capital
    produces yearly a surplus-value, of which one part is yearly added to the
    original capital; since this increment itself grows yearly along with the
    augmentation of the capital already functioning; since lastly, under special
    stimulus to enrichment, such as the opening of new markets, or of new spheres
    for the outlay of capital in consequence of newly developed social wants,
    &c., the scale of accumulation may be suddenly extended, merely by a change
    in the division of the surplus-value or surplus-product into capital and
    revenue, the requirements of accumulating capital may exceed the increase of
    labour power or of the number of labourers; the demand for labourers may exceed
    the supply, and, therefore, wages may rise. This must, indeed, ultimately be
    the case if the conditions supposed above continue. For since in each year more
    labourers are employed than in its predecessor, sooner or later a point must be
    reached, at which the requirements of accumulation begin to surpass the
    customary supply of labour, and, therefore, a rise of wages takes place. A
    lamentation on this score was heard in England during the whole of the
    fifteenth, and the first half of the eighteenth centuries. The more or less
    favourable circumstances in which the wage working class supports and
    multiplies itself, in no way alter the fundamental character of capitalist
    production. As simple reproduction constantly reproduces the
    capital relation itself, i.e., the relation of capitalists on the one
    hand, and wage workers on the other, so reproduction on a progressive scale,
    i.e., accumulation, reproduces the capital relation on a progressive
    scale, more capitalists or larger capitalists at this pole, more wage workers
    at that. The reproduction of a mass of labour power, which must incessantly
    re-incorporate itself with capital for that capital’s self-expansion;
    which cannot get free from capital, and whose enslavement to capital is only
    concealed by the variety of individual capitalists to whom it sells itself,
    this reproduction of labour power forms, in fact, an essential of the
    reproduction of capital itself. Accumulation of capital is, therefore, increase
    of the proletariat. [1]

    Classical economy grasped this fact so thoroughly that Adam Smith, Ricardo,
    &c., as mentioned earlier, inaccurately identified accumulation with the
    consumption, by the productive labourers, of all the capitalised part of the
    surplus-product, or with its transformation into additional wage labourers.

  • Sounds like the issue was that democracy was working just fine, but not the way the Muslim Brotherhood liked. It was getting its butt kicked at the ballot box and its leaders have decided to kick over the chessboard as a result:

    The battles are part of a wider struggle between Islamists and their opponents, triggered by elections in late June for a new parliament, the house of representatives, that saw steep losses for Islamist parties.

    Those parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction party, will almost certainly lose control of the legislature, and their militias fear they will be dissolved.

    So how’s the family?

  • Madre de Dios, but sometimes search engines irritate me. The two links I posted above aren’t the true start of MitM, but reposts if you will.

    Here are more of Southern Dragon’s posts in the “Marx in the Morning” series — this time, from the true beginning of the series:


  • Load More