资本即权力
Capital as power
Jonathan Nitzan、Shimshon Bichler · 初版 2009 年
2位读者提及
3次提及
封底文案：传统的资本主义理论深陷严重危机：历经数个世纪的争鸣，它们仍旧无法阐明资本的本质。自由主义者与马克思主义者皆将资本视为一种‘经济’实体，并分别以‘效用’（utils）或‘抽象劳动’（abstract labour）这等通用单位来衡量。然而，这些单位全然出自虚构。从来没有人能够对其进行观察或测量，原因很简单：它们根本就不存在。既然自由主义和马克思主义皆依附于这些并不存在的单位，其理论便只能悬浮于空中。它们无法解释那个至关重要的过程
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
……博弈是为了杠杆和优势，而不是纯粹为了财务收益。这个视角让 MPAA/RIAA、版权、专利、贸易和移民法等等变得容易理解得多。Jonathan Nitzan 的《资本即权力》（Capital as Power）似乎也偶然触及了同样的真知灼见：http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Power-Creorder-Political-Econo...
…played for leverage and advantage, rather than for strict financial gain. A lens which makes the MPAA/RIAA, copyright, patent, trade and immigration law, etc., far more understandable. Jonathen Nitzan's Capital as Power seems to have stumbled on this same insight: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Power-Creorder-Political-Econo...
……社会科学。我也对经济学的很大一部分内容越来越持怀疑态度。最近了解到的另一位作者是 Jonathan Nitzan，他的作品我还得找时间好好啃啃。他的《资本即权力》（Capital as Power）立论基础是：把经济学和政治学拆分开来完全是个错误。我个人也一直倾向于这种观点。劳伦斯·莱斯格（Lawrence Lessig）在《自由文化》中提到，近期许多围绕版权的纷争……
…sciences. I've also grown increasingly skeptical of significant portions of economics as well. Another author I've recently learned of, still need to start chewing into his work, is Jonathan Nitzan, whose Capital as Power is predicated on the notion that splitting Economics and Political Science apart was a mistake. I'd been leaning that way myself. Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture notes that much recent copyright wrangling…
……机会。外面有海量资金在寻求回报。* 我只是凭感觉随口说说，基于我过去几年对 Jonathan Nitzan 和 Shimshon Bichler 等人构建的“资本即权力”（CasP）理论框架的一些阅读理解（可能有偏差）。当他们将资本定性为权力时，一个重要的推论是：它不是一个绝对的物理量——而是一个相对的……
…opportunities. There's a lot of money out there seeking return. * I'm shooting from the hip, based on my (potentially flawed) understanding of some reading I've done over the past few years on the body of Capital as Power (CasP) theory being built out by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler among others. When they frame Capital as Power, one of the important implications is that it isn't an absolute quanta--it's a relative…