Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: August ::
Shylock as Suffering Servant
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1311  Tuesday, 9 August 2005

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 08 Aug 2005 13:02:48 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 08 Aug 2005 13:08:15 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

[3]     From:   Stuart Manger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Aug 2005 18:12:07 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

[4]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Aug 2005 18:46:31 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 08 Aug 2005 13:02:48 -0400
Subject: 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

 >Larry Weiss, I think there is a difference between mercantilism and
 >full blown capitalism

Good grief!  How many times do I have to make the same point?  Of course
there is a difference!  Capitalism is an economic system in which
private individuals and enterprises risk their wealth in the hope of
making more wealth.  Mercantilism was a governmental policy (now
outmoded and not universally followed during its brief heyday) which
combined high tariffs with aggressive foreign trade policy in order to
maximize the flow of bullion into the country.  It had elements
attractive to some capitalists and pernicious to others.  John
Drakakis's statement that "there is a difference" between the two is
akin to saying that there is a difference between socialism and
protectionism.

 > So far as we know
 >from the play Antonio does not require money for 'investment', so is he
 >involved in any activity before the bond that would require the movement
 >of capital in a way that we would understand in the modern world?

No?  What about all those ships squandered abroad and the merchandise in
them?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 08 Aug 2005 13:08:15 -0400
Subject: 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

 >In pure
 >business parlance, interest equals profit, so it is irrelevant whether
 >the capitalist is a merchant or a banker.  Marx erred in putting
 >pejorative value judgements upon the banker more than the merchant.
 >That is sheer bunk.

Absolutely correct; except for one itty-bitty quibble.  Interest is not
profit.  It is the rent paid for the temporary use of the money.  The
cost of earning that rent (and there are costs in the banking business)
is the profit.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stuart Manger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Aug 2005 18:12:07 +0100
Subject: 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

Small question to John Drakakis:

Does Antonio actually think he is bargaining his life when he seals
terms with Shylock? Surely he cannot then know that all his ships are
apparently going to come to grief? In fact he seems fairly airily
complacent that all will be well and there is no question in his mind -
or presumably Bassanio's - of the Shylock deal ever coming to court in
the way it does. Or have I misread the play or Mr Drakakis's posting?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Aug 2005 18:46:31 +0100
Subject: Shylock as Suffering Servant
Comment:        SHK 16.1306 Shylock as Suffering Servant

 >"Marx was flat out wrong," says Bill Arnold. And then, apparently as a
 >criticism of the lacunae in Marx's work, he adds: "So, the word
[capitalism]
 >with all its pro and con spin comes from *Das Kapital* although capitalism
 >per se is as old as trade and species transactions. Trace the history of
 >barter and coin, folks!  It is ancient."

Which is odd, because I'm sure I remember reading loads about all that
in "Capital". Has Bill Arnold read the work? The relevant stuff is hard
to miss - it starts on page 1, volume 1....

Engels takes the history back even further than his illustrious mate!

Martin
(erstwhile WS scholar and hedge fund journalist, seeing as Bill likes us
to put our "bona fides" on the table!)

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.