If we accept that money is power, the only difference between this group of looters and a similar group of capitalists is that one group is seeking wealth/power by producing while the other is seeking wealth/power by destroying.
The difference is in Francisco's Money Speech from a few chapters back. The capitalists are producing value. Money is the representation of that value. The looters such as Kinnan are trying to grab the money thinking that they will grab the value with it. But they cannot grab that value because they do not trade in values.
The power that the producers gain through their money is a by-product of their production, not the goal of it. Look at the composer... can't remember his name... who produces value in his music.
I agree with that statement and do not find it contradictory to the money/power relationship.
The power that the producers gain through their money is a by-product of their production, not the goal of it.
I'm not quite following you here. You say that 'power is gained through money'. Could this be rephrased as 'power is gained using money'? If so, this would be an indication of capitalism, reinvesting and using the accumulated wealth to continue growing.
If power(to reinvest and grow)is not a goal wouldn't the producers just do enough to subsist?
The looters such as Kinnan are trying to grab the money thinking that they will grab the value with it. But they cannot grab that value because they do not trade in values.
What indication is there that the looters are aware of value? They are aware of money and power and they need to steal it from someone who has it, be it a producer or one of their own, it doesn't matter to them.
Your post also opens up the concept of an economy based on manufacturing versus an economy based on moving pieces of paper from one pile to another (the financial industry). Is one a real economy and the other a mirage?