Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote:Economic crisis causes a temporary falling rate of profit. The falling rate of profit is an illusory effect, long after the crisis has happened,or is well into its happening. The cause of economic crisis is the shifting power-relations inside the ruling networks within a sphere of production, consumption and/or distribution. As long as power-relations remain relatively stable, there is no falling rate of profit. Therefore, most of the time, there is no tendential law of the falling rate of profit, Marx and Kliman are mistaken. They fail to notice all the shifts in power-relations, within a sphere of production, consumption and/or distribution, manifesting the illusion of a falling rate of profit well after the crash has happened. Economic laws are the illusory result of shifting power-relations, not the cause, for the shifts in relations of power.
If the economic crisis is produced by shifting power relations inside the ruling network, Why the capitalists have tried to destroy millions of commodities, and have laid off millions of workers? The reason is very simple, they have too many commodities in the market, they are overproduced, and overproduction is the real cause of the crisis. Capital itself is one of the enemies of the capitalists.The falling or decline rate of profit is not the cause of the crisis either, the falling rate of profits doesn't reflect itself immediately, it takes a long period of time, Marx did not say that it was a law, it says it was a tendency. There is a great difference between law and tendency, and he also recognized that the rate of profit can go up to, therefore, it is not a rigid tendency.The rate of profit has raised due to the fact that capitalists have merged themselves into large groups of corporationsConsumption has nothing to do with the capitalist crisis, and exploitation doesn't take place at the point of production, that is an old theory which has been proven to be totally incorrect.You are the one who is presenting illusory economic law which can not be proven in the real world
BjiouI should qualify that the only thing of value, you say, which pushes the logical argument further. Is your idea about tarrif bijou. Give me some time to work that out, according to anarchist-economic-theory. But what you ask about, economic crisis, or companies going bust, I have already answered in prior posts. If you want more on the subject, more details. Go to Academia.edu…and you can read my papers FOR FREE.
Oh, don't people enjoy indulging in very flowery fancy invective on this thread…Let's have comradely debate and less combative hyperbole.
Sounds good Alan J.! You know the party never stops and can get a little rowdy, when anarchism and marxism get together.
Marcos, 1. I am not seeking to present an economic law, or tendency, Marxists are. So you are correct to claim that I am not presenting an economic law. Thank You. Like I said, there are no economic laws, all seemingly economic laws, we see, are illusory. They are manifestations of power-relations. So once again thank you for making my point for me. 2. Power-relations extend, across the sum of society, thus everyone in a society is on most account productive and influential upon values, prices and wages. Notwithstanding, large ruling power-networks are the final arbiters/determinators of value, price and wage, regardless of how much socially necessary labor-time, goes into a commodity, both conceptual and material. 3. Lets not get into samantics here between law and tendency. There are differences, I know, and Marx made it clear it was a tendency, but for meaning-sake, it is sometimes better to use law. Because, many marxists have tried to insinuate it is a law. 4. The destruction of thousands of commodities and huge unemployment, in my estimation, according to anarchism-economic-theory, if I would be so inclined to venture, is due the adjusting power-relations. Workers are part of these power-relations, both in and across production, consumption and distribution. Power-relations are unquantifiable, for the most part, thus escape the confines of socially necessary labor-time. Finally, laws, or tendencies, present themselves, after a power-shift, whether there is a huge or a small shift. These laws or tendencies are like truth-effect, spectacles, which bourgeois-Marxists and bourgeois-economists latch-onto, never truly seeing, or understanding, the machinations behind these so-called illusory economic laws, that is, that these economic laws, or tendencies, are the illusory by-product of real immaterial power-relations.
MBellemare wrote:The destruction of thousands of commodities and huge unemployment, in my estimation, according to anarchism-economic-theory, if I would be so inclined to venture, is due the adjusting power-relations.Could you explain how this happens in concrete terms? How does the shift in power between workers and capitalists cause economic crises. I would have thought it was the other way round. Mass unemployment brought on by crises undermines the bargaining power of workers in the labour market. Incidentally, the traditional explanation for crises put forward by the SPGB is based on disproportionality theory – a few held also by Marx – rather than those other main explanations for crises – underconsumptionism and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. It is because of the "anarchy of the market" that businesses strive to produce without regard to the output of their competitiors resulting in instances of overproduction or overshoot in one or two sectors, to begin with, which then has ripple effects which spread out to engulf the whole economy I fail to see how "adjusting power relations " fits into this picture at all. In general , capitalists want working class consumers to buy thier products. The problem is some of those workers are in their employ and the wages of these workers represent a cost of production which they need to reduce. That, however, depends upon the state of the market. In boom conditions it is a lot more difficult for capitalists to do this Capitalists are not the demigods strutting the economic stage that you make out. They too, as much as workers, are at the mercy of economic forces over which they have no control. Unless you take the view that crises are deliberately engineered with some ulterior purpose in mind which, to me, makes no sense
MBellemare wrote:BjiouI should qualify that the only thing of value, you say, which pushes the logical argument further. Is your idea about tarrif bijou. Give me some time to work that out, according to anarchist-economic-theory. But what you ask about, economic crisis, or companies going bust, I have already answered in prior posts. If you want more on the subject, more details. Go to Academia.edu…and you can read my papers FOR FREE.i have read several of your papers on line over the past few months and they show the same flawed logic of proof by assertion. I could eat alphabet soup and shit a more cogent argument.However I do look forward to your explanation of tariffs.
Doh!!
Robbo203, 1. Power-relations consists the sum of society, not just workers and capitalists. Due to this, economic crisis can have a variety of causes.2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent. 3. Countries go to war not because of the falling rate of profit, they go to war because of shifts in relations of power. A falling rate of profit will be an illusory effect of war, due to dead workers and the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.
Marx wants to have it the other way arouND. The falling rate of profit causes war and instigated the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.
Bijou, I know you have not read anything of mine in the last few months…because I have a tracker and no one from your country has read anything of mine. So why don't you stop and smell what you are shoveling.
MBellemare wrote:Bijou, I know you have not read anything of mine in the last few months…because I have a tracker and no one from your country has read anything of mine. So why don't you stop and smell what you are shoveling.And what about your articles on the dissident voices website?A simple apology will suffice.
MBellemare wrote:2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent.There are some things in the world we can't change- gravity, the speed of light. Economic laws are not forces of nature, we invented them. This was Marx's point 'workers unite' and change the economic foundations of capitalism — and its laws. They are not immutable we can abolish the…..You know through 'power relations' of the class struggle.Workers can't abolish laws of physics but we can abolish capitalist economic laws.That is what the socialist movement seeks to do.
MBellemare wrote:Robbo203, 1. Power-relations consists of the sum of society, not just workers and capitalists. Due to this, the economic crisis can have a variety of causes.2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent. 3. Countries go to war not because of the falling rate of profit, they go to war because of shifts in relations of power. A falling rate of profit will be an illusory effect of war, due to dead workers and the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.Capitalists do not go to war because of the falling rate of profit, it is something that we have said for many years, they can go to war even if the rate of profit is rising, the falling rate of profit is not an element for war. During WW2 the USA wanted to destroy others countries in order to rebuild them and produce profitsWar is the product of the rivalry of the capitalists for world domination, for the world market, control of resources, and spheres of influenceThe elements of war are right there in front of your nose at the present, in the so-called peacetime, there is a war among the capitalists. The imposition of tariffs is a form of war without tanks, aeroplanes, warships, rifles and soldiers among the capitalistsPrimitive man and the man under the capitalist society are subjected to different social laws, and capitalism is a peculiar society different to all its prior society, and prior society was not subjected to the law of value.It is not that crisis can be produced by different causes, the capitalist themselves cannot control crisis, capital is one of their enemies, and they are forced to produce more, to invest more, in order to compete with others capitalists, and be able to survive too.The only one subscribed to the falling rate of profit as the cause of war is the leftwinger and some Leninist groups, and they also are subscribed to the concept that capitalism itself will collapse, it will not collapse by itself, it must be pushed by the world working class
patreilly wrote:MBellemare wrote:2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent.There are some things in the world we can't change- gravity, the speed of light. Economic laws are not forces of nature, we invented them. This was Marx's point 'workers unite' and change the economic foundations of capitalism — and its laws. They are not immutable we can abolish the…..You know through 'power relations' of the class struggle.Workers can't abolish laws of physics but we can abolish capitalist economic laws.That is what the socialist movement seeks to do.
His statement sounds theological because the Theological conception of history is the one who has indicated that man cannot change society, and society was created by somebody else, it can only be changed by God, and the capitalist has also used the same conception to indicate that it is God desires that we must live in our actual conditions. The main purpose of socialism is to replace this society for new society without an economic system, to be replaced by a society based on social production
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.