‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory

[Dave B]

I clearly disagree with Adam on the nature of value and understand that Adam’s position is common and in my opinion the more modern interpretation. I suppose the argument might be two fold in the sense of what was Karl’s position and maybe the one about what is correct. My position and interpretation is that the value of a product is the amount of labour embodied in it; and that is an irreducible and inescapable predicate, starting position and given. And ‘exists’ independently of exchange or commodity production. And that in the ‘social relations’ of capitalism and simple commodity production things ‘so happen’ or initially are empirically observed  to exchange on the basis of their labour time value. Thus ‘social relations’, which as an esoteric term that is bandied about, acts ‘somehow’ on labour time value in such a way that things exchange according to their labour time value. (Rubin and Deville did a good take on the why’s and wherefores of social relations part of it that I leaving for brevity.) If you wanted to demonstrate this hypothesis whilst holding the position that it doesn’t just belong in the realm of idealistic philosophising I suppose you would need to give a concrete simple example of it. The following passage is absolutely crucial in this respect and appears very early on in chapter one for a purpose and desired effect in my opinion. I remember it clearly from when I first started to read it. Up until that point I was thinking is he really saying what I think he is saying; and this sealed it, for me. He is talking about a producing and labouring Robinson Crusoe on his island of one; so no social relations or exchange. However there are other kind of relations regarding the products of his labour and the usefulness they are to him. Thus quite sensibly he doesn’t just decide to make one thing because he would like it, he balances and weighs up the effort required versus the ‘need’ he has for it. That requires an evaluation of the effort required or labour time value on one side and on the other the admittedly more subjective ‘evaluation’ of his ‘need’. That can come, as in the book, from practical experience of having produced something that wasn’t worth the effort or some kind of foresight or evaluation of effort required to produce something and the usefulness of it and the relative benefit of expending effort producing something else. No matter as Karl demonstrates in this example the value or expended effort in a product past, present or even planned has a reality for Robinson independent of any social relations, exchange value or for that matter commodity production.     Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists, let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm The predicated material reality of “PRODUCTS ARE LABOUR” (shouted out by Karl in Grundisse as that) supersedes or is fundamental to the exchange value;  ‘mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities’ This, I say, is also essential to the conceptof the book-keeping sense value in socialism. Whereas Robinson in his singularity society of one is only thinking of himself; in free access producing socialism will make the same calculations albeit Robinson will be a collective ‘us’. Thus; Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htm If people can’t join up the dots from one position in the chapter one of capital to a very rare, for Karl, drop into the nature of communism well fair enough. At this point I will I think pull in Fred, in a rare boast that he was ahead of Karl on this in 1844, which he was, but it was Karl that put flesh on the bone for him.  *15As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by Marx's Capital. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/notes.htm#n*15 That was embedded in the closest description of communism outside Gothathat we ever got from them. The ‘politico-economic concept of value’ being in my opinion the ‘social relations’ like; “.. magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities” If there is ‘magic and necromancy’ around the idea that products are human labour or that it wants a Socratic and reducible scientific why?; please tell me about it. On surplus value, surplus product and surplus labour etc etc. I think it is to Karl’s great scientific credit that they started off with some irreducible predicates which dragged them in their logical analysis almost kicking and screaming towards positions that they would rather not have started out from; as some of us appear not to.   My surplus value, surplus labour and surplus product etc is what is left over after I have ‘taken’ or been ‘allowed’ to take what I ‘need’ to reproduce my labour power etc.    In capitalism as in ‘all social modes of production’ (including in part communism presumably?) part of my excess or surplus ‘has’ to go towards ‘constantly expanding reproduction’ (productivity enhancing stuff ie machines etc) and looking after the ‘immature or incapacitated members of society’.  The remaining part of my surplus value etc goes towards the decadent consumption fund of the ruling class. We should actually in my opinion celebrate and welcome the concentration of wealth and income streams into fewer numbers of individuals as at least theoretically should lead to some kind of ‘how many shoes can you wear’ ceiling on the ruling classes consumption. The quality of the ruling classes consumption fund might become increasingly and irritatingly conspicuous but maybe the quantity is arriving at its limits? Thus from Karl in yet another rare speculation on the nature of socialism ‘value’ and for that matter surplus value and necessary labour time in communism at that has to be addressed. He has made his theoretical bed and thus has to sleep in it!  …….if, furthermore, we reduce the surplus-labour and surplus-product to that measure which is required under prevailing conditions of production of society, on the one side to create an insurance and reserve fund, and on the other to constantly expand reproduction to the extent dictated by social needs; finally, if we include in No. 1 the necessary labour, and in No. 2 the surplus-labour, the quantity of labour which must always be performed by the able-bodied in behalf of the immature or incapacitated members of society, i.e., if we strip both wages and surplus-value, both necessary and surplus labour, of their specifically capitalist character, then certainly there remain not these forms, but merely their rudiments, which are common to all social modes of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch50.htm  Believers in the common and modern theory of value must and do knash their teeth at this. Me as a free access no exchange value socialist am just fine with it. I am stopping know I think; abstract labour requires a separate essay. I think the socially necessary labour time thing also needs a separate approach as it is an extra co-dependent dynamic variable and we humans are not very good at thinking with more than two dimensions or variables at any one ‘time’. 

[ALB]

Dave, If you are saying that in a non-exchange, socialist society there will still be a need to count labour and labour-time I don't disagree. But I don't think that this is the same as "value". For a number of reasons. What socialist society will be measuring is not "socially necessary labour" but concrete, actual labour, i.e specific kinds of labour power, in the same sort of way that it will measure the other things needed to produce things (once again, as physical quantities of actual things).I don't see the need to try to reduce everything to its abstract labour content. That would require a huge bureaucracy that would be as wasteful as monetary calculation is today. Besides, it wouldn't be easy, in fact it wouldn't be possible, to measure "socially necessary labour time". This is established in the end on and by the market but there will be no market in socialism. It can't be measured directly under capitalism either even with markets (as Marx pointed out in his criticisms of the various labour-money theories of his time). The other big problem would be reducing skilled labour to units of simple labour. Another impossible and pointless task.So, not only has socialist society no need of the concept of "value" which is a market concept but it won't need a general labour-time unit of account either. It will just need to calculate what particular types of labour power are available or needed (measured by skill and time) just as it will to calculate the particular types of materials (measured in physical quantities).Wolff and his follower here  are of course saying that value (in the Marxian sense) will continue into "socialism" as they envisage exchange relations to continue, only between workers co-ops rather than capitalist business enterprises. On this they are right. It would continue under such a utopian scheme but it wouldn't be socialism.

[Dave B]

Don’t be a rotter Adam and throw Wolf in my teeth or for that matter the labour time voucher theorists like Byron, that I heroically attacked. I have a sort of stinking but interesting pro Wolf quote from Fred; but I will disingenuously leave it. Even though, as I read it Duhring, as in ante Durhring, was a Wolferist. What is the difference between Wolfe and Duhring? Was it only me that was paying attention to what Duhring was saying? Karl in that famous passage in Grundrisse trashed the idea of the possibility of calculating the God alone knows labour time abstract labour value of things for and as a part of some kind of quid pro quo system of bourgeois exchange or ‘limitations’. It is, or would be, in socialism more general and less specific than that. If gold toilet seats in socialism seats where whizzing of the shelves in the Wallmart community shelves would we throw some extra voluntary muscle to the wheel to make socialism work?  No! Why! Because would you be prepared to slave away, and expend your labour time value, value,  in a gold mine just so someone else  could park their arse on a gold toilet seat  In other words the value of a gold toilet seat comes into it. The second question is would you be prepared to communistically consume or take it if you could? Me; I run around like a unhinged lunatic trying to find co-op stores that sell fair trade de-caffeinated coffee; I could probably be put up on a charge for that and should know better. Adulterating food and miss describing it etc is a technical scientific challenge that demands respect. Falsifying documental paper chains is much cheaper.  We have had the filet mignon debate and what we would do with the decadent consumers of wealth and diamonds etc as is it will always till be around as some kind  anti and post capitalist lure. I think in the first stage of socialism as it emerges from capitalism we should keep these kinds of temptations and even advertise them as the last hankering of the old ways. But only to be acquired upon victory in televised Putin- Kerry cage fights. I have much more respect for the War of the Roses, Richard III and even the early English capitalist like Cromwell type. At least they were up for it.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

So, not only has socialist society no need of the concept of "value" which is a market concept but it won't need a general labour-time unit of account either. It will just need to calculate what particular types of labour power are available or needed (measured by skill and time) just as it will to calculate the particular types of materials (measured in physical quantities)..

 Yes I agree 100% .  I just dont see the point in labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers but I dont see much point in them either).  Quite apart from the bureauccacy involved in monitoring labour time there is the intrinsic problem of how you weight differnet kinds of labour.  For example skiiled versus unskilled Concerning , "socially necessary labour time" (SNLT).I dont see how this could be applicable  in a socialist society  In Marxian theory, this forms the very substance of value and in the long run determines the ratios in which commodities exchange. However,  SNLT  is not something that you can measure with a stopwatch.   It boils down to kind of "social average" for the amount of labour required to produce a given commodity under the prevailing industry-wide  technical conditions (although, confusingly, it has also been interpreted by some  as  referring  to "best practice" techniques within a given industry) .  This is why inefficient producers using outmoded technology cannot be said to produce more "value" than efficient producers simply because they use more actual labour to produce a commodity by comparison with the latter.  The additional labour they contribute over and above SNLT does not count towards value –  or, to put it differently, the goods that they produce cannot be deemed more valuable  and thus able to command a higher price, because more actual (past) labour went into making them.  On the contrary,  their relatively lower level of productivity  is one reason why these producers might find themselves squeezed out of the market by their competitors who are able to undercut them  pricewiseFurthermore, what is  deemed "socially necessary labour" depends finally upon the commodity produced actually being sold on the market.  No value is produced to the extent that there is an overproduction of commodities in relation to what the market can absorb and, of course, this makes the question of measuring "value" all the more problematic  because we cannot exactly know in advance whether a commodity that has been produced will be sold.  It is only in the process of exchange that value manifests itself so to speak.  It is then that the value of goods, the SNLT embodied in them, will express itself indirectly, and in the long run, through the prices such goods command – which prices will tend to vary in proportion to the quantitity of  SNLT embodied in them. In other words,  the expression of value  is mediated through money units – prices.  As Marx put it: "Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange…. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result’ (Marx, K, 1981, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London, p.45). Another reason why SNLT would have no purpose in  a non market socialist society

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

Don’t be a rotter Adam and throw Wolf in my teeth

That really would be a rotten thing to do, but I didn't. I was making the point that Wolf didn't even advocate the sort of general labour-time accounting that you seem to be (and which maybe Marx did though he didn't regard this as value calculation), but that he actually envisages the continuation of production for the market and so of value (in the Marxian sense) and monetary calculation; which of course you don't.I'm not quite sure what to call Wolff's scheme for an exchange economy of competing workers coops. It has more in common with anarchist mutualism or Green small is beautiful capitalism than socialism. Utopian is an obvious description but then we shouldn't use this in a perjorative sense like others do to us. Anyway, it's not the solution to the problems that the wage and salary working class face under the capitalist exchange economy.

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

Yes I agree 100% .  I just dont see the point in labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers but I dont see much point in them either).  Quite apart from the bureauccacy involved in monitoring labour time there is the intrinsic problem of how you weight differnet kinds of labour.  For example skiiled versus unskilled

As I tried to raise on another thread, there is the algorithm here:http://www.spliddit.org/apps/tasksThat doesn't start from skilled/unskilled, but the most frequent i.e. most needed) task, and asks participants to rank in terms of that task.  Over umpety thousan iterations of peopel scoring, we'd have a clear idea of the relations between various tasks, and people's willingess to perform them.

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 It was not an anticipation of the Leninist theory of imperialism according to which independence for colonies will help precipitate a socialist revolution in the imperialist countries, though it is sometimes misunderstood to be this by many on the Left.

 It is historically impossible for a great people even to discuss internal problems of any kind seriously, as long as it lacks national independence.  […] An international movement of the proletariat is possible only among independent nations. The little bit of republican internationalism between 1830 and 1848, was grouped around France which was destined tofree Europe. Hence it increased French chauvinism in such a way as tocause the world-liberating mission of France and with it France’s native right to be in the lead to get in our way every day even now. (The Blanquists present a caricature of this view, but it is still very strong also among Malon and company.) Also in the International theFrenchmen considered this point of view as fairly obvious. Only historical events could teach them – and several others also – and still must teach them daily that international cooperation is possible only among equals,and even a primus inter pares can exist at best for immediate action.(Karl Marx, correspondence to Kautsky in 1882) The above statement, coming from late Marx, clearly shows his state of mind towards nationalism and internationalism. Yet this remains one of the most misunderstood subjects among many Marxists who are unable to comprehend his dialectical view of the two. But there is an even more important point to be noticed among Marx's works. Istavan Mezaros starts his mammoth work, "Beyond Capital", with the following quote from Marx: There is no denying that bourgeois society has for the second time experienced its 16th century, a 16th century which, I hope, will sound its death knell just as the first ushered it into the world. The proper task of bourgeois society is the creation of the world market, at least in outline, and of the production based on that market. Since the world is round, the colonisation of California and Australia and the opening up of China and Japan would seem to have completed this process. For us, the difficult question is this: on the Continent revolution is imminent and will, moreover, instantly assume a socialist character. Will it not necessarily be crushed in this little corner of the earth, since the movement of bourgeois society is still, in the ascendant over a far greater area?(Marx-Engels Correspondence, 8 October 1858) Here it is again! More than 150 years ago he could see the negative effects of Imperialism on the metropoles of capitalism. Although he intially makes an honest wish, for the development of capitalism in colonies to be the death knell of capitalism, yet he could still see that in fact will prolong it, and history has proven that to be glaringly accurate.This goes in direct opposition with the so called "internationalist" position of some Marxists, who have argued "Imperialism, Pioneer of capitalism". I have already mentioned about Marx's position on Russian agrarian communes and their potential to achieve socialism without going through capitalism. Both of these positions starkly differ from half baked ideas Marx had imported from others during his earlier years. Going back to your position:"It was not an anticipation of the Leninist theory of imperialism according to which independence for colonies will help precipitate a socialist revolution in the imperialist countries, though it is sometimes misunderstood to be this by many on the Left."In brief, you should be able to see Marx's position in the second quote, on the possibility that colonization could crush the socialist revolution in the metropoles. And from the first quote, you can see how later he clearly called for national independence for colonies in order to precipitate "an international socialist movement". For more information please see: Mészáros, István, Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition.

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." – Eugene V. Debs

 The English laughed a lot when I began my speech by saying that my friend Lafargue, etc., who had abolished nationalities, had spoken French to us, i.e. a language which nine tenths of the audience did not understand. I also suggested that by the negation of nationalities he appeared, quite unconsciously, to assume their absorption into the model French nation.(Marx to Engels, 20 June 1866) Sorry, I could not stop noticing this…

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sepehr, How do you rate Andrew Kliman as a Marxist teacher? I believe he engaged in some polemics with Wolff.  He fairly recently addressed a meeting of this Party which you can watch herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt1http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt2Having read a fair amount on Mondragon Co-op, I think i must agree with you that Wolff's endorsement of that model in an over-simplification using it more as a propaganda piece for WSDEs by softening his criticisms of Mondragon.  Sepehr, another question on another Marxist economist. What do you think of  Paul Mattick's (and now his son Paul Jnr's) contribution to Marxist economic interpretation, Paul Snr. was very critical of Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran's analysis. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1966/monopoly-capital.htm

 There is a common problem among many people who give themselves the Marxist title. That problem is the inability to see the variety of contradictions within the system of capitalism. Those who always reduce everything down to the irreducible contradiction of labour and capital, fail to comprehend Marx's dialectical method and one way or another end up ossifying the status-quo. As, e.g. a ludicrous prescription given by some so called "Marxists" who argue the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a conflict between Israeli bourgeoisie and Hamas bourgeoisie… therefore calling Palestinian workers to fight Hamas instead of Israeli occupiers! While this is just an example, my intention is to show how this reductionism results into lip-servicing for imperialism and crushing genuine struggles for emancipation. Thence comes the opposition against Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff and others and their critical analysis. I would again recommend Mezaros, for he explains these contradictions in great detail.

[alanjjohnstone]

I have to stick to my guns and disagree, despite your interesting citation, sepehr.You do not comment upon my point that Marx’s support for nationalism was not unconditional. Marx did not apply a general right of self-determination but only supported some forms of nationalism from a strategic and tactical point of view, for example supporting Polish nationalism as a check to Russian reaction.  Marx had a criteria of what he described as viable nations such as Hungary, Italy and Germany, nationalism which would establish a nation-state and capitalist development and the growth of the working class. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating whether Marx can be considered correct. Nationalism has not led to any form of revolutionary social democracy, but to the destruction of the workers’ movement. Surely the primary socialist objective is to liberate humanity, not liberate nations, even if suc a stance proves unpopular.Luxemburg’s view was that

Quote:

“the methods which Marx and Engels used with respect to the nationality question, methods not dealing in abstract formulae, but only in the real issues of each individual case. That method did not, though, keep them from making a faulty evaluation of the situation, or from taking a wrong, position in certain cases. The present state of affairs shows how deeply Marx was in error in predicting, sixty years ago, the disappearance of the Czech nationality, whose vitality the Austrians today find so troublesome. Conversely, he overestimated the international importance of Polish nationalism: this was doomed to decay by the internal development of Poland, a decay which had already set in at that time… It was possible for Marx to be mistaken in his position with respect to certain national movements, and the author of the present work tried to show in 1896 and 1897 that Marx’s views on the Polish question, as on the Eastern question, were outdated and mistaken. But it is this former position of Marx and Engels on the question of Turkey and the South Slavs, as well as on the national movement of the Czechs and Poles, that shows emphatically how far the founders of scientific socialism were from solving all nationality questions in one manner only, on the basis of one slogan adopted a priori. It also shows how little they were concerned with the “metaphysical” rights of nations when it was a matter of the tangible material problems of European development.”

In other words she too says Marx was no Nostradamus, that he had educated guesses about the future of nations like us all but it was not infallible predictions, as history has shown and the development of nations have demonstratedYour quotation from Marx “It is historically impossible for a great people even to discuss internal problems of any kind seriously, as long as it lacks national independence.” raises the suggestion that before we can have socialism then all the peoples striving for independence should be free before they turn their attention to socialism (i think at the last count the number was nearing 200 peoples seeking sovereignty).Again, Luxemburg I think would rightly ask, where was the discussion of internal problems in the newly founded Irish Free State and the Cumann na nGaedheal government. Emmet O' Connor describes how thousands of paramilitary police (Special Infantry Corps) were deployed so that by 1923 ‘military intervention was becoming a routine response to factory seizures or the disruption of essential services’. The Irish working class did not emerge any the stronger from achieving independence but weaker. There have been 29 general elections to Ireland’s parliament, since independence and Ireland’s Labour Party have won precisely zero. When workers interests goes up against nationalism in a country where civic politics is all about the nation, then labour stands little chance. M. N. Roy, who was one time prominent in the Communist International, said that when India and other countries achieved independence, "absolutely nothing changed except the personnel of the State machinery."Nationalism continues to appeal and dominate politics simply because the prospects of socialism appear so bleak…and it becomes even bleaker when we relegate it to a secondary goal with national independence taking precedence. I could change my signature to "The working men have no country" but i suppose Marx would point to my possession of a passport 

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have to stick to my guns and disagree, despite your interesting citation, sepehr.You do not comment upon my point that Marx’s support for nationalism was not unconditional.

 One of the main features of Marx's method is the fact that all of its elements are interconnected. Therefore a seemingly minor error in one place will have massive ripple effects in all directions. I say this because I believe your position on internationalism, nationalism and value theory are interconnected. Revision in one area will necessitate revisions in all other areas. In the same correspondence of 1882 to Kautsky, Marx says: "One of the real tasks of the Revolution of 1848 – and the real, and not illusory tasks of a revolution are always solved as a consequence of this revolution – was the constitution of the suppressed and scattered nationalities of Central Europe, provided they were at all viable and provided especially that they were ripe for independence." You should ask yourself, what does he mean when he says "ripe for independence"? How does this relate to the concept of communes? What are communes? What are nations? Will there be no such thing as a nation-state under communism? Are nation-states a necessary stage towards formation of communes? Historically, peoples of all localities sustained their lives independent of the rest of the world. Today, however, the globalized economic system, under the command of the World Bank and IMF, pushes nations toward specialization in production of a single commodity for the world market. Thus, one country is appointed to production of coffe, the other the production of oil, etc. It is only within metropole countries that we still see a diversity of production, although that too is under attack. As a result, a drop in demand for coffee, oil, etc. could result in horrendous famines for whole populations. That is only one problem with this globalized economic system. The irrational and wasteful use of energy and other natural resources to bring about the transportation system necessary for such a globalized system, the displacement of people in great numbers, either in the form of immigrants, refugees or under temporary worker visas, are some of its other issues.Not all the ills and miseries of capitalism are consequences of the monetary system. Even in your imagined value-free system many of existing issues could persist and even exacerbate. The reproduction of the inequality and asymmetric development on the global scale is one instance. Suppose you are living in a value free-society where all fruits of labour are granted gratis. Furthermore, suppose that this value-free society has come about after a succession of revolutions throughout the world, which have transformed the existing globalized economy, with all of its asymmetries, into your value-free system. Are you going to allow freedom of movement to the people or are you going to chain them to their geographic localities? The latter choice would refute your "internationalism". Therefore, with the former being your only choice, people would naturally prefer to move from under-developed regions and localities to the more developed regions. Hence a refugee crisis hitherto unseen!It is easy to sit in a library and reiterate sacred principles of socialism. But that will have no effect on the real world, at least not in a progressive sense. Marx proceeds to say:"Polish socialists who do not place the liberation of their country at the head of their programme, appear to me as would German socialists who do not demand first and foremost repeal of the socialist law, freedom of the press, association and assembly. In order to be able to fight one needs first a soil to stand on, air, light and space. Otherwise all is idle chatter." We all know whence these principles come: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, association and assembly, etc. These are liberal principles. These are originally, and even today, promoted by bourgeois intellectuals and bulletins. Marx had his own criticism of these principles as insufficient to do what they promise they would do. Nevertheless, instead of closing his eyes and shouting "What do we want?! Socialism! When do we want it?! Now!", he puts those bourgeois principles as the first and foremost demands. Lenin gives a full answer to Rosa Luxemburg regarding her criticism of Marx. It is an interesting piece and I would recommend you to see it. But, therein an interesting point is cited from Marx, to which I should like to bring your attention: "However, it so happened that the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected it. “What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another.” The English working class will never be free until Ireland is freed from the English yoke. Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the enslavement of Ireland (just as reaction in Russia is fostered by her enslavement of a number of nations!)."(Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Chapter 8: The Utopian Karl Marx and the Practical Rosa Luxemburg) As you can see, Lenin is quoting this from Marx: "What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another."Notice, this misfortune is for the subjugator nation, not the subjugated. This goes back to the same question Marx had raised in his correspondence with Engels: "For us, the difficult question is this: on the Continent revolution is imminent and will, moreover, instantly assume a socialist character. Will it not necessarily be crushed in this little corner of the earth, since the movement of bourgeois society is still, in the ascendant over a far greater area?" There is no denying that Marx did not view nationalism and the right for self determination as a sacred or god-given right. His nationalism fits into his historical materialism and his vision for a transition into socialism. This is the immensely important point which ought to be understood properly. When Marx says "In order to be able to fight one needs first a soil to stand on, air, light and space", it reminds me of the Palestinian issue, or, as just another example, the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.On the other side, it is important to see what we target to achieve from these nationalist movements. Today Iraq is in the process of getting teared into three separate countries. The question is, will that enervate US imperialism, or will it bolster that? Same question about Tibetan separatists in China. A true Marxist must be able to discern major and minor contradictions and choose a practical and effective strategy towards tangible and meaningful goals.I have to stop here, because this will unleash another protracted discussion.For a better understanding of asymmetric development and imperialism, see "The Political Economy of Growth" by Paul Baran, and also many recent writings of Samir Amin, e.g. "Contemporary Imperialism".

[alanjjohnstone]

Sepehr, we are straying from the thread topic but once again I must defend my position despite you raising another useful quote from Marx. Also my apologies for this lengthy reply.  As I implied by referring to Luxemburg, whatever Marx  says must be measured against the condition and circumstances of today.  Similarly with Lenin.Marx's analysis of capitalism, as I read it, was that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced parts of the world, not in a relatively backward economic area like Russia. Lenin explained away this contradiction by arguing that Marx had been describing the situation in the pre—imperialist stage of capitalism whereas, in the imperialist stage which had evolved after his death, the capitalist state had become so strong that the breakthrough would not take place in an advanced capitalist country but in the weakest imperialist state. Tsarist Russia had been the weakest link in the chain of imperialist countries and this explained why it was there that the first "workers revolution" had taken place. This was tantamount to saying that the Russian revolution was the first "anti-imperialist" revolution, and in a sense it was. Russia was the first country to escape from the domination of the Western capitalist countries and to follow a path of economic development that depended on using the state to accumulate capital internally instead of relying on the export of capital from other countries. In the early days of the Bolshevik regime, when Russia was faced with a civil war and outside intervention by the Western capitalist powers, Lenin realised that this was a card he could play to try to save his regime. Playing the anti -imperialist card meant appealing to the "toiling masses" of Asia not to establish socialism but to carry out their own anti-imperialist revolutions. The 'super-exploited" countries were to be encouraged to seek independence as this would weaken the imperialist states, who were putting pressure on Bolshevik Russia. This strategy was presented to the workers movement in the West as a way of provoking the socialist revolution in their countries. Deprived of their super— profits, the ruling class in the imperialist countries would no longer be able to bribe their workers with social reforms and higher wages; the workers would therefore turn away from reformism and embrace revolution. Lenin's theory of imperialism pitted the working class of undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones.Lenin argued in ‘Imperialism – Highest Stage of Capitalism’ that, through a process which had been completed by the turn of the century, capitalism had changed its character. Industrial capital and bank capital had merged into finance capital, and competitive capitalism had given way to monopoly capitalism in which trusts, cartels and other monopolistic arrangements had come to dominate production. Faced with falling profits from investments at home, these monopolies were under economic pressure to export capital and invest it in the economically backward parts of the world where higher than normal profits could be made. Hence, Lenin went on, the struggle by the most advanced industrial countries to secure colonies where such "super-profits" could be made. When, after 1917, Lenin became the head of the Bolshevik regime in Russia the theory was expanded to argue that the imperialist countries were exploiting the whole population of the backward areas they controlled and that even a section of the working class in the imperialist countries benefited from the super—profits made from the imperialist exploitation of these countries in the form of social reforms and higher wages, Lenin argued that imperialism was in part a conscious strategy to buy off the working classes in the imperialist countries. His evidence consists of one quote from arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes, and one from Engels to the effect that the workers of England "merrily share the feast" of its colonies. I would suggest that his analysis is out of date when applied to the current situation. The Labour Aristocracy theory had the political purpose of enabling the Bolsheviks to argue for the workers in the colonies to form united fronts with their local ruling classes against Imperialism. This in turn had the aim of dividing the working class internationally, and turning it into cannon fodder for capitalist war. Lenin's expanded theory made the struggle in the world not one between an international working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle between states.Marx and Engels had little to say on the subject of imperialism. Their remarks on colonialism and foreign trade, particularly the section on counter-tendencies to the tendency of the Falling Rate of Profit, have been used to give authority to other theories and blown up out of proportion (Capital Volume 3 ) These three pages were used to justify anti-imperialism, but all they basically say is that a national capital tries to avoid the crisis caused by the Falling Rate of Profit, which in turn is caused by the increase in the ratio of constant to variable capital, of machinery to workers, by investing in foreign countries. Briefly, The Falling Rate of Profit is explained by the fact that capitalists are forced by competition to produce cheaper goods by increasing the ratio of machinery to workers. Because labour is the only source of value, the rate of profit is given by dividing the proportion of living labour in the product by the proportion of dead labour, or machinery. This rate must fall as the proportion of machinery rises. Capital invested "at home", in production for foreign trade, can also yield a higher rate of profit"because it competes with commodities produced by other countries with less developed production facilities, so that the more advanced country sells its goods above their value". This enables the more advanced country to dominate the less advanced, by making more profit. Capital invested directly in production in the colonies also produces more profit: "the reason why this can yield higher rates of profit is that the profit rate is generally higher there on account of the lower degree of development, and so too is the exploitation of labour, through the use of slaves and coolies, etc." What this passage means is that a higher rate of profit is obtainable in countries where exploitation is less developed, where more variable capital (labour) is required to turn out a given quantum of value from a given unit of constant capital (machinery).Marx doesn't make too much of this counter-tendency to the Falling Rate of Profit. He adds that though the more advanced country "receives more labour in exchange for less", it is all "pocketed by a particular class, just as in the exchange between labour and capital in general". Both foreign trade and capital export are just particular examples of capitalism in general. They are not qualitatively different from what capital does within its "home" country. The "super-profits" of anti-Imperialist theory are, in other words, simply larger quantities of ordinary profits. Taking over competitors with less developed production facilities by destroying them by selling cheaper goods, and taking advantage of these less developed facilities to make more profit, is part of capital's daily life. Moralistic protest about the unfairness of imperialism, as opposed to ordinary capitalism, is an attempt to confuse us about the nature of the beast. (The enslavement of Africans was qualitatively worse than the forced deportations of the English, Scots and Irish poor, but if a capitalist power is more savage and parasitic abroad than it is at home, that is only because the class struggle at home has restrained it. If "First World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have forced the bosses to bribe them.)Marxian economics does not measure the level of exploitation by how high or low wages are but by reference to the amount of surplus value produced as compared with the amount of wages paid, whether high or low. By this measure the workers of the advanced countries were more exploited than those of the colonies, despite their higher wages, because they produced more profits per worker. Lenin failed to understand why different rates of wages prevail in different countries. According to him, wages are higher in imperialist countries because the capitalists there bribe their workers out of the superprofits which they earn from exploiting the subjugated countries. Marx's explanation as to why wages were higher in these countries. Both productivity and the rate of exploitation (ratio of paid to unpaid labour) were higher there:"The more productive one country is relative to another in the world market, the higher will be its wages compared with the other. In England, not only nominal wages but (also) real wages are higher than on the continent. The worker eats more meat, he satisfies more needs. This, however, only applies to the industrial worker and not the agricultural labourer. But in proportion to the productivity of the English workers their wages are not higher (than the wages paid in other countries)" (Theories of Surplus Value).A lower rate of wages does not make any one country any less capitalist than another: The ruling class in all countries pay workers as much as they think they have to, calculated from:a) the need for workers to stay alive and, to a greater or lesser degree, healthy,b) the shortage or otherwise of workers capable of doing the job, andc) the class struggle(Where does a wage rise gained by struggle end and a bribe begin? Lenin's position implies that British workers should deduce what proportion of their pay checks are the proceeds of the exploitation of the colonies, and hand that proportion back to their employers, declaring their refusal to be bribed.)"The different states of the different civilised countries, in spite of their motley diversity of form, all have this in common, they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed" (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875).A country may be highly industrialised or a developed agricultural one or the chief supplier of raw materials for industry or whatever. This happens due to the division of labour amongst the various capitalist countries.Another member of the Bolshevik party, Nikolai Bukharin, presented a different theory of imperialism which paid lip-service to the labour aristocracy position, but placed more emphasis on the necessity for revolution. The reasoning behind Bukharin's theory was if it could be shown that capitalism was inevitably divided into war-mongering states, that hence the horrors of the first world war were going to be repeated until capitalism was overthrown, this would constitute a convincing case for revolution. Bukharin tried to show a contradiction between nation states and international capitalism. Capitalism has created the world economy, the material basis of communism, but "national economies" and "state capitalist trusts" contradict this, leading to imperialism and war. Nation states were the "forms" which helped develop the "forces of production", but now they are "fetters" on their further development. His book Imperialism and World Economy was intended to show that imperialism is an inevitable stage of capitalism, in order to refute the possibility of a peaceful solution to the first world war. This was in turn necessary in order to oppose the "centrists" among social democracy, who were trying to sit on the fence on the question of the necessity of a proletarian revolution to end the war.Lenin and Bukharin both claimed that Kautsky had completely abandoned Marxism, and now believed that capitalism could reform itself, eliminating its nasty bits, and evolve into a peaceful new world order. Kautsky actually said "What Marx said of capitalism can also be applied to imperialism: monopoly creates competition and competition monopoly. The frantic competition of giant firms, giant banks and multi-millionaires obliged the great financial groups, who were absorbing the small ones, to think up the notion of the cartel. In the same way, the result of the World War between the great imperialist powers may be a federation of the strongest, who renounce their arms race. Hence from the purely economic standpoint it is not impossible that capitalism may still live through another phase, the translation of cartellization into foreign policy: a phase of ultra-imperialism, which of course we must struggle against as energetically as we do against imperialism." Of the two theories, imperialism and Kautsky's concept of ultra-imperialism which has best stood the test of time? Capitalism has proved itself more flexible than many of its critics realised. Is there any reason why single capitalist firms should be tied to one state? It is possible for capitalism to dissolve particular national states and replace them with larger entities, such as the European Community?Rosa Luxemburg's contribution to the debate on imperialism, which i don't dismiss somply because it went against Lenin, was her opposition to the idea that imperialism could be opposed by supporting national liberation struggles. Luxemburg's arguments, based on the experience of the Polish working class in its struggle against "its" poor oppressed national bourgeoisie, have been largely forgotten yet a significant section of the Bolsheviks supported her views against Lenin's "right of nations to self-determination". Rosa Luxemburg accused Lenin as having "thrown the greatest confusion into the ranks of socialism," and goes on to state: "The Bolsheviks have supplied the ideology which has masked the campaign of counter-revolution; they have strengthened the position of the bourgeoisie and weakened that of the proletariat … With the phrase about the self-determination of nations the Bolsheviks furnished water for the mills of counter-revolution and thus furnished an ideology not only for the strangling of the Russian Revolution itself, but for the planned counter-revolutionary liquidation of the entire World War." She describes how during the course of the Russian Revolution "Contrary to what the Bolsheviks expected, one after another the liberated "nations" took advantage of the freshly granted freedom to take a position of deadly enmity to the Russian Revolution, combining against it with German Imperialism… of course it is not the 'nations' by whom that reactionary policy is carried on, but only the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes … who have converted the national right of self-determination into an instrument of their counterrevolutionary class policy."But eventually Lenin's views did win  the day. The most obvious reason for the success of Lenin's views was the power of the Bolshevik state. It had both the means and very good reasons for supporting national liberation struggles. The self-determination of countries national policy of Lenin did not prove fatal to Bolshevik rule although it was true that large areas remained separate from Russia and become reactionary States, but the power of the Bolshevik state proved stronger than ever. Bolshevik Russia existed not as what it was at the beginning, not as the starting point of the world revolution, but as a bulwark against it. Lenin's theory of imperialism had contained the seeds of such a shameful outcome from the start as it made the most significant struggle at world level not the class struggle but the struggle between states, between so-called anti— imperialist and progressive states and so— called imperialist and reactionary states. This was a dangerous diversion from the class struggle and led to workers supporting the killing in wars of other workers in the interest of one or other state and its ruling class.Anti-imperialism is a doctrine long used by capitalists in relatively weak countries to try and pursue their own ends. We reject nationalism as anti-working class because it has always tied the proletariat to its class enemy and divided it amongst itself: the workers have no country. Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspirant capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state blocked by imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down this obstacle. The logic of such movements is to subordinate the interests of workers to those of the bourgeois leadership and that such movements can tie their movement to presently supportive states that may well be prepared to use it as a bargaining chip in their pursuit of their own geopolitical interests. Different regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a history of collaborating with imperialism. It is of the essence of bourgeois nationalists that, when imperialism prevents them for building their own independent capitalist state, they may lead struggles against it, but they are striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to overthrow it. This means that, sooner or later, they will come to terms with imperialism. Successful anti-imperialism becomes imperialism. This is well illustrated by the example of Germany. The Communist International actually offered some support to the Nazis in the early twenties on the grounds that they were a national liberation struggle. Germany was an oppressed nation, occupied and looted by French and British imperialism. The Nazis fought the occupying troops, so the Comintern supported the former, militarily and politically. A decade later, this anti-imperialist movement had become German Imperialism. Israel was founded in a national struggle against the British Empire and resulted in the forced removal of Palestinians and the occupation of the Palestine. Indonesia does not remotely correspond to any pre-colonial domain, and possesses an enormous variety of peoples, cultures, languages and religions. The people at one end have far more in common with their neighbours across the national frontier than with their fellow "Indonesians", its shape was determined by the last Dutch conquests. We witnessed the result in East Timor. The bourgeoisie is a global class. Nations mostly emerged after capitalism. Consciously or not, and there are numerous examples of conscious strategy, capitalism created nations.A key feature of global capitalism is that the world is organized into a system of states in which a few – the imperialist powers – dominate the rest economically, politically, and militarily." and this poses the question "…what stance Marxists should take when states fight eachother?"Either – since the conflicting parties are all capitalist states the left should, as a matter of principle, take no interest in who wins.Or – to follow Marx, Engels , Lenin and Trotsky and support wars that are judged to advance the interests of the international working class and support the country whose victory would be the least harmful to the interests of the international working class.Yes, Marx and Engels did support certain nationalist movements and some wars – TO BRING CAPITALISM TO FEUDAL STATES, to usher the capitalist class into political power so they could create the pre-requisites of socialism; an actual working class within an industrialised society. Prussia against the Slavs. Britain and France against Tsarist Russia. Even Prussia against France so as to strengthen unification of Germany. But can anyone seriously think that such a policy is required in to-days world where capitalism is now the predominant system and its the working class that is the decisive class not the capitalists.What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and Engels, may not now be the right choice in this century under changed circumstances. What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of Lenin or Trotsky need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us. I could continue but I think I have said more than enough for you to respond to, if you choose.

[ALB]

Sepehr wrote:

One of the main features of Marx's method is the fact that all of its elements are interconnected. Therefore a seemingly minor error in one place will have massive ripple effects in all directions. I say this because I believe your position on internationalism, nationalism and value theory are interconnected. Revision in one area will necessitate revisions in all other areas.

If this were true (which it isn't) then this would apply with even more force to you since you are not just "revising" Marx's value theory but are totally rejecting it in favour of a rival one.Discussions about Marx's strategy and tactics in the 19th century for furthering the cause of socialism are interesting from a historical point of view but in adopting them Marx was wanting to further the cause of socialism, i.e a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society of common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, not your cause of an exchange economy of competing workers co-ops. That wasn't his aim and so the political positions he adopted in the conditions of the time had nothing to do with achieving it. There were of course people around at the time who did have this aim, Proudhon and his followers for instance. Dave B has suggested that Duhring ( of Anti fame) might have been one too, if we want to revive the arguments of the 19th century.

[Dave B]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

[Sepehr]

I will not waste my time responding to those who obviously know nothing more than reiterating their dogmatic views, and therefore do not seek to learn the slightest point. However, forasmuch as alanjjohnstone seems to be at least honest in pursuing a discussion, I am providing my feedback here. But even in that case, I have no choice but to present my arguments with utmost brevity, for each single point is the subject of several books, and I neither have the time nor the intention of doing so.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx's analysis of capitalism, as I read it, was that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced parts of the world, not in a relatively backward economic area like Russia.

That was the position of earlier Marx. As Marx proceeded with his inquiry and developed profounder insights, this position of his entirely changed: "My answer is that, thanks to the unique combination of circumstances in Russia, the rural commune, which is still established on a national scale, may gradually shake off its primitive characteristics and directly develop as an element of collective production on a national scale. Precisely because it is contemporaneous with capitalist production, the rural commune may appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing its [terrible] frightful vicissitudes. Russia does not live in isolation from the modern world, and nor has it fallen prey, like the East Indies, to a conquering foreign power.Should the Russian admirers of the capitalist system deny that such a development is theoretically possible, then I would ask them the following question. Did Russia have to undergo a long Western-style incubation of mechanical industry before it could make use of machinery, steamships, railways, etc.? Let them also explain how they managed to introduce, in the twinkling of an eye, that whole machinery of exchange (banks, credit companies, etc.) which was the work of centuries in the West."(Marx correspondence to Zasulich, The First Draft, February/March 1881) This is not the only evidence of this transformation of the mature Marx. I am only giving you a hint so you could go and dig the rest of it out.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Russia was the first country to escape from the domination of the Western capitalist countries

The first one was Japan, not Russia. While the rest of the world was mired with adverse effects of imperialism on their natural development, Japan was the first country to escape that straighjacket and was therefore able to develop independently. The Russian revolution of 1917, and later the Chinese revolution, were both successful in "delinking" from the global economy. As a result both became great powers.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Playing the anti -imperialist card meant appealing to the "toiling masses" of Asia not to establish socialism but to carry out their own anti-imperialist revolutions.

Do you really believe there was a socialist revolution on agenda of "toiling masses" of Asia?! You must read some of the enlightening writings of Marx on the effects of colonialism in Asian countries. And again I am referring to late Marx, when he had clearly done away with the crude idea of "Asiatic mode of production". Many of these workd have only recently become available to us, i.e. even Lenin could not read them.But even beside that, you are refuting your earlier position, which by the way you attributed to Marx, but in fact was more seriously taken up by Stalinists and Trotskyites. If socialism could only be achieved in most advanced countries, how could you expect "toiling masses of Asia" to build socialism? Stalinists (e.g. in India, Pakistan, Iran or some other countries) would argue through expediation of capitalist development, which is only possible after smiting imperialist meddlers. Some Trotskyites would say by supporting Imperialist takeover, which is nothing but the pioneer of capitalism.Marx stood on an entirely different position on this issue. As you can see in his above statement, when he says: "Russia does not live in isolation from the modern world, and nor has it fallen prey, like the East Indies, to a conquering foreign power", it is clear that he saw the possibility of a transition into socialism without passing through capitalism. But that possibility is on the condition of that society having not fallen pray to a conquering foreign power. Therefore, again Imperialism could prevent such a transition. Hence why the issue of imperialism ascends to a higher priority.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin's theory of imperialism pitted the working class of undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones.

You got the point entirely upside down here. It was not Lenin's theory which pitted workers of the undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones. Quite contrary, it was imperialism which lined up proletarians of developed countries behind their bourgeoisie in plundering undeveloped countries.Besides, speaking about "working class of undeveloped countries" is in many cases entirely pointless, for societies of many of these countries were, and some even still are, dominated with pre-capitalist modes of production, in which, a proletariat is not yet even formed. This is precisely the point about imperialism. It was, and in many cases still is, a conscious and continuous effort to prevent these countries from entering into an industrial revolution. E.g. Saudi Arabia, a country which exports a single commodity, namely oil, and imports everything else. Most of its workers are imported from other countries and have no rights in that country. Is it a surprise that Saudi Arabia is still maintaining the most primitive forms of barbarism? No suffrage, no women rights, no civil rights, no human rights, etc. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin argued in ‘Imperialism – Highest Stage of Capitalism’ that, through a process which had been completed by the turn of the century, capitalism had changed its character. Industrial capital and bank capital had merged into finance capital, and competitive capitalism had given way to monopoly capitalism in which trusts, cartels and other monopolistic arrangements had come to dominate production. Faced with falling profits from investments at home, these monopolies were under economic pressure to export capital and invest it in the economically backward parts of the world where higher than normal profits could be made. Hence, Lenin went on, the struggle by the most advanced industrial countries to secure colonies where such "super-profits" could be made.

That is not even the gist of story. The discussion of monopoly capitalism is a very huge and immensely important one. For the starter, please see "Finance Capital" written by Rudolf Hilferding in 1909. That will give you a good understanding of cartels, trusts, stock markets and corporations, definitely a must read for any contending Marxist. But all analyses of Lenin, Hilferding and Bucharin belong to the outset of monopoly capitalism. Samir Amin, and some others, argue that after the 1970s, capitalism has undergone into another qualitative change. Amin refers to monopoly capitalism today as "Generalized Monopoly Capitalism", thus emphasizing on its qualiative change by giving it a new name. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I would suggest that his analysis is out of date when applied to the current situation.

Partially yes, but not entirely. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The Labour Aristocracy theory had the political purpose of enabling the Bolsheviks to argue for the workers in the colonies to form united fronts with their local ruling classes against Imperialism. This in turn had the aim of dividing the working class internationally, and turning it into cannon fodder for capitalist war. Lenin's expanded theory made the struggle in the world not one between an international working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle between states.

I have already shown Marx's position on subjugation of some nations by other nations. If you mean anti-imperialism is in opposition with socialism, then you are in effect contending that Marx was not a socialist. Please refer to my last comment to see why "internationalism" cannot be in the forefront of a socialist agenda and instead independence must occupy that position. And please do not confound this independence with those promoted by the very same imperialists! When I say independece, I mean independence of a people which is systematically and structurally kept backward under yoke of imperialism.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx and Engels had little to say on the subject of imperialism.

That is simply not true. As I mentioned several times earlier, many manuscripts of Marx have only recently been published and many are yet to be published. What you say is outdated. It might have been the case at Lenin's time, but certainly not today. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx doesn't make too much of this counter-tendency to the Falling Rate of Profit.

Of course. Capital does not study monopoly capitalism. It is mainly focused on competition capitalism. The first two chapters do not even build upon real markets of that time. Marx imposed some premises on his analysis, and those premises were taken from what classical political economists argued was a perfect market system. Marx's primary intention was to show that those premises do not lead to the prosperous society promised by political economists. Some Marxists, however, take those arguments of Marx too literally and believe markets behaved (and even still do!) exactly in the same ways that Marx had assumed in his analysis. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 If "First World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have forced the bosses to bribe them.

Oh really?! Then how come only after US industries began to outsource their production to other countries (Mexico, Chine, etc.), American workers' wages stopped rising? How can you "force you boss" to bribe you, if there are no industries and no bosses? As I expected, your views are too Euro-centric and entirely baseless when it comes to the "Third World" countries. In this you share the ultra-right-wing creed of "You are responsible!… it's your choice!… You are lazy!…"

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marxian economics does not measure the level of exploitation by how high or low wages are but by reference to the amount of surplus value produced as compared with the amount of wages paid, whether high or low. By this measure the workers of the advanced countries were more exploited than those of the colonies, despite their higher wages, because they produced more profits per worker. Lenin failed to understand why different rates of wages prevail in different countries. According to him, wages are higher in imperialist countries because the capitalists there bribe their workers out of the superprofits which they earn from exploiting the subjugated countries.

Had you lived in one of those Third Wold countries, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no annual or sick leave, with a wage which could hardly cover your accomodation costs, thus being forced to send your children to work, or to live with your parents albeit being married and having children, etc.; and all of these aside, being denied of receiving your meagre salary for an unknown span of time (1 month, or 2, or 3, or 6, or 8, …), you would definitely have developed a different view on this issue! Notice that the same worker, once successfully moved from the Third World country to a First World country, will receive much higher wages. And these workers often prefer the First World country also because they do not have to work as strenuously as they did in the Third World country. E.g. Many multi-national corporations, such as IT firms, maintain part of their production in countries were labour is cheap. Somtimes some of their employees will have to go on mission to a more advanced country. They will receive much higher wages upon arrival, in par with the prevailing wage rate in the country of destination. Thus the same worker with the same productivity will receive higher or lower wages, solely based on his geographic whereabouts.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin's theory of imperialism had contained the seeds of such a shameful outcome from the start as it made the most significant struggle at world level not the class struggle but the struggle between states, between so-called anti— imperialist and progressive states and so— called imperialist and reactionary states. This was a dangerous diversion from the class struggle and led to workers supporting the killing in wars of other workers in the interest of one or other state and its ruling class.

You remind me of the adage "more catholic than pope". Based on your reasoning, Marx, too, was a shameless bastard who betrayed the inevitable socialist revolution by bringing up such astray ideas as nationalism, independence, freedom of speech and so forth. I suggest instead of proposing a new title to professor Wolff, you may rather wish to choose a different title for yourselves, something other than Marxist. Or perhaps not, for, as Marx famously said, he himself was not a Marxist! (Engels, Letter to Bernstein, 1882)

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Anti-imperialism is a doctrine long used by capitalists in relatively weak countries to try and pursue their own ends.We reject nationalism as anti-working class because it has always tied the proletariat to its class enemy and divided it amongst itself: the workers have no country. Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspirant capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state blocked by imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down this obstacle.

This is what I meant when I said earlier about the common problem of some Marxists: The inability to see the variety of contradictions within the system of capitalism and thus always reducing everything down to a single and simple contradiction, namely, the contradiction between labour and capital. This is a crude analysis does not conform with Marx's dialectical method.Whether you like it or not, the consequence of your doctrine is to sabotage all attempts of independent development, thus helping imperialist powers to continue their embezzlement on those countries.If you have developed a dogmatic faith on this position, there is nothing I could further do here. But if you are indeed curious, I would suggest you to read "Beyond Capital" as I mentioned earlier. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Successful anti-imperialism becomes imperialism.

Not at all. That would be an unsuccessful anti-imperialism, such as the one experienced in Iran. A successful one will expand productive powers of the native society and will pave the way for the transition into socialism. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Israel was founded in a national struggle against the British Empire.

I'm afraid that could not be any farther from truth. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and Engels, may not now be the right choice in this century under changed circumstances. What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of Lenin or Trotsky need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us. 

It is true that the entire material world, including human societies, are constantly in motion and thus circumstances change all the time. Major contradictions may turn into minor ones and erstwhile minor ones may turn into major ones. But 2 plus 2 was equal to 4 back then, and it still is equal to the same number. What was true back then for, say, Russia, may be true today for some Latin American countries. I have no contention in that. It is Marx' method which is important. Denial of imperialism is completely violates his method and suits to right-wing neo-conservative narratives.

[Author]

Posts