‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory
- This topic has 148 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Many thanks for your reply. There are things that i think we can disagree upon in a comradely fashion, one being the Zionist terrorism against the British mandate in Palestine or that the Iranian's are not using the cover of Shi'ites to advance their national interests and strengthen their regional influence. As i said i cut my previous message short since it was indeed too lengthy, as this one is too. I was about to bring Hilferding into the discussion but you pre-empted me.Lenin possessed a fairly run-of-the-mill analysis of imperialism and colonialism and it was heavily based on Hilferding. Due to the higher profits to be made in the colonies and less developed countries than at home. Lenin and Hilferding gave detailed accounts of the supposedly unstoppable growth of monopoly in industry and banking but carried it much further, crediting the banks with dominating industry and the cartels with fixing prices and dividing up world markets among themselves. Lenin wrote: "Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism." Hilferding wrote: "An ever-increasing proportion of the capital used in industry is finance capital, capital at the disposition of the banks which is used by the industrialists". Lenin quoted and endorsed this. Hilferding said that it was only necessary to take over six large Berlin banks to take possession of ". . . the most important spheres of large-scale industry". It is worth noticing that in the depression of the 1930s most of the big German banks collapsed, or almost did so, along with the industrial companies in which the banks' money was tied up. Among other forecasts forecasts made by Lenin was that because of the dominance of finance capital "there was a decrease in the importance of the Stock Exchange". Kautsky, thought that the end result would be "a single world monopoly . . . a universal trust", followed by socialism. Hilferding thought that this single world monopoly was "thinkable economically, although socially and politically such a state appears unrealisable, for the antagonism of interests . . . would necessarily bring about its collapse". But Hilferding thought that world cartels would result in "longer . . . periods of prosperity" and shorter depressions. The long depression of the 1930s and others since belie this. How far this process will go remains to be seen, but the belief of Hilferding and Lenin that competition was dead, has been disproved. Hilferding, Lenin and all failed to allow for the sectional divisions of interest in the capitalist class. Hilferding treated the monopolist industries as representing a united capitalist class. Lenin made a valid point in his Imperialism about some annexationist wars. He wrote that sometimes the powers try to annexe regions "not so much for their own direct advantage as to weaken an adversary and undermine its hegemony". Lenin and Hilferding both saw the growth of monopoly and its resulting wars as a prelude to socialism, and insisted that socialism was the only answer. But Hilferding found himself acting as Finance Minister in a German coalition government, trying vainly to solve the problems of German capitalism. And Lenin's "socialism" has resulted in Russia becoming a capitalist super-power.It was only in 1920, in a preface to the French and German editions, of his ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ that Lenin introduced the idea that a section of the working class in the imperialist countries shared in the booty extracted from capitalists, the so-called “aristocracy of labour” of skilled workers – shares in the proceeds of the exploitation of colonial and now ‘Third World’ countries, workers and peasants in the rest of the world. Basically, he argued that as profits were greater in the undeveloped parts of the world capitalists were eager to invest there; this brought the capitalist states into continual conflict over the division of the world. Part of the "super-profits" of this imperialist exploitation were used to pay higher wages and provide social reforms for sections of the workers at home. They were thus led away from revolutionary socialism towards opportunism. His anti-imperialism was to try to secure the support of anti-colonial movements for his beleaguered regime in Russia. If they succeeded, he believed, they would deprive the imperialist state concerned of its super-profits and so also of its ability to buy off its workers. Deprived of their share the workers' standard of living would drop and they would once again become revolutionary, affording a chance for a Bolshevik-type vanguard to seize power. It was a political manoeuvre – “workers and colonial peoples unite” – that went against the basic principle of Marxian economics that wages represent the value of the labour-power a worker sells and contain no element of surplus value. Wages paid to skilled workers here reflect the higher quality – due to more education, training and skill – of the labour power they have to sell. Marx had a quite different 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:It was Louis Boudin in his ‘Socialism and War’ who put in its most crude form the theory on imperialism and war. He argued that the turning point was the replacement of such industries as textiles by iron and steel. He wrote: "Modern imperialism . . . is the expression of the economic fact that iron and steel have taken the place of textiles as the leading industry of capitalism, and imperialism means war. Textiles, therefore mean peace, iron and steel – war." The argument was that exports of textiles and similar consumer goods are paid for at once but iron and steel exported to build railways, factories, ports and so on are long-term investments needing the protection provided by the home government turning importing countries into colonies. Boudin's theory to explain competition for markets was the basis of all capitalist industrial development is the fact that the working class produces not only more than it consumes, but more than society as a whole consumes. Therefore, said Boudin, developed countries cannot find markets inside the capitalist world but only on the fringes of capitalism, first in primitive agriculture at home and, when that too is developed, only in the countries not yet developed. These countries themselves develop and have to seek non-existent markets for their "surplus" products. It is only necessary to look at what actually takes place to see that Boudin's theory is demonstrably false. The working class do not produce more than society itself consumes. Or rather, they alternately produce more than society currently consumes and then less than society currently consumes. At the onset of a depression stocks pile up of the goods some industries have overproduced for their markets but later on, as recovery begins, stocks run down again. It is clear that Boudin was wrong in their belief that the competitive struggle for markets results from an inbuilt deficiency of demand in the home market. The profit motive behind the search for overseas markets by the export capitalists is no different from the profit motive behind the home producers for the home market, and the import capitalists.Rosa Luxemburg’s theory on imperialism was based on an equally faulty analysis of capitalism: that it suffered from a chronic shortage of home purchasing power that drove capitalist countries to seek markets outside capitalism, in the less developed parts of the world.(no-one is perfect as i have said in other messages and despite my favourable citations from her, she too had many flaws)Bukharin developed the idea of a single capitalist world economy and anticipated the role that the state was to play in supporting the overseas economic interests (markets, raw material resources, investment outlets, trade routes) of the capitalist firms established within its borders.Many Leftists assert that socialists should support any movement, even if it is not socialist, that weakens "American imperialism" which they say is the main threat to social revolution throughout the world, just as Marx supported moves against Tsarist Russia. Second, the anti-imperialists and workers in the West are fighting the same enemy—imperialism—and so we should support each other.It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century Marx saw Tsarist Russia, (and i have returned to this a few times,) the "gendarme of Europe", as a great threat to the further social progress of mankind. He felt that if Russia overran Western Europe it would crush the democratic movement and put the social revolution back for years. Therefore, he was ready to support any moves that might weaken the power of Tsarist Russia. He supported Britain, France and Turkey in the Crimean war. He stood for an independent Polish state, to be a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. He did all he could to expose the pro- Russia policies and intrigues of Lord Palmerston. These activities I have criticised Marx for – So in regards to that aspect, then as you say , i am no Marxist!!.Marx the way i read him and you say this is early Marx and not Later but that is debateable, argued that before socialism is possible society must pass through the capitalist stage. But this is no automatic process; it depends on the outcome of human struggles. Russia was "reactionary" in the proper sense of the word in that it was a threat to the development even of capitalism. Marx opposed Tsarist Russia, not because it was the strongest capitalist power, but because it was the strongest anti-capitalist power. Looking back now we can see that Marx was over-optimistic as to the prospects of a socialist revolution in Europe. In time the capitalist states of western Europe grew stronger and the Tsarist Empire weaker, finally to be destroyed along with Austro- Hungary and Imperial Germany in the first world war. Before that even, Russia in a bid to keep its armed forces up to date had become indebted to the capitalists of France and Belgium. Well before the turn of the century we can say that conditions had changed since Marx's day. Capitalism was firmly established as the new world order. Russia was no longer a threat. Anti-imperialism is not the same as anti-capitalism. The task of socialists is clear – to oppose all wars and nationalist movements and to work to build up a world-wide workers' movement with socialism as its aim. We find that government today is in reality the executive committee of the trusts and affiliated banks who use diplomacy and armed force if not actually to annex countries, at least to secure markets, excluding competition in their self-allotted spheres of interests. Imperialism aims at the control of all the small nations to exploit them for its own benefit. "Anti-imperialism" is the slogan of local aspiring capitalists who wish to dominate the region in place of the US/UK/EU, a situation which would still leave the mass of the population there exploited and oppressed with the eternal problem of finding enough money to buy the things they need to live.Anti-imperialist struggles are class struggles under an ideological smokescreen, but not of the working class. They are either struggles by an aspiring capitalist class to establish themselves as a new national ruling class or struggles by an established but weak national ruling class to gather a bigger share of world profits for themselves. There is no reason why socialists should support them. We should not allow ourselves to be used as tools of some capitalist state. Our position in society is to transform the private ownership of the means of production and distribution into social ownership, producing for use instead of for profit. A few quick observation on your reply, Sepehr, and they are briefI take your point on Japan and perhaps go even further with the unique history of Japan in suggesting the Meiji Revolution (Restoration) may well supports the case of a fairly constitutional peaceful transformation of social systems…in Japan from feudalism to capitalism…today, from capitalism to socialism.As regards the bribe reference you transposed the " apostrophes" …i don't accept we are bribed or that we are an aristocracy of labour. This is the conclusion i accuse those who accepts Lenin. I think one wag when explained Lenin's implication that the Western worker is bought off by the British Empire, answered, "just tell me which amount of my wages is and i will gladly give it back."…I don't readily dismiss the class struggle in North America or Europe as being contributory factor to concessions and compromises made by the ruling class and often it was merely the fear of such a struggle that brought such great gains such as the 1945 British Welfare State when all the bourgeois parties Tories Liberals and Labour politicians joined together because they did not seek a repeat of 1919 and the possibility of revolution arising But I think it is also a sign of the current weakness of unions in safeguarding decent wages and conditions in the US that outsourced jobs are now returning to some degree…Where the Southern red 'right to work' states are indeed at Third World levels these days Without dwelling upon my personal circumstances, i have been a very close observer of the daily struggle of people in the developing countries, i need only open the door and look out and talk with my neighbours to understand what they face, so in the politest of ways and with no dis-respect…there is no need to teach your granny to suck eggs, as the saying goes I am well aware of varying living standards between nations but of course i am also very painfully aware of the existence of a yawning wealth gap within nations and how oligarchs versus plutocrats use people as political pawnsWe do possess differing ideas on Marx, i think. Too far apart to be compatible. Perhaps your views are right. Perhaps mine may be. But one thing i hope we both agree upon is that when we put our repective ideas to our fellow workers, it is they who will decide who they think is right and that no intelligensia substitutes itself for them by declaring the correct party line.
Sepehr wrote: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.No wonder you don't want to defend your dogmatic views on "value" as you haven't got a leg to stand on. That Marx thought that value would/could continue into socialism is just plain wrong. It's also wrong irrespective of what Marx may or may not have thought. Socialism is a non-market and therefore a non-value society.
Obviously, first and foremost Marx was a communist: his ideas about the proletariat being capable of bringing communism about was the starting point.As we can see:https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1845/02/15.htm
Engels wrote:People ask how this theory is to be translated into reality, what measures we propose to prepare its introduction. There are various ways to this end; the English will probably begin by setting up a number of colonies and leaving it to every individual whether to join or not; the French, on the other hand, will be likely to prepare and implement communism on a national basis. Not much can be said about how the Germans will start since the social movement in Germany is new. Meanwhile, among the many possible ways of preparing, I would like to mention only one which has recently been much discussed — the carrying through of three measures which are bound to result in practical communism.Marx and Engels were not dogmatic about the method of attaining communism (but they knew full well it would be the end of buying and selling).However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.
It's some time since I've read this but, you're right, there's some good stuff in it (even if rather dated). For instance:
Quote:The only value known in economics is the value of commodities. What are commodities? Products made in a society of more or less separate private producers, and therefore in the first place private products. These private products, however, become commodities only when they are made, not for consumption by their producers, but for consumption by others, that is, for social consumption; they enter into social consumption through exchange.Quote:Commodity production, however, is by no means the only form of social production. In the ancient Indian communities and in the family communities of the southern Slavs, products are not transformed into commodities. The members of the community are directly associated for production; the work is distributed according to tradition and requirements, and likewise the products to the extent that they are destined for consumption. Direct social production and direct distribution preclude all exchange of commodities, therefore also the transformation of the products into commodities (at any rate within the community) and consequently also their transformation into values.Quote:From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average (…) Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”.Quote:The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities. (…) The value form of products therefore already contains in embryo the whole capitalist form of production, the antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers, the industrial reserve army, crises. To seek to abolish the capitalist form of production by establishing "true value" is therefore tantamount to attempting to abolish Catholicism by establishing the "true" Pope, or to set up a society in which at last the producers control their product, by consistently carrying into life an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of the enslavement of the producers by their own product.Value as "the most comprehensive expression of the enslavement of the producers by their own product". Strong stuff, and why we've always described an exchange economy based on workers coops producing for the market as "workers self-exploitation".
Just rediscovered this podcast from a few years back. It's the guy who made those "Kapitalism 101" youtube videos talking about Rick Wolfe and Andrew Kliman. It's pretty informative as to why socialist have to defend the term "socialism" against the likes of Wolfe and his ilk.http://dietsoap.podomatic.com/entry/2011-10-10T13_28_30-07_00
Sepehr wrote: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!…"
This doesnt follow at all. Actually, if anything, it proves the opposite. The whole point of Lenin's daft theory is that the Labour Aristocracy in the developed capitalist economies – sometime he implied the entire working class in the developed capitalist economies – benefit from the payment of a "bribe" out of the proceeds of the "super-exploitation" of the Third World by the capitalists of the developed capitalist economies exporting their capital to the Third Wolrd. Yet here you are saying, as proof for the existence if the imaginary bribe, that when US industries outsourced their prduction elsewhere, American workers wages stopped rising! On the face of it, you would expect these wages to go up insofar as US industries profited from the superexploitation of these other countries in the Third World where they outsourced their production to and that these industries would then pass on part of the benefit to the workers in the mother country in the form of a bribe .Its all a load of codswallop. Lenin's used his Labour Aristocracy thesis to try to explain the social basis of reformism or opportunism. The Labour Aristocracy – the labour lieutenants of capital – would form the leadership of reformist political parties that that would limit the aspirations of workers to getting a better deal under capitalism and so steer workers away from agitating for social revolution. In return the Labour Aristocracy would be rewarded with a "bribe"Ths begs a nnumber of questions. Firstly how does one identity this bribe and distinguish it from the wages and salaries the labour aristocrats receive.? The fact is, if such a bribe existed , it would be part of the wage packet. That being so you would expect the capitalists to be more amenable to demands for higher wages by these same workers they were allegdly bribing. Why did they resist them as fiercely as they did if they were going to benefit from the loyalty of the labour aristocrats to the capitalist order? It makes no sense. Also contrary, to Lenin's sociological explanation for the Labour Aristocracy, this section of the working class was characterised by a higher degree of militancy than average. Its ironic that many of the core membership of the Bolshevik Party were themselves members of the Labour AristocracySecondly, it is often easily overlooked that the interests of individual capitalist enterprises do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the capitalist class. as a whole In theory , if such a bribe existed, one could see how it might be in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole to bribe the Labour aristocrats – so as to secure their political allegiance to capitalism. In practice however, it not the capitalist class as a whole that pays the wages of these workers but their direct employers. These capitalist businesses are in competition with each other and one of the ways in which they effectively compete is to cut costs including labour costs. – not add to them unneceesarily in the form of a bribeAnother reason why the notion of a bribe being paid out for some nebulous political objective is without any kind of basis in reality
I think it is interesting with this kind of stuff when we see them putting value in italics and in inverted comma’s etc as they in my opinion commendably wriggle and wrestle around with how their rudimental theoretical terms and predicates, like value and surplus value and necessary labour time, would manifest themselves in free access communism.( although rudimental theoretical term or predicate is a tautology)Likewise value pops up several times in italics in the Gotha programme. The ‘problem’ is that value manifests itself as exchange value in the opening parts of volume one and exchange value “=” value (more scientifically precisely exchange value is proportional to value but it is one to one) or better; As with Y = f(x) f(x) means function of x; hopefully mathematicians will know what I am on about but I am sure I have lost the rest. We have E = f(v) Like Weight = f(mass) And when we are on earth we think they are the same thing as I am sure non scientists still do! They are not, there is 9.80665 thrown in, there unless you live in Boliva or Nepal, and a bit of ‘necromancy’ with SI units Then Karl himself, I think, takes his eye off the ball and starts to subliminally associate value with exchange value, as Adam and his common fellow Hienricians do; evidenced by the progressive disappearance of exchange value in the three volumes.
The opening chapter in volume one is not in fact about capitalism, it is about ‘Proudhonist like’ simple commodity production; and Silas Marner, the linen weaver. And actually a critical appraisal of that ‘rudimental’ economic system which was the ‘starting point’ of capitalism or the economic system from which it emerged or evolved out of. Wage labour, ie capitalism ‘as a category had no existence’ in chapter one! A clue to that if that wasn’t enough even after dragging in Aristotle bed making; is that he uses similar examples eg linen, I think in his critique of Proudhon in Poverty of Philosophy (towards the end and most people don’t get that far). And that Tailoring and linen weaving were probably the last two economic spheres of production to be sucked into the whirl pool of capitalist production. And thus coats and linen were just about the worst examples of capitalist produced commodities you could pick. Linen production itself as the constant capital part of weaving in the early 1800’s was mainly done within the sphere of ‘artisan’ labour. Proudhon was a ‘reactionary’ because he decided that he, and his fellows, now that someone else owned Mayfair with hotels on it etc, wanted to tip the monopoly board over and start again. The ‘bourgeoisie’ quite literally emerged from the Proudhonist and artisan ‘guild socialists’; fertilised admittedly with capital from the merchants and the enlightened intellectual section of the aristocracy.Young Master Smeet wrote:However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.That argument suits perfectly to your pro-imperialist stance, noticing that agnosticism is practically no different than pro-imperialism; the former, perhaps, being even more perilous than the latter.In other words, whatever your views on imperialism, it has to be said that it is as repugnant and vile as racism.
I will not say anything about your lengthy analysis, though I see many lethal errors in it. In many cases I have already provided the proper answer. and in many other cases you can dig it out yourself. Resenick might have had that extra time in his death bed, but I need to accomplish my other everyday businesses. I may only say this: today one ought to be blind to deny the existence of monopoly and to suggest that markets and competition are what determines prices! This is exactly the nonsense that is taught in academic text books. But, nay, even a blind man could notice how far from truth that is. Take the price of oil for a simple example. Despite the massive drop in oil prices, mass of the people still have to pay comparatively high prices for petrol, transportation, etc. Of course there is competition among producers of that raw material, but prices of finished product (i.e. petrol, transportation, etc.) are determined monopolistically and oligopolistically. Unless, of course, if you want to resort to the usual libertarian prattle, saying that "prices are not going down because of government taxation"!
alanjjohnstone wrote:A few quick observation on your reply, Sepehr, and they are brief[…]As regards the bribe reference you transposed the " apostrophes" …i don't accept we are bribed or that we are an aristocracy of labour. This is the conclusion i accuse those who accepts Lenin. I think one wag when explained Lenin's implication that the Western worker is bought off by the British Empire, answered, "just tell me which amount of my wages is and i will gladly give it back."…I don't readily dismiss the class struggle in North America or Europe as being contributory factor to concessions and compromises made by the ruling class and often it was merely the fear of such a struggle that brought such great gains such as the 1945 British Welfare State when all the bourgeois parties Tories Liberals and Labour politicians joined together because they did not seek a repeat of 1919 and the possibility of revolution arising But I think it is also a sign of the current weakness of unions in safeguarding decent wages and conditions in the US that outsourced jobs are now returning to some degree…Where the Southern red 'right to work' states are indeed at Third World levels these days Without dwelling upon my personal circumstances, i have been a very close observer of the daily struggle of people in the developing countries, i need only open the door and look out and talk with my neighbours to understand what they face, so in the politest of ways and with no dis-respect…there is no need to teach your granny to suck eggs, as the saying goesI am well aware of varying living standards between nations but of course i am also very painfully aware of the existence of a yawning wealth gap within nations and how oligarchs versus plutocrats use people as political pawnsWe do possess differing ideas on Marx, i think. Too far apart to be compatible. Perhaps your views are right. Perhaps mine may be. But one thing i hope we both agree upon is that when we put our repective ideas to our fellow workers, it is they who will decide who they think is right and that no intelligensia substitutes itself for them by declaring the correct party line.You might have spoken with your neighbours, but I have lived half of my life in that misery. There was once a nationalist (and not even Marxist) government which was democratically ellected in Iran. That government decided, in order to develop Iran from a poor, rural and backward country, towards an industrial and advanced society, they had to nationalize oil industry. British and American imperialists deemed that decision to be so extravagant, that they decided to orchestrate a coup and topple the Iranian democratic government. Since then, Iran has never been a democratic country again, let alone socialist! As the result of its US-imposed lumpen-development, today there are 20 million unemployed people in that country, total population being 75 million. The situation in Iran is so complicated that your reductionist analysis quickly pales out once you start to go into details of it.You need not to be a Leninist to see the reality of Imperialism. It is so obvious a reality that even many right-wing conservatives acknowledge it. See the book "The Shock Doctrine" written by Naomi Klein to get a glimpse of what imperialism indeed has done.I am not saying that Lenin's analysis was so perfect and flawless, but at least he saw the importance of imperialism. For an up-to-date analysis of capitalism, see the recent article by Prabhat Patnaik, entitled "Capitalism and Its Current Crisis". Patnaik is an Indian economist and therefore has got first hand knowledge of exigencies in the Third World countries.http://monthlyreview.org/2016/01/01/capitalism-and-its-current-crisis/ Our positions are not merely two different approaches for the same cause. By cutting the critique of imperialism and Marx's position on nationalism, away from Marxism, you are effectively turning it into a sterile and harmless creature. It is therefore no surprise that the sharp edge of your criticism is directed toward those who in fact are pushing the vehicle of change, and that includes Wolff too.
I am leaving this link only for your reference. "Contemporary Imperialism" by Samir Amin:http://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/contemporary-imperialism/ And this one which perfectly explains what I have experienced with my flesh and bone, having lived in an Islamic Republic for decades. "Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism", again by Samir Amin.http://monthlyreview.org/2007/12/01/political-islam-in-the-service-of-imperialism/ Just for the record, many orthodox Leninists hate Amin's analysis.
I know a little about some of Iran's history and the 1953 US/UK orchestrated coup. I think you will be aware of the Workers Communist Party of Iran and how they are very unsympathetic to the present theocracy in Iran so do you dismiss their analysis as reductionist ?I think you mistaken my comment that i merely need to open my door and talk to my neighbours…The advantage of the internet is that you can contribute from wherever you are located and i departed the UK near-on a decade ago. I am afraid that you are very versed in sharing your advice and recommendations but less so when you do not listen to other peoples reading lists – such as i tried to ask you about – Andrew Kliman and Paul Mattick. I could have added to the list such as Paresh Chattopadhyay analysis of state-capitalism.Perhaps you have read this critical essay of Samir Amin. http://libcom.org/library/national-formation-arab-region-critique-samir-amin-mohammad-jafarAnd Amin's reply to ithttp://libcom.org/files/Mohammad%20Jafar%20brief%20comment%20SA.pdf Some people would suggest that it should be you, yourself, who should be be careful about a Wolff masquerading in Marxist clothing. Wolff's so-called pragmatic solutions such as workers co-operatives along the lines of Mondragon as a realistic solution to the problems of workers simply is utopian and outlandish views for a Marxist to hold but more importantly when described as socialism then it will be socialism that will be discredited once the inevitable happens and these co-ops collapse or regress back to "normal" capitalist practices. ‘Socialism-lite’ greases the path to right-wing reaction.
Dave B wrote:Then Karl himself, I think, takes his eye off the ball and starts to subliminally associate value with exchange value, as Adam and his common fellow Hienricians do;evidenced by the progressive disappearance of exchange value in the three volumes.You are trying to argue that "value" exists independently of exchange. If you define "value" as the labour-time content of a product then it does. It's a definition as any other but does it help us understand how capitalism works, eg why in capitalism it manifests itself as exchange value/price but not in other societies? I don't think so.It's a rather peculiar use of the word "value" (even more abstruse than Karl's). It would be much simpler to talk in terms of something being the product of so many hours of work, as I'm sure people did in non-commodity societies. "Value" more naturally means use-value. People only begin to talk of value in another sense when the products are exchanged.
Dave B wrote:The opening chapter in volume one is not in fact about capitalism, it is about ‘Proudhonist like’ simple commodity production; and Silas Marner, the linen weaver.And actually a critical appraisal of that ‘rudimental’ economic system which was the ‘starting point’ of capitalism or the economic system from which it emerged or evolved out of. Wage labour, ie capitalism ‘as a category had no existence’ in chapter one!I don't think chapter 1 of Capital is meant to be a description of an economic system that ever existed. So-called "petty commodity production", where independent producers owning their own tools and equipment exchange their products on the market, was a theoretical concept created as part of the development of an argument. Wage-labour, where the actual producers no longer own their instruments of production but sell their ability to work, is introduced later.
Dave B wrote:The ‘bourgeoisie’ quite literally emerged from the Proudhonist and artisan ‘guild socialists’; fertilised admittedly with capital from the merchants and the enlightened intellectual section of the aristocracy.I don't think this is historically accurate. It's once again misunderstanding the steps in the development of Marx's argument from "petty commodity production" to capitalism as the highest form of commodity-production. This was a logical development not a historical one. How Marx thought that capitalism really developed is set out in the historical chapters at the end of the book( which are far from describing a peaceful economic evolution from petty commodity production).
Yes I am well aware of that party and yes, I (along with thousands of other Iranian Marxist groups!) reject their position. This does not mean that I am palliating the Iranian ruling theocracy. Basically I have not seen a single Iranian political group or party who would vindicate Iranian theocracy, except of course the theocracy itself. The Iranian Workers Communist Party holds positions and views very similar to those of yours. Please be aware that they have never had any links to the real struggles going on in Iran. They are sitting somewhere safe in UK or US and roll out audacious prescriptions for Iranian workers! Honestly the number of people inside Iran who might have heard their name would not exceed more than two digits… I have already seen all of those criticisms about Amin, and many others too. What are you trying to prove? That other points of view do exist?! I can point you to countless criticisms, e.g. those of Friedrich Von Hayek or Milton Friedman… Among the left I could name Slavoj Gigek. If you read his analysis, in a purely idealistic realm it may make some sense, but in real world it is utter bosh. Or others, such as Bill Warren, Antonio Negri, Alan Woods, etc. etc., all of whom contending to be completely fluent on all concepts of Marxism. However, their analyses has no sense when evaluated against realities and empirical, data and this is precisely why their analyses are not Marxian in the proper sense of the word. Mondragon and coops are realities, quite palpable and observable. Is that utopian or your insipid and fruitless reiteration of a purely imaginary future? As I mentioned several times earlier, Marx, too, endorsed many things you would call non-socialist and bashed many who called themselves socialists.
Sepehr wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.That argument suits perfectly to your pro-imperialist stance, noticing that agnosticism is practically no different than pro-imperialism; the former, perhaps, being even more perilous than the latter.In other words, whatever your views on imperialism, it has to be said that it is as repugnant and vile as racism.
Sepehr, this is a silly argument. How on earth do you infer from the claim that it is capitalism not imperialism that we should focus our efforts upon removing, that this is somehow a "pro-imperialist stance"? No one here is supporting imperialism in any way shape or form. What we are saying is that you cannot separate imperialism from capitalism and that the roots of the former are to be found in the latter. Every single nation state on this planet – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist because every single one of them is locked into a system of global capitalism and is driven by a dynamic that is indisputably capitalist.
robbo203 wrote:Sepehr, this is a silly argument. How on earth do you infer from the claim that it is capitalism not imperialism that we should focus our efforts upon removing, that this is somehow a "pro-imperialist stance"? No one here is supporting imperialism in any way shape or form. What we are saying is that you cannot separate imperialism from capitalism and that the roots of the former are to be found in the latter. Every single nation state on this planet – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist because every single one of them is locked into a system of global capitalism and is driven by a dynamic that is indisputably capitalist.I see in your statement a disappointing lag on the principles of dialectical materialism. It would be futile if I repeat, time and again, how Marx prioritized issues other than capitalism over the course of his political chronology. Having already mentioned all necessary references to Marx, allow me to break my argument down to the most simplistic narrative I may know!In order to conquer capitalism, you need, first and foremost, developed societies. Asymmetric development on the global stage, i.e. developed societies on the one side and under-developed societies on the other, will result in crushing any attempt of transcendence into socialism in the developed side; and there would be no possibility for development on the under-developed side in the first place. Imperialism, by definition, is a continuous and effective force which actively prevents all attempts of development on the under-developed side of the world, hence eliminating the possibility of socialism throughout the entire world.If you are serious in your project of socialism, you must first remove this mischievous obstacle off of the way. Pure and simple… Remember these two important preconditions for any successful socialist revolution:1- Socialism can only be built where productive forces of society have matured to the highest level of socialization and productivity.2- Socialist revolution must take place in several countries simultaneously. Imperialism preempts on both points. Now go ahead and conquer capitalism without first taking any measures against imperialism. Do it if you can!…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.