‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

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.

 I reject completely what seems to lie behind your argument here and which, it seems to me, lends credence to the absurd Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country"You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries and even if you did, how could the "struggle against imperialism" bring that about it?  The newly "liberated" peripheral countries would soon enough fit in with the existing spatial economy of global capitalism with the comprador bourgeoisie of these countries seeking further integration within global capitalism and pimping out their countries as profitable sources of revenue for international investors to take advantage of.  Its happening all the time as we speak.  You just have to turn on the telly to see adverts extolling the investment opportunities in places like Malaysia or Nigeria and even Macedonia.Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.  I reject that completely. In  any case, it doesnt need the political assistance of socialists to promote this development.  To an extent it is happening already. Look at state capitalist China or other members of the  BRICS communityYou forget that capitalism is a global economy and the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level – not at the sub global level as the advocates of socialism in one country contend.  This is because of the integrated nature of the capitalist eocnomy and the complexity of the interdependencies that link every part of the world with every other.  Socialism is necessarily a global alternative to global capitalism.We aready have the global technolgical potential to establish socialism.  What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  Its is absolute rubbish to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries or that we ought not to make the effort to do this on some spurious mechanistic pretext that unless a McDonalds fast food outlet is installed on very street corner of every town in the continent in Africa, we can't have world socialism.  .This is to sell your soul to those self same comprador bourgeosie of the Global South who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of ripping  off their local populatons, having thrown off the shackles of what you call "imperialism ", only to reinforce that very thing, by opening up their markets to the Multinationals and co.

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

I reject completely what seems to lie behind your argument here and which, it seems to me, lends credence to the absurd Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country"

I fear, It shall remain a perpetual conundrum to me, how you concluded this from my statements…

robbo203 wrote:

You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries

According to Marx, you do require something like that. Although not exactly as you described it, but more or less so. History has proven Marx to be correct on this. You may dislike it, but that will change nothing.

robbo203 wrote:

and even if you did, how could the "struggle against imperialism" bring that about it? 

By eliminating the greatest obstacle towards that end.

robbo203 wrote:

The newly "liberated" peripheral countries would soon enough fit in with the existing spatial economy of global capitalism with the comprador bourgeoisie of these countries seeking further integration within global capitalism and pimping out their countries as profitable sources of revenue for international investors to take advantage of.

Possible, but not necessarily.

robbo203 wrote:

Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.

This, again, is another impregnable conundrum to me. How could a bourgeoisie-comprador be anti-imperialist?! You are confounding that concept with national-bourgeoisie, which by nature ought to be anti-imperialist. As I said, it is possible that a national bourgeoisie may fester into a bourgeoisie-compradore. But that is in case the national bourgeois development turns into a failure. Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of this failure. But this failure has not happened (YET) with countries such as China and India. Whether these countries will end up having the same fate or not is unknown to us. However, especially in the case of China, that is already a quite remote possibility.

robbo203 wrote:

I reject that completely. In  any case,i t doesnt need the political assistance of socialists to promote this development.  To an extent it is happening already. Look at state capitalist China or other members of the  BRICS community

Please remember, China used to be a rural country with hundreds of millions of illitrate people. Half of its population were wonted to opium. Diseases such as syphilis were extremely common. In short, it used to be what Africa still is today. Why China, and to a much less degree India, managed to develop into functioning and developing societies whilst Africa turned into a conglomerate of failed states with starving populations? The answer lies in "delinking" from imperialism. It happened in China, and to a lesser extent India, but it never happened in Africa.Now which one is closer to socialism? Africa or China? If you really think socialism is a possibility today for African countries, then you must be totally ignoring the consequences of recent massive refugee crisis, from Africa to Europe.

robbo203 wrote:

You forget that capitalism is a global economy and the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level – not at the sub global level as the advocates of socialism in one country contend.  This is because of the integrated nature of the capitalist eocnomy and the complexity of the interdependencies that link every part of the world with every other.  Socialism is necessarily a global alternative to global capitalism.

This absurd statement is the result of your vague, irrational and fictitious definition of socialism. Are you envisaging global socialism as a world where Africa continues to export minerals, Middle East continues to export crude oil, Malaysia continues to export palm oil, etc; and all of them import everything else from industrial countries? Or is it going to be based on self-sufficient communes? You need to seriously revise your vision of socialism.

robbo203 wrote:

We aready have the global technolgical potential to establish socialism.  What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  Its is absolute rubbish to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries or that we ought not to make the effort to do this on some spurious mechanistic pretext that unless a McDonalds fast food outlet is installed on very street corner of every town in the continent in Africa, we can't have world socialism.  .

What is rubbish is the idea of "global village". What village? While you fathom about how to build socialism, on the other side of the world many people are struggling to find some food to survive until tomorrow.How did you conclude that McDonald part from my statements is yet another mystery. Historically McDonald has been an icon of imperialism. As, e.g., in the famous statement that McDonald restaurants ought to follow McDonald Douglas bombers. I think I was clear on the anti-imperialism part…

robbo203 wrote:

This is to sell your soul to those self same comprador bourgeosie of the Global South who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of ripping  off their local populatons. having thrown off the shackles of what you call "imperialism ", only to reinforce that very thing, by opening up their markets to the Multinationals and co.

Comprador bourgeoisie is what is formed by, and what reinforces imperialist domination of metropole. You should clarify these key concepts in your mind.

[alanjjohnstone]

Sepehr, as well you know, a correct interpretation and application of socialist ideas are not a popularity contest. When you argue that only a few Iranians have heard of the WCPI you may well be right, and you may well disagree with them but you should know better than use it as a claim for right or wrong positions. Those who knew of Marx and Engels much less read them were also a handful for much of their lives. Public recognition scarecly validated or invalidated their ideas.Also it was either hyperbole or a typo that you seem to think there are thousand of Iranian Marxist groups… i'm sure you meant thousands in  Iranian Marxist groups but we all face the fact that Marxist parties are insignificant and of inconsequencial importance today in all countries. It seems you fail to appreciate any offer of additional information, since i assume you do not have 100% knowledge despite the considerable amount of reading you have done so i have raised authors i think you may not have studied. You should note i included links Amin's rebuttal to the criticism as proper balance.Have you read Andrew Kliman's lecture here, for instance, which i found very useful. http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.htmlI think we should be careful of citing Marx's authority or approval for co-ops. I think in every post i have declared that he is not infallible and we must always judge from conditions we face today. He expressed his sympathy for them at the IWMA in 1866 "We acknowledge the co-operative movement as one of the transforming forces of the present society based upon class antagonism. Its great merit is to practically show, that the present pauperising, and despotic system of the subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers.’ In Volume 3 of Capital Marx argued of co-operatives that ‘the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour.’But again, as with his support for national independence for certain nations and not all, he offered no carte blance.‘…however… excellent in principle and however useful in practice, co-operative labour, if kept within the narrow circle of the casual efforts of private workmen, will never be able to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of monopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their miseries. … To save the industrious masses, co-operative labour ought to be developed to national dimensions, and, consequently, to be fostered by national means. Yet the lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defence and perpetuation of their economic monopolies. So far from promoting, they will continue to lay every possible impediment in the way of the emancipation of labour. …To conquer political power has, therefore, become the great duty of the working classes.’ (IWMA 1864)‘Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. To convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves.’ (IWMA 1866)‘The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system’ (Capital, Vol.3)So perhaps in the 19th c they were a useful tactic but Marx's longer term actual prognosis for them was more pessimisticAs you say in your post "Mondragon and coops are realities, quite palpable and observable. Is that utopian or your insipid and fruitless reiteration of a purely imaginary future?" and i respond by saying as such, we have almost 200 years of hard bitter experience of their successes and failures in all sorts of social situations to make a political and economic judgement. The criticisms of coops are not based upon an imaginary future but history and it isn't it rather Wolff's proposals for WSDEs based on an imaginary future. Mondragon's model has already been falling apart, no crystal ball is required to conclude its failure as an aspiration for the working class. Wolff’s solution of WSDEs is no solution. Changing the legal form of private ownership of a business does not change the essence – capital is a social relation that expresses itself as a form of exchange value. Capitalism is generalised commodity production, wealth being produced for sale on a market. Wolff declines to challenge this and a WSDE is just as in much need to make a profit and required to compete with rival workers as current capitalists. He may succeed in making the tread-mill more humane  but humanity will still be engaged in a rat-race. My own criticisms of Wolff which i am sure you will reject have been blogged here a few years ago. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/05/sheep-in-wolffs-clothing.htmlAnyways, i look forwards to your reply.  

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries

According to Marx, you do require something like that. Although not exactly as you described it, but more or less so. History has proven Marx to be correct on this. You may dislike it, but that will change nothing.

I dont agree .  Marx' observations on the Russian Mir suggest otherwise. In any event even if you were right in thinking this I would then maintain that Marx was mistaken in this instance

Sepher wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.

This, again, is another impregnable conundrum to me. How could a bourgeoisie-comprador be anti-imperialist?! You are confounding that concept with national-bourgeoisie, which by nature ought to be anti-imperialist. As I said, it is possible that a national bourgeoisie may fester into a bourgeoisie-compradore. But that is in case the national bourgeois development turns into a failure. Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of this failure. But this failure has not happened (YET) with countries such as China and India. Whether these countries will end up having the same fate or not is unknown to us. However, especially in the case of China, that is already a quite remote possibility.

  How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them 

Sepher wrote:

Please remember, China used to be a rural country with hundreds of millions of illitrate people. Half of its population were wonted to opium. Diseases such as syphilis were extremely common. In short, it used to be what Africa still is today. Why China, and to a much less degree India, managed to develop into functioning and developing societies whilst Africa turned into a conglomerate of failed states with starving populations? The answer lies in "delinking" from imperialism. It happened in China, and to a lesser extent India, but it never happened in Africa. 

 This has nothing to do with the question of how we are to get a to a socialist society.  In theory, there may be some validity in the argument put forward  by the proponents of "dependency theory" against the modernisation thesis that dominated development discourse in the early post wars but by and large I think dependency theory is inadequate.  It failed to explained, for instance, the emergence of NICs – newly industrialising countries – oriented towards export led growth (which is in fact what boosted Chinese state capitalism as well)

Sepehr wrote:

Now which one is closer to socialism? Africa or China? If you really think socialism is a possibility today for African countries, then you must be totally ignoring the consequences of recent massive refugee crisis, from Africa to Europe.

 Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo 

Sepehr wrote:

This absurd statement is the result of your vague, irrational and fictitious definition of socialism. Are you envisaging global socialism as a world where Africa continues to export minerals, Middle East continues to export crude oil, Malaysia continues to export palm oil, etc; and all of them import everything else from industrial countries? Or is it going to be based on self-sufficient communes? You need to seriously revise your vision of socialism.

 There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non market non statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  Im sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequece of this will be increased divrsification at the local level which will be good. But you are confusing two quite separate things.  It is not the business of socialists to promote capitalist development and ally ourselves with capitalist states and their "national bourgeosie".  If there was a case for that in the mid 19th century, we have long gone past that stage.  The world as a whole already possesses the technological potential to make socialism feasible.  Deferring socialism in order to develop the Global South in the interests of their national bourgeosie strikes me as bein positively reactionary . Not to say unnecessary insofar and to the extent that such development is happening anyway as yourself point out in the case of China and India

Sepehr wrote:

What is rubbish is the idea of "global village". What village? While you fathom about how to build socialism, on the other side of the world many people are struggling to find some food to survive until tomorrow.

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to any other part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systemtically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. Its a little arrogant to assume that workers or peasants in the Third Word are incapable of drawing socialist consclusions from this.  Is this what you are suggesting?

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them

Unfortunately we disagree on the very definition of Imperialism. You are using your own terminology, inconsistent with the definition widely used by others. Marx himself seldom used this term, wherefore at his time it was commonly referred to as "colonialism". Only in the 20th century colonialism turned into a new countenance, to wit, imperialism. Therefore, with this definition in mind, your use of the term, as in "imperialism of China and India", is not only inaccurate, but also a spurious argument used to distract attentions from heinous crimes committed by the real imperialistic powers.How many countries, "pray tell", are invaded, occupied or bombed by China or India?!

robbo203 wrote:

Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo

Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

robbo203 wrote:

There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non market non statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  Im sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequece of this will be increased divrsification at the local level which will be good. But you are confusing two quite separate things.  It is not the business of socialists to promote capitalist development and ally ourselves with capitalist states and their "national bourgeosie".  If there was a case for that in the mid 19th century, we have long gone past that stage.  The world as a whole already possesses the technological potential to make socialism feasible.  Deferring socialism in order to develop the Global South in the interests of their national bourgeosie strikes me as bein positively reactionary . Not to say unnecessary insofar and to the extent that such development is happening anyway as yourself point out in the case of China and India

How about we just go out there and tell people: "let's all be nice with each other!"… That is how you see the socialst project!And I am not telling anyone to "defer socialism"… If you think building socialism is so unchallenging, "pray proceed"!

robbo203 wrote:

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to any other part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systemtically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. Its a little arrogant to assume that workers or peasants in the Third Word are incapable of drawing socialist consclusions from this.  Is this what you are suggesting?

That reminds me of Marie Antoinette and her famous saying: "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"…

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sepehr, as well you know, a correct interpretation and application of socialist ideas are not a popularity contest. When you argue that only a few Iranians have heard of the WCPI you may well be right, and you may well disagree with them but you should know better than use it as a claim for right or wrong positions. Those who knew of Marx and Engels much less read them were also a handful for much of their lives. Public recognition scarecly validated or invalidated their ideas.

I think you did not get my point over there. I said, that WCPI has never had any links with the real struggles of Iranian people; that they sit in some aloof and safe place and roll out audacious prescriptions for Iranian workers. My point was to tell you, that their analyses has nothing to do with the realities on the ground in Iran. Most other Iranian Marxist groups believe that WCPI is funded by US or Israeli governments, because their analyses are in a glaring concurrence with US and Israeli interests. I do not know whether they do receive any fundings or not, but I can see, based upon what I have read from their analyses, there are certainly grounds for such a suspicion.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Also it was either hyperbole or a typo that you seem to think there are thousand of Iranian Marxist groups… i'm sure you meant thousands in  Iranian Marxist groups but we all face the fact that Marxist parties are insignificant and of inconsequencial importance today in all countries. 

You got me wrong here too. Certainly when I say "thousands of Iranian Marxist groups", it is an exaggeration. I intended to highlight the fact that there are so many Iranian Marxist groups and parties, most of whom are either formed or at least currently are entirely located outside Iran. They all call themselves Marxist, but most of them are too incompetent in the scientific side of Marxism. Therefore, it should not be a good idea to seek information from such people, if you wish to ascertain the situation of Iranian society. WCPI is simply one of those groups.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It seems you fail to appreciate any offer of additional information, since i assume you do not have 100% knowledge despite the considerable amount of reading you have done so i have raised authors i think you may not have studied. You should note i included links Amin's rebuttal to the criticism as proper balance.

I appreciate your links, but I am too busy and could not give you a full response to everything you said or shared with me. I am only picking up on some key issues. Right now if my boss notices what I am doing instead of my assignments, I will be screwed!I have not yet completely gone through that lengthy article from Kliman. That is in my queue for a convenient time. But I already gave you my overall opinion about his works.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As you say in your post "Mondragon and coops are realities, quite palpable and observable. Is that utopian or your insipid and fruitless reiteration of a purely imaginary future?" and i respond by saying as such, we have almost 200 years of hard bitter experience of their successes and failures in all sorts of social situations to make a political and economic judgement. The criticisms of coops are not based upon an imaginary future but history and it isn't it rather Wolff's proposals for WSDEs based on an imaginary future. Mondragon's model has already been falling apart, no crystal ball is required to conclude its failure as an aspiration for the working class.

It is not just about Mondragon. All practical steps and experiments ever taken by anyone, always come under ruthless criticism of that portion of "left" who present themselves as "communists who compromise nothing". In this regard, Lenin wrote: "The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism." (Lenin Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 471)In the same line, I would argue, Wolff's tireless activism has already proven to be most valuable in way of demystifying and breaking the taboo of "communism" and "socialism" in the United States. You may go out and tell people: "socialism means there will be no markets and everything will be free!"And, in reaction, people may scoff, or, perhaps, spit!It takes a lot more than that to achieve tangible results on this path.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wolff declines to challenge this and a WSDE is just as in much need to make a profit and required to compete with rival workers as current capitalists. He may succeed in making the tread-mill more humane  but humanity will still be engaged in a rat-race. My own criticisms of Wolff which i am sure you will reject have been blogged here a few years ago. 

That is simply not true. Wolff has in some of his speeches alluded to the shortcomings of WSDEs and their relation to capitalist markets. This is not the ultimate solution, but a first step on the long road toward socialism.You are so impatiently rushing to condemn his movement, that is why you cannot follow his arguments correctly.

[alanjjohnstone]

Sepehr, as you probably well understand from your own political journey, one does not discard their political baggage very easily. I always have required to be persuaded of ideas that are new or contrary to those i hold myself. We are not jack-rabbits jumping from one political idea to another but need to be convinced of its correctness. Perhaps, you can tell me more of the socialist position you, yourself, come from.I noticed that you have recommended a number of individual writers but never organisations. Are you a member of an actual socialist/marxist party?Are you involved in your trade union, which is?Are you active in any campaigning groups, which are?Who will you be voting for in your next round of elections? 

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them

Unfortunately we disagree on the very definition of Imperialism. You are using your own terminology, inconsistent with the definition widely used by others. Marx himself seldom used this term, wherefore at his time it was commonly referred to as "colonialism". Only in the 20th century colonialism turned into a new countenance, to wit, imperialism. Therefore, with this definition in mind, your use of the term, as in "imperialism of China and India", is not only inaccurate, but also a spurious argument used to distract attentions from heinous crimes committed by the real imperialistic powers.How many countries, "pray tell", are invaded, occupied or bombed by China or India?!

 Yes I am using the term imperialism in the wider sense to denote other forms of influence besides military. People sometimes talk of cultural imperialism, for example and this would be an instance of that.  You mention colonialism.  Dependency theorists talked about "neo colonialism" after the Second World War when various European powers grnated political independence to their erstwhile colonies.  The point they were trying to make which is the one I am trying to make is that the economic influence of the core  countries over the periphery did not disappear with the granting of political independenceIf you are limiting the term imperialism to just militarily attacking or occupying another country then I  guess quite a few countries would qualify as imperialist – such as the numerous states contributing to the coalition forces in the current Syrian conflict.  China woud qualify as imperialist becuase of its occupation of Tibet etc etc

Sepehr wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo

 Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

I am not quite sure what your point is and wish you would not speak in riddles.  Are you defending Chinese state capitalism?

Sepehr wrote:

 How about we just go out there and tell people: "let's all be nice with each other!"… That is how you see the socialst project!And I am not telling anyone to "defer socialism"… If you think building socialism is so unchallenging, "pray proceed"!

 You are asking us to first remove the obstacle of "imperialism" before we can have socialism even though imperialism is part and parcel of the nature of capitalism  and ineradicable with capitalism. So draw your own conclusions. And no the socialist project is not about telling people to be nice to each other.  Thats a silly comment, I am simply making the point that workers everywhere in whatever part of the word they are from are fully capable of understanding what the socialist project is about. 

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps, you can tell me more of the socialist position you, yourself, come from.I noticed that you have recommended a number of individual writers but never organisations. Are you a member of an actual socialist/marxist party?Are you involved in your trade union, which is?Are you active in any campaigning groups, which are?Who will you be voting for in your next round of elections? 

I am afraid I would not be able to disclose all the information you are requesting. This is for security reasons, for, as you may know, not all peoples of the world enjoy the same freedom of speech and assembly granted to you.I can tell you this much, that I was a member of Communist Party of Australia for a while. A party which calls itself "Marxist-Leninist". I joined them hoping to learn something from them, and help them learn something, and together we could help other people to raise their level of consciousness. However, that turned to be a chimera!I noticed serious aberrations and shortcomings in their policies and views, all of which stemmed from their incompetence, and, above all, disinterest, in discussions and concepts put forward by Marx and even Lenin. They had effectively preserved all mistakes and shortcomings of Lenin and had done away with his strengths and insightful contributions. I tried to show them where and how some of their views were refuted by Marx or Lenin, but they accused me of "abusing Marx and Lenin quotes".Finally, I renounced my membership when they menaced to sanction me!I work in an Indian IT firm. In India, all trades are unionized, except IT.And in the next elections, most probably I will not vote!

[Dave B]

Hi Adam. For what it matters to start with; the theory, category and concept of simple commodity production, whatever that maybe, was fully embraced by all the major Marxist theorists in the first half of the 20thcentury. Eg Rosa, Lenin, Kautsky, Rubin et al. For them it was historically pre capitalist and later co-existed within capitalism.  You have the common view on this, re opening chapter not being about simple commodity production, that you also share with Professor Michael Heinrich and his Die Linke friends. I know because I have debated with them at length on libcom.  They take umbrage in particular, logically enough, at the statement from Fred that I agree with; “This makes clear, of course, why in the beginning of his first book Marx proceeds from the simple production of commodities as the historical premise, ultimately to arrive from this basis to capital — why he proceeds from the simple commodity instead of a logically and historically secondary form — from an already capitalistically modified commodity. To be sure, Fireman positively fails to see this.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/pref.htm  (They don’t dispute that ‘simple production of commodities’ and ‘simple commodity’ that Fred was on about is all part of  the ‘simple commodity production theory’.) And thus they disagree with Fred’s, and my understanding, that therefore the  'beginning of his first book’, Chapter one Marx proceeds from simple commodity production or it is about that, and not capitalism. To test that case we first need a understanding of what simple commodity production is ‘alleged’ to be. And then set that against the content of chapter one. Simple commodity production is when someone produces a commodity ‘C’, or use-value that they have no intention of consuming for themselves but only in order to sell it in order to obtain money, ‘M’,  with the sole intention of purchasing ‘another’ or ‘other’ commodities ‘C’ and use values that they intend to consume and use up. Or in other words; C-M-COr. “…simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy.” An example being Silas Marner and for that matter the E. P. Tompson ‘pre working class’ handloom weavers in general of George Eliot fame. And this can be ‘categorised’ or defined by the non existence of ‘wage labour’ or the search for surplus value or DM.   Does that fit in with the nature of the discussion in chapter one? And;  “Wages is a category that, as yet, has no existence at the present stage of our investigation”  If Fred and my interpretation is correct and actually; “Marx proceeds from the simple production of commodities as the historical premise ultimately to arrive from this basis to capital”  Then this simplest form of the circulation of commodities….C-M-C would be the starting point or origin of capitalism ; rather than capitalism itself. And then in chapter four ;    “The [..or this or what he has been talking about? ..] circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital.   The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy. The circuit C-M-C starts with one commodity, and finishes with another, which falls out of circulation and into consumption. Consumption, the satisfaction of wants, in one word, use-value, is its end and aim. “ And capitalism begins with? “The circuit M-C-M, on the contrary, commences with money and ends with money. Its leading motive, and the goal that attracts it, is therefore mere exchange-value. M-C-M', where M' = M + DM = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call “surplus-value.” The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm ( even though Silas was a bit of a gold hoarder- separate analysis required.) Another thing that they also foam at, and I agree with, is Fred’s position that the law of value, or in other words that commodities exchange at their value, in fact progressively breaks down with the development of capitalism with the affect of rate of profit and organic composition of capital etc modifying exchange value. And therefore the law of value only acts purely in simple commodity production. The following quotation from Fred, that I agree with, has the Heinrichians spitting even more feathers than the ‘Fireman’ quote.    In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity production — that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of production. Up to that time, prices gravitate towards the values fixed according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin. Thus, the Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm#law I proposed that it would be logical, wouldn’t it, in an analysis of commodities and exchange value thereof ? To start with the simpler historical analysis of commodity production and proceed from that point from which capitalism ‘started’? [ There was then an absurd debate as to whether or not simple commodity production and even commodity production and markets itself ever existed before capitalism- despite ‘time team’ archaeology, Cornish tin miners from 3000 years ago and Jesus the carpenter as a yoke and plough producing simple commodity producer- he may not of existed but Justin the Martyr in 150AD wasn’t so phased at that economic mode production as my Heinrichians were. Although Justin admitted that that economic category and concrete labour would no longer exist in heaven and suggested that Jesus will have laid down his tools and was no longer a chippy.]   The early twentieth century ‘orthodox’ Marxist theoreticians eg Rosa, Lenin and Kautsky were not alarmed at this and my interpretation. In arguing with Michael Heinrich’s English interpreter they accepted that my position was ‘orthodox’ early 20thcentury Marxist theory; their argument being was that Fred was responsible for confusing everything and was the origin of the problem with all the rest following suit. As I think you must know I took a non modernist interpretation of capital after just picking it up and approaching it cold and naively unbiased. I had never read a word of Rosa or Kautsky, never mind on simple commodity production, before I read capital. In fact I was well into and had expanded my reading material somewhat well before I realised there was a Heinrichian ‘problem’; I seemed to have not read SPGB theory either apart from the peasant thing that got me started in 2003.  I thought Rosawas quite good on simple commodity production when I read it; innocently and completely oblivious of the controversy. I even skipped over Lenin’s ‘millions and millions of times’ quote which I didn’t archive as it didn’t seem important at the time, and it took me hours to find again. Unlike all the other stuff from Lenin that I was squirreling around, for later. Where does that leave scientifically un-transformed labour time value and exchange value? I would say as a mathematician that ‘labour time value’ is an independent variable. Or in other words a given or ‘predicate’. In simple commodity production, labour time value as an independent variable is in ‘reality’ modified into ‘an’ exchange value by a mathematical and unit transforming ‘function’, f(x). Thus, in simple commodity production, suppose a 100 tonnes of coal is 100 hour of labour time.  And 1 ounce of gold or a Krugerrand , or an exchange value/money  is 100 hour of labour time as well or what it takes miners to produce etc. Then to convert the labour time value of 100 tonnes of coal into ‘an’ exchange value you divide the labour time value of the coal by 100 hours and multiply it by one once Kruggerands to get an exchange value. If a loaf of sugar contains 1 hour of labour time in order to convert it into the exchange value you divide by 100 and multiply it by one once Kruggerands; thus its exchange value is 0.01 of a Krugerand etc.  That is a simple, simple commodity production f(x). In capitalism and with organic composition of capital etc the irreducible predicate and ‘thing in itself’ and mathematical independent variable, x,  doesn’t vanish! The mathematical f(x) which transforms labour time value into exchange value changes.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables   This thread seems to have split somewhat into surplus value and imperialism.

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

Yes I am using the term imperialism in the wider sense to denote other forms of influence besides military. People sometimes talk of cultural imperialism, for example and this would be an instance of that.  You mention colonialism.  Dependency theorists talked about "neo colonialism" after the Second World War when various European powers grnated political independence to their erstwhile colonies.  The point they were trying to make which is the one I am trying to make is that the economic influence of the core  countries over the periphery did not disappear with the granting of political independenceIf you are limiting the term imperialism to just militarily attacking or occupying another country then I  guess quite a few countries would qualify as imperialist – such as the numerous states contributing to the coalition forces in the current Syrian conflict.  China woud qualify as imperialist becuase of its occupation of Tibet etc etc

Yes, imperialism involves other means other than military. The expression "cultural imperialism" is a sham one, designed to conceal and thwart the scientific concept of "cultural hegemony", which is altogether a different story, although, of course, dialectically interconnected with the concept of imperialism. What you refer to as the "dependency theory", generally pertains to the sponanious effects of asymmetrical development and how it precipitates inequality on an international scale with a free market system. In reality, these asymmetries can be mended by state intervention and collective policies protecting the underdeveloped country from overwhelming domination of foreign capital. However, whenever and wherever a country has moved to implement such measures, it has been sabotaged through direct or indirect intervention of imperialism.Imperialism may be in the form of direct military intervention, such as in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc.It may be in the form of organizing a coup, such as in the cases of Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Greece, etc.It may be in the form of economic sanctions, such as in the case of sanctions against Vietnam, Iran, Russia, Burma, Libya, Iraq, etc.It may be in the form of "Financial Terrorism", a spendid example of which would be recent financial aggression against Greece.You should be able to see that all of these are aggressive means to force countries of periphery into complete submission. You are confounding all forms of trade with imperialism. Just because China is exporting cheap products to other countries, does not mean that China has got its imperialistic vicious tentacles all over the world! Show me one occasion in which China has colluded in a coup, or imposed unilateral sanctions, or blocked the flow of finance into another country…Tibet has been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years. Why would someone pretend as if Tibet is "occupied" by China and encourage people of Tibet to secede from China, which would definitely create a second Afghanistan-style failed state in that region?The answer to that question is obvious.1) Secession of Tibet will debilitate China and enable the US to force China into submission. This is indeed one of the objectives of the well known US project of "Full Spectrum Dominance", which came on its agenda after the dissolution of Soviet Union, code named "New World Order". There are countless documents, evidences and a rich literature around this subject.2) It could be used as a lame excuse to overlook ferocious attrocities committed by the real imperialism, i.e. the US and its subaltern allies.Therefore, not only China is not an imperialist power, but also, I would argue, even Russia does not qualify as such. Even though Russia has indeed engaged in military campaigns in a few occasions, and has slapped some countries with its own sanctions, it has so far done all of that in a tit-for-tat retaliation. If you slap someone and he slaps you back, you cannot accuse him of aggression; you are the aggressor!It is not a surprise for me to see you talking about "Chinese imperialism", "Russian imperialism", and even "Indian imperialism"! As I mentioned earlier, the whole focus of some part of the "left" is to relegate Marxism to a mere wherewithal of bolstering powers of status-quo and crushing all struggles challenging those powers. In that sense, you walk along the same lines as do miscreants known as neoconservatives and neoliberal imperialists.

robbo203 wrote:

Sepehr wrote:

Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

I am not quite sure what your point is and wish you would not speak in riddles.  Are you defending Chinese state capitalism?

I believe you are now in possession of the key to solve this riddle. See the beginning of this comment, where I have explained what is imperialism and why China is targeted by the sharp edge of some part of the "left", who sing, in unison, mantra of the ultra-right-wing neocons. Your credo does not produce revolutionaries, but stooges.

robbo203 wrote:

I am simply making the point that workers everywhere in whatever part of the word they are from are fully capable of understanding what the socialist project is about. 

I wonder what is keeping them for so long! Perhaps you need to go and tell them in person…You still miss my main point. You only see a single contradiction, i.e. that between labour and capital. In order to get a sense of complexity and variation of contradictions under capitalism see "Socialism or Barbarism: From the 'American Century' to the Crossroads", written by Istvan Mezaros, Chapter 1 under the title of "Capital: The living contradition".

[alanjjohnstone]

For actually all your reading, Sepehr, you seem not at all interested in any criticism of what has become dogma: that socialists are duty-bound to support struggles for "national liberation” and you have simply trotted out the old anti-imperialism position of supporting the weaker country against imperialist aggression which refuses any real class analysis of war.As indicated by both you and Robbo “imperialism” is a very slippery word,  as all states seek to channel as much of world profits their way as they can. It is just that some states are stronger – some, much, much stronger – than others and so are better at doing this. In which case “imperialist” would just be another way of describing the successful states. But this does not mean that currently weaker states are not striving to do the same. As Robbo maintains imperialism is not something separate from capitalism.All capitalist countries, not just those normally labelled “imperialist”, are prepared to use force to further the vital economic interests of their capitalist class. Every up-and-coming capitalist power finds the world already carved up by the established powers. If it is to expand its influence it must clash with these powers, as Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia have found and as China is now finding. All of them, in their time, have beaten the "anti-imperialist" drum, that is, have opposed the domination of the world by Britain and France and later America. Mussolini talked of Italy as a "proletarian nation" in a class war against the "bourgeois nations". Nazi Germany stirred up Arab and Latin American nationalism. Japan advanced the slogan of "Asia for the Asians". Russia and  China, like Germany before, vociferously denounce Anglo-French-American imperialism. Anti-imperialism is the doctrine long used by capitalists in relatively weak countries to try and pursue their ends.While no fan of Alex Callinicos of the SWP, he has made some pertinent observations: “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 and other exploited classes 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."No argument here from us there. Nor can we disagree when he says that:"…different Islamist tendencies and regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a history of collaborating with imperialism …"Or when Callinicos says:"… 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…"I have to take issue with you about the clean sheet you offer China regards imperialist goals. We presently see territorial disputes with Japan, Philippines and Vietnam but more interestingly, you avoided mention of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam of 1979?  Vietnam like Tibet has always been thought of as a tribute state to China for over a thousand years. But many regions of China itself were nominally Chinese but ruled by autonomous war-lords. The conventional view of Chinese history is that of alternating periods of political unity and disunity. And of course they have practised the settler tactic of Han Chinese to impose Beijing rule on its outlying territories. But surely the elephant in the room was to deny that the creation of the East European Bloc – puppet states –  by the Soviet Union and their rule maintained on two occasions by tanks, was not an act of imperialism.According to many commentators and of Lenin, himself, who you lectured us upon,  is that an important characteristics of an imperialist bourgeoisie is its formation of monopolies that export capital. Such a development has been taking place in China during the last decade. Chinese monopolies have become among the largest global corporations, which has resulted in China’s enormously increased capital export. China’s rapid growth as a capital exporter has taken place on two levels: productive investment and finance capital (bonds, loans, etc.). As a result of its tremendously rapid accumulation of capital from production, Chinese imperialism has also accumulated huge volumes of finance capital. This finds expression in the extraordinarily rapid growth of the country’s foreign exchange reserves. These reserves skyrocketed from $165 billion in 2000 to $3,305 billion in March 2012. As such, China’s foreign exchange reserves equal the combined sum of the next six largest foreign exchange reserves holders! Of course, foreign exchange reserves are not bundles of paper money stuffed in a safe, but money capital which is put in circulation as loans to return to the holder a share of the surplus value created by the borrowing country. Usually, foreign exchange reserves are invested in relatively secure deposits like government bonds, deposits in the Bank for International Settlements, or Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) maintained by the International Monetary Fund. In fact about 83 percent of China’s total assets of $ 3.4 trillion are foreign exchange reserves, and most of these are invested in foreign governmental bonds. China is also an active lender in bilateral loans. According to the Financial Times, Chinese banks have emerged as a major financier over the past few years. It is already lending more money to so-called developing countries than is the World Bank. In 2009 and 2010, the China Export Import Bank and China Development Bank signed loans of at least $110 billion to the governments and companies of developing countries. (By comparison, from mid-2008 to mid-2010 the World Bank made commitments of $100.3 billion.)China’s capital is active not only in the international loan and bond markets, but also in the form of foreign investments in the industrial and raw material sector. As China has only recently emerged as an imperialist power, it is still a weaker player in the global market than those imperialist powers that have dominated international finance for more than a century. Thus the old imperialist powers have an outward stock of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) larger than China’s (as share of global FDI stock: United States: 21.1 percent, Britain: 8.1 percent, Germany: 6.8 percent, France: 6.4 percent, Hong Kong: 4.9 percent, China: 1.7 percent). However, the last is already not far behind imperialist Italy (2.4 percent).Moreover, one must bear in mind that China started its massive foreign investment drive only a few years ago. While China’s share of global FDI stock was only 0.2 percent in 1990 and 0.4 percent in 2000, since then it has more than quadrupled to 1.7 percent. its outward FDI having rapidly grown since 2005. According to official Chinese statistics, the country’s FDI from 2005 to mid-2012 was $344.8 billion. In 2009-2011 China’s annual FDI outward flows already surpassed those of rivals like Canada and Italy, and more recently has already reached the level of countries like Germany.China’s monopolies channel a significant proportion of their foreign investments to semi-colonial countries like Nigeria. One can conservatively estimate that 800,000 foreign employees of Chinese corporations are located in semi-colonial countries. It is true that China still lags substantially behind the old imperialist powers in outward foreign direct investment stocks, its role in the semi-colonial countries is rapidly increasing. In 2010, China became the third-largest investor in Latin America, behind the United States and the Netherlands.The continued existence of a strong, centralised bureaucracy and the brutal suppression of China’s working class – a two-tier work-force – enabled the Chinese capitalist ruling class to subjugate and exploit the majority of the country’s massively growing proletariat, made up of many migrants from the interior. On this basis, capitalists—both Chinese and foreign—were able to extract huge amounts of surplus value destined for capital accumulation. While foreign imperialist monopolies also profited, it was primarily the Chinese bourgeoisie that benefited. As a result, Chinese capital was able to develop monopolies that play an important role not only in the domestic market but also increasingly in the world market. Today China’s monopolies are among the most important exporters of capital.Acts of Chinese charity? Of China’s capitalist generosity? The philanthropy of Beijing?  Or the more obvious answer – merely another imperialist nation doing catch-up.I am indebted to this article for the statistics, which indeed will be dated and have changed to even more impressive expression of Chinese global economic and financial influence   

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For actually all your reading, Sepehr, you seem not at all interested in any criticism of what has become dogma: that socialists are duty-bound to support struggles for "national liberation” and you have simply trotted out the old anti-imperialism position of supporting the weaker country against imperialist aggression which refuses any real class analysis of war.

Your class analysis is a peculiar one. It certainly shares nothing with that of Marx. I would not call it an analysis, for the grotesque contradictions I see in it, to which I have alluded already.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As indicated by both you and Robbo “imperialism” is a very slippery word,  as all states seek to channel as much of world profits their way as they can. It is just that some states are stronger – some, much, much stronger – than others and so are better at doing this. In which case “imperialist” would just be another way of describing the successful states. But this does not mean that currently weaker states are not striving to do the same. As Robbo maintains imperialism is not something separate from capitalism.

In truth, Lenin's definition of imperialism is out-dated. You need to update your knowledge with the rich literature which has developed more recently. I already mentioned one article from Samir Amin. Your comment is a salient indication that you did not go through it. Anyway, in addition to that, I also strongly recommend reading "Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance ", written by Michael Hudson. Hudson draws the picture from a different perspective. All the statistics you have given here, which I had seen more than a thousand times in articles of other like-minded people (I think they all copy and paste from one another!), is nothing in the face of financial domination of the US over the entire world, including China. How is the US controlling global finance, how is the US able to finance its astronomical trade deficit and maintain the biggest military throughout the world, these are what Hudson explains in his book. We have reached to a higher level of finance capital, one which Lenin could not imagine in his wildest dreams. This higher level, interestingly, is what you fail to comprehend too. In other words, you have developed a dogma from Lenin's analysis, and you accuse me, or anyone else who comes from an anti-imperialist position, to have done so. I am not a propagandist trying to white-wash anything China or any other state has ever done. But I have enough brain capacity not to make a lacky out of myself too.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 “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 and other exploited classes 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."

And your so called "internationalism" is the ideology that seeks to preserve and extend imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down anti-imperialism….  the logic of your movement is to subordinate the interests of workers and other exploited classes to those of the imperialist leadership… etc.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No argument here from us there. Nor can we disagree when he says that:"…different Islamist tendencies and regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a history of collaborating with imperialism …"

See the article from Samir Amin on political Islam. Islamists are not anti-imperialist in their essence. They effectively conceal the class struggle behind "cultural struggle" and anti-imperialism behind anti-Westernization. I see that you are doing the same thing, which makes me wonder…

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Or when Callinicos says:"… 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…"

Oh really?! Then I suppose the two World Wars never happened!

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But surely the elephant in the room was to deny that the creation of the East European Bloc – puppet states –  by the Soviet Union and their rule maintained on two occasions by tanks, was not an act of imperialism.

I see all of the elephants, but there is a dinasour in the room which you never wish to see!With respect to you as a person, your reasoning is ludicrous. You may put your savings in the bank and the bank will give you some interest. In that sense, you too are a capitalist. So, the way you argue about "all capitalist states are imperialist", I could extend your argument and say, you as a capitalist are no less perilous for the "workers" than any other capitalist!This is how you have lost all your touch with realities. Of course, in a capitalist society, you need to live according to the rules. So did Marx, Engels, Lenin and everyone else. The same is true about China or any other state.  What do you expect them to do? Break all their weapons and vouchsafe to other "capitalist" states and be happy that "alright, now they are the bad guys, not us"?!Marx was not so dumb to overlook such a simple fact. How is it that some people do this in his name, I truely wonder…

[alanjjohnstone]

The SPGB are aware of Samir Amin and reviewed one of his bookshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/book-reviews-hobsbawm-ending-crisis-capitalism-or-eI am reading his China 2013 and wondering about a few of his empirical evidence that i am double checking for accuracy  (doubt everything, as Marx said)http://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/china-2013

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

Hi Adam.For what it matters to start with; the theory, category and concept of simple commodity production, whatever that maybe, was fully embraced by all the major Marxist theorists in the first half of the 20thcentury.  Eg Rosa, Lenin, Kautsky, Rubin et al.For them it was historically pre capitalist and later co-existed within capitalism.You have the common view on this, re opening chapter not being about simple commodity production, that you also share with Professor Michael Heinrich and his Die Linke friends.I know because I have debated with them at length on libcom.They take umbrage in particular, logically enough, at the statement from Fred that I agree with;“This makes clear, of course, why in the beginning of his first book Marx proceeds from the simple production of commodities as the historical premise, ultimately to arrive from this basis to capital — why he proceeds from the simple commodity instead of a logically and historically secondary form — from an already capitalistically modified commodity. To be sure, Fireman positively fails to see this.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/pref.htm(They don’t dispute that ‘simple production of commodities’ and ‘simple commodity’ that Fred was on about is all part of  the ‘simple commodity production theory’.)

Nor do I. There is no argument about the nature of the concept of "simple commodity production" (an economy of independent producers working with their own instruments of production and exchanging their products with each other). The argument is about whether such an economy ever existed historically or whether this was just a logical model employed by Marx in developing his analysis of capitalism, the highest form of commodity-production.It is a historical fact that independent producers owning their own instruments of production did exist. It is also a fact that some one them evolved into capitalists employing wage-workers. But that's not the same as saying that a market economy of independent producers ever existed or that capitalist commodity production developed out of simple commodity production.I suppose that the nearest there might have been to an simple commodity production economy might have been New England, New York and Pennsylvania for a while in the 17th and 18th centuries but even then there were already wealthy landowners and merchants and instrument-less workers.Another difficulty of assuming chapter 1 of Capital as a historical description rather than the logical development of an argument is that a simple commodity production economy would have to have existed on the basis of barter before money evolved. And there's certainly no historical evidence for saying that anything like that ever happened. There never was a whole economy based on barter.In any event, the development of capitalism presupposes the existence of a landless and instrument-less class and there's no logical reason why simple commodity production should lead to this. It clearly had another cause,  set out by Marx in Part VIII of Capita on "The So-Called Primitive Accumulation", chapters 26 to 33 with the self-explanatory titles such as:

Quote:

Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the landBloody legislation against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing Down of Wages by Acts of ParliamentGenesis of the Capitalist FarmerReaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry. Creation of the Home-Market for Industrial CapitalGenesis of the Industrial Capitalist.

There are many books by those in the Marxist tradition going into this in more detail. I don't think even any non-Marxist or pro-capitalist historian has been able to describe a peaceful evolution of capitalism from simple commodity production. They couldn't. It just didn't happen.

[Author]

Posts