‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory

[Dave B]

Hi Adam There is I suppose two essential and equally interesting arguments here; One; is what Karl was on about and what he really meant etc Two; what early Marxist theoreticians thought he meant. I would like at the moment first to look at how early Marxist theoreticians interpreted what they thought Karl was on about. If they were wrong that would be interesting in itself I suppose. I could pick anyone of several early twentieth century Marxist theorists, I believe they didn’t differ significantly on the issue at hand.But I am going to choose Rosa because I liked the way she claimed to lay out Karl’s theory in the process of bickering about other nuanced implications of it etc. I summarise what I think her view was before quoting her. Rosa took a stagiest theory type view of economic development. So the theoretical position first before the empirical historical observations. She starts of with the idea of a natural economy (which is an interesting way of describing it) by which she means primitive communism and I think societies engaging in agriculture and making other things (industry) which are all thrown into the community pot to be divided up in one way or another etc. No exchange or buying and selling etc. Then this is 'ousted' and people start to exchange what they produce themselves for what other people produce on a quid pro quo system based on expended labour ‘time’. And thus simple commodity production. This ‘simple’ medium of commodity production creates a new economic environment or set of conditions ie exchange etc. That permits or allows the emergence of capitalist production to; “take root”. Simple commodity production emerges out of ‘natural production and capitalist production emerges out of Simple commodity production. There are no anti dialectical cataclysmic changes it is a historical process and thus all three systems can, do, and must ‘co-exist’ together as one transforms into another and that into something else. They, as part of a process, co-exist at any one historical and geographical point in time. And as this process will proceed and have proceeded to different degrees in different places due to uneven trans geographical  economic development they will also, albeit more isolated and unconnected, co-exist across the globe (well in the early 20thcentury anyway). However there is kind of chicken and egg situation as capitalism also encourages simple commodity production or ‘calls it to life’ and which, displaces the ‘natural economy’. Just as simple commodity producing peasants and economy in India are called into that economic life today? You could argue conversely, and it is seems a ‘reasonable proposition’, before we return to a Karl quote, that capitalism popped up out of nowhere and caused simple commodity production that had no prior existence and called it into life as an act of Genesis.   And it didn’t need the medium of (simple) commodity production and exchange value etc as a pre-existent or ‘older’ condition for its development. Anyway; from Rosa, at last.  "Natural economy, the production for personal needs and the close connection between industry and agriculture must be ousted and a simple commodity economy substituted for them. Capitalism needs the medium of commodity production [..as a starting point?..] for its development, as a market for its surplus value. But as soon as simple commodity production has superseded natural economy, capital must turn against it. No sooner has capital called it to life, than the two must compete for means of production, labour power, and markets. The first aim of capitalism is to isolate the producer, to sever the community ties which protect him, and the next task is to take the means of production away from the small manufacturer." https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/ch29.htm On Rosa's empirical historical reality of simple commodity production as opposed to it being an abstract  theoretical construct "But Marx’s assumption is only a theoretical premise in order to simplify investigation. In reality, capitalist production is not the sole and completely dominant form of production, as everyone knows, and as Marx himself stresses in Capital. In reality, there are in all capitalist countries, even in those with the most developed large-scale industry, numerous artisan and peasant enterprises which are engaged in simple commodity production. In reality, alongside the old capitalist countries there are still those even in Europe where peasant and artisan production is still strongly predominant, like Russia, the Balkans, Scandinavia and Spain. And finally, there are huge continents besides capitalist Europe and North America, where capitalist production has only scattered roots, and apart from that the people of these continents have all sorts of economic systems, from the primitive Communist to the feudal, peasantry and artisan. Not only do all these social and productive forms co-exist, and co-exist locally with capitalism, but there is a lively intercourse of a specific kind. Capitalist production as proper mass production depends on consumers from peasant and artisan strata in the old countries, and consumers from all countries; but for technical reasons, it cannot exist without the products of these strata and countries. So there must develop right from the start an exchange relationship between capitalist production and the non-capitalist milieu, where capital not only finds the possibility of realizing surplus value in hard cash for further capitalization, but also receives various commodities to extend production, and finally wins new proletarianized labour forces by disintegrating the non-capitalist forms of production.This is only the bare economic content of the relationship. Its concrete design in reality forms the historic process of the development of capitalism on the world stage in all its colourful and moving variety." https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/ch01.htm  If we take the position that (simple) commodity production and all non capitalist commodity production and exchange value etc was not a pre-existent or ‘older’ condition for its development. Then we have to deal with the following.  Capital Volume II Part I: The Metamorphoses of Capital and their Circuits, Chapter 1: The Circuit of Money Capital   "On the other hand, the same conditions which give rise to the basic condition of capitalist production, the existence of a class of wage-workers, facilitate the transition of all [..prior?..] commodity production [..ergo non capitalist?.. ] to capitalist commodity production. As capitalist production develops, it has a disintegrating, resolvent effect on all older [ …pre-existent?… ] forms of production, which, designed mostly to meet the direct needs of the producer, transform only the excess produced into commodities. Capitalist production makes the sale of products the main interest, at first apparently without affecting the mode of production itself. Such was for instance the first effect of capitalist world commerce on such nations as the Chinese, Indians, Arabs, etc. But, secondly, wherever it takes root capitalist production destroys all forms of commodity production which are based either on the self-employment of the producers, or merely on the sale of the excess product as commodities [..eg simple commodity production?..]. Capitalist production first makes the production of commodities general and then, by degrees, transforms all [ ..prior non capitalist?..] commodity production into capitalist commodity production."   http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htm   On whether or not the C-M-C as in the opening chapter meant simple commodity production? We have from Rosa; ..while Ricardo and his followers as well as Say throughout the debate think solely in terms of simple commodity production. They only see the formula C–M–C, https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/ch13.htm  And from Lenin for interest?  https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/14.htm

[Dave B]

 Rubin on chapter one???????????? My Heienhrician friend has the gall, ignorance or dishonesty to claim that that Hienhric’s own mentor denied the existence of simple commodity production. They later transformed that point to one that Rubin was making an abstraction which is a variation on Adam’s logical theoretical construct. You know when these witch doctors of Marxist theory are in trouble when they start throwing out ‘abstraction’ and ‘social relations’ out of their bag of magic bones. If all these kinds of things are unreal (which is what ‘they’ mean) abstractions then for simple scientific materialists like myself which bits are real and which bits unreal logical abstractions and L. Bird like ideology that is unaffected by the material world. I. I. Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value Chapter Eight BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MARX'S THEORY OF VALUE  For the time being we are concerned only with one basic type of production relation among people in a commodity economy, namely the relation among people as commodity producers who are separate and formally independent from each other.We know only that the cloth is produced by the commodity producers and is taken to the market to be exchanged or sold to other commodity producers. We are dealing with a society of commodity producers, with a so-called "simple commodity economy" as opposed to a more complex capitalist economy. In conditions of a simple commodity economy the average prices of products are proportional to their labor value. In other words, value represents that average level around which market prices fluctuate and with which the prices would coincide if social laborwere proportionally distributed among the various branches of production. Thus a state of equilibrium would be established among the branches of production.  The exchange of two different commodities according to their values corresponds to the state of equilibrium among two given branches of production.In this equilibrium, all transfer of labor from one branch to another comes to an end. But if this happens, then it is obvious that the exchange of two commodities according to their values equalizes the advantages for the commodity producers in both branches of production, and removes the motives for transfer from one branch to another. In the simple commodity economy, such an equalization of conditions of production in the various branches means that a determined quantity of labor used up by commodity producers in different spheres of the national economy furnishes each with a product of equal value. The value of commodities is directly proportional to the quantity of labor necessary for their production. http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch08a.htm I really liked that one when I read it co’s as far as I am concerned I did it myself in 2004? with my goose eggs and blue suede shoes before I had ever heard of Rubin.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

…L. Bird like ideology that is unaffected by the material world.

Dave, you haven't got a clue, mate.Marx argued that 'social theory and practice' changes the 'material world'.It's Engels, who you follow, who thought that 'ideology' is changed 'by the material world'.Humans are the 'active side', not 'matter'.Keep me out of your laughably ignorant debates, about 'the material world affecting ideology'.Marx would weep, that people calling themselves 'Marxists' would believe in the power of 'matter'.And because 'matter' is not the 'active side', you, like all so-called 'materialists', will deny the power of the proletariat to consciously change their world by democratic means, and will substitute an elite of experts, like you, who will explain to the dumb workers 'what matter says' when 'matter' is 'affecting' workers' 'ideology'.How the rest of you can't see this link between 'materialism' and 'Leninism' beats me. And how you think that class conscious workers will look to the SPGB for inspiration, when you're all saying the same thing, "No to workers' control, Yes to the god 'matter' ", is just as mysterious.Anyway, Dave, back to your materialist mud-pies, eh?

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

Hi AdamThere is I suppose two essential and equally interesting arguments here;One; is what Karl was on about and what he really meant etcTwo; what early Marxist theoreticians thought he meant.I would like at the moment first to look at how early Marxist theoreticians interpreted what they thought Karl was on about.

How second generation Marxists (amongst which the founding members would have been) saw "simple commodity production" would be interesting but I don't think that Luxemburg would be the best example as she differed from Marx in arguing that capitalism could not exist with external, non-capitalist markets. She actually says so in the quote from her you give:

Rosa Luxemburg wrote:

Capitalist production as proper mass production depends on consumers from peasant and artisan strata in the old countries, and consumers from all countries; but for technical reasons, it cannot exist without the products of these strata and countries. So there must develop right from the start an exchange relationship between capitalist production and the non-capitalist milieu, where capital not only finds the possibility of realizing surplus value in hard cash for further capitalization, but also receives various commodities to extend production, and finally wins new proletarianized labour forces by disintegrating the non-capitalist forms of production [are these your bolds or hers?]

This is her famous/notorious underconsumption theory (that capitalism cannot realise all the surplus value created) and the basis for her mistaken theory of imperialism. She has to posit the existence of a non-capitalist commodity producing sector to explain why capitalism has not collapsed and in fact how it ever got off the ground in the first place.  But we can leave that for the others on this thread to argue about.The point at issue is not whether or not petty independent producers owning their own instruments of work and producing goods for sale (commodities) existed but whether a non-capitalist economy composed entirely of such producers ever existed historically. There is no evidence that it did. Of course this sector of a wider exchange economy was outcompeted by larger capitalist enterprises employed wage labour, so it could be said that in this sense simple commodity producers were replaced historically by capitalist enterprises but that's not the same thing as saying that capitalism was preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy.

[Dave B]

Hi Adam You seem to making two points; “that capitalism was not preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy” “And a non-capitalist economy composed entirely of simple commodity producers never existed historically.” On the second point first, that I will return to later; I do not argue that there was ever an ‘economy’ or for that matter more narrowly an exchange economy, that was entirely composed of simple commodity producers. I would propose that before capitalism there was an ‘economy’ that was [at least in part-my claim] a non exchange ‘economy’; eg subsistance and making stuff for yourself etc etc. That is uncontroversial I think so I think we can drop it? [That is if you choose to categorise subsistence and making stuff for yourself etc etc as an ‘economy’, which is OK with me.] And, as I propose, before capitalism, and co-existing with subsistence ‘economy’, was  historically an exchange economy with buying and selling of commodities which manifested itself in thing like prices and markets etc. I would thus then say that ‘all’ the ‘older forms of production’ of commodities, preceding capitalism, can be sub divided into several types or ‘forms’, of which simple commodity production is but one. Before returning to that. If you propose that; “ that capitalism was not preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy” Then you have to reject the idea that there were markets and prices etc before capitalism. All the stuff on ‘Time Team’ about Iron Age hill forts doubling up as markets and; “ Towns in Roman Britain—- Many towns appeared. Some were created deliberately. Others grew up by Roman forts as the garrisons provided markets for townspeople's goods.” http://www.localhistories.org/romlife.html And the following on Medieval Markets is also a load of bollocks as well. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~dtl/89S/restrict/marketsandfairs.html And Saint Thomas Aquinas of 1250AD was just indulging in abstract idealism with his Just Price Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_price And for that matter the Imperial Roman Code, the Corpus Juris Civilisre the parties to an exchange. As there was no exchange economy etc etc. And presumably People in Cyprus and Turkey etc 3000 years ago when they needed tin for Bronze got on a boat and went to Cornwal lto mine it for themselves etc?  On  ‘all’ the ‘older forms of production’ of commodities that preceded capitalism; stuff produced in order to be sold.  I think you could break them down into several categories. Feudal peasant simple commodity production- where a peasant as part of his Monday to Thursday may tend to specialise in the production of particular type of agricultural eg milk butter or eggs or whatever. And thus producing a surplus to his requirement trade or exchange it at the ‘medieval market’ for the specialist product and surplus product of another. It can also include ‘industry’ eg tailoring, shoe making, blacksmithing and plough making etc etc. this tends to exchange at its value for the reasons Rubin gave. There is also the surplus value and surplus product belonging to the feudal Lord which according to Adam Smith was exchanged for aristocratic bling produced by the guild artisans in the protected towns. This didn’t need to exchange at its labour time value unlike simple commodity produced products.  Related to this was the production of commodities (for sale) by slave labour  eg Spartacus working in a mine in Libya; according to the film.  Although Karl in volume one did a short piece of slave mine workers producing commodities in ancient societies etc. Not that all commodity production in ancient Rome and Judea re  Jesus and his 'technic' plough and yoke making etc was ‘slave production’. In Cicero’s time ‘free’ simple commodity producers would produce stuff or commodities for sale. Then in the pre-capitalist era ‘wage’ meant the amount of money simple commodity producers got for their commodity, which they would exchange for the consumption of material necessities of life ie other commodities or C(1)-M-C(2);in a Deville like closed circulation. As is obvious in the material from late 18thcentury simple commodity producers themselves in E.P. Tompson’s book they also considered their ‘M’ as a ‘wage’.   "vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery Simple commodity production as a category can be narrowly viewed as the full and proper ‘labour voucher’ like  remuneration of personal labour eg Silas; rather than ‘private labour’. Which I think is why I think Karl in his confusing pedantry used the term ‘private labour’ in the opening chapters of volume one where I claim he is discussing simple commodity production. Unlike Silas, most alleged late 18thcentury simple commodity production was done within family syndicate like units with division of labour with it. The issue here is when does a family become a Clan or for that matter just an economic co-operative based on something less than ‘filial’ ties. The economic co-operative produces commodities surplus to their requirements for sale by plan rather than just by ‘accident’. But the distribution of the goodies, or C(2), purchased with ‘M’ obtained from selling C(1) in the external market , within the community is according to need.  There are at least three totally separate and fairly well documented examples of this. Trans historical, trans geographical and trans cultural. There was the Russian Mir system. There is the Polynesian Anutan eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/anuta/ and saint Kilda etc which ran into the 1930’shttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/celtic-communism-gaelic-commonwealth.html ???????????  Blah blah! What my Hienrichain friends have said to me is, after eventually accepting that simple commodity production did exist, was that it was never a pan-economic system. Even though I never contested that. And then as the argument goes because it was never a pan-economic system Karl would never have started his analysis from that, why would he? Like capitalism itself was a pan-economic in the mid 19thor even early 20th century?  In fact when you look at the Madison data from the late 19thand even early 20thcentury a very significant portion of the mass of ‘value’ produced came from countries that were producing non-capitalistically.  I thought when I was thinking about using the dizzy Rosa quote that you would make the connection and throw her own tendentious theoretical perspective back into by teeth; that you know I don’t agree with.  So I qualified it, and placed it in hopefully relatively neutral terms of ‘nuanced theoretical bickering’. So you are a rotter again!  

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

Hi AdamYou seem to making two points;“that capitalism was not preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy”“And a non-capitalist economy composed entirely of simple commodity producers never existed historically.”On the second point first, that I will return to later; I do not argue that there was ever an ‘economy’ or for that matter more narrowly an exchange economy, that was entirely composed of simple commodity producers.

Very gracious of you to concede my point.

Dave B wrote:

What my Hienrichain friends have said to me is, after eventually accepting that simple commodity production did exist, was that it was never a pan-economic system.Even though I never contested that.

My misunderstanding. I thought you did. Anyway, of course commodity production existed before capitalism. Whoever said it didn't?

Dave B wrote:

And then as the argument goes because it was never a pan-economic system Karl would never have started his analysis from that, why would he?Like capitalism itself was a pan-economic in the mid 19thor even early 20th century?

That's the whole point of Marx's method (and not just Marx's of course). He was developing an ideal model of the capitalist economic system so as to try to better understand the more complex real world(and a "simple commodity production" economy was also an ideal model on the way to this).

[robbo203]

  

Sepehr wrote:

 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.

Come now, Sepehr, this is complete nonsense and in your rush to condemn those of us will not leap to the defence of your “national bourgeoisie” in the global South, you lump us together with people like the neocon and the neoliberal supporters of Western imperialism.  Are you serious? By what twisted logic do you arrive at the conclusion that we “walk along the same lines” as the latter?  We do not support any imperialism anywhere and are not selective in our disapproval of imperialism as you seem to be. Nor. unlike you, do we naively seek to detach the question of imperialism from capitalism.  The one thing goes with the other. There seems to be two basic issues at stake here 1) how you define imperialism and 2) whether the establishment of socialism necessitates beforehand the elimination of spatial inequalities throughout the world as you claim.  Let me deal with the latter point first. It strikes me that this whole argument of yours is pretty weak and unconvincing and really just boils down to the dogmatic assertion that it must be so because you say it is. You invoke Marx in support of your contention that the productive potential for socialism must be distributed evenly throughout the world before you can have socialism, although you don’t tell us where he suggested this.  Not that thatmatters too much. I certainly don’t need Marx’s blessing to hold the views I do and there are some things that Marx said that I profoundly disagree with, anyway.  As far as I understand it, Marx took a global approach to the matter and maintained that it was the world as a whole that had to have the productive potential for socialism before we could have socialism. Providing this precondition was met for the world as a whole then it does not matter from the point of view of establishing socialism that some parts are less developed then others. Socialism itself would enable the rapid diffusion of technologies and material assistance around the world to where it was most needed  The point is that the emergence of this global productive potential has been bound up with the development of a global division of labour that connects every part of the world with every other in what is now an incredibly complex pattern of criss- crossing material and immaterial flows – another reason why you can’t have “socialism in one country”.  Meaning the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level.  The fact that socialism will inherit a structure of production that exhibits a high degree of spatial interdependency is not a problem. You seem to think it is but you don’t explain why at all.  My guess is you are projecting onto a future socialist the developmental preoccupations of contemporary capitalism and its concern with things like securing export markets and such like. No doubt in socialism there will be a tendency towards  greater regional and especially local self-reliance and there are good reasons for this. However, the fact the structure of production under capitalism which we will immediately  inherit come socialism, is tending in the opposite direction does not at all rule out socialism, as you claim, and you have made no serious attempt whatsoever to substantiate this claim of yours.  And so we come to your utopian proposal of “delinking” or auto-centric development in a world of deepening capitalist globalisation. This is sometimes associated with ideas like the flaky Leninist theory of the Labour aristocracy with its half-baked claim that a section of the working class, if not the entire working class, in the West is actually bribed , by the capitalist class out of the “super profits” they make from their investments in the global South.  The idea is that as the countries in the global South secure their so called national liberation and embark on a programme of auto centric development, this will impact on the West itself. The drying of these super profits will diminish the ability of the western based capitalists to bribe their own labour aristocracies ad so result in rising discontent, leading to the radicalisation of workers in the West.  This is the “weakest link in the chain of imperialism” argument put forward by Lenin – that fanciful notion that a “revolution” in the global periphery will somehow spark a revolution in the capitalist core countries .  Its complete balderdash.  At so many different levels, this whole Leninist inspired worldview can be criticised and found wanting. I notice Sepehr, you studiously avoided answering my earlier post showing the utter absurdity of Lenin’s claim concerning the bribe doled out to so called labour aristocracy. No matter.  It seems to me that the subtext of this argument is in keeping with a general position held by many on the Left – that radicalisation is somehow contingent upon increased suffering – for example that inflicted by a severe economic crisis or, in this case, through the loss of the mythical bribe component of the workers income.  This is a crudely mechanistic way of looking at the subject. There is absolutely no guarantee that increased suffering and diminished economic prospects will somehow translate into a more radical outlook on life. There is plenty of evidence that it can lead to a quite opposite outcome- the adoption of more conservative and less militant approach – and of course we have the classic example of this in the rise of Nazi Germany in the wake of the Great Depression  Shifting our focus to the Global South, let us look at what has become of your proposal of delinking here.  There have been a few attempts at what is called “voluntary delinking” such as Cambodia under Pol Pot, Sekou Toure’s Guinea, Yemen, North Korea and Albania – none of which can exactly be called an economic success storey. There have also been cases of involuntary delinking also as in the example of sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which resulted in untold misery for ordinary Iraqis.  No doubt some of those leftists who protested about this also subscribe to your theory of delinking as well.  In fact, most attempts at self-reliant development have been half hearted and at best partial  or simply led to a transfer of allegiance from the Western capitalism to the state capitalism of the pseudo socialist bloc with its own parallel pattern of dependencies e.g. the relationship between the Soviet Union and CubaYou assert:“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.” That sounds like you are excusing their failure in advance by suggesting  that their efforts at self-reliance must have been sabotaged.  If what you say was remotely true why is it that today we find throughout the Global South, country after country desperately pimping out their workforces as exploitable material for international capitalists to exploit. Why are these countries constantly marketing themselves as ideal investment opportunities?  Also, why do these countries feel the need to organise themselves into much larger trading blocs if autocentric development was the way to go.  Your whole theory lacks credibility in my view.  You make a contrived distinction between the “national bourgeoisie” in the Global South which is supposedly anti-imperialist and the “comprador bourgeoisie” which is not and which is complicit in the murky dealings of western imperialists.  In practice, the distinction doesn’t really exist and your national bourgeoisie will sooner or later collapse into a comprador bourgeois. The supposed independence of   your national bourgeoisie is a political posture. Look behind the bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism of all these so called national liberation movements and you will soon enough discover a deep yearning on the part of your beloved national bourgeoisie to join the international community of capitalists on a more equal footing – as indeed some have already done by snapping up investment opportunities in the West or depositing their ill-gotten gains in a Swiss bank.  Gaddafi of Libya is a case in point but there are countless others.  The difference between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie is only a matter of time/ So no, I am not convinced at all that delinking and the implementation of autarkic policies under capitalism is the way to go.  It is at variance with the whole expansionist dynamic of capitalism and sooner or later, the isolated capitalist state will find the need to reintegrate with the global economy.  Even state capitalist dictatorships like North Korea have their own free trade zones and without the support of its much larger capitalist patron, China, the North Korean economy would be an utter shambles.  China props up the regime because it knows full well that that the collapse of the North Korean economy would have adverse consequences.  So we come to the second question of how you define imperialism. For you it seems, imperialism is some kind of morality play in which there are the bad guys – the western capitalist powers – and the good guys, which is essentially the rest of the world who are the victims of this imperialism, not its  perpetrators.  The essentialist line of thinking in your argument which upholds imperialism as some kind of unique quality present only in the Western powers is a peculiarly unmarxist position to take inasmuch as it effectively severs the link between capitalism  and imperialism in the modern world.  Instead of a serious Marxist analysis of global capitalism we have, as I say, a kind of morality play of Good versus Evil.  The asymmetric pattern of development manifest in the world economy is all down to the wicked western capitalist thwarting more spatially even development which is just as well because as you say, the establishment of socialism depends on just such development.  Well I reject this approach of yours.  Imperialism is a tendency inherent in the expansionist dynamic of capitalism itself and since capitalism exists everywhere so does this imperialist tendency. Every country – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist .  All you are doing is looking at the most conspicuously successful imperialist countries, drawing an arbitrary line between them and the rest of the world and declaring that this is what constitutes imperialism.   It’s pretty ironic then that you think that my talking about Chinese imperialism means that I overlook the imperialism of countries like the US when in fact my entire argument hinges on the universalism of imperialism in global capitalism. The fact that most countries figure rather low down in the imperialist hierarchy does not negate the existence of such a hierarchy It comes down to how you define imperialism and I have made it clear that I define imperialism in its widest sense as the desire or intent of the nation state in the context of modern day capitalism to promote and secure what it sees as its interests and influences beyond its own territorial borders – that is to transcend its borders.  Note that the peculiarity of modern imperialism is that it is the nation state qua state rather than say a corporation or an NGO that is the vehicle or agent of this imperialism. It is from the standpoint of what is seen to be best for this nation state itself in its dealings with other states that imperialism derives its meaning.   You don’t seem to understand this and this is why you come out with curious comments such as that I am confusing imperialism with trade. As if you can somehow separate “trade” from issues such as the struggle over trades routes , access to markets , the need for resources. And so on.  You sound almost like a liberal in your characterisation of trade as some kind of benign forces at work in the world that heals rifts and promotes peaceYou refer to China “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…”  LOL Sepehr.  In case you weren’t aware of this China’s involvement with the rest of the word is more than simply a trading relationship. It is investing heavily in means of production outside of its national boundaries.  In Africa, Chinese capitalists have been buying up mines and factories, and building large scale infrastructural projects.  In the UK the Chinese capitalists now have a foothold in power generation.  In the US they have been purchasing residential properties and treasury bonds like there was no tomorrow. The list is endless. You know it begins to sound like they are not that different after all from those greedy western capitalists sniffing out opportunities for the realisation of super profits in the global south  You suggest as an indicator of imperialism military adventurism in, and occupation of, other countries. Even to use your own rather narrow definition of imperialism that would mean that even  small countries like Jordan or Qatar must be considered imperialist by nature since they are both part of the coalition forces of 59 member states involved in Syrian conflict.  In fact, can you think of any state anywhere that does not have some military connection beyond its borders? Maybe Costa Rica which abolished its own army but then falling very firmly with  the US sphere  of influence, it does have a US military presence in the country so probably feels it can get away without having an army for that reason  As for China and Tibet I notice that you are quite happy to engage in usual capitalist game of nationalist legitimation “Tibethas 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?Well dont take that up with me Sepehr.  Take it up with those who consider themselves to be Tibetans and definitely under occupation by a foreign power.  You possess with them a common belief that they possess a country only in your case that country is China, not an independent Tibet, which you believe, as nationalists tend to do, has a legitimate claim to an arbitrary piece of land called “Tibet”. All I can say is that this is a world away from the  outlook expressed by the Communist Manifesto that the working class has no country and that we communists cannot take from them that which they do not have in the first place

[ALB]

I have managed to find someone using Marxist terminology to support the view we've both now rejected about "simple commodity production" leading to capitalism  — the Stalinist economist, A. Leontiev in  his Political Economy. A Beginners' Course that first came out in 1936:

Quote:

Wherein lies the difference between simple commodity production and capitalism? The artisan, handicraftsman, small-scale farmer own their tools, raw material and means of production. They work by themselves, producing their goods with the aid of these means of production. Under capitalism it is different. There the plants and factories belong to the capitalist and in them work hired labourers who do not have their own means of production. Simple commodity production always precedes capitalism. The capitalist system could not arise without simple commodity production. The latter prepares the way for capitalism.In its turn the development of simple commodity production inevitably leads to capitalism. Small-scale commodity production gives birth to capital.One of the misinterpretations of Marxism is the attempt to deny the existence of simple commodity production as the historical precursor of capitalism. The political significance of this distortion of Marxism is clear.

Leontiev went on to explain:

Quote:

The distortion of the role and significance of simple commodity production forms a basis for the negation of the role of the basic mass of the peasantry as an ally of the proletarian revolution. This distortion lies at the basis of the counter-revolutionary theory of Trotskyism.

Now we know. We're Trotskyites !

Dave B wrote:

you are a rotter again!

[Dave B]

Hi adam I haven’t got much time now. However when I used that Rosaquote about the co-existence of different type of economic production, including simple commodity production, I thought that implicitly did not involve entirely one system. So I am not wriggling I think. I don’t want to get side tracked too much about simple commodity production automatically of itself leading to capitalism or whatever.  However I thought that Stalinist quote wasn’t that bad; unless you want throw the baby out with the bath water. The central issue for me is whether chapter one and C-M-C etc is about simple commodity production; idealised into a model; or not. Or as Fred said does the law of value only function within the economy of simple commodity production and therefore would be  the best system to analyse firstin order to get a handle on value; as it operates on a simpler unmodified ‘one to one’ basis. If he had started from an analysis of exchange value in capitalism he would have had more difficulty? This law clearly contradicts all experience based on appearance. Everyone knows [..in capitalist extant real world..] that a cotton spinner, who, reckoning the percentage on the whole of his applied capital, employs much constant and little variable capital, does not, on account of this, pocket less profit or surplus-value than a baker, who relatively sets in motion much variable and little constant capital. For the solution of this apparent contradiction, many intermediate terms are as yet wanted, as from the standpoint of elementary algebra many intermediate terms are wanted to understand that 0/0 may represent an actual magnitude. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm So you start with the simplest cases ie simple commodity production and deal with the more complex systems you experience later and see if what you have learned from the simplest cases can be transposed into the more complex.  Newton’s law of gravity etc predicts that a falcon feather will fall to the ground at the same rate as a hammer which it clearly doesn’t; except on the moon. In order to make it fit in with daily experiences of falcon feathers and hammers etc you have to drag in drag co-efficients and Reynold numbers etc etc . An understanding of which helps keep jumbo jets in the sky if nothing else.

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

It strikes me that this whole argument of yours is pretty weak and unconvincing and really just boils down to the dogmatic assertion that it must be so because you say it is. You invoke Marx in support of your contention that the productive potential for socialism must be distributed evenly throughout the world before you can have socialism, although you don’t tell us where he suggested this.  Not that thatmatters too much. I certainly don’t need Marx’s blessing to hold the views I do and there are some things that Marx said that I profoundly disagree with, anyway.[and so forth]

 Perhaps before reading Marx's Critique of Gotha Program, you might wish to read Mark Twain's famous relic, "Tom Sawyer Abroad", of which this discussion has reminded me. It is a gorgeous story which describes how people are often struggling with contradictory indeas and input they receive throughout their lives. Tom Sawyer is a boy who has travelled a lot and read books. However Huck and Jimmy are two simple minded kids. All three are struggling, but the way it turns out between them is marvelously described by Mark Twain, and, of course, happens all the time for us too. Here is an excerpt of one of my favorite parts. It is happening when they are caught in the Great Sahara desert in Africa: But by and by Tom raised a whoop, and there she was! A lake, wide and shiny, with pa'm-trees leaning over it asleep, and their shadders in the water just as soft and delicate as ever you see. I never see anything look so good. It was a long ways off, but that warn't anything to us; we just slapped on a hundred-mile gait, and calculated to be there in seven minutes; but she stayed the same old distance away, all the time; we couldn't seem to gain on her; yes, sir, just as far, and shiny, and like a dream; but we couldn't get no nearer; and at last, all of a sudden, she was gone!Tom's eyes took a spread, and he says:"Boys, it was a MYridge!" Said it like he was glad. I didn't see nothing to be glad about. I says:"Maybe. I don't care nothing about its name, the thing I want to know is, what's become of it?"Jim was trembling all over, and so scared he couldn't speak, but he wanted to ask that question himself if he could 'a' done it. Tom says:"What's BECOME of it? Why, you see yourself it's gone.""Yes, I know; but where's it gone TO?"He looked me over and says:"Well, now, Huck Finn, where WOULD it go to! Don't you know what a myridge is?""No, I don't. What is it?""It ain't anything but imagination. There ain't anything TO it."It warmed me up a little to hear him talk like that, and I says:"What's the use you talking that kind of stuff, Tom Sawyer? Didn't I see the lake?""Yes–you think you did.""I don't think nothing about it, I DID see it.""I tell you you DIDN'T see it either–because it warn't there to see."It astonished Jim to hear him talk so, and he broke in and says, kind of pleading and distressed:"Mars Tom, PLEASE don't say sich things in sich an awful time as dis. You ain't only reskin' yo' own self, but you's reskin' us–same way like Anna Nias en Siffra. De lake WUZ dah–I seen it jis' as plain as I sees you en Huck dis minute."I says:"Why, he seen it himself! He was the very one that seen it first. NOW, then!""Yes, Mars Tom, hit's so–you can't deny it. We all seen it, en dat PROVE it was dah.""Proves it! How does it prove it?""Same way it does in de courts en everywheres, Mars Tom. One pusson might be drunk, or dreamy or suthin', en he could be mistaken; en two might, maybe; but I tell you, sah, when three sees a thing, drunk er sober, it's SO. Dey ain't no gittin' aroun' dat, en you knows it, Mars Tom.""I don't know nothing of the kind. There used to be forty thousand million people that seen the sun move from one side of the sky to the other every day. Did that prove that the sun DONE it?""Course it did. En besides, dey warn't no 'casion to prove it. A body 'at's got any sense ain't gwine to doubt it. Dah she is now–a sailin' thoo de sky, like she allays done."Tom turned on me, then, and says:"What do YOU say–is the sun standing still?""Tom Sawyer, what's the use to ask such a jackass question? Anybody that ain't blind can see it don't stand still.""Well," he says, "I'm lost in the sky with no company but a passel of low-down animals that don't know no more than the head boss of a university did three or four hundred years ago."It warn't fair play, and I let him know it. I says:"Throwin' mud ain't arguin', Tom Sawyer.""Oh, my goodness, oh, my goodness gracious, dah's de lake agi'n!" yelled Jim, just then. "NOW, Mars Tom, what you gwine to say?"Yes, sir, there was the lake again, away yonder across the desert, perfectly plain, trees and all, just the same as it was before. I says:"I reckon you're satisfied now, Tom Sawyer."But he says, perfectly ca'm:"Yes, satisfied there ain't no lake there."Jim says:"DON'T talk so, Mars Tom–it sk'yers me to hear you. It's so hot, en you's so thirsty, dat you ain't in yo' right mine, Mars Tom. Oh, but don't she look good! 'clah I doan' know how I's gwine to wait tell we gits dah, I's SO thirsty.""Well, you'll have to wait; and it won't do you no good, either, because there ain't no lake there, I tell you."I says:"Jim, don't you take your eye off of it, and I won't, either.""'Deed I won't; en bless you, honey, I couldn't ef I wanted to."We went a-tearing along toward it, piling the miles behind us like nothing, but never gaining an inch on it–and all of a sudden it was gone again! Jim staggered, and 'most fell down. When he got his breath he says, gasping like a fish:"Mars Tom, hit's a GHOS', dat's what it is, en I hopes to goodness we ain't gwine to see it no mo'. Dey's BEEN a lake, en suthin's happened, en de lake's dead, en we's seen its ghos'; we's seen it twiste, en dat's proof. De desert's ha'nted, it's ha'nted, sho; oh, Mars Tom, le''s git outen it; I'd ruther die den have de night ketch us in it ag'in en de ghos' er dat lake come a-mournin' aroun' us en we asleep en doan' know de danger we's in.""Ghost, you gander! It ain't anything but air and heat and thirstiness pasted together by a person's imagination. If I–gimme the glass!"He grabbed it and begun to gaze off to the right."It's a flock of birds," he says. "It's getting toward sundown, and they're making a bee-line across our track for somewheres. They mean business–maybe they're going for food or water, or both. Let her go to starboard!–Port your hellum! Hard down! There–ease up–steady, as you go."We shut down some of the power, so as not to outspeed them, and took out after them. We went skimming along a quarter of a mile behind them, and when we had followed them an hour and a half and was getting pretty discouraged, and was thirsty clean to unendurableness, Tom says:"Take the glass, one of you, and see what that is, away ahead of the birds."Jim got the first glimpse, and slumped down on the locker sick. He was most crying, and says:"She's dah ag'in, Mars Tom, she's dah ag'in, en I knows I's gwine to die, 'case when a body sees a ghos' de third time, dat's what it means. I wisht I'd never come in dis balloon, dat I does."He wouldn't look no more, and what he said made me afraid, too, because I knowed it was true, for that has always been the way with ghosts; so then I wouldn't look any more, either. Both of us begged Tom to turn off and go some other way, but he wouldn't, and said we was ignorant superstitious blatherskites. Yes, and he'll git come up with, one of these days, I says to myself, insulting ghosts that way. They'll stand it for a while, maybe, but they won't stand it always, for anybody that knows about ghosts knows how easy they are hurt, and how revengeful they are.

[Dave B]

Returning to chapter one volume one. And the allegation that is about simple commodity production etc Is this term that crops up several times and in several forms ie ‘private labour etc’. You can click the link and just do a word search on private if you want but an example would be;  As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm  I think it is reasonable to assume that Kautksy interpreted that as simple commodity production, thus;  This mode of production was supplanted by the simple commodity production of private workers, working independently of each other, each of whom created products with means of production which belonged to himself, and it goes without saying that these products were the his private property. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/ch20.htm  There is an article by Bukharin linked on the issue that I would take issue with on the details. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/01.htm  Actually as an anti entirely and anti ‘only’ person. I would take issue with Karl even, with his caveat –  As a general rule

[Dave B]

 Deville's capital for dummies from  1883  andC-M-CversusM-C-Mit is only a couple of pageshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/deville/1883/peoples-marx/ch04.htm

[Dave B]

The other side of the argument for balance is as below;  …….[Karl]  is not analysing the commodity of a precapitalist, simple commodity production……… https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/editorial/heinrich.htm  Although I believe there may be two or three more modern Marxists theorist like Sweezy? ; a very small minority.   Who also appear to share my position.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

The other side of the argument for balance is as below; …. 

Here are the two arguments, Dave.Marx was using his usual method of 'theory and practice': that is, he theorised (produced concepts), and then applied those newly created concepts to the practice of capitalism, to help to explain what capitalism was.Thus, there is no need for a 'pre-existing' or 'real' 'small commodity mode', because the 'small commodity mode' is an explanatory concept, introduced by Marx to help explain to workers how a more complex capitalism worked.This view is only a problem for those who follow, in contrast, Engels' materialist views, of 'practice and theory': that is, the 'material' world speaks to a passive observer through their (usually individual) practice, and the 'theory' emerges from the 'reality'.So, for Engelsists, to even think of a theory requires that the 'concepts' must already exist, in the real world. Thus, any talk by Marx of 'simple commodity production' must reflect an existing reality. Then, it's a short step to searching for 'empirical evidence' of that mode, which, from their ideological perspective, must exist 'out there' in real history.To sum up:Marx intoduces a concept, and then uses it to explain 'what is out there' – theory and practice.Engels passively examines 'what is out there', and allows the concept to emerge as a reflection of reality, which is thus already there to be empirically examined – practice and theory.These are the two conflicting arguments at the root of the debate about the 'historical existence or otherwise' of a 'simple commodity mode of production'.Marxists say 'No, it's a simplified model of capitalism, to help explain'.Engelsists (and thus Leninists) say 'Yes, it must have existed historically, because that's how Marx came up with the theory of it'.

[Author]

Posts