colinskelly
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As I remember it Kliman's data showed stagnant or only slightly rising real wages but an increase in 'social wages' in spending of health, benefits, education, etc. So an indirect share for labour but one that would not for the most part increase working class consumption. Kliman seems to be agitated by the political implications of underconsumption, particularly that of its modern incarnation in the Monthly Review tradition on the grounds that if crises are caused by a fall in consumption then politically a revived Keynesianism can be justified. But underconsumptionists in that tradition such as Paul Sweezy, at least in their earlier work, used underconsumptionism to justify a revolutionary (state capitalist) position. In fact underconsumptionist arguments were widespread in the era of classical Marxism, including the SPGB up to c.1930s. Proponents of the fall of the rate of profit like to point out its apparently more revolutionary logic – because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall there is no alternative to economic stagnation short of massive and disruptive destruction of capital and/or anti-capitalist revolution.The data from those arguing for the pre-eminence of the fall of the rate of profit are valuable and interesting but not conclusive, centred as they are on the US rather than the global economy. But its modern incarnation avoids the collapsist fatalism of its earlier advocates like Henryk Grossman. Kliman in particular has drawn some positive conlcusions about the need for widespread consciounsess and understanding of a non-capitalist alternative.An interesting set of data on the fall of the rate of profit is that of Michael Roberts http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ whose data suggest a cycle of rising and declining organic composition of capital that (at least in the US) correlates with declining and rising profitability rather than an inexorable and constant rise. He is rather of obsessed with economic cycles though and his graphs can be a bit like reading economic astrology.Underconsumptionism is flawed (after all the 150 years prior to the 1970s saw consistently rising real wages in the US but still with regular crises, including the Great Depression) but there is a problematic outcome of neoliberalism for the advanced economies as sustained attacks on the share of labour and financial deregulation created debt fuelled consumption and attendant bubbles in those economies upon which a large part of global production depends. Whilst the recent crisis wasn't caused by relative underconsumption a decline in real wages and financial de-regulation/innovation were important parts of the background to its emergence in overproduction in the US housing market.The SPGB critique of underconsumptionism post WWII was as much an exercise in self-criticism as an attack on arguments outside of it. The SPGB emphasised the need for working class consciousness as a prerequiste for socialism which prevented its early underconsumptionism from adopting fatalistic ideas of inevitable collapse. Expectations of the imminent end of capitalism in the first half of the 20thC gave way, for a time, to a rising share for labour in real wages, health, education and housing but crises continued unabated and labour's rising share was not sustained. There was no evidence of for the validity of underconsumptionism or of a definite decline in the rate of profit prevailing against its counteracting tendencies. The most that could be said with certainty was that crises were inherent to capitalism and that they were related to the anarchy of production and the tendency for production to overshoot demand which may or may not lead to a general crisis of profitability.
Here is a link to a recent review of Resnick and Wolff's 'Contending Economic Theories' critical of 'surplus theory' from a Marxian perspective:http://mccaine.org/2013/07/10/book-review-wolff-resnick-contending-economic-theories/
In reply to Alan Johnstone re. letting Wolff have the last word, I have tried to contact Wolff for a more prescient response to the article but have had nothing back as yet. In any event I plan to write a foot-noted essay later in the year following up my views in more detail. I will post details if/when it is published.
David Harvey in the Enigma of Capital raises the problematic nature of neoliberalism for capital accumulation. It disempowers labour through attacks on trades unions, global relocation, etc."But disempowered labour means low wages, and impoverished workers do not constitute a vibrant market. Persistent wage repression therefore poses the problem of lack of demand…"(p.16)He also says"Whether we can get out of this crisis in a different way depends very much upon the balance of class forces. It depends upon the degree to which the mass of the population rises up and says, 'Enough is enough, let's change the system.'"(p.12)The question is, change it to what? The inference that can easily be drawn (sometimes he is explicit, as in ALBs quote) is that what is needed, first and foremost, is resistance to neoliberalism. The first task of changing the system is to roll back neoliberalism in order to save capitalists from themselves by restoring 'effective demand' and profitability.But neoliberalism itself is a response to the denouement of the post-WW2 period of growth, which now appears as what it really was – a period of prolonged growth following a period of prolonged destruction of capital (the depression& WW2) – rather than the result of regulated capitalism with a prevailing Keynesian economic orthodoxy. One result of the prolonged post-war growth and the period Keynesian orthodoxy was that trades unions tied themselves up too closely to political manouvering and pay bargaining within the 'mixed economy' which led to massive shock and emasculation when this context was removed with privatisations and state hostility. Even if it was desirable to get back to a post-war 'golden age', which it probably isn't, how on earth are the left supposed to achieve it? Harvey's political conclusions fly in the face of much of the historical materialism he applies so well to analyse the problems of capitalism.
There is some good stuff in Wolff and Resnick's work on the roots of the current crisis, atlhough the underconsumptionism tends to push it towards Keynesian conclusions (as with David Harvey). I wouldn't disagree that reduced 'effective demand' is part of the cause of the current crisis of capitalism. But beyond 'Capitalism Hits the Fan' and similar responses to the current crisis, their work is very theoretical with a definite agenda ('overdetermination') with its roots in the work of the abstruse Althusser (who after spending a career apparently dissecting the views of Marx, famously revelaed that he had hardly read any Marx). They are explicit that they are pursuing the 'development' of Marxian theory but not (except in saying it is different from crude, reductionist Marxism) where it differs from classical Marxian theory. The depth of their agenda is not necessarily immediately obvious except to those who already have some familiarity with the works of Marx. WSDEs are easily dismissed, underconsumptionism in its cruder forms can be tackled easily but there is a well-developed philosophical platform behind Wolff that also needs understanding which accepts a version of Marxian economics but rejects philosophical and historical materialism. To my mind an understanding of Marxian economics necessarily involves an understanding and broad acceptance of philosophical and historical materialism. Wolff is someone who appears to be part of the way to our analysis but is in fact vociferously opposed to it.
Check out this article in the Guadian by Wolff title 'Yes there is an alternative to capitalism, Mondragon shows the way'http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon
DJPs picture is of the right Wolff. The picture of Resnick in the Standard is correct.I was saddened to hear of the death of Stephen Resnick. I had an e-mail exchange with him late last year and, while we obviously did not agree with each others views, he took the time to counter my criticisms. He seemed like a genuinely nice, sincere person who took pains to engage with my views. I wrote him a series of questions and he wrote back a 10,000 word response within a few days. This while he was being treated for the leukemia from which he died only months later. Wolff's reply is all the more disappointing in view of this. It would have been useful if he had explained where he thought I had attributed to him positions he does not hold and more particularly the basic errors in Marxian theory that he accuses the article of. But then which Marxian theory? That based on classical Marxism (more or less that of the SPGB) or his own brand of it? Clearly our positions are at odds but his implied claim to be on the side of developing Marxism, of being open as opposed to old, cliched Marxism is at odds with his vituperative rejection of my criticism which smacks of a leftist hatchet job.The following quote is from Wolff's recent book 'Democracy at Work', which sets out to promote his project of the creation of Worker's Self Directed Enterprises (WSDEs) – essentially worker's co-operatives (although he argues that they are something new). In this section he is discussing how these firms may co-exist with other capitalist firms (as if they weren't both capitalist):"WSDEs and capitalist enterprises will … manage their challenges and disappointments differently. Consider a WSDE troubled by the problem of falling revenues (because of lack of demand, technological backwardness, or shortage of inputs). That WSDE could well decide to lower individual wages and salaries and thereby enlarge the surplus available to solve the problem (via advertising, installing advanced equipment, securing new input sources, and so on). The workers who collectively lowered their individual wages would be the same workers who received and the used the enlarged surplus to solve the problem. In contrast, workers in a capitalist enterprise would more likely resist such a solution since other people – the capitalists who exploit them – would receive and decide what to do with any extra surplus realized by lowering individual wages. Distrust accumulated from conflicts and struggles between capitalists and workers would contribute to such a result. Thus WSDEs and capitalist enterprises would likely find and implement different responses to similar enterprise problems."Not different solutions but the same solution, one enforced on the workers as a collective employer by themselves the other by a single employer owner. The suggestion is that capitalism run by the workers would avoid the conflict between an employing class and an employed class – the problem is cured, the conflict resolved, by the workers becoming their own employer. It is quite clear that Wolff's cure for capitalism is quite different from anything that Marx worked for or that could reasonably be derived from his writings. It is possible for Wolff to view his WSDE project as Marxian because he re-works Marxian theory into 'surplus theory'. It may have been influenced by Marx's writing but the bulk of it is Wolff's own ideas. He attempts to re-engage the left with Marxian ideas only by changing them into something else. A Wolff in Marxian clothing. The problem is that he is out there teaching, lecturing and broadcasting this stuff as Marxian economics and WSDEs as a Marxian cure for capitalism. And he is getting a lot of attention, particularly in the US.
Oh dear, I seem to have ruffled his feathers. I rather fear that it is Wolff that claims to be more Marxian (or at least more dialectical) than Marx, particularly in their concept of overdetermination. As is fairly typical a defence of Marx meets with the accusation of offering a "crude diatribe" and "overheated denunciations". I would like to think of it as firm but fair. I don't think it was a particularly "breezy dismissal" – the article ran to around 2000 words and the linked piece on the website to a further 2000. I think less is more when it comes to articles on subjects of philosophy and political economy that are aimed at being accessible to all and not merely to an academic audience. Unfortunately Wolff does not substantiate his other criticisms of the article being poorly reasoned, self-indulgent, old-fashioned and irrelevant bluster. I would expect better from the professor. The truth is that Wolff and Resnick are peddling their ideas as Marxian economics when most of the philosohical and historical content that might reasonably be called Marxian has been dismissed as un-Marxian. And the practical outcome? The fruit that has been borne of these 40 years of efforts? Workers Self Directed Enterprises. Glorified bloody co-ops. No thanks.
I don't think there can be much doubt that Lincoln was really a sincere opponent of slavery though still a racist. Although the debate about slavery was framed in religious/moral/ethical terms the real crux was whether slavery could be allowed to expand. If not it would inevitably wither in time. The slave states forced the civil war in attempt to secure a future for slavery in the face of determined opposition from the new Republican party led by Lincoln. A fudged compromise would probably have been on the cards. Lincoln stood in the way of this. He was regarded badly by both pro and anti-slavery camps because he was a pragmatic politician – hence his overtures to southern states that he really wasn't against slavery but for the union. The course of events allowed Lincoln to force the course of the war along anti-slavery lines.
PS. anymore background on R.R. La Monte? I have had a brief search and come up with some interesting-looking book titles but not much general information.
Thanks for the information and correct date of first publication. Interesting dispute over ‘secondary exploitation’, an apparently small detail (tucked away in a footnote) with large implications.
I think it might be worth the £3.55 investment.It is subtle but it is his view. The productive relations are involuntary, the consciousness is active and
“…class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.”
However, whether class relationships happen or not does not depend on their being articulated or otherwise. It obviously makes the history writing easier if it is articulated. Most historical work on class before working class consciousness is looking at structure and not primarily consciousness to identify class.I was not suggesting Edward Thompson was silly. His study of the emergence of class consciousness is a masterpiece. No argument there. Only that the implications of his definition of class were (let me substitute a new word for silly) problematic.
The problem is, if there is no language of class then class is assumed not to exist. EPTs historical work is around the late-eighteenth-century to mid-nineteenth century because he is interested in exploring the ’emergence’ as it were of the working class. This is problematic, like it or not, from a Marxian perspective because ‘structure’ is important. EPT says that class happens when people identify their interests as different to those of others. This is saying that when the working class do not identify their interests as against the capitalists and aristocrats then the working class does not exist. Consciousness for EPT is everything when it comes to class. But it is not. It exists whether there is consciousness of it or not.Notwithstanding the general excellence of his historical work, EP Thompson’s definition of class does not fit with that of the SPGB (or Marx). He views the working class as having been ‘born’ only when it has a consciousness of itself as a class. For EPT this was around the 1830s/40s. This makes problematic the study of social class in societies with no consciousness of class, ie. feudal, ancient, etc. which is clearly silly. For Marx, and the SPGB, class exists whether or not there is a consciousness of it (a class in itself as against a class for itself).
Other historians of note in the labour history tradition in the UK (all ex-CPGBers) are John Saville (particularly on the British state and capitalist class consciousness, eg. 1848), Dorothy Thompson (wife of EPT, particularly on Chartism, e.g. The Chartists) and Rodney Hilton (medieval history and the transition from feudalism to capitalism). More recently Ellen Meiksins Wood (various titles, particularly on the transition to and rise of capitalism) are well worth a read.
