twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This rather fine article is not written by the “ultra keynesian” John Kenneth Galbraith, who died back in 2006. It is written by his son James K Galbraith. On the evidence of this article, James is far from being the “ultra keynesian” his father was and, if he is a keynesian at all, he can only be called, at best, a highly unorthodox one.In Section 1 of the article, James K Galbraith neatly summarizes the Marxian and the marginalist conceptions of capital, and comes out on the side of Marx. He soundly criticizes the neoclassical physicalist “production function” and thereby criticizes his father’s master, Keynes himself.James presents the pithiest summary I’ve ever read of the famous, but abstruse, Cambridge capital controversies of the 1960s, in which Samuelson graciously conceded losing the battle, but in which the pyrrhic marxians lost the war (they effectively succeeded in demolishing Marx’s Capital for a whole generation until Andrew Kliman rescued it in the year James K Galbraith’s father died).Importantly for socialists, James K Galbraith’s criticism of physicalism [accounting capital in physical units], as Andrew Kliman proved in Reclaiming Marx’s Capital, lays a devastating blow on neo-Ricardian, or Sraffian, economics as well as on neo-classical, or marginalist, economics. It is the proof of Marx’s social relations of production conception of value, though James K Galbraith may not see it that way.In any case, this man is no orthodox keynesian, at least as far as his explicit theory goes in this article.Piketty, of course, is totally different. He is a pure phenomenologist, not in Hegel’s sense, but in the sense of an empirical scientist, not a theoretical one. He is a modern day Thomas Tooke, whose History of Prices and of the State of the Circulation during the Years 1703–1856 was a mine of empirical data for Marx.Fact, or data, begs explanation; it is not its own ineffable explanation. Fact, as nothing-generating-something, is what Hegel implies by being–nothing–becoming. The world won’t let us sit on the piketty fence.
LBird wrote:Marx argues for ‘humanised nature’.Yes, but not in your abstract Idealist reading of the 1844 Manuscripts.Society ‘humanizes’ nature in two senses, with significant materialist modifications.Society modifies nature for itself. It ‘socializes’ nature.However, a class-divided society has no other means of ‘socializing nature’ than by ‘de-humanizing’ it.Its working-class, in the process of ‘humanizing nature’ for its ruling class, just as certainly, ‘de-humanizes nature’ for itself, and so for all of society.The reality of ‘humanized nature’ of capitalist society is its very opposite:Extinction of nature’s living organisms—expansion of capital at the expense of mass extinction of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, plants, etc.De-humanization of nature’s ‘human’ organisms—luxury and tranquility for some at the expense of poverty, starvation, war and misery for others.‘Anti-human’ disdain for nature’s habitats—irreversible destruction of rain-forests, coral-reefs, beaches, rivers, lakes, oceans, glaciers, soils, air, etc.Society comprehends the natural world scientifically.Society’s most subversive activity is its scientific practice.Modern society comprehends nature quite differently from the way its predecessors did, even when nature’s outward appearance seems much the same to it as it did to them.For example, we see nature’s Sun rise and set, much as our predecessor’s did, even though our generation largely recognizes that it is the Earth that rotates, and so comprehends the process quite differently.We see nature’s species as separate entities in themselves, much as our predecessor’s did, even though our generation largely recognizes their evolutionary heritage, and so comprehends the process quite differently.Modern society has managed to tame nature, by comprehending its processes, in ways beyond the wildest technological ideas of our predecessors. Even on trivial technological matters, the ‘ideas man’, Bill Gates, not all that long ago, confidently declared that “640kBytes should be enough RAM for anybody” and that “CD-ROMs were the future, and not the internet”.Nature can only be ‘humanized’ in Marx’s 1844 sense, when society is. When mankind institutes our Object.
Sources. Marx on his Own Materialism“I am a Materialist”Marx to Dr Kugelmann, 6 Mar 1868.[English] “Herr Dühring … knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist.” [German] “Herr Dühring … weiß sehr wohl, daß meine Entwicklungsmethode nicht die Hegelsche ist, da ich Materialist, Hegel Idealist.” “Materialist Conception”Marx: Grundrisse (Aug/Sep 1857)[English] “4. [Prepare for] accusations about the materialism of this conception;” [German] “4. Vorwürfe über Materialismus dieser Auffassung;”Marx‘s first [?] reference to “materialist conception”. “Materialist Conception of History”Engels: “Review of Marx’s Contribution towards a Critique of Political Economy”, Aug 1859.[English] “The essential foundation of this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose principal features are briefly outlined in the ‘Preface’ to the above-named work.” [German] “Diese deutsche Ökonomie beruht wesentlich auf der materialistischen Auffassung der Geschichte, deren Grundzüge in der Vorrede des oben zitierten Werks kurz dargelegt sind.”Marx vetted this [semi-authorized] review before publication. He approved of the phrase “materialist conception of history”. “Materialist Basis”Marx to Adolphe Sorge, 19 Oct 1877.[English] “Lassalleans, … Dühring and his ‘admirers’, but also with a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise doctors [of philosophy] who want to give socialism a ‘higher ideal’ orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern [idealism]. [German] “Lassalleanern, … Dühring und seinen ‘Bewunderern ’, außerdem aber mit einer ganzen Bande halbreifer Studiosen und überweiser Doctores, die dem Sozialismus ein ‘höhere, ideale’ Wendung geben wollen, d.h. die materialistische Basis (die ernstes, objektives Studium erheischt, wenn man auf ihr operieren will) zu ersetzen durch moderne [Idealismus].” “Material Production is the Basis of Social Life”Marx: Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 7[English]. “the development of material production, which is the basis of all social life, and therefore of all real history” “Materialist Method is the Only Scientific Method”Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 15[English]. “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them. Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific method.”In relation to the present topic, religion, Marx’s only scientific [=materialist] method—“which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it”—is to start with the “actual relations of life” and develop from them their “corresponding” religious forms.Kautsky attempted this with some success a century ago in his “Foundations of Christianity” at http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/.There’s even a Jack Fitzgerald review from the Socialist Standard, July 1925, at http://www.marxists.org/archive/fitzgerald/kautskybook.htm.On the other hand, Marx’s far-more-sophisticated successors are overly concerned to reinterpret Marx in their own brilliantly penetrating way than to dirty their anti-materialist hands by doing anything so scientifically crass as adopting his approach and constructively achieving something new with it, as Marx had every reasonable right to expect his socialist successors to do, after he had done the necessary spadework.
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, an open forum must deal with whatever lands in its lap.Rampant social demoralization that “nothing can be done” is the direct product of shattered faith in possibilism.The demoralized possibilist merely identifies his own actually demonstrated political impotence with the SPGB’s apparent political impotence, largely caused by the actual obstacle of possibilism.This is materialist proof of the SPGB’s stance.
stuartw2112 wrote:To believe thatsocialist reforms are not possible due to the nature of capitalism, you’d have to believe that Marx’s laws of capitalism are basically the same in nature as Newton’s laws.I don’t share this faith.To believe that it was the crisis itself that opened up the space for radical criticism is fair enough, but then again, someone had to move into that space – and the people who do that most energetically and successfully are probably those not burdened with beliefs in iron laws.It’s people like that that will find the way out, if there is one.Before you get carried away with advocacy of anti-scientific pre-SPGB possibilism…Clearly demonstrate one anti-scientific possibilist success story out of the hundreds of thousands of anti-scientific possibilist legislative promulgations, anti-scientific possibilist charitable acts, anti-scientific possibilist human-lives sacrificed, that was not totally hijacked by capital and so rendered scientifically impossible.Just one, from way back to 1904, from anywhere in the worldI’ve earmarked your anti-scientific possibilist claims for future discussion.It ill behoves you, in response, to parade your accustomed moralism, when your declared aim is to unburdon your moralism’s miserable demoralization upon the SPGB.
In the 1983 Tasmanian State referendum to damn the Franklin River in a World Heritage wilderness [see “Franklin Dam Controversy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy%5D, 33% of the electorate wrote No Dams across their ballot paper, so “spoiling it” but in the process saving the wilderness and bringing down a Federal Government.One-third of the electorate, given Tasmania’s compulsory voting, was a resounding vote of no confidence in a State government, cynically prepared to turn a referendum for yes-or-no into an above-or-below the junction of the Gordon river with the Franklin.Here is what those who “spoiled their ballot paper” saved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_island_bend.jpg
By the way, DJP, do you accept my position on objective truth and formal beauty?I pointed out that scientific theory arises by abstracting away inessentials through analysis of the objective world. That is pure Marx.Scientific beauty arises by abstracting away inessentials through secondary analysis of the form of the abstract theory itself. Beauty is truly the wonder that arises when this secondary abstraction process reveals a deeper insight into the objective world from which the theory, in its original form, was abstracted.Einstein, in his formal description of general relativity, allowed his pursuit of abstracting away the inessentials to mislead him into tossing away an apparently innocuous constant, formally demanded by the theory, but upsetting its apparent “beauty”. He set a formal constant to zero. That, by the way, mirrors straightforward thoughtless practice, engaged in all the time in the vain hope of simplifying a problem.Unfortunately, the objective world was not quite so beautiful as Einstein’s original formalism. He missed the expansion of the universe and so the Big Bang.My point is not to denigrate Einstein’s general relativity formalism, which is one of the true wonders of human achievement. My point is otherwise.I want to encourage conviction in scientific formalism, the only sure-fire conviction we have.Dirac, when he introduced electrodynamics into quantum theory had the courage of conviction in his abstract formalism, and so comprehended his formal analysis to directly express objective nature. And, to the amazement of all, he formally discovered anti-matter.So far, “half” the world was missing, even though the anti-“half” was always present, though formally concealed, in the original formalism abstracted from the concrete world.Such stunning formal discoveries of the objective world are the life blood of abstract formalism. Mathematics thrives on them.Now, the socialist party too survives by conviction in its abstract formalism in its Obj and DOP. And there’s a helluva lot of implications lurking in that formalism.I fully understand those who feel uncertain over what appears to be “mere formal” conviction. If it helps, every scientist must first go through this native distrust of “mere formal” conviction before coming out the other side convinced of its efficacy. [We saw the miserable Sorel repudiating it earlier on.]Regarding conviction in theoretical formalism, the great mathematical physicist Lagrange offered the following advice to a doubting colleague, which I freely paraphrase:“Scientific formalism is practical. Use it, and conviction will come if it’s a correct understanding of the objective world. If you don’t use it, you aren’t in a position to judge.”Our Obj and DOP predict so much. They are formally potent. There is nothing more powerful than to “use” our abstract formal principles practically, as they were intended to be used by the party, in order to comprehend the capitalist world and to lead us into socialism.This has always been the party position, and no capitalist assault upon it has so far toppled it, but has merely sidelined it for immediately appealing sophisticated insipidity.
stuart wrote:The essay on Marx was by me – thanks for sharing, I'm glad you liked it. I wrote it just before joining the SPGB for the second time, and I can't find much to disagree with in it now.Sorry, Stuart, I misread that to imply you had rejoined the SPGB, and were still a member. Please accept my apologies for any implied slur upon your integrity. I respect your integrity, and honour it, even if I consider it misguided, as no doubt I have no need to tell you.Having followed your references, I imagine that I comprehend your political and intellectual stance.I wrongly assumed that I was defending the party from a determined internal attack upon it. Once more, please accept my apology.
Theoretical beauty is not an end in itself.Compare the transformation laws of Galileo and Einstein’s special relativity.Galilean transformation [Galileo 1] x′ = x – v t , [Galileo 2] t′ = t .Einstein [Lorentz] transformation. [Einstein 1] x′ = γ (x – v t) , [Einstein 2] t′ = γ (t – v x / c²) , [Einstein 3] γ = 1 / √(1 – v²/c²) .Galileo’s are far more elegant than Einstein’s, but are less general. Formal beauty most abounds when the general, by theoretical abstraction, is made more elegant, but only as far as nature will allow. [The Lorentz transformation is as elegant as it gets for special relativity.]Interestingly, Einstein overplayed his hand when he later set up his, truly beautiful, equations of general relativity. Unfortunately, guided [or misguided] by formal beauty, he spirited away the, apparently to him, “inessential” cosmological constant, which over-zealous beautification he later regretted as his “greatest mistake” because it prevented him from predicting an expanding [or contracting] universe.Finally, perhaps the most astonishing something-for-nothing act of formal beautification was Dirac’s courage to predict anti-particles. That strikes most physicists as truly astonishing.Formal beauty is ultimately subservient to the world outside us ≡ objective truth.
Sorry Stuart, but that is utter nonsense.You earlier presented the case for the morality of Marx and Engels. Either you meant it, or you are deluding yourself.They had their value systems, but that didn’t preclude them from explaining human values materialistically. Explanation can only destroy values that are not worth keeping. Genuine values are enhanced by explanation.Because Marx is a materialist, he must first abstract from the social superstructure, including its value systems, in order to explain them. Thus, man, for Marx, is “economic man” in the sense in which Marx defines “economic” in his famous Preface to the “Contribution”. Look it up.For genuine respect for human values, reread Engels’s wonderful “Origin of the Family”, which is genuine anthropology. Don’t fall for the consciously anti-marxian vulgarities that parade under the name of anthropology—see the Chris Knight reference I gave earlier. [Anthroplogy became deliberately anti-marxian in exactly the same way that economics did.]As for even considering human values, apart from extraordinary fine and brave courage in the face of fear, within the Soviet Union!E. P. Thompson, great and all as he was, and superb as his biography of William Morris remains, was tainted by Leninism.Take heart from the fact that the socialist party is the only bearer of socialism, and its standard theory surpasses the vaunted writings of those who are ignorant of our standard theory. Defending our standard theory is surely one of the worthiest of human values, if not the very worthiest.As to artistic values, if you find love and beauty in oriental poetry and philosophy, grasp it with all your heart. But also acknowledge its social context and its historical limitations.Most of the best art is historical—museum stuff, I recall Hegel, who loved the stuff, saying. To appreciate it, we do need to perform a mental context switch to comprehend and enjoy it, in approximation to its originator’s intent and its intended audience’s conceptions. But you’ve already explained you are a practiced adept at that.I’m not trying to destroy human value, and neither were those big hearts Marx and Engels. They held the highest of human values, though not those appropriate to a capitalist world. I thought that was a given. Who would fight for mankind without a big heart for one’s suffering fellows.
LBird, do you seriously suppose that if Pannekoek had even a whiff of evidence, that Engels was the precursor of Lenin’s empiriocriticism rant, he would have let him off scott free?I have just reread Pannekoek’s “Lenin as Philosopher” and he provides not a whiff of such evidence. On the contrary, he refutes this bogus charge of yours.Pannekoek’s single charge against Engels refers to Engels’s assertion of the organic chemistry industry as a practical social demonstration of the refutation of Kant’s unreachable “thing in itself”.Pannekoek claims that historical materialism alone is the refutation of Kant’s “thing in itself”, but Engels had more than conceded that, as a given, and already reached back further in history by saying that there was little one need add to Hegel’s magnificent demolition job on Kant’s “thing in itself”.Pannekoek is clearly affronted, or unsettled, by Engels’s infra-dig lowly industrial application, but human social production is the true marxian arena of social practice, and it was deliberately chosen by Engels as a very, non-academic, in-your-face assault for those dualists who don’t comprehend Marx, that “the question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth—i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice”.I am inclined to agree here with practical Engels over theoretical Pannekoek. Affrontery be damned! The dualism of the great Kant now deserves it, because it has become an intellectual academic obstacle to socialism.Now, Pannekoek shows Lenin referring to Engels’s “Anti-Dühring” and “Ludwig Feuerbach” everywhere. Nothing surprising, since these were the obvious texts on marxian science.However, and this is crucial, Pannekoek goes to great lengths to show how Lenin abuses Engels’s texts to refute Mach and Avenarius, whose texts he equally abuses. He deliberately distances Engels from Lenin’s abusive practice.Finally, as clincher, Pannekoek, holds up the contrasting exemplary practice of Engels’s “Anti-Dühring” to condemn outright the ignorant and unscrupulous practice of Lenin.At a superficial level, Lenin simply taints everything he touches. But Engels’s work is too great, and survives and annihilates Lenin’s taint, just as Marx’s does, and so too does socialism.
Stuart, most of the above was directed at your lack of conviction in the DOP and Obj.If you think the party’s standard case is not worth defending, then you have a moral obligation to oppose it by bringing your objections out into the open, or a moral duty to the party to remove yourself from it, and set up or join an organisation whose objectives and principles you do find to be worthy of defence.Convince me why I should have any conviction in your case when you demonstrate such little conviction in it yourself. When asked why you condemn the party’s standard analysis of bolshevism, you refused to offer your own improved alternative. So far, you’ve supplied no more assurance than to accept on face value your own morality.
Then show us where the party’s standard theory is wrong. It deserves to know.Explain it clearly, and take your time.By the way, do you expect me to defend something I disagree with? Yet you apparently adhere to something you disagree with. If anyone has a moral duty to explain his action it is you.Please show us clearly where we are wrong. Start another thread, and I promise I’ll give you all the time you need, free of any carping interference from me, to make your case.
