This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------912ED642924FD0CB7AD99C36 Friends, I concur with Jim's assessment of Robin's analysis. Why is it that so many people do not grasp Marx's use of abstraction? You would think that economists, trained in neoclasical abstraction, would understand it without that much difficulty. Also, it should be noted that there is plenty of immiseration in the First World, certainly in D.C. where Robin teaches. michael yates James Devine wrote: > > Robin Hahnel writes a lot of stuff I agree with. But I missed where he > wrote about how the capitalists (and other elite groups) would use dirty > tricks and violence to undermine and wipe out the mass democratic movement > for socialism that he (and I) advocate. (I recommend "How the Change Came" > in William Morris' utopian novel NEWS FROM NOWHERE for a prescient sketch > of a socialist revolution from below. Many of its events presage actual > revolutions, as in Chile in the early 1970s.) > > Further, he writes: > >Moreover, we can find no solace in old left doctrines of inevitable > collapse. Many twentieth century progressives sustained themselves > emotionally and psychologically with false beliefs that capitalism's > dynamism and technological creativity would prove to be its weakness as > well as its strength. Grandiose Marxist crisis theories -- a tendency for > the rate of profit to fall as machinery was substituted for exploitable > living labor, or insufficient demand to keep the capitalist bubble afloat > as productive potential outstripped the buying power of wages -- buoyed the > hopes of the faithful in the face of crushing defeats of progressive causes.< > > I've studied crisis theory a bit (and seemingly a bit more than Robin). > Some of the theories are wrong, some are right, often in different > situations. In my work, I've tried to synthesize the valid aspects of them. > I won't bore people with the details. But the key point is that (1) > capitalist crises _are_ inevitable (in a sense that is explained below) but > (2) socialism is not. The latter actually requires activist intervention, > because it requires the growth of a mass movement of the sort that Robin > writes, a movement that does not arise -- or win -- automatically in any way. > > Crises involve capitalism fouling its own nest -- a nest in which we have > the misfortune to live. What some or many people from the Old Left missed > was that they don't imply the end of capitalism, only opportunities for > change, either progressive reform or revolution (or regressive changes, as > in Hitler's Germany). The oppressed don't always have it together to take > advantage of those opportunities. In the MANIFESTO, Marx & Engels' > prediction of inevitability was based on an optimistic extrapolation of the > self-organization of the working-class movement, but their theory really > doesn't predict that continuation of the growth of parties and unions. > Despite the optimistic tone, M&E admit that revolution can lead to the > mutual destruction of the two classes (rather than to socialism). This is > what Luxemburg later summarized as "socialism or barbarism" (while the > experience of the East Block indicates a third alternative: socialist > barbarism). Marx's politics were also much more complicated than in the > MANIFESTO, as indicated by Draper's multivolume KARL MARX'S THEORY OF > REVOLUTION. > > (what I mean by inevitability, which follows Luxemburg: the timing of the > crisis can't be predicted, but successful efforts to delay the crisis make > it worse when it comes. For example, Keynesian policies worked for quite > awhile in the US, but contributed in a big way to the stagflation crisis of > the 1970s.) > > >Marx's prophesy of economic emiseration did not prove true for the first > world. < > > I wish leftists wouldn't imitate the right's labeling of Marx as a prophet > and his predictions as "prophecies." Marx's prediction of _relative_ > immiseration was very abstract, being along the lines of an "everything > else equal" prediction. (Economists are always making these kinds of > predictions without being labeled "prophets." One thing that distinguished > Marx from the crowd is that he didn't limit his predictions to small > issues.) As Paul Sweezy pointed out in the first chapter of THE THEORY OF > CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT, it's a prediction for abstract capitalism, ignoring > such matters as imperialism and trade unions which can counteract the > prediction's working out in specific countries. If capitalism fits Marx's > abstract capitalism, the prediction doesn't work very well without bringing > in all of the complicating factors into the analysis. But if capitalism > fits Marx's abstract description, the prediction works better. It seems to > be working pretty well these days, even in the "first world." > > Though I generally agree with (or at least learn from) the work by Robin > and his usual collaborator, Michael Albert, I wish they wouldn't denigrate > other traditions on the left as much as they do. It smacks of product > differentiation -- a common oligopolistic marketing technique -- or of > academic sectarianism. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html --------------912ED642924FD0CB7AD99C36 begin: vcard fn: Michael Yates n: Yates;Michael org: University of Pittsburgh email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] title: Dept. of Economics x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------912ED642924FD0CB7AD99C36--
