I don't consider myself a social democrat, but I agree with Jim -- if I understand him correctly. SD is good for the capitalists. That does not make it the Valhalla for others. It is merely a social form that reduces conflict and thus improves efficiency.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:03:26AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >Rakesh, please don't try to classify others on the list. Let Jim speak for > >himself as to whether he is a social democrat or not, if he chooses to do > >so. > > michael, i quoted jim d saying that social democracy is best for the > capitalists and thus can thus presumably be imposed on them for > their own good and the good of the working class. > > if this is not what jim d meant by his own words, he should clarify > because it sure reads as a very provocative position vis a vis > revolutionary Marxian theory! > > > > > > >As to untangling causes, it is hard to say. I recall that the CEO of Ford > >wondered how the industry could deal with overcapacity -- this was some > >time ago. That insight could suggest that he forsaw underconsumption, > >lower profits, this curtailing investment. > > economic theory only systematizes the conceptions and illusions of > the actors caught up in the bourgeois system of production > > > > > >Ultimately, I believe, that Marx emphasized profits as the final arbiter, > >but profits can be expected profits, not realized profits. That makes > >identification very difficult. > > > >Fred's approach of looking at profits makes a great deal of sense when > >looking at long swings, but in the short run -- as to what causes a > >particular downturn -- identification is still a problem. > > yes but Fred was obviously not abstracting one aspect--difficulties > in the *production* of surplus value--to exclusion of the others. > > He suggested that difficulties in production could then compound > problems in the *realization* of surplus value. > > Jim's call for holisim implied too exclusive an abstraction by so > called orthodox marxists of only one part of the concrete capitalist > totality (the production part), but Fred was not failing to return to > problems in the realization of surplus value. He said, as someone who > understands Marx profoundly, that the real difficulties in the > realization of surplus value could be best understood after the > difficulties in production were first grasped. > > That is, Fred and Marxists argue that in order to understand capital > one must first abstract production, not begin with the relations of > exchange as bourgeois economists do. Then one can abstract from the > capitalist totality the process of the realization of surplus value. > It's a matter of ordering, not a matter of excluding. > > If one just calls for holism, then one cannot advance in the > theoretical understanding of the concrete capitaist totality because > you take all elements as jumbled together as they already are. That > is the problem with holism that seems to be much vaunted on this list. > > Abstraction of parts and aspects has to be made for intensive > analysis. Fred proceeds in a Marxian way, Jim D does not. Again this > is not to personalize the argument but to clarify the theoretical > differences so that we can have a theoretical, rather than a > personal, debate. > > Rakesh > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
