[Marxism] It's just a joke

[En Passant with John Passant]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Radio prank calls reinforce a sense of superiority among middle class listeners 
over the mainly working class targets. They allow an alienated often working 
class audience the ability to laugh at and hence feel superior to those other 
workers who have been pranked.  A sort of jocular racism without the race, the 
logic of refugee bashing transferred to 'dumb' workers ... The best way to 
regulate media offerings would be for unions like the Media, Entertainment and 
Arts Alliance to fight for and win greater power - with union house committees 
making decisions about production and the like to guard against the very 
attacks on workers that pranks invariably are.

http://enpassant.com.au/2012/12/10/its-just-a-joke/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] At $3 million, Kerrey at New School was highest paid private college president

[Charlie]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Top 10 recipients, in total compensation, among private-college leaders 
in 2010.


1. Bob Kerrey (x), The New School, $3,047,703
2. Shirley Ann Jackson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, $2,340,441
3. G. David Pollick (x), Birmingham-Southern College, $2,312,098
4. Mark S. Wrighton, Washington University in Saint Louis, $2,268,837
5. Nicholas S. Zeppos, Vanderbilt University, $2,228,349
6. Steven B. Sample (x), University of Southern California, $1,963,710
7. Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University, $1,932,931
8. Richard C. Levin, Yale University, $1,616,066
9. Robert J. Zimmer, University of Chicago, $1,597,918
10. Jack P. Varsalona, Wilmington University (Del.), $1,550,218
(x): no longer president
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLLEGES_PRESIDENTS_PAY_TOP_10



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Chavez says cancer has returned, names successor (Nicolás Maduro)

[Stuart Munckton]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


>
> I'm actually not sure "workers control" has a thing to do with this


The point about workers' control is tied to the economic plans of the
government to develop iothger sectors of the economy, and gear industry to
internal needs. There is a totally false counter-position here. Of course
they are not moving away from an oil-based economy, They can't. The point
is to use the oil revenues to develop the economy so they are not
*dependent* on oil. That means, far from winding oil down, *using* the
industry. That, surely, is inherent in this. That doesn't mean they are not
seekng to break oil dependency. OIl dependency does not mean "no oi;", it
means developing the rest of hte economy.

Wporkers' control is key to this. My comment about wokrers' control was not
about the oil industry, but the way attempts to implement it and the debate
and struggle over it has played out in other industries. This is drawn out
very well in this detailed piece  on
Venezuela Analysis by Ewan Robertson on Plan Socialist Guyana. It includes
this observation:

"Worker control is also argued as necessary for gearing industry toward
producing for social need over private profit. Sayago, Adarfio, and the PGS
reports make clear that worker control is linked to reducing or ending the
export of primary resources to transnational companies, to instead
manufacture primary materials inside Venezuela to produce for domestic
needs, from health to housing ...

"As such, workers point to concrete successes achieved by the PSG working
groups despite opposition from other political sectors to the plan’s
implementation... Meanwhile, Denny Sucre described to me how Alcasa was
planning to begin producing profiles for housing construction in support of
the Venezuelan government’s mass housing building program launched May 2011.
[xxx]
"



-- 
“Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is humanity’s
original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made,
through disobedience and through rebellion.” — Oscar Wilde, Soul of Man
Under Socialism

“The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?” — Jarvis Cocker

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] OCC

[Ambrose Andrews]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 10 December 2012 12:52, Ambrose Andrews  wrote:
> On 10 December 2012 12:17, Philip Ferguson  wrote:
>>

>
> Right, Thats what I was going to say, but in clumsier words.

Erh... Mine not yours :-)

  -AA.



-- 
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambr...@vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambr...@jabber.fsfe.org
diaspora:zn...@diasp.eu
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] OCC

[Ambrose Andrews]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 10 December 2012 12:17, Philip Ferguson  wrote:
>
> Some of the text of Ambrose's reply to John Passant re OCC seems to be


Oops, yes indeed.


> missing.  I assume what Ambrose was saying is that each capitalist doesn't
> get back as profit what they exploit from their own workers, but a share of
> total profit across the economy as a whole, based on what part of the sum
> capital of the overall economy they hold .


Right, Thats what I was going to say, but in clumsier words.

Michael Roberts blog is very worthwhile.

Incidentally, yet another Canberra Socialist Alternative member, Peter
Jones is doing a PhD on aspects of the rate of profit.

  -AA.



-- 
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambr...@vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambr...@jabber.fsfe.org
diaspora:zn...@diasp.eu
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Chavez says cancer has returned, names successor (Nicolás Maduro)

[Jon Flanders]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 16:36 -0600, Manuel Barrera wrote:
> 
> I'm not really sure what is the point of observing some "blind spot"
> for Venezuela among leftists except that perhaps revolutionaries
> should somehow scold Venezuelans for relying on oil exports. 

I'm sure most of us know that David's comeback is that Venezuela should
be using their oil revenue to build as many nuclear power plants as they
can. This being the way we can save the planet. :)

Jon Flanders



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] OCC

[Philip Ferguson]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Some of the text of Ambrose's reply to John Passant re OCC seems to be
missing.  I assume what Ambrose was saying is that each capitalist doesn't
get back as profit what they exploit from their own workers, but a share of
total profit across the economy as a whole, based on what part of the sum
capital of the overall economy they hold .  This is because the one thing
that is equal under capitalism is capital.

It's important to note, however, that there has been a change since Marx
and Lenin were writing.  Globalisation means that there is emerging a
global rate of profit now.  This has been written about by a number of
people, one of whom is Tony Norfield.  See here:
http://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/imperialism-and-law-of-value.html

That's just a short piece but it has links to a recent PhD by a guy in
Britain (I think) called John Smith, and finished in 2010 which looks at
the impact of imperialism on the law of value.  It also links to an earlier
piece by Tony called 'The China Price':
http://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/what-china-price-really-means.html

Tony is working on a PhD on British imperialism today, but there's
interesting stuff on a range of subjects to do with imperialism on his site.

He also happens to be a very pleasant bloke.

Phil

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Marxism Digest, Vol 110, Issue 12

[Philip Ferguson]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


John Passant wrote:

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:49 AM, <
marxism-requ...@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu> wrote:

> Unlike John Faulkner, don't waste your time on the Labor Party, a moribund
> organisation of time servers and careerists bowing down at the altar of
> profit.


He suggests people instead check out Socialist Alternative.

I'd agree with both those points.

What I'm not so sure about is who on the Australian left, if anyone, still
calls on workers to vote Labor.

My view is that Labour-type parties these days are basically
bourgeois-liberal parties, not deformed workers parties.  Lenin called them
bourgeois workers' parties 90 years ago, and noted the contradiction
between their bourgeois programmes and working class membership/base.  But
I think that contradiction was resolved long, long ago.

Lenin died before any of these parties became governments (at the
nation-state level anyway).  I think that Labour parties administering
capitalism resolved that contradiction and created a new one - that between
these parties and the working class.

For the New Zealand case, check out:
http://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/the-truth-about-labour-a-bosses-party/

It's a few years old now and needs updating to take into account some more
stuff about the last Labour government here, but the basic analysis stands.

Good luck with the merger with RSP, John.  I hope it works.  It's good to
see some good news on the revolutionary left in this part of the world.

Phil

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Jodi Dean on the Communist Horizon Video

[Douglas Greene]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On
Saturday, December 8th, acclaimed author, political scientist, and
Occupy theorist Jodi Dean spoke in  us in Boston on ideas found in
her new book The Communist Horizon (published by Verso Press),
the talk was followed by a discussion on the need for a rejuvenation
of the idea and the project of communism to meet the challenges and
the crisis conditions of the 21st century. The event was co-sponsored
by Red Horzion, Encuentro Cinco, as well as The Howard Zinn Memorial
Lecture Series. 

Jodi Dean on the Communist Horizon: Video 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI4Y9KNZ87A

Jodi Dean on the Communist Horizon: Video 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUyYfC524M0

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Chavez says cancer has returned, names successor (Nicolás Maduro)

[Manuel Barrera]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


DW: " But then again, Venezueala's entire existence as we know it now is based 
on the penetration of carbon extracting and processing (and stuff that makes 
fracking look good: the worlds largest reserves of tar sands/shale oil) into 
the economy. I often wonder if those on the left have a blind spot in this 
regard vis-a-vis Venezuela. AT least in terms of a point of discussion."


Exactly how is it the fault of the Venezuelan workers that their economy is 
based on carbon extraction? America's workers are primarily dependent on the 
vagaries of the finance capital, the energy industry, and retail/service: That 
is, on whatever the dictates may be of the bankers and billionaires and 
relative privilege they are "afforded" by the capitalist class. Perhaps it is 
the fault of the "American" workers that the imperialists are so "bad" and we 
should stop being so "blind" to their lack of internationalism? 

Isn't it the task of the Venezuelan workers to establish workers government of 
the exploited to run an economy in the interests of the majority so that they 
can help build a world economy based socialist internationalist principles? 
Would you expect Venezuelans to impoverish themselves because their economy is 
based on some impure version of "socialist energy policy"? What of "American" 
workers? Should we just impoverish coal miners by gutting the coal industry in 
favor of "sustainable energy" in some utopian "great leap forward"?  Why aren't 
we taking "Americans" to task for buying big cars or using too much energy to 
heat their homes or just littering too much? 

I'm not really sure what is the point of observing some "blind spot" for 
Venezuela among leftists except that perhaps revolutionaries should somehow 
scold Venezuelans for relying on oil exports. Perhaps the blind spot is one of 
"American" chauvinism alongside "American exceptionalism"? Just discussin'
  

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] More on the 'Anti-German' Idiocy

[Einde O'Callaghan]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 09.12.2012 22:14, Angelus Novus wrote:

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



Paul Flewers wrote:


still lurks around the German left in respect of the prevalence of
pro-Zionism


Yeah, again, this is nothing that originated with the Anti-Germans.  You can 
consult Ulrike Meinhof's earliest writings to see that it was fairly 
uncontroversial that the pre-67 New Left in Germany was basically supportive of 
Israel.  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Noam Chomsky writes in _The Fateful 
Triangle_ that pre-67, pro-Israel sentiment was fairly widespread in the New 
Left internationally.

Then there were debates around the time of the first Intifada in the mid-80s concerning the legacy 
of anti-Semitism in the extra-parliamentary left of the 70s, which is largely unknown to people who 
aren't familiar with the history of the post-war (West-)German left.  Incidents like the Tupamaros 
West Berlin planning to bomb the Jewish Community Center, or one part of the Revolutionary Cells 
engaging in a separation of hostages into "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" during an 
Air France hijacking.

All of this is completely unfamiliar to most British and American leftists, since in the 
British and American context, "anti-Semitism" is usually just a cudgel wielded 
to silence criticism of Israel, whereas in the German left of the 1970s and early 80s, 
there were actually very real, very ugly manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the 
autonomist milieu of the 80s and early 90s was engaged in a critical process of 
processing those experiences.

It gives too much credit to the Anti-Germans to assume they had much of anything to do with it.  All they 
ever did was introduced obfuscatory jargon and idiotic "theory" into the discussion, like the 
completely bananas notion of any criticism of finance being a "structural anti-Semitism" (for a 
good critique of this bonkers notion, see Gerhard Hanloser's piece here: 

 )

All I can say is that the arguments I've encountered again and again 
both in the Antifa and in and around DIE LINKE within the former GDR 
aren't a re-hash of the arguments in the West German left during the 
1970s or 1980s but more or less watered-down versions of the hardline 
anti-German arguments developed around Jungle World and Bahamas.



which has a grip in the Left Party. He added that a move to expel the
hard-line pro-Zionists from the Left Party was defeated


It's been a while since I took a look at the party program, but I'm fairly 
certain the position on Israel and Palestine is standard peace movement 
boilerplate, support for the rights of both peoples to live in peace and 
security, a full withdrawal of Israel to the 67 borders and compliance with UN 
resolutions, dismantling of all settlements, etc.  Basically, what folks like 
Chomsky and Finkelstein demand.  This is more or less the consensus position.

You're more or less right about the party programme, it's more or less 
the same as the consensus position within the German peace movement. But 
sections of the FDS (Realos) - going beyond the "anti-German" spectrum - 
wanted to include a statement defending "Israel's right to exist" and 
they haven't gone away - but this probably had more to do with their 
desire to be accepted as a possible coalition partner by the SPD and the 
Greens than with any question of principle. And the attacks by some not 
unimportant party members on Inge Höger, a Bundestag member who was on 
the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed by Israeli commandos, were 
particularly vicious.


Einde O'Callaghan


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] More on the 'Anti-German' Idiocy

[Angelus Novus]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



Paul Flewers wrote:

> still lurks around the German left in respect of the prevalence of 
> pro-Zionism

Yeah, again, this is nothing that originated with the Anti-Germans.  You can 
consult Ulrike Meinhof's earliest writings to see that it was fairly 
uncontroversial that the pre-67 New Left in Germany was basically supportive of 
Israel.  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Noam Chomsky writes in _The Fateful 
Triangle_ that pre-67, pro-Israel sentiment was fairly widespread in the New 
Left internationally.

Then there were debates around the time of the first Intifada in the mid-80s 
concerning the legacy of anti-Semitism in the extra-parliamentary left of the 
70s, which is largely unknown to people who aren't familiar with the history of 
the post-war (West-)German left.  Incidents like the Tupamaros West Berlin 
planning to bomb the Jewish Community Center, or one part of the Revolutionary 
Cells engaging in a separation of hostages into "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" 
during an Air France hijacking.

All of this is completely unfamiliar to most British and American leftists, 
since in the British and American context, "anti-Semitism" is usually just a 
cudgel wielded to silence criticism of Israel, whereas in the German left of 
the 1970s and early 80s, there were actually very real, very ugly 
manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the autonomist milieu of the 80s and early 
90s was engaged in a critical process of processing those experiences.

It gives too much credit to the Anti-Germans to assume they had much of 
anything to do with it.  All they ever did was introduced obfuscatory jargon 
and idiotic "theory" into the discussion, like the completely bananas notion of 
any criticism of finance being a "structural anti-Semitism" (for a good 
critique of this bonkers notion, see Gerhard Hanloser's piece here: 

 )

> which has a grip in the Left Party. He added that a move to expel the 
> hard-line pro-Zionists from the Left Party was defeated

It's been a while since I took a look at the party program, but I'm fairly 
certain the position on Israel and Palestine is standard peace movement 
boilerplate, support for the rights of both peoples to live in peace and 
security, a full withdrawal of Israel to the 67 borders and compliance with UN 
resolutions, dismantling of all settlements, etc.  Basically, what folks like 
Chomsky and Finkelstein demand.  This is more or less the consensus position.




Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Chavez says cancer has returned, names successor (Nicolás Maduro)

[Vladimiro Giacche']

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


> Venezuelan carbon socialism.
> 

as opposed to USA shale gas capitalism? or to Saudi Arabian oil feudalism? 
v
> 
> 
> 
> 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Syria

[Prashad, Vijay]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I have a three part series on Syria, "A Nation of Pain and Suffering: Syria."

"Our enemies did not cross our borders
They crept through our weakness like ants.
  -- Nizar Qabbani, “Footnotes to the Book of Setback”
(Hawamesh ‘ala Daftar al-Naksah), 1967.

The first part, Refugees, is out now: 
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8887/a-nation-of-pain-and-suffering_syria-%28part-1%29.

The second part is on Neighbors and the third is on Western Plans. These will 
appear next week.

Vijay.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Chavez says cancer has returned, names successor (Nicolás Maduro)

[Carlos Morreo]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Well, the point one might wish to make is that Nicolás Maduro represents within 
"chavismo" the civilian side of Chávez's PSUV as opposed to the military wing, 
more or less neatly aligned with Diosdado Cabello, the current president of the 
National Assembly (Parliament). So, Maduro's appointment as successor signals a 
momentary victory for the civilian bureaucracies of Venezuelan carbon socialism.
Cheers from Caracas,
Carlos



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] More on the 'Anti-German' Idiocy

[Paul Flewers]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Re comments by Angelus and Einde on the Anti-Germans, I was talking
yesterday to Ben Lewis of the CPGB/Weekly Worker about them, and whilst he
agreed that the Anti-Germans have drifted away from any commitment to
left-wing politics, he feels that their baleful influence still lurks
around the German left in respect of the prevalence of pro-Zionism, which
has a grip in the Left Party. He added that a move to expel the hard-line
pro-Zionists from the Left Party was defeated, not least through an appeal
to the legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, on the grounds that one must not deal
forcibly with oppositional views. As Ben is not on this list, I shall pass
to him the correspondence here, particularly Angelus' second posting in
which he says that the pro-Zionism within the German left is not primarily
the work of the Anti-Germans.

Paul F

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] More on the 'Anti-German' Idiocy

[mazdak]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


This is my first post and I try to be clear: 

Just a thought on Anti-Germans: I think that the same phenomenon takes place in 
different shapes in many places around the world. Or perhaps I am wrong to 
generalize. 

There are people in China who call themselves Maoists or new Maoists and 
present a strange blend of chauvinism and some elements from Mao's politics, 
there is this semi-gangster structure called communist party in Moscow that 
reclaims Stalin and collaborates with a faction of oligarchy. And some of those 
"trendy" post-structuralisms, won't they sooner or later pave the way for an 
ethnic or gender-based rehabilitation of a culturalist type of racism?

To make it clear, I think that anti-Geman stuff, dead or alive, is something in 
need of better analysis than what was on the site of British Communist party: 
National Socialists started their carrier by calling themselves socialists. 
What made that maneuver possible or imaginable for some people? Something close 
to those mechanisms but not entirely in the same order of things, is at work 
now again.
 
On 8 Dec 2012, at 01:21, Angelus Novus wrote:
> 
> I maintain: The Anti-Germans are dead.  For some it was a transitory stop on 
> the way to shitty politics (Neo-Conservatism or right-wing Social Democracy), 
> others abandoned it for better politics (the milieu around Junge Linke or ums 
> Ganze), but in its post-2001 manifestation, it was a short-lived phenomenon.
> 


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The organic composition of capital and profit rates

[Ambrose Andrews]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 9 December 2012 20:46, En Passant with John Passant
 wrote:
>
>
> The Marxist Glossary says:
> The organic composition of capital, c/v, measures the difference between the 
> rate of surplus value, s/v, and the rate of profit, s/(c + v) - the higher 
> the organic composition of capital, i.e., the more capital-intensive the 
> industry, the lower the rate of profit.
>
>
> Does the monopoly type situation mean that mining companies purloin more than 
> their share of surplus from other capitalists even though they have a high 
> OCC?
>
> John Passant
>

The OCC is the ratio/relation of constant and variable capital (dead
and living labour)

I'd assume the 'rate of profit' referred to above is for the whole
economy, not a particular sector, or rather that it is referring to
profit rate *prior* to the equalisation of rates of profit across
different sectors  profit is distributed between sectors via the
market such that while a sector may be contributing to low
economy-wide profitability, this effect will not in the end be visited
on that sector in particular.

These (mining) profits are distributed from other sectors with lower
OCC via the markets. The labor which creates the value is from other
sectors of capitalist production.  Labor-created surplus value across
the whole economy is reallocated to different sectors not in
accordance with the labor in

(*because* of the high OCC)

So, merely having an average rate of profit in a high OCC sector is
not a speficially monoploy effect I'd say.  The superprofits of mining
are another story.

That's my reading anyway.

  -AA.


-- 
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambr...@vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambr...@jabber.fsfe.org
diaspora:zn...@diasp.eu
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] A party invitation to John Faulkner

[En Passant with John Passant]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


So to all those who, unlike John Faulkner, do reject neoliberalism, do want 
justice and equity, do want real action on climate change, and who do think 
that capitalism can't provide a decent future, or who even just have doubts 
about that, maybe it is time to have a look at Socialist Alternative.

Come along to one of our meetings. Read our website. Check out the unity 
section of the Socialist Alternative website, and the debates and discussion 
about revolutionary unity on facebook and elsewhere.

Unlike John Faulkner, don't waste your time on the Labor Party, a moribund 
organisation of time servers and careerists bowing down at the altar of profit.

Instead check out Socialist Alternative and consider becoming part of a growing 
movement of revolutionaries in Australia to help build the fightbacks needed 
today and ultimately to challenge the dictatorship of capital.

http://enpassant.com.au/2012/12/09/a-party-invitation-to-john-faulkner/

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] The organic composition of capital and profit rates

[En Passant with John Passant]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


The Marxist Glossary says: 
The organic composition of capital, c/v, measures the difference between the 
rate of surplus value, s/v, and the rate of profit, s/(c + v) - the higher the 
organic composition of capital, i.e., the more capital-intensive the industry, 
the lower the rate of profit.

Why is this so? For example the mining industry in Australia is extremely 
capital intensive and much of it earns (or did until recently)  
'super-profits'.  Is that reflective of some form of monopoly - both in the 
land and the global supply (sort of), the finite nature of the resources in the 
long term and high demand from China? Where does OCC fit into this then? 

Does the monopoly type situation mean that mining companies purloin more than 
their share of surplus from other capitalists even though they have a high OCC?

John Passant 



Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Reshoring Trend?

[dave x]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Assembly of some Apple Macs is now being moved to the US from China.
There are some (limited) indications this is part of a wider trend or
reshoring industrial production to the US from Asia. Possible factors
mentioned below include: Rising labor costs and labor strife in Asia
(think Foxconn), stagnant or declining labor costs in the US (though
still much higher than in Asia), costs of transportation and proximity
to the US consumer market, the shale energy boom lowering
manufacturing costs in the US, and increased automation (in response
to rising labor costs in Asia) further reducing the labor cost
differential.

Some speculation: If this is true, I wonder if another component of
this trend might end up being the ongoing destruction of industrial
unionism in its heartland the US midwest. Perhaps in the aftermath of
all the ongoing destruction the midwest will end up getting remade as
some sort of home grown neoliberal free trade zone for multinationals.
This would jibe with some of the observations of geographical Marxists
like Harvey who have long pointed to capitalism's 'territorial' logic
(accumulation by disposession) or as Deleuze/Hardt/Negri might put it
'deterritorialization'.

-dave


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/technology/apple-to-resume-us-manufacturing.html?

"Apple plans to join a small but growing number of companies that are
bringing some manufacturing jobs back to the United States, drawn by
the growing economic and political advantages of producing in their
home market.

On Thursday, Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, who built its
efficient Asian manufacturing network, said the company would invest
$100 million in producing some of its Mac computers in the United
States, beyond the assembly work it already does in the United States.
He provided little detail about how the money would be spent or what
kinds of workers might benefit.

...

" Some analysts are hopeful that the move by a big, innovative company
like Apple could inspire a broader renaissance in American
manufacturing, but a number of experts remain skeptical.

“I find it hard to see how the supply chains that drive manufacturing
are going to move back here,” said Andre Sharon, a professor at Boston
University and director of the Fraunhofer Center for Manufacturing
Innovation. “So much of the know-how has been lost to Asia, and
there’s no compelling reason for it to return. It’s great when a
company says they want to create American jobs — but it only really
helps the country if those are jobs that belong here, if it starts a
chain reaction or is part of a bigger economic shift.”

Over the last few years, companies across various industries,
including electronics, automotive and medical devices, have announced
that they are “reshoring” jobs after decades of shipping them abroad.
Lower energy costs in America, rising wages in developing countries
like China and Brazil, quality control issues and the desire to keep
the supply chain close to the gigantic American consumer base have all
factored into these decisions.

“Companies were going abroad in pursuit of cost reduction, and it
turns out there were a lot of unintended costs,” said Diane Swonk,
chief economist at Mesirow Financial. “America has been looking a lot
more competitive lately.”

Even so, the impact on the American job market has been modest so far.
Much of the work brought back has been high-value-added, automated
production that requires few actual workers, which is part of the
reason America’s higher wages are not scaring off companies.

American manufacturing has been growing in the last two years, but the
sector still has two million fewer jobs than it had when the recession
began in December 2007. Worldwide manufacturing appears to be growing
much faster, even for many of the American-owned companies that are
expanding at home. General Electric, for example, has hired American
workers to build water heaters, refrigerators, dishwashers and
high-efficiency topload washers, but continues to add more jobs
overseas as well. "
...
--
Followup piece discusses the possible role of automation in this trend:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/when-cheap-foreign-labor-gets-less-cheap/

"Nick Wingfield and I had an article in Friday’s paper about how some
American companies are “re-shoring” manufacturing they had previously
sent abroad. The scale of these efforts is still more anecdotal than
widespread at this point. Still, it’s worth examining why the United
States might be a more attractive place to locate yo