Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Angelus Novus via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



Philip Ferguson wrote:


> Where do you get the idea vol 3 was written first?


Um, because it's incontrovertible fact?

so-called "Volume III" = compiled from the 1864/65 Manuscript.

"Volume II" = compiled from a manuscript Marx worked on continuously from 1868 
to 1881.

Volume I: written in 1867, revised 1872 and 1875.

Furthermore, Engels wasn't even aware of the existence of the 1864/65 manusript 
until Helene Demuth found it while tidying up after Marx had already died.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Ed George via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Phil Ferguson:

'Where do you get the idea vol 3 was written first?

 Vol 1 was published when Marx was alive, vol 3 was *put together by Engels
 after Marx's death*. Engels didn't mistranslate (in either the literal
 sense of the word or in the wider meaning). He worked with Marx
 with nearly 40 years; he didn't misunderstand or mistake Marx's theory of
 crisis.

 Moreover, Vol 3 could not have been written first because all the core
 concepts it is based on didn't exist without vol 1 and 2.

 Also, the three vols play different parts. Vol 1 is about production, vol
 2 is about distribution and vol 3 is about the capitalist system as a 
whole

 and how it actually operates.

 Btw, even as early as the Grundrisse, which precedes vol 1, he noted that
 LTRPF is 'the single most important law of modern political eocnomy'.
 There's no evidence he ever changed his mind. That's why vol 3 spends 50
 pages on the subject.

 'Magnitude over form' has nothing to do with it.'

* * *

Not strictly true in terms of the order of Marx's writing of Capital. I 
happen to be working on an article on this point, and its consequences 
for understanding Capital. I'm pasting and excerpt from the draft below.


I've written about the rate of profit here: 
; 
I also deal with it here: 
.


https://readingmarx.wordpress.com/
@edwardbgeorge

* * *

In 1857, the outbreak of economic crisis jolted Marx into an attempt to 
set out his thinking in something resembling systematic form. In 
December he wrote to Engels like this: ‘I am working like mad all night 
and every night collating my economic studies so that I at least get the 
outlines clear before the déluge.’ [1] He wrote a relatively polished 
‘Introduction’, which he later discarded, replacing it with the 
‘Preface’ to the Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy he 
would write in 1859, and a vast (around 1,000 pages in the current 
paperback English translation), sprawling draft outline of his thinking 
on economics, in turn fascinating in the insights it offers on Marx’s 
subsequent work and infuriating in its dense intelligibility. [2]
This outline – the Grundrisse – is considered by many as the ‘first 
draft’ of Capital; it was, of course, as a rough draught, completely 
unpublishable. During the first half of 1858, a deal was reached with a 
German publisher to bring Marx’s work to light. Marx envisaged a plan of 
six books, dealing with (in Marx’s own words [3]): ‘1. On Capital 
(contains a few introductory chapters). 2. On Landed Property. 3. On 
Wage Labour. 4. On the State. 5. International Trade. 6. World Market’. 
The publishing deal envisaged the publication of the work in 
instalments, the first one covering, in three chapters (again in Marx’s 
own words [4]), ‘1. Value, 2. Money, 3. Capital in General (the process 
of production of capital; process of its circulation; the unity of the 
two, or capital and profit; interest)’. As tended to be the case with 
Marx, however, the project, as he drafted, grew to unwieldy size; 
eventually seeing the light of day as a two-chapter (money and 
commodities) book introduced by a ‘Preface’ (in which Marx elaborates 
his famous ‘base’ and ‘superstructure’ metaphor, and which is arguably 
the most interesting part of the book), under the title A Contribution 
to a Critique of Political Economy, in 1859. The slightness of the 
work’s content, amid such expectation among Marx’s admirers, led to its 
eventual appearance being met with indifference on one end of the scale 
and intense disappointment on the other.


Nevertheless, following the publication of the Critique, Marx’s 
intention was to set to work on drafting the chapter on capital. As was 
his custom, however, he soon found himself distracted by other matters – 
in this case a sectarian squabble within German émigré politics (the 
‘Herr Vogt’ case) to which Marx devoted far more time and energy than it 
deserved – and work was interrupted for around eighteen months.


It is clear that the draft that Marx produced over the next two years 
(23 notebooks, known as ‘The Manuscript of 1861-3’, only published in 
full by the MEGA project [5] between 1977 and 1982 [6]) was intended, at 
least at the outset, as a continuation of the Critique (the first 
notebook is headed ‘chapter three’). But after five notebooks – which do 
indeed deal with the transformation 

Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Thank you for commenting Phil (& MM too). The comments were fair and very
much appreciated. It can feel all toomuch like speaking out into a vacuum
on the list at times.  There is really not a great deal of interest in
Australian politics and that of course is understandable. I do wish though
that comrades from the UK wold p;ost more about what is happening over
there.

Now in response to MM, I would have to say that it is a matter of
emphasis.  My comments really are that Roberts focusses on structure rather
than agency, especially working class agency. But of course he is a
socialist and that is why I read his column devotedly.

As Phil has pointed out "Armageddon" is my take on Roberts' latest column
about the possibility of a crash. Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but
personally I think a slump now would be a real disaster, in effect an
Armageddon.  At the Bhaskar conference last. year in London a crash was
widely predicted by the economists.

But to be truthful my upbringing as an Irish Catholic has always leant a
sort of "end of days" and a touch of the Savonarola's to my politics.  I
recall my students giggling when I would get started raving about the
Disaster to come.

At the same time at a rational level I subscribe to Bhaskar's argument that
prediction is not possible in the human sciences because they operate in
open systems, something that Roberts himself would do well to note.

Having said all that, we shall see.

Phil's other comments about the ruling class and economics and the
weaknesses of Keynesianism are well made and I would like to find time to
respond to them later.

Comradely

Gary

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Philip Ferguson via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> Gary, you should post those comments on Michael's blog.
>
> He seems to me a very reasonable guy and he responds politely to both
> questions and criticisms.
>
> I haven't yet read "Crawl to crash", but are you sure he "predicts
> Armageddon within the next three years"?  It doesn't sound like him - I've
> never seen him get into that kind of stuff.  He's usually more measured and
> clinical.  (And I think he comes out of Grantite outfit rather than
> Healyite, so he's sane.)
>
> I think he's right, btw, to dismiss the possibiity of Keynesian solutions
> being possible.  Back in the very first issue of *revolution* in early 1997
> we looked at why a return to Keynesianism wasn't on the agenda and I don't
> think much has changed to alter my own view on that.
>
> Keynesianism was possible in the context of the needs of imperialism during
> war and then it kind of rode out the postwar boom.  Once the postwar boom
> ended - not long after Nixon declared "We are all Keynesians now", funnily
> enough - the material basis for Keynesian disintegrated.
>
> One of the people who best uderstood this was Paul Mattick, to my miond one
> of the great Marxist economic analysts of the 20th century, although I
> don't share his council communist politics.
>
> Take a look at a couple of his books (he's very readable) - 'Marx and
> Keynes: the limits of the mixed economy' and 'Economics and politics in the
> age of inflation'.  I think they're both published by Merlin.  And Mattick
> was writing at the time, not wise after the event.
>
> I think the political managers of capitalism are, in the main, fairly
> pragmatic.  There are a few strongly ideological types - Roger Douglas and
> Ruth Richardson in NZ were 'true believers' in 'new right' economics and
> still are - but most bourgeois politicians, including the prie ministers
> those two served under - are much more pragmatic.  Since no-one is really
> in control in a capitalist economy, nor can anyone be, bourgeois poltiians
> have to respond 'on the hoof' to all the things that can and do go wrong.
> They can't be ideologically committed to one strand of bourgeois politics.
>
> In my view, what's 'in' and what's 'out' in terms of both bourgeois
> economic thinking and government economic policy reflects different stages
> - and problems in - the process of capital accumulation.  Keynesianism fell
> out of favour because it could neither explain nor overcome the economic
> woes that set in when the postwar boom ended (ie the TRPF became clearly
> manifest, although it had been working away beneath the surface for a long
> time).

Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Where do you get the idea vol 3 was written first?

Vol 1 was published when Marx was alive, vol 3 was *put together by Engels
after Marx's death*.  Engels didn't mistranslate (in either the literal
sense of the word or in the wider meaning).  He worked with Marx
with nearly 40 years; he didn't misunderstand or mistake Marx's theory of
crisis.

Moreover, Vol 3 could not have been written first because all the core
concepts it is based on didn't exist without vol 1 and 2.

Also, the three vols play different parts.  Vol 1 is about production, vol
2 is about distribution and vol 3 is about the capitalist system as a whole
and how it actually operates.

Btw, even as early as the Grundrisse, which precedes vol 1, he noted that
LTRPF is 'the single most important law of modern political eocnomy'.
There's no evidence he ever changed his mind.  That's why vol 3 spends 50
pages on the subject.

'Magnitude over form' has nothing to do with it.

Phil


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Jamie  wrote:

> I think frop is at best a partial reading of Marx, at worst, a complete
> mistranslation. Y'all get he didn't pick the argument up again 4 20 yrs
> right? (vol.III being written first). Its a question of magnitude over
> form, I.e. Framed
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Jamie via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I think frop is at best a partial reading of Marx, at worst, a complete 
mistranslation. Y'all get he didn't pick the argument up again 4 20 yrs right? 
(vol.III being written first). Its a question of magnitude over form, I.e. 
Framed by classical economics. 

-Original Message-
From: "Philip Ferguson via Marxism" 
Sent: ‎29/‎09/‎2015 23:54
To: "jamie pitman" 
Subject: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Gary, you should post those comments on Michael's blog.

He seems to me a very reasonable guy and he responds politely to both
questions and criticisms.

I haven't yet read "Crawl to crash", but are you sure he "predicts
Armageddon within the next three years"?  It doesn't sound like him - I've
never seen him get into that kind of stuff.  He's usually more measured and
clinical.  (And I think he comes out of Grantite outfit rather than
Healyite, so he's sane.)

I think he's right, btw, to dismiss the possibiity of Keynesian solutions
being possible.  Back in the very first issue of *revolution* in early 1997
we looked at why a return to Keynesianism wasn't on the agenda and I don't
think much has changed to alter my own view on that.

Keynesianism was possible in the context of the needs of imperialism during
war and then it kind of rode out the postwar boom.  Once the postwar boom
ended - not long after Nixon declared "We are all Keynesians now", funnily
enough - the material basis for Keynesian disintegrated.

One of the people who best uderstood this was Paul Mattick, to my miond one
of the great Marxist economic analysts of the 20th century, although I
don't share his council communist politics.

Take a look at a couple of his books (he's very readable) - 'Marx and
Keynes: the limits of the mixed economy' and 'Economics and politics in the
age of inflation'.  I think they're both published by Merlin.  And Mattick
was writing at the time, not wise after the event.

I think the political managers of capitalism are, in the main, fairly
pragmatic.  There are a few strongly ideological types - Roger Douglas and
Ruth Richardson in NZ were 'true believers' in 'new right' economics and
still are - but most bourgeois politicians, including the prie ministers
those two served under - are much more pragmatic.  Since no-one is really
in control in a capitalist economy, nor can anyone be, bourgeois poltiians
have to respond 'on the hoof' to all the things that can and do go wrong.
They can't be ideologically committed to one strand of bourgeois politics.

In my view, what's 'in' and what's 'out' in terms of both bourgeois
economic thinking and government economic policy reflects different stages
- and problems in - the process of capital accumulation.  Keynesianism fell
out of favour because it could neither explain nor overcome the economic
woes that set in when the postwar boom ended (ie the TRPF became clearly
manifest, although it had been working away beneath the surface for a long
time).

The way the bourgeoisie experienced the 'crisis' was as runaway inflation,
big wage rises, lack of sufficient profits to re-invest in the kind of new
plant, machinery, technology etc needed to keep national economies and
industries competitive, and too much state spending on stuff people needed
but which didn't help profits.

'New right' economic theory suggested a more market approach and that
involved smashing trade unions, or at least seriously reducing their power,
driving down wages and living standards, cutting state spending and
ocmmodifying lots of stuff the state once provided for free or below-cost.
So 'new right' theory coincided with how the capitlaists experienced the
crisis - it 'made sense' and so the capitalists adopted it.

Having pursued that course for various numbers of years in various
coutries, and having removed most of what that theory said were the
obstacles to a new massive and prolonged boom, such a boom never
materialised.  The bourgeoisie is now fairly bereft of ideas.

In NZ, the heyday of 'new right' economics was relatively brief in my view
- it last from 1984, when Labo

Re: [Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Some links to stuff on Redline dealing with the NZ situation re
neo-liberalism, Keynesianism, Third Way, poverty of bourgeois economic
'thinking':

Key's 'vision': managing the malaise of NZ capitalism:
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/keys-vision-managing-the-malaise-of-new-zealand-capitalism/

The Key-English government in the context of capital accumulation today:
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-key-english-government-in-the-context-of-capital-accumulation-in-new-zealand-today/

The Mainzeal collapse - leaky homes, leaky loans and a leaky system:
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-mainzeal-collapse-leaky-homes-and-a-leaky-system/

On the falling rate of profit (it's the second piece - there are two
articles together):
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/from-the-vaults-two-articles-on-wages-profits-lies-and-capitalist-crisis/

Phil
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Economics and Michael Roberts

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Gary, you should post those comments on Michael's blog.

He seems to me a very reasonable guy and he responds politely to both
questions and criticisms.

I haven't yet read "Crawl to crash", but are you sure he "predicts
Armageddon within the next three years"?  It doesn't sound like him - I've
never seen him get into that kind of stuff.  He's usually more measured and
clinical.  (And I think he comes out of Grantite outfit rather than
Healyite, so he's sane.)

I think he's right, btw, to dismiss the possibiity of Keynesian solutions
being possible.  Back in the very first issue of *revolution* in early 1997
we looked at why a return to Keynesianism wasn't on the agenda and I don't
think much has changed to alter my own view on that.

Keynesianism was possible in the context of the needs of imperialism during
war and then it kind of rode out the postwar boom.  Once the postwar boom
ended - not long after Nixon declared "We are all Keynesians now", funnily
enough - the material basis for Keynesian disintegrated.

One of the people who best uderstood this was Paul Mattick, to my miond one
of the great Marxist economic analysts of the 20th century, although I
don't share his council communist politics.

Take a look at a couple of his books (he's very readable) - 'Marx and
Keynes: the limits of the mixed economy' and 'Economics and politics in the
age of inflation'.  I think they're both published by Merlin.  And Mattick
was writing at the time, not wise after the event.

I think the political managers of capitalism are, in the main, fairly
pragmatic.  There are a few strongly ideological types - Roger Douglas and
Ruth Richardson in NZ were 'true believers' in 'new right' economics and
still are - but most bourgeois politicians, including the prie ministers
those two served under - are much more pragmatic.  Since no-one is really
in control in a capitalist economy, nor can anyone be, bourgeois poltiians
have to respond 'on the hoof' to all the things that can and do go wrong.
They can't be ideologically committed to one strand of bourgeois politics.

In my view, what's 'in' and what's 'out' in terms of both bourgeois
economic thinking and government economic policy reflects different stages
- and problems in - the process of capital accumulation.  Keynesianism fell
out of favour because it could neither explain nor overcome the economic
woes that set in when the postwar boom ended (ie the TRPF became clearly
manifest, although it had been working away beneath the surface for a long
time).

The way the bourgeoisie experienced the 'crisis' was as runaway inflation,
big wage rises, lack of sufficient profits to re-invest in the kind of new
plant, machinery, technology etc needed to keep national economies and
industries competitive, and too much state spending on stuff people needed
but which didn't help profits.

'New right' economic theory suggested a more market approach and that
involved smashing trade unions, or at least seriously reducing their power,
driving down wages and living standards, cutting state spending and
ocmmodifying lots of stuff the state once provided for free or below-cost.
So 'new right' theory coincided with how the capitlaists experienced the
crisis - it 'made sense' and so the capitalists adopted it.

Having pursued that course for various numbers of years in various
coutries, and having removed most of what that theory said were the
obstacles to a new massive and prolonged boom, such a boom never
materialised.  The bourgeoisie is now fairly bereft of ideas.

In NZ, the heyday of 'new right' economics was relatively brief in my view
- it last from 1984, when Labour got into power and carried out ruthless
'new right' reforms until 1993 (1990-1993 being the first term of the
fourth National government).  By that stage the NZ ruling class and even
the thicko who was PM (Jim Bolger) realised the slash-and-burn 'new right'
econmics wasn't delivering what it was supposed to.  National flailed arund
for another six years, with a lot of the capitalists eventually moving back
to Labour with its 'Third Way'.  But that didn't deliver after three terms
and National came back in 2008.

Most of the left freaked out at the thought of a John Key government,
because he made a career in the finance sector - he worked for Merrill
Lynch for a long time and amassed considerable personal wealth.  We were
about the only peole who said 'Nah, Key is not a neo-liberal; the NZ
capitalists need neo-liberalism like they need a hole in the head'.  Today,
those of us who say the Key government is not neo-liberal are probably the
majority on the left (or at least a considerable minority).

The governme