Re: [Marxism] From A Friend

2010-04-13 Thread Vladimiro Giacche'
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


> ==
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:51:44 -0400
> From: "S. Artesian" 
> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Vladimiro_Giacch=E9?= 
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] From A Friend
> ==
> 
> ==
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a 
> message.
> ==
> 
> 
> Think you need to read Fitch's article.  Loren's is a reply to 
> Fitch's claim
> of a capitalist boom period.
>
 I totally agree
v
 
> Overall growth rates in the US since 1970 or so fail to match 
> the 1945-1970
> level, and capitalist growth has involved more wealth "transfer" 
> than
> production in this more recent period.
> 
> You certainly can have growth with "nastiness."
> 
> The issue is does the nastiness amount to actual growth?
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Hunter" 
> 
> 
> 
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/md1101%40mclink.it




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


Re: [Marxism] From A Friend

2010-04-13 Thread Jack Hunter
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



Hi,
Sorry, I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if I'm emailing this right, or, indeed, 
if I know what I'm talking about at all.

I don't quite follow the article.
I thought that Marxists believe there is a distinction to be made between the 
progress of capitalism and the progress of the human race.

Goldner seems to argue that this cannot be a genuine capitalist boom, because 
there has been such a growth of exploitation, poverty and general nastiness in 
the world. I thought Marx argued precisely that capitalist growth was 
exploitation! On the world stage, hasn't capitalist progress always been marked 
by crisis, colonialism (developing into imperialism proper) and war? Didn't the 
progress of that great capitalist nation, the USA, in the progressive age of 
capitalism involve 'net retrogression' for the Indians, say?

But, at the same time, by developing production (however brutally), capitalism 
lays the foundation for a fair society where there is plenty for all. A lot of 
Goldner's statistics seem to deal with the distribution of wealth rather than 
its production. Hasn't the productive capacity of the world increased over the 
past decades (in China, India, etc.), even if it is not being distributed 
fairly to all (as he details)? And isn't it the ability to keep *producing* 
profitably that is the foundation of capitalist stability (or otherwise) at any 
time (even if problems of distribution - e.g. poverty leading to 
under-consumption - can obviously cause secondary problems)? 

Is the latest crisis therefore a secondary crisis of distribution rather than 
of productive overaccumulation (although that's where its roots obviously lie, 
back in the crisis of Western industry in the 1970s)? I mean of distributing 
surplus value from exploitation in China, etc., back to capitalism in the West. 
I really don't know enough to say.

Thanks, hope there's some kind of sense in there somewhere.
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now

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


[Marxism] From A Friend

2010-04-12 Thread S. Artesian
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Loren Goldner asked me to post this to the list, which I am happy to do.

After a "decent interval" following its publication in New Politics No. 47, I 
have posted my article

"Global Leveraged Buyout or 'the Longest Boom in Capitalist History'?
A Reply to Robert Fitch"

critiquing Fitch's inability to distinguish between a phase of decadence in 
which capital expands while social reproduction contracts, from the actual 
expanded reproduction of society that characterized booms in capitalism's 
ascendant phase.

See the Break Their Haughty Power web site

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner

Fitch's article to which I reply is linked in mine.

Comments/critique appreciated.

Loren



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