[PEN-L:5363] Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must be crazy to venture into the never ending "Jim and Gil debate". But I don't think that I can go on suffering this kind of vacuous arguments in the name of the Marxist defence against Roemerianism. Jim says: 7. Turning to the LoV specifically, I think the main question is "what in hell is the _purpose_ of the LoV?" If that question can be answered, maybe we can make some progress. ___ Forget about the puspose. What is LoV, by the way? Jerry: Yeah, right! What hypocrisy! Do Neo-Ricardians forget about the purpose of Sraffa's work? Do Post-Keynesians forget about the purpose of Keynes's work? Did the critics of marginalism forget about the purpose of neoclassical theory in debates on the production function and re-switching? If one is developing a critique of a theory (as the Sraffians claim), isn't the purpose of that theory within the context of the overall logical structure and method of the theory that is being critiqued relevant? For about 100 years Marxists and their critics have been going back and forth on the "transformation problem" with little (if any) progress or movement towards agreement. That frustration is reflected in the debates on this list. The reason for this inability to come to an agreement has more to do with the different methodologies used in political economy than on either an attempt to trash Marx (which was probably Bohm-Bawerk's purpose) or a desire to defend his theories dogmatically. Cheers, Jerry
[PEN-L:5364] Re: taxonomy
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:15:50 -0700 Tavis wrote: On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Robert Naiman wrote: (You can't get out of it by saying that Arabs aren't People of Color; how then to classify Egyptians or Sudanese or even Palestinians from Jericho?) The strange thing is that Arabs are in fact classified as "white" on most forms, i.e., the category for "white" will be something like "of European or North African descent." And yet Arabs seem to me to be second only to blacks in the amount of racist propaganda directed at them over the airwaves and in society at large. May a thousand rainbows fragment, :| Tavis As one of PoC, I'd like to say something on the matter :) My dear Penners, have you ever heard that Japanese were whites? Yes, Japanese were 'honorable whites' in South Africa when Apartheit existed. I believe ordinary type of Japanese snobs were enjoying this title. Since Meiji Ishin(revolution in 1868), Japanese have been making enormous efforts to become 'european' that means building imperialist state. My conclusion is that Colored means simply oppressed under imperialism. Iwao Kitamura a member of theoritical study group Socialist Association (Japan) E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] personal web: http://www.st.rim.or.jp/~ikita/
[PEN-L:5367] Re: Keynes is dead (Re: Next Recession
At 4:30 PM 6/7/95, Nathan Newman wrote: If the US government deficit spends, doesn't a large proportion of the spending get sent overseas through imports, thus short-circuiting any multiplier effect? Certainly some of that happens. But since US imports are about 12-13% of GDP, it's hard to see how most of the stimulus can be exported. I'm certainly not advocating permanent large deficits as an economic strategy. Budget-balancing of the sort being planned in DC, however, is almost certainly contractionary, aside from the nasty direct human effects of the social spendig cuts. But maybe Keynes is seen as irrelevant by domestic politicians for good sound reasons? You put too much faith in our governors. They believe in Say's Law. By the way, the US government deficit (state local included) is tied with Japan for being the lowest in the OECD. There's plenty of time to sort out the public finances, and no reason for hysteria and crisis. But the austerity party thrives on hysterial rhetoric of crisis, which is why it's so popular. Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5368] value and price (part 1 of 2
It's feels strange to jump into the middle of an extended debate between Gil Skillman, John Erst, Alan Freeman, Paul Cockshott, and glevy. But I'm used to feeling strange and I want to make some points, which I hope are major. I do not know the Kliman-McGlone-Freeman interpretation of Marx's law of value (LoV) well enough to defend it, but as far as I can tell, it is consistent with my own interpretation, which shows up in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY (1990) and CAPITAL AND CLASS (Winter 1989). I can defend that interpretation (or at least I hope I can). Both of these interpretations emphasize dynamic disequilibrium over static equilibrium as an organizing concept. Before I plunge in, I must make it clear that my goal here is NOT to ferret out what "Marx (really) said." Rather, my aim is to make Marx's theory make sense as a _living theory_ that can be applied not only to the ones Marx discussed but to all sorts of new questions. (E.g., I'm having a side-discussion with Gil, arguing that issues of risk do not contradict Marx's LoV.) I. Method... 1. The first thing one has to know when discussing the LoV is that Marx uses words and concepts differently from the way most graduate students in economics are trained to use them. He's got a completely different method (see, for example, Bertell Ollman's ALIENATION). To ignore this in one's reading of Marx is to approach his work in the way an autistic person approaches society, as an "antropologist from Mars" (to use Temple Grandin's phrase from her book about her experience with autism). 2. To miss this point is to spawn misunderstanding and confusion. In Gil's many pen-l missives on a host of subjects, I've never seen him trying to understand any of Marx's theories first from Marx's point of view and _then_ trying to see if the theory is empirically valid, makes sense logically, is a valid guide to practice, etc. Rather, he starts by taking some quote from Marx (or a set of quotes) and then instead of treating them as applications of Marx's method to specific questions, treats them instead as merely dead words that can be confronted by neoclassical or Roemerian or game theory or whatever academic economics is throwing up these days. (Perhaps my interpretation of Gil's methodology is wrong, but I've never seen any evidence to contradict it.) The artificial division between Marx's method and his substantive conclusions and the rejection or acceptance of the latter following the standards of orthodox social science is the hallmark of so-called "Analytical Marxism" of Roemer et al. BTW, I think that some or even much of this analysis and criticism can be helpful, as long as it is later linked to synthesis following Marx's method rather than some orthodox-social science method. Marxian political economy can be strengthened by such external critiques. 3. Marx was a holistic thinker, seeing the structure of the connections between all of the parts of the social totality as just as important as the parts themselves, defining the character of the parts just as the parts define the whole (cf. Levins Lewontin, THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST, last chapter). Gil tries to impose artificial divisions onto this holistic framework. But as Lewontin _et al_ write in NOT IN OUR GENES, this kind of analytical dissection kills the object of analysis. For example, in my reading, Marx's LoV and his materialist conception of history are tightly integrated and cannot be separated. They are linked, for example, by Marx's view that "people make history, but not exactly as they please" and the THESES ON FEUERBACH. The LoV is an expression of this aphorism: it's not the natural fertility of the _land_ (for example) that creates commodities (or for that matter, ground-rent). Commodities are societal and thus historical creatures, made by people within the constraints set by society (which itself is a human creation, but as usual, not created as we please). To artificially separate commodities from the societal and historical context is to miss Marx's whole point about commodities. To do so almost guarantees that one will misunderstand the LoV. 4. Ignoring the social context gives us such notions as one that Gil uses in his (pen-l: 5287) post: "if commodities are valued by embodied labor, then by definition..." Though Marx used the notion of "embodied labor," in my reading it is _only_ in a static society. But in the real, dynamic, world of capitalism it's not "embodied labor" or "dated labor" that defines "value" (as in the post-Sraffian literature) or is used to "value commodities." If labor productivity rises, for example, the value of the existing stock of durable goods will _fall_ (this is "moral depreciation"). They are "valued" not according to historical cost but rather according to the "reproduction cost" in terms of socially-necessary abstract labor time (_snalt_). 5. In that missive, Gil also says: "if the earth somehow becomes more fruitful" (without a human effort to
[PEN-L:5369] value and price (part 2 of 2
The previous post stressed the methodological context of the debate. In short, Marx's Law of Value (LoV) is part of his materialist- dialectical method and materialist conception of history. It cannot really be understood without this context, while it's hard to accurately criticize something one can't understand. II. ... and the LoV. 7. Turning to the LoV specifically, I think the main question is "what in hell is the _purpose_ of the LoV?" If that question can be answered, maybe we can make some progress. My view is that Marx's holism implies that unlike Ricardo's theory, Marx's Law of Value is NOT primarily a theory of prices in the sense of deriving individual prices from individual values. It's not a substitute for supply and demand, for example. Unlike modern microeconomists, price theory was extremely unimportant to Marx. (As argued elsewhere, Marx's values depend on not just supply but demand. Prices and values are not independent of each other. A commodity has both a value and a price, both of which depend on supply and demand, but in different ways.) 8. The best way I've found for understanding the LoV is to focus on the last section of vol. I of CAPITAL, the theory of _commodity fetishism_. That theory shows up in almost every chapter of the three volumes of CAPITAL. I would defy anyone to find a chapter of that book that doesn't refer to comm. fet. in one way or another, except perhaps some of the really fragmentary chapters of vol. II or III. (Here's a pen-l challenge!) In the view, the object of Marx's study is capitalist relations of production, which he sees as being hidden by commodity relations, showing up to the participants of the system only in a distorted and objectively inaccurate form. In these terms, Marx took Ricardo's "labor theory of long-run equilibrium prices" and transformed it radically. In terms of his historical vision, it makes total sense to examine society in terms of people creating society, in terms of labor. He _assumes_ that values equal prices (even though he knows this ain't so) in order to set up an accounting framework for understanding the hidden system. It seems crucial if we want to understand society to look at who is working and who isn't. In a nutshell, that's what the LoV is about. 9.i) Gil implies that tautologies -- such as accounting frameworks -- are in some way to be rejected or are a mark of shame. In his (pen-l: 5286) missive, he writes that Alan's "claims with respect to the necessarily labor value-theoretic interpretation of the KMF system are either a) not necessarily true, b) true by definition, or c) to the extent true, also true for other indices besides labor..." Assume that we've decided that a) and c) don't apply, leaving only b). I don't see any thing wrong with (b). If we were to purge economics of all tautologically-true conceptions, economics would fall apart. Utility-maximization, for example, is a tautology. So is national income accounting. The value of a tautology or an accounting identity depends on its context, on how it is used. If the "value metric" is used as a tool for breaking through the fetishism of commodities, then that seems a major achievement to me. ii) BTW, on option (a), "not necessarily true" is not a mark of shame either. _All_ theory involves abstraction, i.e., simplifying an empirical phenomenon in order to understand it. Roemer, for example, substitutes Walrasian general equilibrium theory for the LoV as an organizing concept for understanding capitalist exploitation. Gary Dymski and I've argued elsewhere that this exercise isn't productive (cf. ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY, 1991), but that isn't relevant here. The point is that the Walrasian GE system isn't "necessarily true" either. (In fact, that framework doesn't seem to be true at all.) BTW, this example explains why I don't like the phrase "theory of value." Marx's use of value seems more of a methodological starting point than a theory as we usually use that word. Similarly, I doubt that Roemer and Gil _really believe_ in Walrasian GE. Rather, as E. Roy Weintraub writes in his book MICROFOUNDATIONS, Walrasian GE is a "a metatheory, or an investigative logic, ... used to construct all economic theories." Marx's LoV should also be seen as a "meta- theory." iii) Both options (a) and (c) assume that the purpose of Marx's LoV was to create formulae for calculating prices. This should be rejected: Marx was no minor post-Ricardian or pre-Walrasian. 10. To my mind, there are two different types of values in Marx. Only one of them is part of the tautologically-true accounting framework. On the one hand, there are _ex ante_ values, which are not tautological: assuming that there are no realization problems, one can calculate the labor time necessary to produce a commodity. On the other hand, if the market "can't stomach" all that's produced, some of that labor turns out to be wasteful (socially unnecessary) _ex post_ and does not form part of value
[PEN-L:5370] Re: Next Recession
Yeah, it sure looks as if a recession is hitting. The Fed tried having a "soft landing" before, in 1990, and it didn't work. A slowdown in the economy causes investment to _fall_ according to the generally- forgotten accelerator theory of investment. (Just as we in California are finally recovering from the last recession!) Most of the people in all of the states didn't benefit much from the recovery because its benefits were so unevenly distributed, as several pen-l folks pointed out. Doug writes: "Yeah - deregulation, wage cutting, union busting, etc. Back to the 1880s!" or is it the 1920s? Maybe we're not going to see an instant replay of 1929-33 (and actually I doubt it, since history doesn't repeat itself). But it's becoming more and more clear that the prosperous period in the advanced capitalist countries between 1950 (or so) and 1972 (or so) was _the exception_ and not _the rule_ as far as the dynamics of capitalism are concerned. BTW, I think Keynes is still relevant. It's just that his theory is largely a short-term one and (as far as I can see) the application of his policies can't change the fundamental laws of motion of the system. The 1950 - 1972 "golden age" of Keynesian policies occurred because the policies were applied in the right institutional environment (SSA, mode of regulation, whatever) -- by accident. It had little to do with Keynes himself. For some reason, I'm not getting pen-l messages these days. Luckily I am able to read them via gopher. But it's frustrating! in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:5371] Re: Kondratieff
Posted on 7 Jun 1995 at 22:14:16 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:5359] Re: Kondratieff Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:13:38 -0700 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Evan Jones - 448 - 3063" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7 June Eric Nilsson wrote: My concern with a focus on K cycles and their relationship to institutional change is the following. I'm sympathetic to Eric's concern. Work like Segmented Work is too stylised; the fault is not so much its economism but its determinism. If one takes the post WWII long boom for example there were probably features that were institutionalised and which underpinned the whole period - e.g. the 'fordist' cluster of suburbia, consumer durables, consumer credit, unprecendeted family formation,etc. You may want to consult the article Rich Florida I wrote on this: "Housing in US Fordism". Internatinal Journal of Urban and Regional Research 12, 2 (June 1988): 187-210. On the other hand, the notion that the periods of favourable accumulation worked fairly automatically once set in place is silly. It seems to me generalizing either way is silly. It would depend on the specific organization of accumulation. In the case of US suburbanization, once the pieces were in place around 1950 (adding the highway act in 1956), the geographic transformation DID work fairly automatically for about 2 decades. Then profit squeezes led to restructuring, and today's suburbanization does not complete the circuit adequately. Major tinkering in the banking system did not get implemented until the late '70s when things no longer worked so well. At the global level, cold war and some regional hot wars is crucial for Pax Americana underpinnings of the K-like long boom. But not even the most ardent hawks in 1945 could guess at the magnitude of devleopments until the Soviet UNion become the unviersal bogeyman after 1947 and Korea kicked it off in 1950. But design and automatic operation are two separate questions. My reading of the post-WWII period in Australia is that the period bubbled along with mini-crises which had to be resolved, not least by the active deliberation of various agencies of the state (and by this I mean far more than textbook Keynesian macro manipulation). This is an interesting question. I believe regulationists distinguish between regulatory crises (i.e. those within the regime) and transformatory crises (i.e. those that change it). Can we understand these mini-crises as regulatory ones? In Australia, in particular, a major development which kept the long boom bubbling along in the 1960s was an extraordinary expansion in the mining sector, a phenomenon mostly unforeseen in the 1950. This development in turn had dramatic implications of a regional nature (meaning that the 'national economy' aggregates are hiding important internal developments), with the epicentre of activity moving from the more industrialised south-east States, to the periphery of north and west. Very important and interesting questions. Regulationists have a tendency to homogenize the social formation. In fact, uneven development is the rule, and regulation theory often adds little to our understanding of uneven development within even stable regimes. Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/792-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
[PEN-L:5372] Re: Kondratieff
Posted on 7 Jun 1995 at 12:42:27 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:5338] Re: Kondratieff Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:40:27 -0700 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Anthony D'Costa" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding small acale incremental technical changes that contribute to our understanding of Japanese technological prowess, see Tessa Morris-Suzuki's analysis of "social networks of innovation" beginning in Tokugawa Japan. Can you give us the citation please? Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/792-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
[PEN-L:5376] Kondratieff
Tom Walker wrote long waves are a wonderful heuristic -- a sort of grand plot outline that helps us guess what the characters are up to before we have all the evidence. But what if the plot is wrong! We might end up with a story with the wrong protagonists and with the wrong "message." Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5377] Re: Kondratieff
Evan Jones wrote, In Australia, in particular, a major development which kept the long boom bubbling along in the 1960s was an extraordinary expansion in the mining sector, a phenomenon mostly unforeseen in the 1950. What caused this expansion of the mining sector? Was it exogenous to Australia but endogenous to some "international SSA?" Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5378] Re: prices and values (part 2 of 2)
Dear Ajit Sinha, Your points concerning Devine's post are well-taken and, it seems to me, best understood as coming from frustration with defenses of of Marx that are, at best, premature. Some points worth noting. 1. Much of the criticism of Marx is directed at Book III of his CAPITAL, an unfinished manuscript. Indeed, I would say nearly all criticism of his LoV relies on his "mistakes" in that Book. 2. It is worth noting that after the publication of the Book I of CAPITAL, Marx expressed the thought that the turnover of fixed capital would be "the material basis" for a theory of crisis. Yet in the Book III, we find Engels writing the entire chapter on the turnover of fixed capital. 3. All plans that Marx wrote in the 1860's for his CAPITAL indicate that non-equilibium prices (not prices of production) would be introduced prior to the treatment of the falling rate of profit. Yet, the most "devastating" critique of his "Law of the Tendency of Rate of Profit to Fall", the Okishio Theorem, is based upon the usual treatment of prices of production. 4. Given that his falling rate of profit has something to do with accumulation and that crisis theory would be part of any notion of accumulation, for me, it follows that any development of or critcisim of a marxian theory of accumulation would incorporate the manner in which fixed capital is depreciated. Again, the turnover of fixed capital is to form the material basis for crisis. Thus, Marx's price-value theory has to be one such that "moral depreciation" can be taken into account. ___ Has the Marxian project described above, albeit as a mere sketch, been carried? In no way. Marx did not finish it and for the century that has followed the publication of Book III, we have been treated to little more than premature criticisms and defenses of his work. Thus, for now, I am willing to follow your advice and let the Roemers of the world revel in their mathematical contructs. In so far as they beat Marxists over the head, I do not take them seriously since in the last hundred years they themselves have made little progress in understanding the capitalist process of accumulation. Cheers, John Ernst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5379] Re: desire for stability=natural?
Institutions provide stability to the economic environment. It is not a matter of individuals desire of stability but of the way institutions are created and evolve. If individuals do not desire stability, institutions provide it anyway. Institutions stabilize since they are created in the social sphere, not in the individual one. Not every decision is individual... Macario
[PEN-L:5380] LBO web site
I'm in the early phase of planning an LBO web site. Any advice on style, content, and links to other sites would be highly welcome. Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5381] Re: Keynes is dead (Re: Next Recession
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: At 4:30 PM 6/7/95, Nathan Newman wrote: If the US government deficit spends, doesn't a large proportion of the spending get sent overseas through imports, thus short-circuiting any multiplier effect? Certainly some of that happens. But since US imports are about 12-13% of GDP, it's hard to see how most of the stimulus can be exported. Gross numbers (such as the GROSS domestic Product) might be deceptive, which is my curiosity since deficit spending might be increasing disposable income more than gross income. What percentage of disposable income is spent on imports? Given the fact that the US had $200-300 billion as we drove into the 1990-1993 recession (or however we measure the endless misery in areas like California and inner cities), it is harder to take Keynesian hopes as seriously. Maybe things would have been worse without those deficits. On the other hand, maybe without $200 billion interest payments, we would be able to eak out direct funds for jobs, education and other funds to help the average person. I'm not a Paul Simon balanced-budget liberal, but it does seem that the 80s was not a good decade for Keynesian empiricism. Nathan Newman
[PEN-L:5382] Re: Kondratieff
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Eric Nilsson wrote: But what if the plot is wrong! We might end up with a story with the wrong protagonists and with the wrong "message." Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere. As my friend Emery Roe might say, the point is not to discover which plot most closely resembles the "true story". The point is to arrive at an analysis -- a metanarrative, if you will -- that shows how the various competing stories could somehow all be true. That, then, would give us the degree of certainty (not total by any means, but _enough_ certainty) we need to develop policies. I would say the odds against either proving or disproving the existence of economic long waves are just about the same -- the chances of a proof are next to nil. But if we ask instead, do long waves give us good, coherent stories, the answer is YES, they do. Are other people on this list familiar with Roe's Narrative Policy Analysis? (Duke University Press). I recommend it and will say a bit more about it in a future post. Gotta run now. Tom Walker Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5383] Re: Kondratieff
Tom Walker wrote, . . .the point is not to discover which plot most closely resembles the "true story". The point is to arrive at an analysis . . . that shows how the various competing stories could somehow all be true. That, then, would give us the degree of certainty . . . we need to develop policies. . . . Do long waves give us good, coherent stories, the answer is YES, they do. But there are so many stories that are coherent: God did it, the Trilaterial Commission did it, the devil made me do it. But the policies implied in each story is very different and some will likely fail to achieve their goals. It does matter how "true" a story is. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5384] value method (continued)
Hi, Ajit! I hope every thing's going well in OZ. 1. Ajit tears my missive apart, because I spend a lot of time talking about what (I think) Marx's Law of Value (LoV) is NOT rather than what it was. But I did say what (I thought) it was: if anything, it's a metatheory. Jerry Levy has a good reply: "For about 100 years Marxists and their critics have been going back and forth on the 'transformation problem' with little (if any) progress or movement towards agreement. That frustration is reflected in the debates on this list. The reason for this inability to come to an agreement has more to do with the different methodologies used in political economy than on either an attempt to trash Marx ... or a desire to defend his theories dogmatically." Exactly! Further, there was (unstated) method to my madness. The reason why I accentuated the negative was that I want to push people to re-examine their preconceptions. It seems to me that the whole so-called "transformation problem" debate is sterile and excessively academic (not to mention scholastic) because hardly anyone ever examines what the purposes of Marx's use of value are. The neo-Ricardians (e.g., Howard King), Morishima, and "Analytical Marxists," following the long traditin of Bohm-Bawerk and Bortkewitz, assert or assume that the purpose of value is to develop a price theory. They dismiss references (such as John Ernst's) to Marx's own assertion that the purpose of his book is to figure out the laws of motion of the system. Many of Marx's defenders (a group that overlaps with the neo-Ricardians) take up the same perspective. We all know that economists have to be concerned with price theory, so Marx must have been also, right? But did Marx ever say that his aim in using values was to calculate prices? (If you want more scholarly discussion of the difference between Marx and Ricardo -- and their purposes -- see the articles that Himmelweit and Mohun published in CAPITAL CLASS a decade or so ago.) Reading Marx, I get the impression that his _overall_ aim was to create theoretical tools and theories in order to help mobilize the working class to abolish capitalism and take power for itself. I don't see how developing a Ricardo-style price theory fits with that goal. However, I do see how trying to "lift the veil" and reveal what's hidden by the fetishism of commodities fits with that goal. 2. Ajit also writes: "So the whole theory is now as clear as the day light! Is this you call a theoretical discourse Jim? If this is Marxist theory, then I'm not a Marxist nor do I wanna be one." No I don't call what I said a "theoretical discourse": rather, I was trying (probably in vain) to push people to consider alternatives. I was _referring_ (without citation, I admit) to a long-time alternative to the "Marx was a price theorist" tradition which goes back to I.I. Rubin, among others. That tradition (ignored almost entirely by the neo-Ricardians, Morishima, and "Analytical Marxists") emphasizes the notion of commodity fetishism. Again, I think that theory is a constant theme in CAPITAL. And I don't care if you call yourself a Marxist or not. As far as I'm concerned, such names are pretty unimportant. BTW, I'd like to know if anyone's ever looked into Marx's use of the word "transformation." In vol. I of CAPITAL, he refers to the "transformation of the value (and respectively the price) of labor-power into wages" (the title of chapter 19). This seems in line with my interpretation of value: he is dealing with the transformation of "essence" (the value of labor-power) into "appearance" (wages). (No, I don't think Marx was an essentialist, but there's no obvious alternative word.) 3. Ajit also writes": "So now we get it. LoV, though we don't know what it is still, is about to find out or 'look at' who is working and who is not. From time immemorial people have known who is working and who is not without needing a LoV. The very relation of capital is defined on the basis that capitalists as personification of capital do not work or contribute labour in production. Why do you need LoV to find that out." _Of course_, there's much more to it than that! But one has to make some effort to find the _main theme_. Of course, there's a much more formal statement of all of the issues surrounding value in CAPITAL. Of course, Marx deals with all sorts of questions directly related to this issue, such as "does 'abstinence' cause surplus-value?" Of course, he also _embeds_ the law of value in a totality that includes the materialist conception of history, empirical references, and a theory of accumulation, among other things. Further, the notion of "the relation of capital" as "defined on the basis that capitalists as personification of capital do not work" is a central _part_ of the LoV. I would also say that the fact that people "from time immemorial" have "known who is working and who is not" simply indicates that the LoV didn't spring full-blown from
[PEN-L:5385] deficit comparison numbers?
I'm looking for the actual numbers that all the nifty percentage statistical games are played with. I have found this 1993 [in billions] for USA. outlay 1142 receipts842 question 1. where would I find similar numbers for the major developed nations? question 2. what would the receipts be if the Social Security / highway [?] reserves were deducted? thanks Nat. Ass. of Letter CarriersBill Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] unionists subscribe publabor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5386] Ontario election results
Preliminary election results are in from Ontario, Canada's most populous province. It appears that the Tories, led by a US-inspired right winger named Harris, will form a majority government with 75 seats. This marks the end of the NDP government, led by Bob Rae, whose reign was marked by the infamous "social contract", which saw the government respond to deficit hysteria by legislating the opening of existing collective agreements. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:5387] Havana Heat, Bronx Beat: Salsa Party, NYC
Dance Party to Celebrate the Publication of *Salsa!: Havana Heat, Bronx Beat* by Hernando Calvo Ospina Monthly Review Press will host a salsa dance party on Saturday, June 24 from 7 pm until whenever at 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York City This dance is co-sponsored by Monthly Review Press, The Brecht Forum, and the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). Of course there will be lots of music, dancing, and refreshments as well as salsa enthusiasts who will discuss the development of a music that has become popular around the world. The first hour will include dance instruction for the salsa novice. The suggested donation is $3.00. Cash bar/food. For more information, contact: Renee Pendergrass or Robyn A. Morales at Monthly Review Press 122 West 27 Street New York, New York 10001 (212) 691-2555 (212) 727-3676 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) * Praise for *Salsa! Havana Heat, Bronx Beat* "A marvelous book. I am deeply grateful to Hernando Calvo for helping our audiences understand the roots of our rhythms." --Celia Cruz "Calvo shows a real affinity and respect for our music." --Willie Colon Hernando Calvo Ospina, a Colombian journalist, writer, and avid salsa dancer takes the reader on a fascinating journey through the roots and influences that have created modern salsa. La salsa que te traigo The salsa that I'm offering you es salsa con ritmo de son is salsa with the rhythm of son condimentado con bongo spiced with bongo y con sabor a guaguanco and the flavor of guaguanco oyelo bien. listen to me now. (coro) (chorus) Que me den de tu salsa, I'm your friend the salsa compay que me den de tu salsa. friend salsa am I. --Compay salsa, version by Vitin Aviles //end
[PEN-L:5388] Re: Magdoff on Market Socialism
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Louis N Proyect wrote: Louis Proyect: A letter from Harry Magdoff to Frank Roosevelt and David Belkin, the editors of "Why Market Socialism", appears in the May 1995 Monthly Review. In explaining why Monthly Review chose not to review the new book, the MR editors state in a preface to Magdoff's letter that the perspective on the issues raised in the book were so different from Monthly Review's that "a proper treatment of the subject would require the type of major essay we are not able to undertake at the present time." Louis included the following quote from Magdoff: "My impression of the essays in the book is that by and large, despite protestations to the contrary, the visions the authors have in mind is a nice, humane, regulated capitalism..." In all fairness to Belkin and Roosevelt (who are good comrads and friends of mine from the DSA economics study group which I had the good fortune to participate in for a year or so - and debate with them over many of the points raised by Magdoff!) and to the essayists from DISSENT - most of these essays are clearly NOT directed at capitalist reform but at a workable version of democratic socialism. Though I agree with much else of what Magdoff says I don't think it serves us well to hurl "capitalist roader" slanders at each other. Having said this I must add that in principle I would agree that even using the label "market socialism" is a bad idea. Though a total rejectionist view of "market allocation" (in Pat Devine's sense) is not necessary or paractical in my view. In this sense I think the principled arguments of Hanhel and Albert and Devine against "market forces" and others are compelling. In addition to this I couldn't agree more with Magdoff's points below - which have been raised by many others including Schweickart who advocates extensive (democratic) centrallized planning of investment though within a market setting and thus develops a borderline model though one which still relies too much on market forces in my view. Which are cited by Louis: " Do the people of the United States need faster growth, except for the fact that it is the only way to create jobs in a capitalist society? Are more profit-making enterprise needed? To do what--produce more cars, ferrous metals, plastics, paper; provide services of lawyers, bill collectors, real estate operators, and brokers? Why do we need improved efficiency? Efficiency for what, and by what standards? Why not less efficiency--shorter workdays, shorter work weeks, longer vacations, relaxation time during dull work routines? We are a rich country with enormous potential for improving the quality of life for all the people as long as the ideal standard of life is not taken as that of the upper middle class. The innovations needed are not more gadgets or information highways, but the enrichment of education, medical care, room for the creative urges to flourish--alas, not grist for viable ventures in the marketplace." My major point here - similar I believe to views raised by Jim Devine, David Kotz, and others at this years ASSA URPE session on the future of socialism - is that as socialists we should be fighting markets as principle economic quides and doing our best to DECONSTRUCT MARKETS along with major private ownership of productive assets. Among other things it is clear to me - as Magdoff points out - that we need much greater provision of public goods, culture, and leisure, all of which market BASED economic systems and for profit production is biased against. In other words, I think Magdoff's characterization of the book are inaccurate and counter productive though I, and I assume many PEN-Lers would agree with his underlying message and political thrust. In PEN-L Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt University, Chicago
[PEN-L:5389] Re: Next Recession
Doug and I are suggesting that we reduce the deficit, insofar as that's desirable and necessary, by taxing the rich and (and cutting corporate wealthfare and the Pentagon budget); then finance govt operations insofar as possible by taxing particularly the wealthiest and the corporations instead of borrowing from them (and paying them working class and middle class tax monies for the privilege). I and I think Doug regard the deficit as another form of corporate wealthfare. We also think (don;t you, Doug?) that most of the deficit hysteria is manufactured as an excuse to destroy social programs, and that the threat the deficit--even as it stands!--poses to our futures is greatly exaggerated. Anyway, I think these things, whether or not Doug does. --Justin Schwartz On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Louise Laurence wrote: For some reason you guys are just NOT listening. Justin writes "whose taxes"? Well, as a clarification, it is federal government tax revenues. Sure the middle class taxpayers pays the bulk, but then this group is much larger than the wealthy tax payers. Look, I have nothing against increasing tax rates. So you shouldn't imply that I do. What I am trying to get across is why can't we reduce the deficit in such a way that we still attain those things that are important -- investing in infrastructure and our kids! Louise
[PEN-L:5390] Re: Next Recession
So what explains this mysterious collapse of character which is responsible, according to Etchison, for the plight of the urban poor? We dismiss the possibility that it has anything to do with de-industrialization, the collapse of unionism, capital export, engineered unemployment, or institutional racism. Merely economic facts cannot explain moral blight. Etchison see3ms to think that what's responsible isthe '60's! The urban poor took too seriously the message of sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll and devoted themselves to prostitution, crack, and rap music. (Well, in fairness, Etchison acknowledges that racism at least used to be part of the problem.) I dunno. This is one too many for me, as my favorite literary poor person (Huck Finn) says. If we were to take this proposition seriously, we would have to show that the factors I mention don't cause moral and other havoc and that the message of the '60s, as Etchison reads it, was influential in the way that s/he suggests. I can;t even imagine how to test such a proposition. I was too young for the 60s myself, but the message I seem to have got from it was a bit different: that the authorities lie, kill, and steal, that capitalism crushes the human spirit, that organized resistance is possible, if very difficult, and a source of regeneration and hope, as well as a school for democracy and, indeed, character. How come that message, the message of the Port Huron Statement and the early SNCC, the Vietnam War Resistance, and the women's and gay and lesbian liberation movements, as well as the radical labor insuregencies of the late 60's and early '70s, didn't take? Inquiring minds want to know... --Justin Schwartz On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Schwartz on 6/7 replied to my remarks about character by writing: Perhaps Etchison has an idea about how to build character in the slums where the only going industries are drugs and prostitution, where the schools are zoos and the cops are thugs and there are no jobs--without spending any money on infrastructure. Being poor, living in slums, does not have to destroy character, or prevent its acquisition. Too many decent people have grown up in slums for me to believe that the connection is that simple. Nor do I have the contempt for poverty as such which Schwartz's remarks reflect. If some persons who are poor and live in slums have/face/create/enjoy no "industries" other than "drugs and prostitution," it is not simply because they are poor, or because they live in slums. It is not even because the cops are thugs -- cops have been thugs for a very long time, and previous generations of slum-dwellers have not been held down because of that (whether or not some of those cop-thugs were of their own tribe). Nor is it because the schools are zoos -- who made them zoos (other than undereducated overindoctrinated "teachers" who do not seem to get any better even as the cost per child of DC schools rises and rises), if not the students themselves? It is not only of expatriate Spanish conservatives of whom Ortega remarked when he wrote "Man is himself and his circumstances." Schwartz and I may disagree about some of the circumstances in which these immobile poor find themselves, but be able to agree on others, and more importantly, to agree that we must understand the circumstances -- economic, material, social, cultural, spiritual -- as they actually exist. But to identify circumstances, patterns of expectations, which make it far too easy for those amid them to give up, is to understand the power of circumstances, but not to dishonor the strength necessary to struggle to be better than one's circumstances. There is a culture of poverty, and some of the responsibility for its continuation belongs to those immersed in it. Some, but not all. Reaganite lectures don't seem to have worked too well. I agree that Reaganite lectures didn't work very well. Were they delivered to those in the most desperate situations? Or were they "interpreted" by those who found the lectures repugnant and subversive? It is striking that the unquestioned indicia of urban depravity and desolation which Schwartz points to are "drugs and prostitution." As I remember my youth in the 1960s, drugs were a Good Thing. Sex was a Good Thing. So was rock and roll. These fundamental truths were vigorously affirmed by a great many of the kids of the comfortable middle and upper classes, who knew (without thinking about it too deeply) that if they decided to change their ways they could -- to become, say, the Yuppies and post-Yuppies that so many of them did in fact become. While they were still "rebels," however, they delivered themselves of an awful lot of distinctly non-Reaganite lectures. Unfortunately, those lectures were attended to by not only their class-mates, but also by those who
