On Stigliz
I read stigliz's article " globalism's discontent" He distinguish good side of globalism and dark side of globalism But this distinction is nonsense. In capital market, capital forms credifying commodity ,so 1970^90, East Asia Did not grow ,simply GNP grew, and peoples' life worsened Global governance is not effective because credit flow beyond global governance. He propose simply social justice ,so his proposal not effective. Rather alternative economy grows within Capitalist society as Lets local community rebuilding NGO, etc. MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10.OHTAI,MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: A Time for abolishing economics?
On 8/9/02 00:50 AM, "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben asked about comparisons of Marx/Keynes. I don't know of anybody who > actually intended to make such a comparison, with the exception of Joan > Robinson, who favored Keynes. > > Many Marxists wrote about Keynes, offering implicit comparisons. I am > thinking of Paul Mattick -- I know that Rakesh lurks out there. I did a > book, Keynes and the Economic Slowdown, that had one of these implict > comparisons. Paul Sweezy tried to bridge the two. Marx tried to criticism of political economy. And success on his attempt In Capital. So If we refer to economics, its form appear as criticism of various kinds of "economics" MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatry Department Komaki mucicipal hospital 1-20.JOHABUSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: The need for planning
On 7/28/02 05:46 AM, "ken hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just joking! . > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > PS> Thanks to Michael for the article. > > - Original Message - > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:12 AM > Subject: [PEN-L:28664] Re: The need for planning > > >> I accidentally erased Justin's post. It has not appeared on the archives. >> Lou should not have ridiculed Justin's post. >> >> We have been over and over the question of whether market socialism gives >> more variety of consumer goods. >> >> Quality of consumer goods is a minor reason to want socialism. >> >> Capitalism probably produces more variety than capitalism. If you want >> variety, why bother with socialism? >> >> Of course, some of this variety is meaningless. We have also discussed >> how markets (say, tv or radio) limit variety. >> >> The Soviet Union is not a fair test of planning. We have been over that >> before. The threat from the Cold War was a lot more serious than the >> terrorist threat to the US. Look how the post 9-11 policies have screwed >> up the economy. >> >> >> -- >> Michael Perelman >> Economics Department >> California State University >> Chico, CA 95929 >> >> Tel. 530-898-5321 >> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Let's cite Capital > "Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson's labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution. " " As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradatio
Reply to post-structurist
Title: Reply to post-structurist Reply to John Shotter's " Conversational realities" In this book, he proposes constructing life through language. For this, he adopts rhetorical-responsive version of social constructionalism. Firstly, he defines psychology as moral science, and secondly, he rejects the myths of mind and realism, in other word, instead of inner dynamics of the individual psyche(romanticism and subjectivism),or the already determined characteristics of the external world(modernism and objectivism), he adopts vague, only partially specified, unstable world , open to further specification as a result of human, communicative activity, and he argues that neither are any extralinguistic entities whose significance is linguistically clear prior to talk about them; there are no extralinguistic something in the world merely awaiting precise or accurate description. Thirdly he propose to build new civil society through rhetorical-responsive communication. His refusal of subjectivism and objectivism is valid. And instead of that , communicative relationship as building realities is emphasized. Also he correctly defines psychology as moral science, in other word, he defines language as normative means. But he does not raise basic premise for building communicative relation. To communicate each other, it is necessary to survive, and to survive we need to eat, sleep, have house, produce means of production. Secondly he refuses concept of truth, but in daily activity, we judge truth of matter, for example, when rain falls, we judge that raining is true, and clear weather is false. In other word, it seems necessary to add one more communicative dimension extralinguistic he refuses to judge matters. To build new civil society is good idea, but to build this, extralingustic entity is needed. Because, to build a society, we must judge whether something is true, and others are false. It does not mean to accept so-called realism. Rather his communicative practical activity needs two dimension, i.e.intralinguistic and extralingustic. If only intralinguistic activity creates realities, how to understand universe before humankind appears. So-called realism argues that consciousness reflects reality. But it is incorrect. Manifestation by word only express usefulness of things for satisfying human needs, in other word, it express practical relation, rather than things. We must not afraid to use concept 'true' that postmodern discouse often refuses. Marx said in Feuerbach these that "the question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is practical question. Man must prove the truth-i.e. the reality and power, the this-sideness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is purely-scholastic-question.
Reformism and revolutionary transitional period
A; criticism by Wu Lien The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the CPSU in 1956,but it did not become public untill 1963. The CCP formed a different view on distribution acording to labor from tha of the CPSU in the rocess of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of socialistic reform by enlargement of pepole$B!G(Js communes. This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictorship in a socialist society, and particularly in China whether socialism is a reality in present Soviet or Chinese society. Wu Lien$B!G(Js artic;e which was published inj 1960 in $B!H(J the study of economics; no.5$B!I(J defines socialist society as a transitional society from the view-point that in a scoalist society there are classes, $B!H(Jtwo roads$B!I(J, and a need for the power of tge proletarian dictorship. Wu Lien argue thqat the whole process of transformation from a capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of communism,(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat dictorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship and the establishment of $B!H(J the whole people$B!G(Js state$B!I(J at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October, 961), Wu Lien$B!G(Js argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev$B!G(Js policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship at the 22nd Congress. Wu Lien$B!G(Js understanding on distribution accroding to labor is, however, based on a subjective interpretation of $B!H(J the birth-marks of the old scoety$B!I(J and $B!H(J bourgeois right$B!I(J described in $B!H(J Critique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J. The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected. In $B!H(JCritique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J, Marx$B!G(Js description of socialist society states that it is $B!H(J..still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges " Wo Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks ofn the old scociety" as follows. $B!X(J This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the socialisy production relationship. First, in the field of possession of production means ,althoguh economic ownership by all the people has done away with bourgeois right in ralation to production means,due to the influence of the socialist material interest principle , there is an incentive wage system in national coroporations, in which a small portion of the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee ot individulals, and here a bourgoies right is retained. At th same tome ,ata certaion stage of socialism i.e. at an unddeceloped stage, there are two types of joint ownership-economic ownership by all th4 people and socialist collective owbership. Socialist collective ownersgip is what negates private ownership, and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is allowed. Collective ownership is ,however , a transitional forms of economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and when compared to economic ownership by all the people , it has quite a few remnents and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations. Collecitive economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is, in collective ownership common property is still low and its scope is limited. Here again a bourgoris right has been retained. Secondaly, in human relationships n the process of labor, there is basically no antagonism between people, but it is impossible to sweep away all the influences of the old customs, to establish communistic equal relationships ovetnight, and there is also a diffrence between industry and agriculture, between a city and a framing village, between manual labor and brain labor. Due to this diffrenece, whereas socialist distribution has become common distirubution under collective production, distribution of personal comsumer goods is still based on the scale of quantity of labor given by each worker, and still embodies the principle of equivalent exchange; here again a bourgoeis tight is retained.$B!Y(J As quoted above, Wu Lien cites three exapmles of " the birth-marks of the old society" in socialist society and calls them " bourgeis rights". The first one is the incentive wage system in national corporations distributing their profits. The secomd one is holdings of land or lack of common pr
Re: Re: Short Book on Marx for Undergraduates
On 7/10/02 07:30 AM, "Bill Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 9, 2002 at 14:26:24 (-0700) Eric Nilsson writes: >> Rogoff letterAll, >> >> I'm looking for a short book about Marx's _social_ theory appropriate for >> undergraduates. >> >> In the past I've used Berlin's biography, parts of the Cambridge Companion >> to Marx, and Wood's KM in the past but want something different this time. >> I've also used KM's original writings but don't want to take this route this >> time and much of it is too hard for many undergraduates. > > Have you looked at *The Social & Political Thought of Karl Marx* by > Shlomo Avineri*? Though you might not think 269 pages is "short". > > It is available in paperback from Amazon for $33.00. > > > Bill > I recommend to read very repeatedly Marx's own book. Any interpreter or biographer can't let you understand Marx's idea. Your easy-going approach lead to misunderstand Marx's idea. I recommend Marx's economic and philosophical manuscript(1944),communist manifesto, and Capital. Capital is difficult to read but its very difficult part is first band. After that it is easy to read. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help - Abstract labor
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27663] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help - Abstract labor On 7/7/02 00:32 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is not "occupied space" translatable into "mode of expression."? Products of private producers are converted into commodities as the result of the individual being a private creator and once he creates over and above that which is consumed directly, his product enters exchange and undergoes a change into a commodity. It is not the abstract labor of the individual producer that creates the commodity. Rather, it is a market relationship that transforms an article into a commodity. Nay, it is exchange that creates the market relationship that transforms the articles of the private producer into commodities. This relationship emerged historically. It is the abstract labor that creates the value that regulates the exchange of commodities, but do not create the commodity. The cost and price mode of expression of commodities is a different matter that arose historically. $B!d(JIn Japan, hot debate about positioning analysis of abstract labor which concerned between analysis of abstract labor in Commodity analysis and analysis of abstract labor after exchange process were happened IN sum, analysis of abstract labor in commodity analysis was wined Because if Analysis of abstract labor after exchange process, we cannot analyze value form, secret of money, fetishism of commodity Adding, how to be formed price from value of commodity was not analyzed .because price is money form of value, then value analysis proceeded. You are saying I have this backwards - No? If I do have this relationship backwards it is because of my backwardness. Abstract labor does not create commodities, but rather property relations create commodities. Abstract labor reveals the value property of commodities and expose the law of value. commodity has two character, Marx said"At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things-use-value and exchange-value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use-values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of Political Economy turns, we must go more into detail." After all. We are different in Where abstract labor be analyzed. Let debate further MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Melvin P. Have to go to work - late.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 social labor and social production
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27590] Re: Re: Re: 3 social labor and social production On 7/5/02 03:36 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Comrade Melvin Almost 3 >In this time, let argue social labor and social production. * >Marx said (Translation) "Lets us discuss the question of social labor as a histrionically evolved form of social production and social production as a historically evolved form of the laboring process." Reply I call the above formulation the dialectic of labor. I do not call this the dialectic of abstract labor whose mode of external expression is the question of the value form. Labor has no value but is the substance that creates value and consequently its external modes of expression. $B!d(JI can't understand your dialectic of abstract labor and why external expression of abstract labor is value form. abstract labor is firstly mental abstraction of concrete labor and secondly social abstraction of commodity exchange. Latter is new mode of abstraction without brain activity rather works social or physical process which Hegel discovered. For example. we cannot analyze individual quantum behavior but every quantum judges themselves. which we can be intelligible Secondly, For arguing value form, at least two commodities are needed. Are you arguing value form from Abstract labor? If so, it is impossible, because "The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame Quickly, that we don't know "where to have it." The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange-value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form under which value first appeared to us.”(from capital) This is the reason for proving money as specific form of Human relation and fetishism of commodity. I do not call this the dialectic of social labor because the mode of expression of private labor and individual labor - as they interpenetrate one another and "become something else" cannot be understood. >I can't remember to write "dialectic of social labor, but in capitalst society, Social economic relation of people appear as Sachen( evry English translation, Sachen and Ding are both translate into "Thing". But both are different. Sache means occupied property and Ding means simple physical material. Its confusion leads to confusion of Versachring and Verdinging which are both different meaning.) >What is mode of expression of private labor? It means simply commodity? If so , it is no analysis of commodity. "As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labor of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labor of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labor of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer's labor does not show itself except in the act of exchange." > you want to say article of utility becomes commodities? If so, specific terms such as commodity, absract labor, etc need not be analyzed. Under capitalist society, produsts are determined as commodity, money and capital. Your argument seems to be reductionism. "In sum in Capitalist society labor is private and production is social." In other word, Private labor mediate market to gain social character if capitalist labor is social. The labor needs not "Sachen character. " (End of quote). No! > I think individual labor means labor excised by individual, and private labor means contrary of social labor. Individual labor appears in its external mode as private labor, which "mediate market to gain social character if capitalist labor is social." > What is the meaning of individual labor as extrenal mode as private labor? In any form of labor,i.e. collective, indivi
Re: ocial labor and social production
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27548]social labor and social production We have difficulty with gaining Staln's article. I have Japanese translation of Stalins's selected works but have not English one. Adding, Deficit of official argument of Stalin exists. These situation interrupt our study. But I chooses the way I can get. In this time, let argue social labor and social production.* Marx said "As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer's labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange." In sum in Capitalist society labor is private and production is social. IN other word, Private labor mediate market to gain social character If capitalist labor is social, The labor need not Sachen character " In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things" Human social relation is here "A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men's labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses" ON the contrary Individual firms relation forms firms social character. In Marx writing " private" and " social" receive strict determination we need carefully use these term MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: transportation
On 02/6/26 04:35 AM, "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, if you are suggesting that the Amtrack subsidy should go to United > Airlines, I suspect that you will get a friendly hearing from W. > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 12:06:17PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: >> If the U.S. government is going to bail out United Airlines (as the airline >> wants), shouldn't it also do so for Railtrack... oops, I mean Amtrak? >> >> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >> Current Transportation was formed from 16C when merchant, banker, local industry emerged. Now we must buy milk from Hokkaido, food from E.Asia, Tree from Canada etc. IN sum we must buying by high social cost. It is very waste. IF we can shrink our community as the size of LETS can go We can well working community. Is't it?
Re: Re: For revolutionary factionalism notsectarian lunacy
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27211] Re: For revolutionary factionalism not sectarian lunacy On 02/6/26 09:29 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Adam Levenstein wrote: > > Sounds good, Louis. (Really.) > > Here's the million-kopek question: Are we actually going to set up such > an organization, or just talk about it? >>I second comrade Adam's sentiment -- both parts. and i third it. a few years after louis might have been making THE speech to the swp, i was on my way out too. ever since, i have been looking for a leftish organization that i could support. ...having spent a lot of time finding none, i remain independent. but 20 years ago, i gave a lot of thought to what a good "revolutionary party," or let's call it something like a "revolutionary organizing network," might have to do to get started. as far as i can remember, it was something like defining 1) principles, 2) purpose, 3) practice, 4) platform, and ??? or something on that order. how interesting that i would be on the list for 2 days and this would come up! (no mysticism intended...at least, i don't think so...) nancy brumback new college of california 766 valencia st. san francisco, CA 94110 415-437-3405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In current credit capitalism, Mass consciousnes change over leftist party They may overcome many leftist party. It need to learn mass consciousnes and their program and platform. I think future " party" will form network rather than Lenin's type. AS AL Qaeda MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re-reply
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27126] Re: Re-reply On 02/6/23 03:05 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < rebellion against their social character as private property. This antagonism between socialized production and private appropriation was more than less misarticulated in the last historical period.>> >>Means of production itself is not rebellion, rather capitalist use of means of production make them source of surplus value production. << >>Society is formed on the basis of the unity of the productive forces and the production relations. Productive relations are the law system defining property and the relationship of people to property in the process of production. The constant, spontaneous development of the productive forces eventually disrupts that unity and an epoch of social revolution unfolds to reestablish the unity of society based on new social relations. Not only does every unity contain within itself its polar opposite but these internal opposites are mutually connected with each other; one aspect of a contradiction cannot exist without the other. In capitalist society the bourgeoisie is connected with the proletariat, the proletariat with the bourgeoisie; neither of these two classes can develop without the other, because the bourgeoisie cannot exist without exploiting the labor of others and the hired proletariat cannot exist without selling its labor power to a capitalist, because itself, does not possess the means of production. >>As bourgeoisie develops with workers develop, for example see the 3rd world poverty, collapse. But it does not mean worker's consciousness raise and your "contradiction" is not contradiction. Contradiction means that same thing include opposite characters. Rather I propose exploitation is source of resistance . . .<< I beg to differ. I will not argue the words "means of production" which is a popular term used in broad conversation primarily meaning the forces of production with stress on the instruments. I will submit that the sentenced: "The means of production of which Marx and Engels spoke are in absolute rebellion against their social character as private property. This antagonism between socialized production and private appropriation was more than less misarticulated in the last historical period" could be confusing and may perhaps need to be rewritten to state: "Marx and Engels spoke of an antagonism between socialized production and private appropriation of the social product and articulated this several ways: as the contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletarians; as the unity of conflicting class, whose unity and conflict constitute the face - surface, of the internal dynamic of the capitalist mode of production; as the unlimited evolving potential of the gigantic productive forces and the barriers to consumption of the social product based on restriction of the market due to its capitalist character. In the last historical period the conception of antagonism, was misarticulated by large sections of the Marxist movement." The source of the contradiction of the capitalist mode of production that drives its internal development and transformation is the antagonism within the productive forces as capital. This is expressed as a class configuration in the person of working class and bourgeoisie in its fundamentality. I can agree with "Contradiction means that same thing include opposite characters." However my specific point is not simply contradiction, productive forces or their character as capital but rather a specific form of movement within the "same thing" and its "opposite characters" as a developmental law of motion. My point is the articulation of antagonism as the form of motion that resolves class conflict. I do believe that I have articulated the specific motion called antagonism - not simply contradiction, reasonably accurate. The importance of this specific motion in class society is expressed as the breaking of the unity of the internal opposites - in this instance bourgeoisie and capitalist who constitute the primary internal classes to the capitalist mode of production, and their emergence as relatively independent opposing classes, external to one another. This specific motion only becomes visible at a certain stage in the evolution of the social process. Specifically, that which constitutes the antagonistic evolution of class society cannot be reduced to the word violence - its meaning in English, but rather is a development where a rupture takes place within the unity of opposing class and a leap is required wherein the formerly subordinate pole becomes dominant and abolishes the formerly dominating pole as the basis for its further development. Here I am not referring to the cyclical crisis of capital. The dialectic of the leap is not reducible to a simple formulation of quantitative and qualitative aspects of the process, but rather demands a description of how the rupture
Re-reply
Specificity and the politics of the New Period What is politics? Webster's Dictionary describes politics as "the use of strategy or intrigue in attaining any condition of power or control." It has been said that politics is "the concentrated expression of economics." So, politics for us in the US today and indeed the world, can be said to be the use of strategy by classes with different economic interests to attain power or control over the social life of the country. There is a need to develop a different understanding of the struggle for class politics today and how it affects the ability of the class to develop its identity. We also need to understand the difference between other periods of our history and the situation we face today. > Marx said that politics must be died in communism. Because for Marx each society has its political form of economical expoloitation. IN feudal system The direct producer, according to our assumption, is to be found here in possession of his own means of production, the necessary material labour conditions required for the realisation of his labour and the production of his means of subsistence. He conducts his agricultural activity and the rural home industries connected with it independently. This independence is not undermined by the circumstance that the small peasants may form among themselves a more or less natural production community, as they do in India, since it is here merely a question of independence from the nominal lord of the manor. Under such conditions the surplus-labour for the nominal owner of the land can only be extorted from them by other than economic pressure, whatever the form assumed may be.[44] This differs from slave or plantation economy in that the slave works under alien conditions of production and not independently. Thus, conditions of personal dependence are requisite, a lack of personal (ca freedom( capital3 chap. 47) in compared wirh this clear relation of owner and worker, in capitalist society The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. ( Ibd. Chap 27) Thus capitalist society hides relation between rulers and ruled ANd it result In the case of the simplest categories of the capitalist mode of production, and even of commodity-production, in the case of commodities and money, we have already pointed out the mystifying character that transforms the social relations, for which the material elements of wealth serve as bearers in production, into properties of these things themselves (commodities) and still more pronouncedly transforms the production relation itself into a thing (money). All forms of society, in so far as they reach the stage of commodity-production and money circulation, take part in this perversion. But under the capitalist mode of production and in the case of capital, which forms its dominant category, its determining production relation, this enchanted and perverted world develops still more. If one considers capital, to begin with, in the actual process of production as a means of extracting surplus-labour, then this relationship is still very simple, and the actual connection impresses itself upon the bearers of this process, the capitalists themselves, and remains in their consciousness. The violent struggle over the limits of the working-day demonstrates this strikingly. But even within this non-mediated sphere, the sphere of direct action between labour and capital, matters do not rest in this simplicity. With the development of relative surplus-value in the actual specifically capitalist mode of production, whereby the productive powers of social labour are developed, these productive powers and the social interrelations of labour in the direct labour-process seem transferred from labour to capital. Capital thus becomes a very mystic being since all of labours social productive forces appear to be due to capital, rather than labour as such, and seem to issue from the womb of capital itself. Then the process of circulation intervenes, with its changes of substance and form, on which all parts of capital, even agricultural capital, devolve to t
Re: Re: Re: Re: On tactic of revolution
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27091] Re: Re: Re: On tactic of revolution Comrade Melvin P Thank you reply my argument Major difference between you and I is Stalin's argument My position is thoroughly anti-stalinist. It became my political experience and theoretical experience. Stalinist In Japan was organized people by old means, but it will fail I experience Stalinist killing my friends. MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10.OHTAI,MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: On tactic of revolution
Title: Re: [PEN-L:27068] Re: On tactic of revolution Thank you your modification.
Critique of Brenner
Title: Critique of Brenner I read only Brenner' article,So I may Mistake. Brenner's argument is always to Prove capital's crisis, but,it Seems sterile. Young Marx tried to prove revolutional period when political crisis happened, Then he tried to this when in economical panic, in the last he tried to revolutional Period when social movement mature. As marx wrote in Capital "As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated." But usual Maxists depend still his crisis theory, although he overcame to his crisis theory, Many Marxists(including Japanese) depend on early Marx argument. Brenner's weakness also this tendency. But if we argue economical panic, people may be unmoved. Recent Argentine crisis proves this, people survive without banks. They exchange product used by Barter deal. Its result that they survive without banks. Banks are very important and people believe That Banks Are necessary for its life, but Argentine crisis teach us revolution can emerge with banks crisis. Because, banks are at the beginning fictitious . This lead to criticized usual scheme of crisis thoery. Brenner also try to prove how evonomic crisis may happen. In this sense Brenner is usual economist MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marx on Tax
Marx wrote in Communist manifesto 3. ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE ( emphasis added -CB) And later Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there; 12. (The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier 1880) According to Marx, he deny any form private succession. Because of abolition of civil right IT is clear
Abolition of private property and free market, enslaved people
Marx refer about tax as below in Communist manifest MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Re: Re: lobal unequal exchange
Title: Re: [PEN-L:26827] Re: lobal unequal exchange To Chris Burford Some quality of commodity is abstracted from before real exchange This abstraction result from in brain,rather in social process, This analytical method Marx used is from Hegel's logics Firstly, concrete labor produce different product. In this process yet abstraction Happened Social abstraction cause in value-form, in other words, in at least two Different commodity are needed. You seems to confuse abstractive labor and use-value labor MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Further study.
Title: Further study. Melvin P Thank you your reply The Commmodyfing capital seems to be difficult to understand. So I am now studying " radical problem of credit"(By YAMAMOY0) In it he argue new credit system analysis . You should be confidence in yourself. Your long. painful experience of trade union are important and I did not join trade union. Its distance is not easily to overcome I respect your leftist experience and its importance, let us discuss further. Best regards MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: 3 There are not unequal exchange;critique of Frank
Title: Re: [PEN-L:26654] Re: Re: 3 There are not unequal exchange ;critique of Frank On 2002.06.08 11:21 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: the peculiar mode of operations means new type of capital accumulation. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: There are not unequal exchange ;critique ofFrank
Title: Re: [PEN-L:26644] Re: There are not unequal exchange ;critique of Frank Comrade Melvin P. Thank you for seeing my article I my be incorrect Please tell me your criticim continued Best regard MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10.OHTAI,MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are not unequal exchange ;critique of Frank
Analysis of contemporary capitalism In the historical disputes among various Marxist parties,there have been many problems at issue for the development of capitalism,for example, the law of capitalist development,the agricultural problems,the theory of imperialism etc. Today the development of the credit system has made a great change in the industrial structure of the imperialistic countries and as a matter of course the credit sytem should be clarified as a theoretical problem. In $B!!(Jspite of this, the problem has not been adequately dealed with by any revolutonary left party, to say nothing of established left parties. On the definite purpose for increasing the cpital acccumulation and creating its technical basis, the bourgeois class have engaged in a shrap controversy on transformation of the industrial structure and development of credit system$B!!(Jamong themselves. This transformation of the capitalist mode of accumulation has changed the ordinary consciousness of the mass which reflected in the ideological world. But the left parties have been far oblivious to this. 1.What made capital commoditifying It is now popular among modern theorist to regard money as a symbol. As shown in the assertion of the disintegration of the proletarian class in the classical sense and the denying of the labor theory of value with commoditifyning of money, the ideological dissolution of Marxism has been in progress systematically. The symbol theory of money is an old theory and many studies have been made in the field of primitive money theory. The question is why this theory has been removed from its original field of the primitive money theory and applied to the present economic situation. With the development of the credit system, capital has been so extensively commoditifyning that it can represent itself as a commodity in general. The price of commoditifyning capital is determined indifferent from its original value. Its price mechanism isn't the same as that of commodity in general. Capital is self-increasing value and embodied abstract human labor., but the price of commoditifyning capital can't be determined through its content. Through amplifying this mechanism to the law of price mechanism, the fact that the value of commodities is determined with the amount of abstract human labor and money is generated from commodities as such will be denied. In fact, the price of commoditifying capital is determined with dividing the gross profit into interest and entrepreneur's profit, but in superficies interest is shown as a product of the credit system which represents itself as an illusionary communal behaviors. Consequently it is proper to explain the price of mechanism of commoditifyning capital by the use value of money as a symbol , that is, a mediator of illusionary communal behavior. Thus the money in the symbol theory, different from the primitive theory of money ,is just an embodiment of capital, and after all it is a capital relation that is symbolized here. However, how the capital relation is embodied in the money can't be seen in superficies. So those who advocate the symbol theory can't understand this context and just suppose the content of this symbol as a communal subjectivity or communal illusion. 2.On the the study of credit theory The symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the commoditifyning capital through the appearances irrespective of the real capital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary commodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as commodity in general. Against such prevailing thinking many kind of Marxists, although they only acknowledge$B!!(Jthemselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions. But , in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just modification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals the exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the law of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the clarification for commoditify of capital ,which has in original, produced such thinking.. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally ctiricized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may be, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions. It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of Marxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditifyning capital and its movement law. Thus it is urgent need to study the credit theory, but the significance of the study is not confined to this. The most important is that with the development of the credit system and the generalization of commoditify of capital the mode of capital accumulation have been transformed world-widely, and consequently the appearence forms of crisis of capitalism have also been transformed. This may be in respect to the following fact; the transformation of accumulation mode is base
Re: Re: Global unequal exchange
On 2002.06.06 09:49 PM, "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Burford: >> But I wanted to ask whether others agree with the statement above. It >> appears self evident if there is mobility of information and transport of >> commodities across a market. But in a deeper marxist sense is it consistent >> with the law of value? > > Of course it is consistent with the law of value. How can it not be? The EU > is an economic partnership of the imperialist nations of Europe. It simply > deepens a process begun with the Common Market. Having a common currency > and relaxing protectionist measures means that imports and exports can > accelerate. However, the notion that the EU is benefiting all classes of > society is an obvious lie--no doubt a function of the neoliberal mindset of > the article's author. For instance, Spain's GDP is supposed to expand by > 2.4 per cent this year but inflation and unemployment are also on the rise, > according to today's FT. However, this is "not enough to keep Rodrigo Rato, > economy minister, awake at night." > > Meanwhile, yesterday's NY Times reported that Polish farmers are leery of > the EU. > >>> A Polish farmer's life is not easy these days, Edward Zawadzki said as he > walked through the cattle barn his father built, long vacant because of low > milk prices. > > Dogs barked. Cut hay dried. The sun was setting, and Mr. Zawadzki, 54, who > says his farm barely breaks even, considered his prospects. "How much worse > can it get?" he asked. "Even worse!" -- if Poland joins the very club that > is supposed to propel former Communist countries out of poverty: the > European Union. Cheap crops from rich members will flood in, he said, > pushing out small-time farmers like himself. > > "When the borders fall," Mr. Zawadzki said, "Germans will come, buy the > land and we will become farmhands. If the union comes, this is what will > happen."<< > >> And most importantly, can it be applied on a world scale? > > I believe this is what they call "globalization". I call it imperialism and > to hell with it. > >> Are the most competitive parts of the world market those with the highest >> concentration of capital and therefore the most advanced means of >> production? Do they set the bench mark for the value of all commodities? > > Yes. > >> Does that mean that all other areas using less advanced means of >> production are trading unequally and there will be an unequal exchange of >> value on a massive global scale, inherent in the very fabric of the >> international market, which is self perpetuating and indeed accelerating. > > Yes. > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org > There is not unequal exchange( Frank etc) There is creditifying commodity.
Surplus mysterious chatacter
On 2002.06.05 06:06 AM, "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Part of properietors' income is really a quasi-wage, and part of > wage & salary at the top is really a quasi-capital payment. > I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received) > and rent belong too. > In debating surplus value, we must review A. Smith, Proudon, Ricardo, and Marx. From starting with Smith, beginning category was focused into commodity(Ricardo) then Marx, who succeed Ricardo, began with analysis of social wealth from commodity. Below is how labor,surplus, profit have mysterious character ,in which we are caught. Below is from Capital MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >It might seem as if a rational relation were expressed at least in "labour -- wages." But this is no more the case than with "land -- ground-rent." In so far as labour is value-creating, and is manifested in the value of commodities, it has nothing to do with the distribution of this value among various categories. In so far as it has the specifically social character of wage-labour, it is not value-creating. It has already been shown in general that wages of labour, or price of labour, is but an irrational expression for the value, or price of labour-power; and the specific social conditions, under which this labour-power is sold, have nothing to do with labour as a general agent in production. Labour is also materialised in that value component of a commodity which as wages forms the price of labour-power; it creates this portion just as much as the other portions of the product; but it is materialised in this portion no more and no differently than in the portions forming rent or profit. And, in general, when we establish labour as value-creating, we do not consider it in its concrete form as a condition of production, but in its social delimitation which differs from that of wage-labour. Landed property, capital and wage-labour are thus transformed from sources of revenue -- in the sense that capital attracts to the capitalist, in the form of profit, a portion of the surplus-value extracted by him from labour, that monopoly in land attracts for the landlord another portion in the form of rent; and that labour grants the labourer the remaining portion of value in the form of wages -- from sources by means of which one portion of value is transformed into the form of profit, another into the form of rent, and a third into the form of wages -- into actual sources from which these value portions and respective portions of the product in which they exist, or for which they are exchangeable, arise themselves, and from which, therefore, in the final analysis, the value of the product itself arises. [50] Then the process of circulation intervenes, with its changes of substance and form, on which all parts of capital, even agricultural capital, devolve to the same degree that the specifically capitalist mode of production develops. This is a sphere where the relations under which value is originally produced are pushed completely into the background. In the direct process of production the capitalist already acts simultaneously as producer of commodities and manager of commodity-production. Hence this process of production appears to him by no means simply as a process of producing surplus-value. But whatever may be the surplus-value extorted by capital in the actual production process and appearing in commodities, the value and surplus-value contained in the commodities must first be realised in the circulation process. And both the restitution of the values advanced in production and, particularly, the surplus-value contained in the commodities seem not merely to be realised in the circulation, but actually to arise from it; an appearance which is especially reinforced by two circumstances: first, the profit made in selling depends on cheating, deceit, inside knowledge, skill and a thousand favourable market opportunities; and then by the circumstance that added here to labour-time is a second determining element -- time of circulation.
Re: markets & diversity
Title: Re: [PEN-L:26525] markets & diversity On 2002.06.03 10:52 PM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: it's interesting (to me, at least), that the "ideal" market of neoclassical economics -- the perfectly competitive market -- does not allow diversity; diversity undermines perfection. On the other hand, the more realistic story of atomistic markets that neoclassical economics typically plays down -- the monopolistically competitive market -- is the one that assumes diversity, at least in terms of the product being sold. Actually, all I'm doing is testing to see if my e-mail system will send. It ain't receiving. And I see pen-l as an all-important antidote to jury duty. I'm on a "ten day trial." I have two words about that: personal injury. JD >In his presidential address to the American Economic Association, >Sherwin Rosen claimed that one of the benefits of the market is >its ability to provide diversity. Yet in a number of areas, >diversity is shrinking. Publishers resist printing books that >cannot sell at Barnes & Noble. Radio stations are becoming less >diverse -- unless you include Web broadcasting. Cable does allow >for more diversity in some respects, but not insofar as politics >is concerned. Broadcasting Chomsky for three minutes on CNN was >a big deal. Bourdieu argues in his book On Television that competition produces sameness, not diversity. Below is On The Jewish Question of marx MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For market problem, to consider Communism is needed Included among them is freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion one chooses. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791, Article 10: "No one is to be subjected to annoyance because of his opinions, even religious opinions." "The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent." Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., 1793, includes among the rights of man, Article 7: "The free exercise of religion." Indeed, in regard to man's right to express his thoughts and opinions, to hold meetings, and to exercise his religion, it is even stated: "The necessity of proclaiming these rights presupposes either the existence or the recent memory of despotism." Compare the Constitution of 1795, Section XIV, Article 354. Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 9, S 3: "All men have received from nature the imprescriptible right to worship the Almighty according to the dictates of their conscience, and no one can be legally compelled to follow, establish, or support against his will any religion or religious ministry. No human authority can, in any circumstances, intervene in a matter of conscience or control the forces of the soul." Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 5 and 6: "Among these natural rights some are by nature inalienable since nothing can replace them. The rights of conscience are among them." (Beaumont, op. cit., pp.213,214) Incompatibility between religion and the rights of man is to such a degree absent from the concept of the rights of man that, on the contrary, a man's right to be religious, is expressly included among the rights of man. The privilege of faith is a universal right of man. The droits de l'homme, the rights of man, are, as such, distinct from the droits du citoyen, the rights of the citizen. Who is homme as distinct from citoyen? None other than the member of civil society. Why is the member of civil society called "man", simply man; why are his rights called the rights of man? How is this fact to be explained? From the relationship between the political state and civil society, from the nature of political emancipation. Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l'homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society -- i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 2. "These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property." What constitutes liberty? Article 6. "Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others", or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791: "Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others." Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is deter
Re: Re: Markets and Diversity
On 2002.06.03 05:40 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael wrote, >> In his presidential address to the American Economic Association, >> Sherwin Rosen claimed that one of the benefits of the market is >> its ability to provide diversity. > > Do you suppose Rosen thinks this result (markets provide diversity) is derived > from the neoclassical model or is it just part of the pre-analytic vision? I'm > not sure what in the neoclassical model would lead to the diversity claim > unless it was based on product differentiation. But conclusions about product > differentiation is about the number of different versions of the product and > not about the range of products provided. > > That is, if the theoretical products range from 1 to 10, product > differentiation might appear as a models 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. But it might > not lead to any 3s or 5s. Rosen might be thinking that a large number of > different models means that a large range of products exists. But I don't > think that the former implies the latter > > ERic > / > > Usual economic textbook begin with Market. In other word, Market is assumed to analyze firstly. But Market itself began in 16C in Europe. Before this alternative product exchange means must be existed. I ,as Marxist, begin with analysis of commodity. Because it is essential element of social product. In current credit capitalism, Alternative exchange started. Such as LET, or In Argentine bank crisis People exchange product by barter trade widely. In other words, Banks are unneeded for people survival. For Fetishism of Sachen( commodity, capital and money) people believe in these categories, but it is an illusion. >MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
Re: Darwinian doctrine
On 2002.06.02 06:56 AM, "Hinrich Kuhls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Engels to P. L. Lavrov in London, Nov. 12-17, 1875 > > 1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin's > method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a > first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. Until > Darwin's time the very people who now see everywhere only struggle for > existence (Vogt, Büchner, Moleschott, etc.) emphasized precisely > cooperation in organic nature, the fact that the vegetable kingdom supplies > oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the animal > kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure, which was > particularly stressed by Liebig. Both conceptions are justified within > certain limits, but the one is as one-sided and narrowminded as the other. > The interaction of bodies in nature - inanimate as well as animate - > includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When > therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the > whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the > one-sided and meager phrase "struggle for existence", a phrase which even > in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis , such a > procedure really contains its own condemnation. > Sociohistorical Character of Psychological Phenomena According to Vygotsky, psychological phenomena are social in two respects: They depend on (originate in) social experience and treatment, and they embody cultural artifacts. Social experience includes the manner in which people stimulate and direct one's attention, model behavior, respond to behavior (encourage, discourage, or imitate it), control bodily movements, and organize the spatial relationships among individuals (e.g., many people sleeping in an area or individuals sleeping in segregated areas). Cultural artifacts include signs, symbols, linguistic terms, and humanly produced objects and instruments such as chairs and books. Social treatment and socially produced artifacts generate and shape psychological phenomena. For example, parents controlling when, where, and how a child responds to an insult (through modeling, encouraging, and discouraging behavior) determines the kinds and intensity of emotion that the child develops. Whether individuals are segregated or integrated by spatial relations affects whether they develop an individualistic or collective self-concept (Ratner, 1991, pp. 55 - 56). Holding babies so that they face toward other people or toward the individual caretaker similarly inculcates collective or individualistic self-concepts, respectively. Moreover, restricting infants' movements inculcates passivity, whereas allowing them free expression inculcates active personalities (Ratner, 1991, pp. 173-174). Directing attention toward certain things and away from other shapes perception and emotions. Cultural artifacts structure psychological phenomena by mediating the person's relation with the world. Sitting in chairs and eating with utensils indicates a segregated bodily space in contrast to sitting next to someone on a bench and eating with one's hands. Living in a rectangular structure provides spatial cues that are different from those in circular structures. Symbolic cultural artifacts, in the form of socially constructed concepts of what, how, and why things are, organize psycho- logical phenomena as the following examples demonstrate (see Ratner, 1991, chap. 2, pp. 264-278, and Ratner, 1997a, chap. 3, for citations). The way we conceptualize or understand an event determines our emotional reaction to it. We become angry because we interpret someone's action as deliberately intending harm. The interpretive concept "deliberate intention to harm" is a social construct. It is popularly accepted in Western society as a way to understand behavior. However, some societies lack this social concept. They interpret a harmful action as reflecting fate or God's will. In these societies harmful action is not regarded as the perpetrator's fault, and it does not generate anger. Perception of distance, size, weight, color, and motion also depend on cues whose significance is socially constructed. Cultures that have a different understanding of cues have different perceptual experiences. For example, Luria (1976) found that Uzbekistani peasants perceived certain colors as dissimilar (not classifiable together), whereas administrators and teachers perceived those colors as similar. Luria's explanation was that the two groups had a different conception of color. The peasants regarded color as intrinsically tied to objects, whereas the teachers regarded color as an abstract property. The peasants perceived the color 'pig's dung" as different from 'cow's dung" because the two objects in which the colors inhered were different. The teachers abstracted the brown color from the objects and categorized the two shad
Re: Re: On association
Title: Re: [PEN-L:26460] Re: On association On 2002.05.31 10:01 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Finally How is your "communism" program? If it is vague, simply you argue communism is good in abstract matter. Please tell me concrete program of your "Communism" Our side are leaded by people within which we create de-reifying movement Reply, I do not have a concrete communist program. I have never actually thought about matters in the manner you pose them. I have come to an understanding from reading your reply why you call yourself an orthodox Marxist. In American context, "orthodox" Marxist meant no political struggle and waiting for the means of production to reach a cetain level and spontaneous development into communism. You state something different. But I just figured this out. I must reread reply several times. It seems you are saying that the contradiction of which I speak is in my head. If this is true that is the hardest one to solve. In material presented - which is excellent, Marx speaks of the cooperative society as it evolves on the basis of the credit system that "drives" the emergence and production by large scale industry and of the workers fight for political supremacy. Marx does not speak of these two aspects as a contradiction. I must reread because it seems that perhaps I am stuck in the wrong period of history by combining 1920 industrial development in Russia with ideas of development today. There is no contradiction between the growth of a movement of associated producers, called forth by the inability of capital to "service" life needs and the struggle for political supremacy. The struggle for political supremacy arises on the basis of inability to service life needs. I call this "victory to the workers in their current struggle" and this has been my life principle. Must reread and resolve contradiction in my own head. Melvin P. Thank you your reply I have not knew term of Orthodox marixism using for such things in US. In Japan Orthodox marxist usually means Stalinist, academic –non –practical-marxist both. Although I determine my position as " orthodox" marxist, I wanted to express strict re-reading of Marx's writing thoroughly. Especially Value-form section was neglected within Stalinist and academic marxist. I think this part is essential for Capital's understanding. If I am correct, I can contribute to De-reifying movements. You and me has many common understanding for social revolution, I believe. And you seem to be too sensitive to investigate details. Please encourage. Best regards T.MIYACHI
On association
On 2002.05.31 01:25 PM, "miyachi tatsuo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2002/05/29 11:27 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I give thanks to see my article and reply. We seems to have common conception and it seems to be right. Rather why do you negate own opinion? We are better than most socialists and marxists, Part 3 of 3 DRAFT OF PROGRAM, Anarcho-Syndicalism Reply to Comrade MIYACHI TATSUO Capital has both internal limits -- surplus value and profits come from unpaid living labor; and labor-replacing technology drives the amount of living labor towards zero; and external limits -- we live on a planet with finite resources and a geographically finite market. The general crisis of capital -- capital colliding with its internal and external limits -- has been and will continue to be the inescapable theme of the world economy today. ?capital has no limit to produce surplus value and profit. It is not itself contradiction. Certainly capitals destroy huge ecological resource but it is drive of capital,so we cannot stop it unless capitalist society is abolished as follows This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property. On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers, into social functions. A crisis is an interruption. The interruption taking place in the heads of the world workers is rooted in the economy and the need for a cooperative society. If we cannot figure out the way to explain to the workers and a new generation of communist the framework in which we formulate strategy and tactics then all is lost. All of course is never lost and Bolshevikism is alive. >Early Marx considered revolutionary period at political crisis,then reconsidered it at economic panic, then finally concluded that conflict between socialized labor and private corporation. With a world economy on the verge of crisis, the American people and indeed the world proletariat, are unprepared ideologically. There is awareness that something is wrong and a compassion for the poor but very little sense of class identity. People are increasingly anti-government but not anti-capitalist. Any large-scale economic disruption that happens before the development of class identity on a broad and organized basis would give the Jesse Venturas and Pat Buchanans in our country free rein to capture the economic discontent with their dangerous ideologies. >I am not concern on social movement. Current movement already overcome most leftist plan or programs. Because current credit capitalism transforms people's consciousness. In current credit capitalism even young child recognize capital's culture's mistake clearly .In other word, mass consciousness mature. History proves that, when things get objectively worse and worse, people don't automatically get more and more ideologically revolutionary. Sharp economic crisis and social disruptions haven't yet hit in the US. But when they do, they will throw more people into motion and most of these people will follow the path of habit and take up the solutions offered by the forces of reaction. People will respond to these economic and social convulsions with their political backwardness and the ideological rot the ruling class hands them to fight out the questions of the day and petty bourgeois theories of race -- unless they have taken up the ideological and political weapons of class to fight for their actual interests. >In this time, necessary is de-reification. And de-reification movements already spread world wide, such as LETS, labor cooperative, consumer cooperative, ecology. etc. Your idea seems old as Lenin's vanguardism. In it we must consider how we must teach and train people,ideologically. In sum we must recognize social movements overcome most leftist Marxists, etc. Consciousness lags behind the economic reality, but it catches up in leaps. Things will move faster in both directions, that is, towards both class identity and unity and towards fascism and reaction. Therefore, now is the time to prepare for the convulsions that will rock society and draw more people into struggle and debate. This moment holds both great danger and great opportunity. Objective conditions are bringing our country to a fork in the road. People will determine which route our country takes. >24. Tactics, which argue that social revolution, begins after taking over > political power, is from lasting revolution theory that bourgeois revolution > beginning in feudal system makes to last to proletariat revolution. > The tactics succeeded in Russia revolution 191
On LETS
On 2002.05.29 03:18 AM, "Diane Monaco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seigniorage earnings at the expense of independent unemployment/inflation > goals? I don't think so. > > Diane > > > May 25, 2002 > New model for common currency > Jacqueline Thorpe > Financial Post > > Economist suggests central banks operate separately, with shared inflation > goals... > > "The central bank policy interest rate would be the same in all three > countries; changes would be announced simultaneously by all three central > banks," Mr. Carmichael said. > > Bank notes in the three countries could vary but they would be of equal > value. For example, the existing U.S. dollar would continue to circulate in > the United States while Canadian and Mexican versions of the dollar -- > depicting Canadian prime ministers and Mexican presidents on one side -- > would circulate primarily within Canada and Mexico. Any one of the three > versions of the dollar would be legal tender in all three countries. > > This approach provides a share of "seigniorage" revenue (revenue > governments gain by issuing currency -- about 0.3% of GDP in Canada) and > still gives the central banks lender-of-last-resort responsibilities -- > requiring them to provide liquidity during financial crises. > http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?f=/stories/20020525/33760 > 4.html > On national post's article assume central banks,so this new currency theory is within money's logic. But we already overcome money(common form of value) World wide. For example, in Argentina, Banks don't work so people exchange product by barter trade. In adding, LETS are used world wide. LETS has not function as money(measure of values, the medium of circulation,symbol of value, means of payment), so it doesn't lead to fictitious capital. It is only medium of exchange and don't need abstraction of labor such as money,or commodity. So we have already alternative currency. It is important factor to build association society. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: On natural science
On 2002.05.28 08:05 AM, "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't find the or original post you are responding to. And where does > the Marx quote come from? > > Carrol > > Sabri Oncu wrote: >> >>> reads like Humean instrumentalism to me. >>> >>> Ian >> >> That should be your expertise so I make no comments about this. >> My only concern is with Marx's writing style. I find him very >> difficult to read. For example, this sentence: >> >>> If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric >>> revelation of man's essential powers, we also gain an >>> understanding of the human essence of nature or the >>> natural essence of man. >> >> What exactly this sentence says, I am not sure. Maybe, partly >> because he wrote the original in German and this is a >> not-so-great translation and partly because to me English is a >> code I am decoding. Nevertheless, it is a difficulty I have to >> live with I suppose. >> >> Best, >> >> Sabri > Again I cite Marx's manuscript about natural science MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] The natural sciences have developed an enormous activity and have accumulated an ever-growing mass of material. Philosophy, however, has remained just as alien to them as they remain to philosophy. Their momentary unity was only a chimerical illusion. The will was there, but the power was lacking. Historiography itself pays regard to natural science only occasionally, as a factor of enlightenment, utility, and of some special great discoveries. But natural science has invaded and transformed human life all the more practically through the medium of industry; and has prepared human emancipation, although its immediate effect had to be the furthering of the dehumanisation of man. Industry is the actual, historical relationship of nature, and therefore of natural science, to man. If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man's essential powers, we also gain an understanding of the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man. In consequence, natural science will lose its abstractly material or rather, its idealistic tendency, and will become the basis of human science, as it has already become albeit in an estranged form the basis of actual human life, and to assume one basis for life and a different basis for science is as a matter of course a lie. Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis of all science. Only when it proceeds from sense-perception in the two-fold form of sensuous consciousness and sensuous need is it true science. All history is the history of preparing and developing "man" to become the object of sensuous consciousness, and turning the requirements of "man as man" into his needs. History itself is a real part of natural history of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science. Man is the immediate object of natural science; for immediate, sensuous nature for man is, immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical) presented immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present for him. Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man. But nature is the immediate object of the science of man: the first object of man man is nature, sensuousness; and the particular human sensuous essential powers can only find their self-understanding in the science of the natural world in general, just as they can find their objective realisation only in natural objects. The element of thought itself the element of thought's living expression language is of a sensuous nature. The social reality of nature, and human natural science, or the natural science of man, are identical terms.
Re: Re: On natural science
On 2002.05.28 10:33 AM, "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "miychi" wrote: > >> Sabri >> >> I want to add Marx's early article. Please read this > > Miychi, > > This does not come from an article, it comes from the 1844 Mss. which > were never intended for publication, and exhibit a very undeveloped > stage of Marx's thought. In just a few years he ceased to speak of > "human essence" in such terms. > > It is probably best never to quote from Marx's writings of the early > 1840s without giving your own careful interpretation of what you think > he is saying. His words are simply too exploratory and unfinished to be > very useful by themselves. > > And of course Sabri is quite right about the writing style in this > passage -- it is more than difficult; it is almost unreadable. :-) But > it should not be taken as representative of Marx's writing. > > Carrol > Carrol I think 1844 manuscript has not deficit, Rather, It summarize Hegel's philosophy and critique philosophy in general. Rather he emphasize labor as human essence. It developed into later warks MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: On natural science
On 2002.05.28 08:05 AM, "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't find the or original post you are responding to. And where does > the Marx quote come from? > > Carrol > > Sabri Oncu wrote: >> >>> reads like Humean instrumentalism to me. >>> >>> Ian >> >> That should be your expertise so I make no comments about this. >> My only concern is with Marx's writing style. I find him very >> difficult to read. For example, this sentence: >> >>> If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric >>> revelation of man's essential powers, we also gain an >>> understanding of the human essence of nature or the >>> natural essence of man. >> >> What exactly this sentence says, I am not sure. Maybe, partly >> because he wrote the original in German and this is a >> not-so-great translation and partly because to me English is a >> code I am decoding. Nevertheless, it is a difficulty I have to >> live with I suppose. >> >> Best, >> >> Sabri > Sabri MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To understand Marx's term ,beginning with " economic and philosophical manuscript " may be better. In it Marx writes The outstanding achievement of Hegels Phänomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man true, because real man as the outcome of mans own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history and treats these, powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement. We shall now demonstrate in detail Hegels one-sidedness and limitations as they are displayed in the final chapter of the Phänomenologie, Absolute Knowledge a chapter which contains the condensed spirit of the Phänomenologie, the relationship of the Phänomenologie to speculative dialectic, and also Hegels consciousness concerning both and their relationship to one another. Let us provisionally say just this much in advance: Hegels standpoint is that of modern political economy. [47] He grasps labour as the essence of man as mans essence which stands the test: he sees only the positive, not the negative side of labour. Labour is mans coming-to-be for himself within alienation, or as alienated man. The only labour which Hegel knows and recognises is abstractly mental labour. Therefore, that which constitutes the essence of philosophy the alienation of man who knows himself, or alienated science thinking itself - Hegel grasps as its essence; and in contradistinction to previous philosophy he is therefore able to combine its separate aspects, and to present his philosophy as the philosophy. What the other philosophers did that they grasped separate phases of nature and of human life as phases of self-consciousness, namely, of human life as phases of self-consciousness, namely, of abstract self-consciousness is known to Hegel as the doings of philosophy. Hence his science is absolute. Whenever real, corporeal man, man with his feet firmly on the solid ground, man exhaling and inhaling all the forces of nature, posits his real, objective essential powers as alien objects by his externalisation, it is not the act of positing which is the subject in this process: it is the subjectivity of objective essential powers, whose action, therefore, must also be something objective. An objective being acts objectively, and he would not act objectively if the objective did not reside in the very nature of his being. He only creates or posits objects, because he is posited by objects because at bottom he is nature. In the act of positing, therefore, this objective being does not fall from his state of pure activity into a creating of the object; on the contrary, his objective product only confirms his objective activity, his activity as the activity of an objective, natural being. Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet t
Re: Re: Price Discrimination on Internet
On 2002.05.26 01:47 PM, "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric writes: > >> In fact, the jury is out as to whether (first degree) >> price discrimination is really possible on the Internet. >> It would be easy for customers to foil attempts to target >> them for higher prices by eliminating information in cookies >> (or using cookies with false information within them) >> and/or by learning shopping behavior that a shopping >> site's algorithm believes indicates someone with a high >> elasticity of demand. And, of course, Amazon.com got slapped >> on its virtual hands when it started activities that would >> permit it (so it thought) to introduce price discrimination. > > This is interesting. A while ago I had an exchange with Ravi here > about sofware engineers' lowliness, where I mentioned an internet > startup to which I was trying to sell my consulting. One thing I > learnt from that experience is that in the US transferring > information from the computer of an individual and storing it in > a central database is illegal because it is a violation of > privacy. However, individual information can be legally stored in > cookies since they reside on the individuals computer and hence > belongs to the individual. But when you visit a website that > dropped that cookie on your computer, the website has access to > the cookie and can process that information on your computer. Why > is this not also a violation of privacy according to the US law? > > Sabri > Sabri In fact, there is no privacy in this credit capitalist society. We need to discuss assuming someone record that. In reality, provider retain all record as log in its stock. This information society information is value-laden. So information can sell and buy. In adding, concept of privacy is product of civil society from 16C. Distinction public and privacy began with these period. Privacy is in fact police concept as well as freedom,security etc. IN this sense you are swayed by bourgeois ideology. As example In Bali society, no privacy exists. But they live freely and comfortable. Why? Because they simply need not to have privacy. It's all. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: socialism is necessary
On 2002.05.26 08:06 AM, "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see only two possibilities for eliminating war. First one would be a > dictatorship of capital in which some all-powerful state controls > everything. That arrangement would eliminate wars between states (since > there was no longer be multiple states) and if control were complete > enough civil wars as well. The second possibility would be socialism, but > this arrangement would not necessarily eliminate war -- it would only make > elimination possible. > If socialism is built, war may be not ended. Instead, in transitional state(according to Marx's term) period, civil war(as recent Venezuela coup or post-revolution Russia 1917-20) or war against remaining capitalist state may occur. So your "possibility" is limited. Other various possibilities may occur. Your opinion is binary scheme, and it is incorrect. You may imagine that socialism resolve all conflict, But this idea is not concrete and abstract. We need to investigate concrete means of ending war, and it may necessarily lead to socialism, Historically speaking, Nuclear threat by imperialists in cool war period could repress large war. For example In Korea war and Vietnam war US considered to use nuclear weapon. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pay discrimination
In capitalist society, payment to workers depends on exchange values of commodities which he produces. ON the contrary, in socialist society, payment to workers depend on labor-time not considering produced quantity. In past "communist" or "socialist" countries , "payment according to labor-time" Principle did not work. In the result, capitalist& communist society, payment discrimination occurred according to outlook of workers such as skin color, disabled, Ethnicity,etc. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Why socialism is necessary
On 2002.05.25 01:41 PM, "Anthony D'Costa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it is economic deprivation that is the cause of the Kashmir > problem per se. As an Indian citizen I am not allowed to own land in > Kashmir, meaning the rest of India subsidized Kashmir (and I suppose Jammu) > so as to placate the Kashmiris, the ruling class and its minions. Prior > to the breakout of the Kashmir insurrection in the early 1980s, Kashmir > was better economically than many other states in India because of huge > transfers of resources made by the central government at the expense > of other revenue generating states. > > Secessionist movements in India are very common, many die along the way, > some are coopted, and a few are internationalized and protracted. There is > much at stake for the Indian union in yielding Kashmir to secessionists. > > Cheers, Anthony > > xx> x > Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor > Comparative International Development > University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 > 1900 Commerce Street > Tacoma, WA 98402, USA > > Phone: (253) 692-4462 > Fax : (253) 692-5718 > xx> x > > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Louis Proyect wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 May 2002 01:29:24 +0200, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >>> >>> While I am very sympathetic to your point of >>> view in this regard, I would say there is >>> - going by past experience - >>> no guarantee that socialism would necessarily >>> mean an end to war, unless you mean by >>> "socialism" an "end to war", in which case we >>> are dealing with a tautology. >> >> I don't get your point. I am talking about World War One, World War >> Two and the hundreds of imperialist wars that have taken place in the >> past 100 years either against nationalists, communists, >> and--now--Islamic radicals in the 3rd World. Whatever drawbacks there >> were to existing socialism, bellicosity was not one of them. The >> looming disaster between Indian and Pakistan reminds me of the soccer >> wars that flare up continuously in Latin America, but with much >> larger stakes. When poverty-stricken 3rd world countries go to war >> with each other, it is a function of economic pressure. Their >> integration in the world capitalist economy makes it impossible for >> them to maintain social peace. That is the reason there are wars all >> across Africa. If in Kashmir, there were jobs, health care, education >> and housing for everybody, the tension would die down immediately. >> >> >> >> -- >> Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/24/2002 >> >> Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org >> >> D'costa Kashmir problem is historically speaking, First, occupation by India raise independent struggle, Not as Muslim nor Hindu, rather in Kashmir various religions existed and people live peacefully and admit other's religion. But,when Pakistan separated from India, Pakistan muslim activists invaded kashmir, then kashmir's independence struggle degenerated. It result in war between India and Pakistan. Original aim vanished. So if you will participate in Kashmir struggle, please don't forget this historical fact. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Why socialism is not necessary
On 2002.05.25 00:30 AM, "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (On the Internet and at left-academic conferences, there is endless > discussion of the feasibility or non-feasibility of socialism based on > criteria having to do with economic efficiency, the imperative to avoid > "grand narratives", constraints imposed by "globalization" or "Empire", > etc. When you read the article below, you will be reminded that modern > socialism became a reality because of the barbarism of capitalist war. > Nothing has changed.) > > The Independent (London), May 24, 2002, Friday > > JUST THREE MINUTES FROM NUCLEAR STRIKE, INDIA AND PAKISTAN HOLD COUNCILS OF > WAR > > Peter Popham In Delhi > > An Indian villager near Jammu in Kashmir after Pakistani troops shelled the > region yesterday, destroying his home Aman Sharma/AP > > INDIA LIVES in several centuries at once, it has been said. What is true of > peace will also be true if India and Pakistan go to war. > > Yesterday, as Indian and Pakistani troops once again exchanged heavy > artillery fire across Kashmir's ceasefire line, the Indian Prime Minister, > Atal Behari Vajpayee, held a war council in the Kashmiri capital, Srinagar, > chairing a meeting of the Unified Command to review the preparations for > war and the security situation along the border. > > In Rawalpindi, Pakistan's corps commanders met to discuss operational > strategy, and later announced that Pakistani troops were to be withdrawn > from UN peace -keeping duties in Sierra Leone "in the wake of a grave > Indian threat". The world quakes at what will happen if the Pakistani > leader, General Pervez Musharraf, or Mr Vajpayee press the nuclear button. > Estimates of India's and Pakistan's nuclear strengths vary wildly, but at > the low end of the scale Pakistan is estimated to have at least 40 nuclear > bombs compared with India's 60 - quite sufficient for the task. > > Both nations also have the missiles needed to deliver them, so that in > theory all Pakistan's cities and many of India's are within range. A > missile from Rawalpindi could deliver its nuclear payload to Delhi within > three minutes, and vice versa. > > But India and Pakistan are also braced to fight a very different kind of > war - a war such as Europe has not seen for more than 80 years. > > Three quarters of a million Indian troops are strung out along India's 2000 > -mile border with Pakistan, from the torrid salt marshes of Gujarat to the > frozen peaks of Siachen Glacier in the High Himalayas. They are confronted > by a quarter of a million Pakistanis. > > Both armies derive from the old Indian army of the British Raj, a unified > force until independence and partition in 1947. Both claim that they > enshrine the best military qualities instilled by the British during more > than two centuries of almost continuous warfare on the subcontinent: > immense stamina, fierce regimental loyalty, unquestioning obedience. > > And the manpower of both is still drawn from the same populations that > filled the ranks of the Indian Army, what the British termed the "martial > races": Baluchis, Punjabis, Rajputs and Dogras. Many of the troops > confronting each other come from the same stock as each other, speak the > same language and share the same culture, leaving aside the matter of > religion. That is one of the bitter ironies of India's and Pakistan's > endless wars. > > Both armies are modernising fast: with annual budgets of pounds 9.5bn > (India) and pounds 2.2bn (Pakistan), which mock their claims to be > considered poor countries, their compulsive rivalry is buying them new > combat aircraft, new airborne warning and control systems and missiles, new > tanks, new artillery. > > India has committed to buying pounds 6.8bn of weapons and other hardware > from its old patron Russia over the next 10 years. Pakistan is > collaborating with its staunch ally China on a new combat jet. Until 11 > French engineers were killed by a suicide bomber in Karachi two weeks ago, > France was building Pakistan three new diesel submarines. India also plans > to deploy new aircraft carriers and submarines among other warships, both > Russian and home-made. In one war scenario, India chokes Pakistan to death > by blockading Karachi's port - a tactic threatened by India as a way to end > the Kargil mountain war three years ago. > > Yet whatever the new toys, the preparations for war in Gujarat, Rajasthan, > Punjab and Kashmir have a relentlessly period look: a turn of the century > North -West Frontier skirmish remade with a cast of hundreds of thousands; > Flanders Field, complete with trenches, barbed wire, no man's land and > mines, translated to some of the hottest places in the world. > > Conditions in Rajasthan's desert this month are so extreme that military > sources said war could not be fought until the temperature had fallen > somewhat - say around September or October. > > Political considerations are forcing them to c
Socialism and anti-war
On 2002.05.25 08:29 AM, "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Louis, > > While I am very sympathetic to your point of view in this regard, I > would say there is - going by past experience - no guarantee that > socialism would necessarily mean an end to war, unless you mean by > "socialism" an "end to war", in which case we are dealing with a > tautology. Given the experience of experiments with socialist > transition in the 20th century, I would say paying more attention to > the problems of socialist construction in advance of revolutions is > valid and healthy\ > > Regards > > Jurriaan > Jurian To end war and to construct socialism are different things. Surely anti-war movement is important to defend against capitalist violence and to make people's mind , so in the sense anti-war movement can be integrated into construction socialism but it is itself not to construct socialism. Below is from Marx. The International Workingmen's Association General Rules October 1864 That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means; That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries;
On natural science
Sabri I want to add Marx's early article. Please read this The natural sciences have developed an enormous activity and have accumulated an ever-growing mass of material. Philosophy, however, has remained just as alien to them as they remain to philosophy. Their momentary unity was only a chimerical illusion. The will was there, but the power was lacking. Historiography itself pays regard to natural science only occasionally, as a factor of enlightenment, utility, and of some special great discoveries. But natural science has invaded and transformed human life all the more practically through the medium of industry; and has prepared human emancipation, although its immediate effect had to be the furthering of the dehumanisation of man. Industry is the actual, historical relationship of nature, and therefore of natural science, to man. If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man's essential powers, we also gain an understanding of the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man. In consequence, natural science will lose its abstractly material $B!=(J or rather, its idealistic $B!=(J tendency, and will become the basis of human science, as it has already become $B!=(J albeit in an estranged form $B!=(J the basis of actual human life, and to assume one basis for life and a different basis for science is as a matter of course a lie. Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis of all science. Only when it proceeds from sense-perception in the two-fold form of sensuous consciousness and sensuous need $B!=(J is it true science. All history is the history of preparing and developing "man" to become the object of sensuous consciousness, and turning the requirements of "man as man" into his needs. History itself is a real part of natural history of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science. Man is the immediate object of natural science; for immediate, sensuous nature for man is, immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical) $B!=(J presented immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present for him. Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man. But nature is the immediate object of the science of man: the first $B!=(J object of man $B!=(J man $B!=(J is nature, sensuousness; and the particular human sensuous essential powers can only find their self-understanding in the science of the natural world in general, just as they can find their objective realisation only in natural objects. The element of thought itself $B!=(J the element of thought's living expression $B!=(J language $B!=(J is of a sensuous nature. The social reality of nature, and human natural science, or the natural science of man, are identical terms.
Re: Re: Question about the economics of information
On 2002.05.24 07:07 AM, "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian writes: > >> If knowledge is power which it is, then the >> whole point of the firm is to make sure that >> prices don't go to marginal costs. Knowledge >> can't be free in physical sense, how could it >> be so in a price theory sense? > > I used to encourage my students to ask any question they have, > even when they think the question is silly, so I better practice > what I used to preach: > > Why is the marginal cost of supplying information is zero? > > Best, > Sabri > Sabri To produce commodity, knowledge and technology are needed. Without these factors, Producers cannot produce not only simple product but also commodity. So knowledge and technology is some factors of commodity which is reflected in the commodity's value, an price i.e. Money form of value. Blow is from Capital A radical change in the mode of production in one sphere of industry involves a similar change in other spheres. This happens at first in such branches of industry as are connected together by being separate phases of a process, and yet are isolated by the social division of labour, in such a way, that each of them produces an independent commodity. Thus spinning by machinery made weaving by machinery a necessity, and both together made the mechanical and chemical revolution that took place in bleaching, printing, and dyeing, imperative. So too, on the other hand, the revolution in cotton-spinning called forth the invention of the gin, for separating the seeds from the cotton fibre; it was only by means of this invention, that the production of cotton became possible on the enormous scale at present required. [19] But more especially, the revolution in the modes of production of industry and agriculture made necessary a revolution in the general conditions of the social process of production, i.e., in the means of communication and of transport. In a society whose pivot, to use an expression of Fourier, was agriculture on a small scale, with its subsidiary domestic industries, and the urban handicrafts, the means of communication and transport were so utterly inadequate to the productive requirements of the manufacturing period, with its extended division of social labour, its concentration of the instruments of labour, and of the workmen, and its colonial markets, that they became in fact revolutionised. In the same way the means of communication and transport handed down from the manufacturing period soon became unbearable trammels on Modern Industry, with its feverish haste of production, its enormous extent, its constant flinging of capital and labour from one sphere of production into another, and its newly-created connexions with the markets of the whole world. Hence, apart from the radical changes introduced in the construction of sailing vessels, the means of communication and transport became gradually adapted to the modes of production of mechanical industry, by the creation of a system of river steamers, railways, ocean steamers, and telegraphs. But the '.huge masses of iron that had now to be forged, to be welded, to be cut, to be bored, and to be shaped, demanded, on their part, cyclopean machines, for the construction of which the methods of the manufacturing period were utterly inadequate. Modern Industry had therefore itself to take in hand the machine, its characteristic instrument of production, and to construct machines by machines. It was not till it did this, that it built up for itself a fitting technical foundation, and stood on its own feet. Machinery, simultaneously with the increasing use of it, in the first decades of this century, appropriated, by degrees, the fabrication of machines proper. But it was only during the decade preceding 1866, that the construction of railways and ocean steamers on a stupendous scale called into existence the cyclopean machines now employed in the construction of prime movers. In the first place, it must be observed that the machinery, while always entering as a whole into the labour-process, enters into the value-begetting process only by bits. It never adds more value than it loses, on an average, by wear and tear. Hence there is a great difference between the value of a machine, and the value transferred in a given time by that machine to the product.
Re: Question about the economics of information
On 2002.05.23 05:16 AM, "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This may be a stupid question, but does anyone of the esteemed > economists on the list know where I would find a systematic and > rigorous analysis of "information as a commodity" ? I just read > Michael Perelman's book about class warfare in the information age, > which contains a lot of very valid points which I had not thought of > so precisely before, but I want to delve deeper into it, which is what > a writer like Perelman really invites you to do. I thought perhaps > somebody has already written a profound analysis of it. I recall > vaguely that Kenneth Boulding wrote a piece on "information as a > commodity" but wondered if somebody else had not gone much deeper into > it. > > It strikes me that informationn is a peculiar commodity because its > use-value and exchange value can vary enormously in a very small > interval of time, and often you cannot tell what its true value is > beyond what its supplier asks for it or what the buyer is prepared to > pay. Different types of information commodities do appear to have some > kind of regulating price but it is not a clear-cut production price. > Questions also arise about the real subsumption of information under > specifically capitalist relations, the extent to which this can be > accomplished given that crucial information often resides in people's > heads, and that bourgeois society generally accepts that one's body is > one's private property. It may be very difficult to assert private > property rights to information, and so on. Information which spreads > rapidly to the masses of the people loses its exchange-value rapidly > and so on. > > The issue is also related to the question of capitalistically > productive labour. Marx never really specifies exactly the region of > capitalistic commodity production within which productive labour is > performed. All he really does on the subject is to say that the > division of labour is more and more modified to bring it into > conformity with the specifically capitalist method of production, > regardless of whether this is healthy for human beings or economically > rational from an overall perspective. From this we get the long-run > "law of motion" that capitalism transforms more and more labour into > capitalistically productive labour. > > All we really get from Marx about the concept of the commodity itself > however is the idea that the commodity has a value, an exchange-value > and a use-value. The value is abstract labour, the exchange-value is > expressed in money sums and prices, and the use-value resides in the > physical properties a commodity has (not its utility in theeyes of > the consumer(s), Marx has in mind an objective social use-value > existing independently of individual consumers). > > We can further elaborate by saying the commodity must be able to be > exteriorised or externalised, it must be able to have an independent > existence and be separable from the owner or producer. Also, it must > be possible to apply private property rights to the given use-value, > somebody must be able to own it and be able to trade it. This means > that there are many use-values such as maybe "air" which are difficult > to convert into a commodity, all you can really do is designate "air > space" and regulate emissions into the air etc. (even here there are > problems, such as Bill Rosenberg pointed out with his example of sheep > farting and belching). > > The question then arises, is Marx's conception of market economy > really adequate, or does it not really fully capture what commodity > production is about ? > To what extent can information really be a commodity, or is it a > fictitious or fiducary commodity ? We could find some interesting > paradoxes, relating for instance to whether the information in > somebody's head is a commodity or not, and under what circumstances. > Could it be that information economics decisively changes the way we > think and act about commodity production and the division of labour ? > How does modern information technology change our concept of what it > means to engage in trade ? Is the live transmission of information a > commodity or is it only a commodity as a "package" with a price tag ? > What is the real "pathway" of the capitalistic development of > information economics, and what are the laws of motion of information > economy ? If all economy reduces to the economising of labour time, is > this still true in an information-rich economy, or do we have to apply > criteria such as the speed at which we can obtain the required > information in the required form, and transmit it to the appropriate > person at the appropriate time ? > > This is the kind of stuff I am thinking of (I could write lots more > but haven't the time). Anyway if anybody can supply any references to > substantive literature on this topic I would be very grateful (I don't > mean the Manuel Castells type
Re: Marx predicted the triumph of capitalism?
On 2002.05.22 09:05 PM, "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you hear Marx tittering in Highgate? > > If only socialists had studied Marx properly, they would have known all > along that capitalism would triumph. Meghnad Desai gets behind the slogans > in Marx's Revenge > > Faisal Islam > Sunday May 19, 2002 > The Observer > > Marx's Revenge > Meghnad Desai > Verso $B!r(J19, pp383 > Practical jokes, last laughs and vengeance would have been more the sphere > of Groucho rather than Karl Marx. But Meghnad Desai argues that the great > thinker's most prominent legacy was a huge confidence trick. Capitalism has > now triumphed, it is 'the only game in town', statist socialism is 'dead', > and, yes, that is what Marx had said would happen all along. > > Desai, a London School of Economics professor and Labour peer, performs > conceptual somersaults to pursue this contention. Most of the evidence > comes from Marx's economic writings, ignored by everyone apart from Desai, > previously the author of a textbook on the subject. Marx's Revenge is, > however, far broader than that, racing through a history of economic > thought, which is vital in that it shows what incubates the contemporary > consensus in economics. > > The key to understanding why Marx is tittering in Highgate Cemetery is the > difference between the words Marxian and Marxist. The former refers to > those who faithfully study all his works, specifically his analytical > writings about the dynamics of capitalism; the latter is the reductive > Bolshevism that emerged in the last century, shaped by Lenin's pamphlet on > imperialism and these days incorporating a wide span of belief, including > the fringes of fascism. > > Marx recognised this trend. On hearing of the establishment of a Marxist > party in France, he famously said: 'Je ne suis pas marxiste'. But he was > subsequently ignored. Marxism in the twentieth century became defined by > interpretations such as Lenin's Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism. > > In the 1920s, Das Kapital dropped off the Marxist's must-read list. > Imperialism became the key text beside the Communist manifesto. Almost all > debates about Marxian economics, particularly on the fall in the rate of > profitability over time, were ruled out as 'uninteresting scholasticism'. > 'The answers were known, Marx became a bundle of catechisms,' writes Desai. > > Marx developed some pioneering economics. He was the first economist to > incorporate an explanation of boom and bust within his theory. He > constructed a simple model to show how profit came from the exploitation of > the 'surplus value' of labour. This led to the ups and downs of > profitability. But in volume II of Das Kapital Marx calculates a numerical > scheme of a capitalist economy which does not run into crisis and enjoys > perpetual growth. > > The later volumes were published after his death, after Engels assembled > Marx's notes. The famous words about the tendency to a falling rate of > profit giving rise to the end of capitalism is hardly mentioned in volume > III, argues Desai, and mentioned only as a possibility in volume I and in > the Communist manifesto. So this misconception, misreading, or perhaps > highly selective reading, of Marx has led to a vulgar simplificaton of what > was a complex and nuanced body of work. > > Desai's chapter six shows why some Marxists may have skipped the surplus > profit exploitation equilibrium models. These technicalities, crucial to > Desai's understanding of Marx, do not trip off the tongue as lightly as the > 'revolt of the lumpenproletariat'. 'Popular Marxism' took Marx's more > prophetic writings on the fate of capitalism, without noting that Marx had > not given a timescale. If socialism is destined to usurp capitalism, but > the transition period could last many hundreds of years, as the transitions > between previous modes of production like feudalism and capitalism had > lasted, then the prediction is not entirely helpful. > > It is the political economy equivalent of Michael Fish telling us to wrap > up warm because the Ice Age will return at some point. Rather than get his > revenge, Desai's work seems to show Marx hedged his bets. If that is true, > why should we care that his more obscure work has been vindicated? > > In the process of explaining Marx's Revenge, Desai illuminates the work of > Smith, Hegel, Popper, Polanyi, Keynes and Samuelson. A similarly > revisionist tract would show that Adam Smith was not quite the market > fundamentalist he is assumed to be. > > Economics is more than a social science. It has become the theology of > public policy in liberal democracies, justifying how societies are taxed, > the ownership of the media and immigration policy. As its norms encroach on > many other disciplines, such as politics, sociology, the law, even biology, > its base assumptions and its evolution require a mainstream dissemination. > Desai refers to this as '
Re: question about Vietnam War from Michael Yates
On 2002.05.20 11:14 AM, "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe that James Duesenberry once suggested that the war in Vietnam > would have a positive effect on Vietnam's economic growth because it > sped up urbanization. Is this true? If it is, can anyone give me a > citation? Thanks. > > Michael Yates > I disagree with James Dussenberry. Vietnam war is from the beginning with liberation struggle from France occupation and then American Rule. It result in destroying urban and farm. It result in Massacre of innocent Vietnam citizen and children. It result in rape, misery, poverty and hungry How does Dussenberry prove urbanization? How doe prove he economic growth? Even now North Vietnam suffers poverty nevertheless Government urbanize policy. Below is from Economist article Printable page E-mail this Forecast May 13th 2002 >From the Economist Intelligence Unit Source: Country Forecast Country Forecast Vietnam Sub price: US $865 Single issue: US $445 Five-year political, policy and economic forecast for each country Business environment rankings to compare the attractiveness of different markets Comparable coverage of 60 countries (27 OECD plus major emerging markets) plus regional overviews Click here to buy the complete Country Forecast from the EIU Store The Communist Party general secretary, Nong Duc Manh, will pursue a tough campaign to crack down on corruption. The pace and progress of economic reform is unlikely to quicken in 2002-03, despite attempts by Mr Manh to breathe new life into the economic renovation (doi moi) process. Real GDP growth will slow in 2002 as a whole, but a recovery in the global economy will provide a boost to inward foreign direct investment and exports later in the year. The economy will expand more briskly in 2003, at a rate close to 7%, as exporters take full advantage of the benefits of the trade agreement with the US. The current account will fall back into deficit in 2002-03, primarily as a result of stronger domestic demand. Consumer prices continued to fall in 2001, but will rise in 2002-03. Key changes from last month Political outlook Plans to repatriate the ethnic-minority villagers who fled into Cambodia following unrest in the Central Highlands over a year ago are floundering. In March the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) pulled out of a repatriation agreement with Vietnam and Cambodia, and the US has since offered asylum to the migrants. Unless the Vietnam government handles this issue delicately, the disbursement of international aid this year may be disrupted. Economic policy outlook There appears to have been a genuine shift in thinking within the government and the Communist Party towards a more favourable attitude towards private enterprise. However, the economic reform programme supported by the World Bank and the IMF is proceeding slowly. Economic forecast After two years of consumer price deflation, an inflationary trend is now clearly in evidence. Consumer prices rose by 3.4% year on year in March, with food prices rising by 7.1%. Inflation in 2002-03 is now forecast to average 2.8% and 4%, respectively.
On perspective
DRAFT OF PROGRAM OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT IN 21C > > Usual programs of cummunist asumme that social revolution begins only after > proletariat take over political power in common. So program is party$B!G(Js > program, and its content is political monism, but we can no longer organize > current social movement by such program.. Collapse of USSR proved reality of > this inference. But creation of worldwide single capital market shows new > perspective of social revolution, and these movements experience 20 years, so > become to recognize law of development of these own movement. Party$B!G(Js programs > are political document, so these weight down in current society in which > politics weight down in each nation state. It cannot systematize all area of > social movements and it may be unnecessary. But investigation which makes > clear historical stage of current world and shows plan of alternative social > system of next generation., remains. If these plan are showed, various > movements understand each other and stand its own position, which includes > from cultural areas to political areas. Thus below is draft prime. Each > movement comes to the stage of having own program and declaration. We want to > mediate these tendency toward raising the potential of these movements. > > 1. Historic characteristic of 20 C$B!G(Js capitalist production is expansion of > integument of capitalist production against socialization of labor. > > 2. Transition from control currency to floating exchange rate system which began > at suspension of conversion between dollar and gold, 1971 was a starting point > of increasing socialization of integument of capitalist production to its > limit. > > 3. Transition to floating exchange rate system created economic condition which > enervate to recapitulate civil society by nation state. Eurodollar market grew > as private international financial market, each nation regulator of currency > were enervate , and capital export were replaced by international capital > transfer. Multinational financial capitals market developed by online system > based upon multinational real capitals, thus single-world capital market was > formed not be swayed by national border. > > 4.. The base of single-world capital market is formed by concentration of > production.. Today, Large firms become mulitinational companies and monopolize > world widely ,and its every profit is as large as middle class countries. On > the other hand, technological innovations by competition of capitals result > in information revolution by computer, and usual account systems owned by > bankers privately, become to connected to single-payment system, thus account > system reaches to its socialization limit. > > 5. As single-capital market is formed, its political representation is > developed. Globalization is its motto. American government is political form > of nation state of USA, as well as functions as political delegation of single > capital market, sponsors G 8 ,reforms GATTO into WTO, restructures IMF and > world bank , and props up UN. > > 6. By forming worldwide single capital market, capitalism enters into new > credit capitalism Dept -Claim relation is .the original form of credit, but on > this original form, money dealing capital developed, and commoditifying of > capital expanded , thus by forming worldwide credit system , capitals split > into two part which are real capital and fictitious capital ,thus socialize > integument of capitalist production. Usually fictitious capital and financial > market functioned as means of real capital accumulation, and it expanded > fluctuation of trade cycle. But fictitious capital which was originally the > right of claim of money, got out of regulation by nation state, and organized > themselves as world wide market, thus accumulation of real capitals depend > upon movement of fictitious capitals. > > 7. Under ruling credit capitalism, the world differentiates into the Global, > the Nation state and the Local. > > 8. The Global consists of mulitinational companies and multinational financial > capitals organized as single world capital market and tries to organize USA, > WTO, IMF, World bank, UN as its political delegation. > > The nation states are in the middle position between the Global and the Local, > and are being disolved by the two But try to form network through UN or EU. > The Local is ecological economy as its core. The local also connects each > other internationally. > > 9.The three differentiation of world reorganize the usual division of developed > countries, middle class countries, and developing countries. The political > delegation of The Global is not elected by anyone and not responsible for > anyone. So the indiscriminate movement of valolization process necessarily > produces counter-movement by the inhabitants which is the entity of the Local > > 10. These inhabitant movements raise Global ecological problems. Essence of > environme
Re: psychopathology and meds
On 2002.05.12 05:17 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [was: RE: [PEN-L:25860] Re: RE: Rebel without a clue]
>
> Louis writes: >...discussion around "A Beautiful Mind" which received the
> Best Movie award right around the time I was reading "Madness on the Couch"
> by Edward Dolnick. This is a disturbing account of how Freudian
> psychoanalysis was used to treat schizophrenia, autism and
> obsessive-compulsive disorder prior to the discovery that such mental
> illnesses were organic in nature and reacted best to medication rather than
> the "talking cure".
>
>> I think we have to put to rest the notion that severe mental illness is
> caused by stress, family dysfunction, etc. Autism, schizophrenia and OCD are
> all as much an expression of a systemic organic failure as are Parkinsons,
> epilepsy or Alzheimers. You might as well use "talk therapy" on somebody
> with Alzheimers as with schizophrenia.<
>
> by coincidence, my wife and I recently discovered that our son, who has been
> diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) and psychosis ("not
> otherwise specified," i.e., vague) was being treated by a psychoanalyst who
> follows a version of Bruno Bettelheim's line about autism being a result of
> the "refrigerator mom" (emotional distance). He had not revealed his
> psychological approach in our discussions with him. We are dropping him like
> a hot potato, not only because of possible deception on his part but because
> (as Louis says) it's a totally inappropriate treatment. It was making
> matters _worse_.
>
> (The refrierator mom theory of autism is totally bogus. It turns out that
> many moms of autistic kids had autism spectrum disorders themselves, while
> some moms were emotionally distant _because_ the kids weren't responding. Of
> course, no Freudian would blame the father for being distant!)
>
> However, that doesn't mean that medications are the only cure. Psychotherapy
> of other, non-psychoanalytic sorts, can help, as can good parenting. These
> can complement the meds -- or may even substitute for them, as with
> anti-depressants it seems.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:24 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [PEN-L:25860] Re: RE: Rebel without a clue
>>
>>
>>> Jim Devine asked:
>>>
>>> is anyone able to summarize this character's alleged motive
>> for his alleged
>>> bombings?
>>>
>>> Drive ya nuts trying to make sense of it. It did the kid.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Walker
>>> 604 255 4812
>>
>> I have tried to stick to the agenda of political economy,
>> broadly speaking,
>> since my return to PEN-L. This question, however, does prompt
>> me to suggest
>> a look at my article "Movies and Madness" which showed up on Marxmail
>> recently, plus the addendum on the movie "Snake Pit".
>>
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/madness.htm
>>
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/snakepit.htm
>>
>> It was inspired by discussion around "A Beautiful Mind" which
>> received the
>> Best Movie award right around the time I was reading "Madness
>> on the Couch"
>> by Edward Dolnick. This is a disturbing account of how Freudian
>> psychoanalysis was used to treat schizophrenia, autism and
>> obsessive-compulsive disorder prior to the discovery that such mental
>> illnesses were organic in nature and reacted best to
>> medication rather than
>> the "talking cure".
>>
>> I think we have to put to rest the notion that severe mental
>> illness is
>> caused by stress, family dysfunction, etc. Autism,
>> schizophrenia and OCD
>> are all as much an expression of a systemic organic failure as are
>> Parkinsons, epilepsy or Alzheimers. You might as well use
>> "talk therapy" on
>> somebody with Alzheimers as with schizophrenia.
>>
>> Louis Proyect
>> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>>
>
unconciousness in Lacan/Freud
Unconsciousness and the Other
If individual A relate to individual B, A relates to himself as a man
through his relation to another man, B, in whom A recognize his likeness.
With this, however, B also becomes head to toe, in physical form as B, the
form of appearence of the speicies man for A. Thus, individuals
in relationship each other are defined doubly as its physical form and as
social form. A's behaviour is judged by B, the Other. If A's behaviour is
not approved by B, A's behaviour become uncouscious. B is formed by various
elements such as family, local community, and current symbolic order, namely
capitalist order. And the degree of unconsciousness is defined by the
character of relationship between A and B. To more degree the real character
of relationship is hostile, to deeper degree uncousciousness may rules A's
head. In capitalist order, people tend to be swayed by semblance world and
seem to adapt this world, but as a matter of fact, the relationship is
oppo
One proposal
Below is a proposal of our small group, red report, 1985 > > With the overall development of the credit system, the present modes of > accumulation of the financial capital become quite different from what > Hilferding and Lenin made an analysis. This change can, first of all, be > seen in generalization for the commoditified capital. The accumulation > process of the industrial capital is the movement$B!!(Jof real capital and > constitutes economy real, for the commodities are produced by utilizing labor > power in the production process, although this process is based on the > exploitation of the unpaid labor. On the other hand, the accumulation > process of the commoditfied capital is just in the formation of fictitious > capital without the direct producing process, or the movement of the > interest-bearing capital ,and thus constitutes, so to speak, economy > fictitious. > Originally the fictitious capital was produced to increase the real capital, > but today in the accumulation process of the financial capital supremacy of > economy fictitious over economy real has been established with the development > of the credit system. > As a result many kinds of indices that might have indicated the crisis of > capitalism has been encoded. That is , the index that would be a sign of > crisis bears another meaning under the present social conditions. > Thus it becomes an urgent problem for us to make clear the credit system. > > Acknowledging the reverse process of economy real and fictitious, let's > turn our concern to the Soviet Union. > In the Soviet union the bureaucracy has been changed into the ruling class > and the transitional society which should have developed into a communist > society has undergone the severe degeneration. Here state ownership was > originally thought as a standpoint of communal ownership of proletariat > However, the state ownership, with classification of workers, result in the > relative separation of labor power from the means of production, and the the > bureaucracy itself has been transformed into an peculiar class which exploits > the surplus labor form the direct producers. > And the commodity production remained under this peculiar state ownership with > which the class separation is reproduced. Thus for the bourgeois class in the > West and the bureaucrats in the East it becomes a fundamental common interest > to maintain their class rule and the present order of the world. > > Faced with the transformations of both the imperialistic world and the Soviet > Union, what attitude could be communist movement take? > Here the Cultural Revolution by Mao Tse-tung and various theories of cultural > revolution affected by it may be only worth considering. > For the crisis of the domination systems with bourgeoisie and bureaucracy > racy has, in the first place, come to the surface on the level of cultural > circumstances. And it is this crisis which made these cultural theories > popular. > However, various established theories of culture had been disorganized > through deepening of the culture crisis of the ruling class and the various > revolutionary movements lost their class characteristics as proletariat. > For they,as well as the followers of the thoughts of the Revolution, have > not been freed from the limitation of the movement which had really held in > China, that is, the cultural revolution after the political revolution. > We would not abandon the fact that the cultural revolution should be raised > by itself after the political revolution. We must examine the poverty of the > politics for which the political revolution, in principle, just a means of > the social revolution, cannot accomplish the social revolution directly. > Therefore, the theory which insists on the supremacy of the cultural > revolution over the political revolution also implies the poverty of politics. > After all it is doubtful to contrast the culturalrevolution with the political > revolution. > The cultiral revolution is a part of the social revolution. > The deepening of the cultural crisis of the ruling class shows the > possibilities of the social revolution, and we now need the politics that > includes the programmes of the social revolution as a practical purpose of the > social revolution. > On the other hand, the conventional theories of the culturalrevolution could > not help raising the proletariat culture because they lacked the above > viewpoint. Therefore it is an inevitable result that they were absorbed into > the cultural politics of the ruling class. > > > What is required for the present communist movements might not be to raise > some alternative cultures against the deepening of the cultural crisis of the > ruling class. > It is fundamentally required that proletariat and the repressed people get to > the cultural levels on which they can utilize the political revolution as a > means of the social revolution, and it also requir
On fascism
There are lot of argument on fascism now, But, in current international credit system, the term fascism seems to be inadequate. In 1930', there were strong but union-dependent social democrat and communist party. And on the other hand strong united financial capital existed in Europe and US. For example, Hitler proposed national social democrat which insist on nationalism, racism, anti-communism and critique of money. He organized poorest unorganized worker and national financial capitals Which integrate national real capitals. He won because left depended upon trade union, and trade union is essentially conservative character as Marx said. So in crisis situation trade union was unprepared with political struggle, and Luxemburg etc. argued bottom-up method of organizing , so worker's political awareness remain within trade-union interest level. On the contrary, Hitler organized top-down organizing method. Important is that Hitler's win resulted from not petite bourgeois rebel rather poorest workers anger and organizing financial capitals. In current international credit system, financial capitals organize beyond nation-state internationally as commodified international capital, and its political institution such as IMF, World bank etc. determine flow of capital, so these international capital not works within nation-state but beyond nation-state. It is the reason current far right fails to organize capital. Fascism was nation-state organization movement, so nation-state dependent financial capital which compete with each other gained its political form as fascism,and led to war. In current situation, capital flow freely moves beyond nation-state, so it is unnecessary for capital to organize it own within nation-state. Rather,contradiction of capital and labor appears as South-North, or G8-third world. Neo-fascist targets ethnic minority, poor worker, immigrants etc, and doesn't target other country. It is the difference between 1930' and 2000'. So if we call neo-fascist similar to 1930's fascism, it seems incorrect. Rather we may better call them as racist, anti-immigrant etc, as concrete terms. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The ECONOMIST on U.S. productivity growth.
On 2002.05.11 02:08 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Interestingly, the ECONOMIST doesn't mention the role of the over 4% > average annual increase in the nominal major-currencies trade-weighted value > of the dollar -- or over 5% in real terms -- during the period 1996 to 2001. > This is a key factor that would hurt profits despite rising productivity.] > > May 11, 2002 > > FINANCE & ECONOMICS > To these, the spoils > > NOT only has America's productivity wonder survived its first recession; it > has positively thrived. Output per man-hour in the non-farm business sector > rose at an annual rate of 8.6% in the first quarter of this year, its > fastest growth in 19 years. Quarterly figures are volatile, yet the > year-on-year growth in productivity was also impressive, at 4.2%. This bodes > well for America's future economic growth--but not necessarily for company > profits, or for share prices. > > Commentators cheered the latest evidence of rapid productivity gains, hoping > that it might promise fatter profits ahead. That America's productivity > continued to rise last year, in contrast to previous recessions, seems to > confirm that an increase has taken place in trend productivity growth. > Still, the latest numbers overstate the underlying trend. > > First, the growth in output, and hence productivity, was inflated in the > first quarter by a big swing in inventories. Productivity often surges in > the first year of a recovery after recession, as firms produce more without > needing to hire extra workers. Productivity rose by 4-5% in the first year > following both the 1981-82 and the 1990-91 recessions. Firms have actually > continued to cut jobs this year, lifting the unemployment rate in April to > an eight-year high of 6%. Today's best guess is that trend productivity > growth is around 2-2.5%. That is less than the 3-4% claimed at the height of > the new-economy bubble; but still well above the 1.4% average over the two > decades to 1995. > > A second, more fundamental quibble is that, although profits will certainly > rebound this year, as firms continue to trim their costs and revenues rise, > in the longer term faster productivity growth does not automatically mean > faster profits growth. A new study by Stephen King, chief economist at the > HSBC bank, concludes that workers and consumers have received the lion's > share of the productivity gains of therevolution in information technology > (IT). Companies have received relatively little reward for their > risk-taking. > > In the late 1990s it was widely assumed that faster productivity growth > would mean higher profits (so justifying higher share prices). Over the > previous half-century a strong positive relationship had indeed held between > productivity and profits. In the 1990s that relationship broke down. Despite > a surge in productivity, national-accounts profits (as opposed to profits > reported by companies, a less accurate measure) fell between 1997 and 2000, > even before the economy dipped into recession (see chart). At the end of > 2000 the profits of America's non-financial firms were no higher in real > terms than in 1994, implying a big fall in their share of GDP. > > Mr King argues that workers (who are, naturally, also consumers) were > virtually the sole beneficiaries of the new economy, in the shape of faster > real wage growth. This was partly thanks to a fall in the prices of IT goods > that they bought. More important, the same IT that spurred productivity also > increased competition more widely across industries, from airlines and > banking to insurance and cars, squeezing prices and profits. Information > technologyreduces barriers to entry, and makes it easier for consumers to > compare prices. > > What is more, globalisation, itself spurred by information technology, has > further trimmed the pricing power of firms. HSBC finds that, in most > economies, the correlation between domestic inflation and domestic > unit-labour costs has declined over the past 40 years; the correlation > between domestic inflation and average OECD inflation has risen. In most > countries in the 1990s domestic inflation was more closely correlated with > OECD inflation than it was with domestic costs. > > The dismal performance of profits should not surprise. As the IMF's World > Economic Outlook last October pointed out, productivity gains from previous > technological revolutions, from railways and textiles to electricity and the > car, have gone largely to consumers. Each time, a decline in the prices of > goods and services has given a big boost to real incomes. Consumers gained > from cheaper travel or clothes, but profits disappointed. The difference > this time is that new technology has increased competition and squeezed > profit margins across the whole economy. > > None of this lessens the overall benefit of faster productivity growth. But > it does lead to some interesting conclusions: > > * Th
Abolition of money and socialist revolution
Abolition of money and socialist revolution ( Below is insufficient for analyzing secrets of commodity itself, so I will post in next article on fetishism of commodity) There are not a few discussions about abolition of money or capitalist mode of production; as for money, it is caused from its magical and mystifying functions and as for the latter, from the experience from the realistic contradictions forced by its historical and realistic developments and the idealistic phenomena induced by them. As for commodities, however, there have been few discussions for their abolition. Of course, apart from the bourgeois economists who look upon a commodity as an eternal truth or axiom or the modern economists who surely put on academic dress but are just their vulgar successors, among Marxian economists, there are many who recognize logically-although somewhat form-logically-that in the commodities or the commodity production itself the contradictions are immanent, and advocate their abolition based on this fact. But for Marx, however, there are none who assert their abolition in principle and on criterion just from the commodity or commodity production. Why? From the standpoint of a history of theory, it is caused from the complete misreading of the famous beginning paragraph of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J;$B!I(J Wealth of the societies where the capitalist mode of production prevails commodity appears as $B!H(J an immense collection of commodities$B!I(J, and each commodity appears as an original form of of such wealth. Therefore our research will begin with the analysis of commodities$B!I(J What Marc told about is that the original form of wealth-that is the mode of production -reproduction of material life and its result (the products)-is a commodity. These all forms of material life show themselves in the commodities, or crucibles in which all phenomena of the world is dissolved. Once the commodity world is established, a constitutional principle of commodities would dominate all the material world. Therefore we must analyze its internal constitutional principle. It is the reason why the theory of commodities of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J is so voluminous and difficult to understand. To tell more easily. within the commodity world and capitalist world people interrelate socially one another only by mean of the commodities(=wealth). Therefore, all aspects of the societies are integrated within the commodity relations. And once the commodity world is established, commodities integrate the society by means of their internal criterion, which maintains itself just like the criterion that the light velocity is invariable within the cosmos of the relative theory. Commodities are brought into the world through contradictions in the social nature of the society, and at the same time an inevitable but fictitious form of solution and evolution. Once the commodity world is established, movements of commodities would maintain and fix this fictitious form. Thus on a exact meaning of the words and thus dialectically, the commodities-commodity world should be abolished , but to achieve this we must analyze the internal constitutional principle of the commodities cosmos of the commodities, or the content of truth and fiction. Conventional Marxism which has concentrated tremendous effort on interpretation of the $B!H(Jcommodity world$B!I(J in the first chapter of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J ,but could not analyzeformation and evolution of the fiction of the equivalent exchange-and the equivalent exchange of labor which support its content. For this reason they can$B!G(Jt understand the framework of these problems.( It goes without saying that it is caused from commodities themselves. They are the crucibles which dissolve all the full picture of th society, and at the same time have their own logic and form to conceal this fact. For this we shall mention later) Although they prosecuted for the capitalist mode of of production without asserting the abolition of commodities and thus advocated various unessential merkmals for prosecution. ,it is on the account of this that the following discussions became popular: negation of commoditification of labor power(which is produced from the commodity production. Or, according to their assertion, can the simple commodity production without such commodification be affirmed?). The conversion theory of proprietary laws( which also affirms the commodity producing world without dictarship of capital. They distorted the conversion theory of Marx), and theory of fetishism ,or materialization, and at last Eurocommunism which makes the commodity production an inevitable element. For considering the internal cosmos of the commodities logically, focusing points are value and labor. The conventional theory of commodities has also focused these two points. This theory makes much of equivalent labor exchange and the subjectivity who invest labor from the political end of emancipation of the
Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism
Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism $B!!(J In Theory & Psychology, Volume 9, Number 3 June 1999, the commodity fetishism, the ideology, the false consciousness, and the theory of need are separately argued. But these categories have a common cause and an inner connection. I begin with analyzing the value-form, especially the equivalent form of value, show the mysterious character of commodity-form, and finally show the critique of the fetishism of the commodity. As for the fetishism of the capital, and interest-bearing capital, I only point out the basic mechanism different from that of the commodity. But since some articles analyze the fetishism incorrectly, I reply these arguments. They are swayed by the sphere of the exchange and the circulation, and ignore the critique of the immediate production process and the fetishism of the capital, as a result, They legitimize the capitalist mode of production. 1. On the equivalent form of value In the value-form in Capital, Marx wrote about the equivalent form: The relative value-form of a commodity, the linen for example, express its value-existence as something wholly different from its substance and properties, as the quality of being comparable with a coat for example; this expression itself therefore indicates that it conceals a social relation. With the equivalent form the reverse is true. The equivalent form consists precisely in this, that the material commodity itself, the coat for instance, express value just as it is in everyday life, and is therefore endowed with the form of value by nature itself. Admittedly this hold good only within the value-relation, in which the commodity linen is related to the commodity coat as its equivalent. However, the properties of a thing do not arise from its relation to other things, they are, on the contrary, merely activated by such relations. The coat, therefore, seems to be endowed with its equivalent form its property of direct exchangeability, by nature,.just as its property of being heavy or its ability to keep us warm. Hence the mysteriousness (Ra$B!/(Jtesellhafte-quoter) of equivalent form(Caipital,1,p.149) This is the first peculiarity of equivalent form from which use-value becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, value.(First substitution-Quidproquo) About the second peculiarity of equivalent form, Marx wrote: In order to express the fact that, for instance, weaving creates the value of linen through its general property of being human labour rather than in its concrete form as weaving, we contrast it with the concrete labour which produces the equivalent of linen, namely tailoring. Tailoring is now seen as the tangible form of realization of abstract human labour(Capital,1,p.150). In this substitution concrete labour becomes the form of manifestation of its opposite, abstract human labour. In this form, the relation of the abstract and the concrete is reverse. This is the second substitution(Quidproquo-quoter) . And the third peculiarity of equivalent form is that private labour takes the form of its opposite, namely labour in its directly social form: Because this concrete labour, tailoring, counts exclusively as the expression of undifferentiated human labour, it possesses the characteristic of being identical with other kinds of labour, such as the labour embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, it is nevertheless labour in its directly social form. It is precisely for this reason that it presents itself to us in the shape of a product which is directly exchangeable with other commodities(Capital,1,p.150) This is the third substitution. 2. On the mysterious character(Das Geheimnisvolle-quoter) of the commodity-form About the mysterious character of commodity-form, Marx wrote: the mysterious character of the commodity-form therefore simply in the fact that commodity reflects the social characteristics of men$B!G(Js own labour as objective characteristics of the products labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things(Dinge-quoter). Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to sum total of labour as a social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers. Through this substitution, the products of labour become commodities, sensuous thing(Ding), which are at the same time suprasensible or social(Capital,1,p.164) To understand this Geheimnisvolle of this commodity-form have to be premised on understanding the Ra$B!/(Jtesellhahte of equivalent form, and the problem is previously resolved in the part of value-form, in which the equivalent form seems to have its property of direct exchangeability by nature just as the material properties. So Ra$B!/(Jtesellhafte of equivalent form meets the Geheimnisvolle of the commodity-form. 3. From equivalent form to money-for
Abolition of money and socialist revolution
Abolition of money and socialist revolution ( Below is insufficient for analyzing secrets of commodity itself, so I will post in next article on fetishism of commodity) There are not a few discussions about abolition of money or capitalist mode of production; as for money, it is caused from its magical and mystifying functions and as for the latter, from the experience from the realistic contradictions forced by its historical and realistic developments and the idealistic phenomena induced by them. As for commodities, however, there have been few discussions for their abolition. Of course, apart from the bourgeois economists who look upon a commodity as an eternal truth or axiom or the modern economists who surely put on academic dress but are just their vulgar successors, among Marxian economists, there are many who recognize logically-although somewhat form-logically-that in the commodities or the commodity production itself the contradictions are immanent, and advocate their abolition based on this fact. But for Marx, however, there are none who assert their abolition in principle and on criterion just from the commodity or commodity production. Why? From the standpoint of a history of theory, it is caused from the complete misreading of the famous beginning paragraph of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J;$B!I(J Wealth of the societies where the capitalist mode of production prevails commodity appears as $B!H(J an immense collection of commodities$B!I(J, and each commodity appears as an original form of of such wealth. Therefore our research will begin with the analysis of commodities$B!I(J What Marc told about is that the original form of wealth-that is the mode of production -reproduction of material life and its result (the products)-is a commodity. These all forms of material life show themselves in the commodities, or crucibles in which all phenomena of the world is dissolved. Once the commodity world is established, a constitutional principle of commodities would dominate all the material world. Therefore we must analyze its internal constitutional principle. It is the reason why the theory of commodities of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J is so voluminous and difficult to understand. To tell more easily. within the commodity world and capitalist world people interrelate socially one another only by mean of the commodities(=wealth). Therefore, all aspects of the societies are integrated within the commodity relations. And once the commodity world is established, commodities integrate the society by means of their internal criterion, which maintains itself just like the criterion that the light velocity is invariable within the cosmos of the relative theory. Commodities are brought into the world through contradictions in the social nature of the society, and at the same time an inevitable but fictitious form of solution and evolution. Once the commodity world is established, movements of commodities would maintain and fix this fictitious form. Thus on a exact meaning of the words and thus dialectically, the commodities-commodity world should be abolished , but to achieve this we must analyze the internal constitutional principle of the commodities cosmos of the commodities, or the content of truth and fiction. Conventional Marxism which has concentrated tremendous effort on interpretation of the $B!H(Jcommodity world$B!I(J in the first chapter of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J ,but could not analyzeformation and evolution of the fiction of the equivalent exchange-and the equivalent exchange of labor which support its content. For this reason they can$B!G(Jt understand the framework of these problems.( It goes without saying that it is caused from commodities themselves. They are the crucibles which dissolve all the full picture of th society, and at the same time have their own logic and form to conceal this fact. For this we shall mention later) Although they prosecuted for the capitalist mode of of production without asserting the abolition of commodities and thus advocated various unessential merkmals for prosecution. ,it is on the account of this that the following discussions became popular: negation of commoditification of labor power(which is produced from the commodity production. Or, according to their assertion, can the simple commodity production without such commodification be affirmed?). The conversion theory of proprietary laws( which also affirms the commodity producing world without dictarship of capital. They distorted the conversion theory of Marx), and theory of fetishism ,or materialization, and at last Eurocommunism which makes the commodity production an inevitable element. For considering the internal cosmos of the commodities logically, focusing points are value and labor. The conventional theory of commodities has also focused these two points. This theory makes much of equivalent labor exchange and the subjectivity who invest labor from the political end of emancipation of the
Re: Re: To abolish money and social revolution
On 2002.05.01 10:55 PM, "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miyachi: >> According to changing mode of capital accumulation, mass consciousness also >> changed. People feel themselves to belong to nation -state rather to belong >> to direct capital's power. > > Miyachi, I doubt that you can detect much of a difference in Argentine > consciousness today and in the past. In the 1890s, imperialism took the > form of Barings Bank and the shitty overpriced railroad that the British > foisted on Argentina. Today it takes the form of the IMF and multinationals > that took advantage of privatization in the 1990s. The people of Argentina > are trying to resolve their problems on a national scale, even though the > forces of domination are primarily external but assisted by reactionary > bourgeois elements within the country. > >> Their movements can and should abolish money as a fundamental element of >> capitalism which past revolution cannot achieve and experience. > > Abolish money? How would you pay people? > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org > How do you pay PEOPLE? AS FOR payment, I read in guardian, people exchange by barter trade. After all means of exchange are various,and important is radical revolution must aim at abolishing Sachen(commodity, money,and capital. Past revolution achieved to abolish capital but cannot reach to abolish money.
To abolish money and social revolution
On 2002.04.24 09:25 PM, "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Schofield: in the revolutionary left. When the revolutionary left refused > to be reined in, they shot its leaders like Andres Nin. People in Spain > were willing to risk their lives for economic as well as political > democracy. When they figured out that the People's Front was not willing to > smash the old agrarian despotic class relations, they lost their fighting > will. In a struggle against fascism, you have to have clearly defined class > politics. Watering down social and economic demands leads to the triumph of > fascism. > > > > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org > Comrade Louis Proyect In 1920s, in Europe, There were large and strong social democrat party in Germany and France. They depended upon strong trade union. But as Marx said, Trade union is essential conservative. So Lenin again and again struggle against trade unionism(What to be done) But Luxemburg etc considered that revolutionary movement must happened bottom-up, and neglect struggle against trade unionism. They considered by Massen Strik and associated armed struggle workers can take over political power. When revolutionary period happened, they tried to organize workers without struggle against trade unionism. As a result, although workers struggle Massen Strik and armed struggle, they were unprepared to take over political power and to handle the power and defeated. In the contrary, national social democrat(NAZI) had clear political aim such as nationalism, racism, anti-communism and critique of money. They organized top down right-wing workers and more important national financial capitalists which led national capitals. IN that time as Hilferding described, Financial capital organized within nation-state. As a result political form of financial capital i.e. Imperialism competed with each other and led to war. So fascism was not simply petite bourgeois rebel respond to worker's struggle rather party movement of organized financial capitals and right-wing workers aimed at destroying communism. And they won. But in current international credit capitalism, mode of capital accumulation changes. First, financial capital freely transfer among nation-state. Second, simple commodity becomes credited commodity and they are used to exploit South. And international financial capitals organized its political form such as World Bank IMF, OECD etc, which control international capital flow. So financial capital based upon nation-state which compete with each other vanished and as a result globalization of capitals happened and North-South divide occurs. According to changing mode of capital accumulation, mass consciousness also changed. People feel themselves to belong to nation -state rather to belong to direct capital's power. As a result, even very young child can become to understand crisis of capital's culture such as ecological threat, global starvation, urban unrest, civil war, etc. And various social movements challenges globalization of capital such as from social ecology, worker's cooperative, consumers' cooperative, local community revival using LET, urban rebuilding, peaceful anti-war demonstration to armed struggle in third world sometimes took religious form such as Jihad. Their movements can and should abolish money as a fundamental element of capitalism which past revolution cannot achieve and experience. If we make clear to aim at abolishing money as a target of revolutionary movement , we already have world-wide social movements. Current leadership must recognize this crisis and constructive power and must and can organize people directly to abolish money as aim of social revolution. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
critique of Soviet $B!H(Jpolitical economy; a Textbook 4th edition$B!I(J
Below is the article written by my small group(sekiho=red report) before USSR was collapsed, but I think this article still has meaning because most of Marxist lack correct analysis of commodity(including such as Lucac, Jameson, Zizec, Negli etc) so total grasp of current credit capitalism remains uncompleted. critique of Soviet $B!H(Jpolitical economy; a Textbook 4th edition$B!I(J Introduction In 1954 the first edition of $B!H(JPolitical Economy ;a textbook$B!I(J was compiled and published under of Stalin. From 1917, October Revolution to the publication of the textbook there were various kinds of changes In Soviet Political Economy, in which a main disputed subject was, from the point of view value of commodity and law of value, is to be considered. After October Revolution became popular Bogdanov$B!G(Js viewpoint, that in any time energy of labor is required to produce some product, consequently value is not a result of a given historical society, but possess a permanent property. This point of view was afterwards criticized as a mechanical concept because of considering value ,in which expressed social relation of men, to be entirely determined by technical attainment of labor. I.I.Rubin criticized this viewpoint, He said $B!H(J Abstract labor and value in the process of direct production is created, or conformed, and fully realized only in the process of exchange$B!I(J His critique is right as far as it maintained that value express social relation of men and point out the error of physiological conception of value, but his fault lies in the assertion that value is created only in the process of exchange. And in the Academy of Science this problem was disputed between A.F. Kon who adopted physiological viewpoint of abstract human labor and Rubin who opposed him. But this discussion is discontinued in the process when Stalin, taking an energy measure in the crisis of grain supply, smashed Bukalin$B!G(Js group which stood against him. Along with the problem how to consider value of a commodity, a typical representation of which we can see in the dispute between Rubin and Kon, there was another disputed point i.e. Bukharin$B!G(Js theory of law of value. His theory was accepted from the beginning as an established one, but since Stalin$B!G(Js criticism of Bkharin begins criticism of Bukharin$B!G(Js theory. For that purpose utilized $B!H(J Commentary on $B!F(JEconomics of transitional period of Bukharin$B!I(J written by Lenin, criticized his equilibrium theory and law of labor expenditure, along with which arises criticism on Rubin-Kon dispute and both were expelled as scholastic, not based upon the reality. Adding criticism of E.A.Preobrazhenskij$B!G(Js theory of $B!H(JPrimary socialistic accumulation $B!H(J to those above mentioned, on the basis of these three kinds of criticism, a first commonly accepted theory of Soviet Economics is made up under the Stalin$B!G(Js political system, for example, $B!H(JCommentary of Capital$B!I(J of Rozenberg etc. The textbook, published after the World war 2, was overall revised, enlarged, but in some points adopted accepted theory. The two important revision must be point out. First, these accepted opinion in the first period were conformed by means of connecting $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J with $B!H(JImperialism$B!I(J.then afterwards systematized. Next, the conception of the first accepted theory that in the socialistic society there exists no commodity, money or value and that the commodity, money and value in Soviet Union are quite different from those of capitalist society, they are mere unit of calculation-this conception has been upset in the process of compiling the textbook after the World War 2, and it is confirmed that under socialist condition of society there exists production of commodities and law of value. After above-mentioned changes the textbook has undergone frequent revisions. After the publication of the first edition of the textbook Stalin was criticized as the 20th convention of Soviet Communist Party, and that, the fault of Stalin$B!G(Js philosophical and economical viewpoint came to be pointed out. Thus the textbook written according to Stalin$B!G(Js theory has revised in many points. Comparing the first edition with the forth edition of 1962, most quotations from Lenin and reference to him have increased. The Stalin$B!G(Js theory regarding production of commodities under the socialist conditions of society is criticized, calling his name. Still more, the chapter organization regarding socialist mode of production has been entirely changed, and these changes are in line with new program decided at the 22nd convention of Soviet Communist Party. Nevertheless, the forth edition has not got out of the limits of Stalin$B!G(Js theory. For that reason it is of great importance to take this forth edition of the textbook as an object of study and criticize Stalin$B!G(Js theory, so restore the Marx
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
On 2002.04.25 03:00 AM, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > dem. cent. & Venezuela > by Devine, James > 23 April 2002 21:06 UTC > > > ... Explaining why I described the idea of "democratic centralism" as coming > from the "Marxist" tradition rather than from "Leninism," I wrote: >> It's > from Lenin, but much of what's been written on "democratic centralism" comes > from his epigones (Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.), who are within the broad > tradition of Marxism. A lot of it also came from Kautsky, from whom Lenin > learned his stuff (see WHAT IS TO BE DONE?) << > >> CB: Epigones are ? Are followers of Hal Draper his epigones ?< > > Of course, while being an epigone isn't always a bad thing. Some of Draper's > best work (his multi-volume book, KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION) is > totally epigonic, i.e., involving lots and lots of quotes from Marx. (In > fact, Draper tries to dig up _all_ quotes by Marx on any given subject.) > > Note that I'm referring to the _idea_ (or ideal) of "democratic centralism" > here. The usual practice of "democratic centralism," i.e., bureaucratic > centralism, has been practiced by governments and private corporations for > centuries. The basic idea of the Vatican's system of organization is > bureaucratic centralism. > > ^^^ > > CB: When you use "epigone" to refer to Lenin's followers it seems to be a > negative epithet. > > ^ > > I said:>> The phrase "Leninist theory" is quite ambiguous since it is a > contested theory (even more than Marxist theory), with Lenin's epigones > fighting over it. Even Lenin himself did not follow a consistent theory all > through his career (see, for example, Tony Cliff's multi-volume book on > Lenin [another bunch of epigonic quotes, BTW]). It's unclear that such a > dynamically changing vision can or should be distilled into an "ism." << > >> CB: It wasn't so ambiguous to Lenin that it prevented him from taking > definite and effective action. This is a key principle of both Marx and > Lenin: not to get caught up in academic style "ambiguities" so as to fail to > unite theory with action. < > > The ambiguities aren't "academic": they can be found in Lenin's written work > itself. The problem is that the nature of the "definite and effective > action" that Lenin would have taken changed several times in his career, at > least given the way his position changed on paper. > > (BTW, I don't see why ambiguities are "academic." Are you saying that the > law has no ambiguities?) > > > > CB: The best way to discuss this issue is for you to bring here which parts of > Lenin's work you think are ambiguous. > > I would say the comparison with the law is a good way to make the point I am > making. A significant difference between the law and most other academic > subjects is that the law places much more emphasis on the unity between its > theory and practice than most other academic social scientific fields. > > The greater emphasis on practice is reflected in one of the specific ways that > the law deals with ambiguities. This is the subject of statutory construction. > If a party asserts that some statutory language is ambiguous, the process is > that the parties argue for one side of the ambiguity or the other based on > principles of statutory construction, and then the judge decides. The result > is always that the statute is interpreted as not ambiguous, and to have the > meaning of one side of the ambiguities or the other. > > The point is that when there is more emphasis on action and practice than in > the typical academic situation, there is more emphasis on resolving > ambiguities, because ambiguity paralyzes action. > > Another legal concept can help here: presumptions. Presumptions are basically > "being certain for now". Unless evidence rebuts the presumption it is > "presumed" to be true ( based on accumulated experience , i.e. it is a > posteriori, not a priori) and acted upon with "certainty" of its truth. A > presumption allows action in the face of "ambiguity". > > ^^^ > > BTW, I can see no reason why Lenin's work should be idolized. After all, his > main achievement in practice -- leading the Boshevik revolution -- was, in > the end, basically a failure. The failure wasn't totally his fault, of > course, but neither does he deserve all the credit for revolution. (The > soviets workers, peasants, and soldiers had something to do with the > latter.) > > > > > CB: In what sense do you mean "failure" here ? > > Marx was also a failure , no ? Why would Hal Draper spend so much time > quoting Marx, when he was a failure ? > > In fact, has there ever been a "success" in human history in the sense of the > opposite of failure that you use it ? Name a success in human history. > > ^ > > CB:>Actually, compared with most other theories in this area, Lenin's is > relatively unambiguous. And certainly in the spirit of Leninism, it would > be out of character to emp
Re: Re: The exchange value of currencies
On 2002.04.18 08:58 AM, "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 16/04/02 23:50 +0100, you wrote: >> The organic composition of capital is the measure of the exchange value of >> currencies. >> >> Is this a correct application of marxism? >> >> Chris Burford > > I appreciate the discussion. But I am wondering if my gentle, wise old > communist friend, got it the wrong way round. > > Perhaps it should be > > The exchange value of currencies is the measure of the relative organic > composition of capital. > > Chris Burford > Comrade Chris Burford > What is " exchange value of currency"? If currency has exchange value,many currencies must exchange in capital market. So do you mean currency as bill .bond, stock? After this mail I will explain concept of currency.
Money and currency
On 2002.04.17 08:34 AM, "Romain Kroes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not at all, Chris. Exchange value of currencies does not belong to any > Marxist theory, as Marx believed in a gold currency for ever. > Actually, exchange value of currencies depends on the sign of the balances > of trade, with a reversion of the law when the currency of world system's > metropolis has been imposed as the common currency, like today's dollar. And > this is completely out of Marxist theories. > RK > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:50 AM > Subject: [PEN-L:25010] The exchange value of currencies > > >> The organic composition of capital is the measure of the exchange value of >> currencies. >> >> Is this a correct application of marxism? >> >> Chris Burford >> >> ON CURREBCY Marx used concept of currency in volume3 of Capital There, He criticized Tookes and Fullarton's account. Marx said "The distinction between currency and capital, as Tooke, Wilson, and others draw it, whereby the differences between medium of circulation as money, as money-capital generally, and as interest-bearing capital (moneyed capital in the English sense) are thrown together pell-mell, comes down to two things.[1]" and continued "Currency circulates on the one hand as coin (money), so far as it promotes the expenditure of revenue, hence the traffic between the individual consumers and the retail merchants, to which category belong all merchants who sell to the consumers -- to the individual consumers as distinct from productive consumers or producers. Here money circulates in the function of coin, although it continually replaces capital. A certain portion of money in a particular country is continually devoted to this function, although this portion consists of perpetually changing individual coins. In so far as money promotes the transfer of capital, however, either as a means of purchase (medium of circulation) or as a means of payment, it is capital. It is, therefore, neither its function as a means of purchase, nor that as a means of payment, which distinguishes it from coin, for it may also act as a means of purchase between one dealer and another so far as they buy from one another in hard cash, and also as a means of payment between dealer and consumer so far as credit is given and the revenue consumed before it is paid. The difference is, therefore, that in the second case this money not only replaces the capital for one side, the seller, but is expended, advanced., by the other side, the buyer, as capital. The difference, then, is in fact that between the money-form of revenue and the money-form of capital, but not that between currency and capital, for a certain quantity of money circulates in the transactions between dealers as well as in the transactions between consumers and dealers.. It is, therefore, equally currency in both functions. Tooke's conception introduces confusion into this question in various ways" And He criticized Tookes as follows "Confusing the functional distinctions that money in one form is currency, and capital in the other. In so far as money serves in one or another function, be it to realise revenue or transfer capital, it functions in buying and selling, or in paying, as a means of purchase or a means of payment, and, in the wider sense of the word, as currency." and adding "To reduce the difference between circulation as circulation of revenue and circulation of capital into a difference between currency and capital is, therefore, altogether wrong. This mode of expression is in Tooke's case due to his simply assuming the standpoint of a banker issuing his own bank-notes" Thus currency is used on the level of fictitious capital, and not used in the sphere of simple circulation. In the sphere of simple circulation,He Dealt with functions of money as 1 measure of value 2 The Medium of Circulation and in medium of circulation a. The Metamorphosis of Commodities B. The currency of money c. Coin and symbols of value. Thirdly he dealt with money itself as a. Hoarding b. Means of Payment c. Universal Money In the current international credit system, simple commodity appears as "creditified commodity"or " creditified money" so it is difficult to distinguish money and currency. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >
: Difference between leadership and command
On 2002.04.17 07:20 AM, "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miyachi wrote: > >> Thank you for your reply >> >> As for decentralized responsibility, party cell duty is >> regular report to central committee and maintain party's >> program. If he has not ability to this duty, simply he must >> give up, or choose to change his duty. Here no command exists. >> Only member's will and passion is required. In a sense This >> type of organization is network-type like Al-Qaeda. On the > contrary, >> for example, in US financial corporations as you, You may > decision >> business yourself, but you must seek profit in decentralized >> responsibility. If you fail to raise profit, you fire. It is > the >> difference between party and corporation. > > I am not sure if there is a serious difference between party and > corporation, except from the objectives. Both are organizations > with objectives. > > If in a "democratically centralized" party, that is, in a party > where leadership is centralized whereas responsibility is > decentralized, what is required is only the member's will and > passion, and there is no command, why do we need leaders, or a > program? Will and passion would suffice, wouldn't they? > > Also, how are we going to decide whose duty is what and whether a > person has the ability to perform his/her duty? > > I think these are important questions to discuss. > > Thanks Miyachi for your contributions, > > Sabri > > P.S: I am against commands of any kind, by the way. Just say > please, please. > Comrade Sabri Firstly, leadership and command are different. Leadership is appeal to action, whereas command require compulsion. If party central committee appeal demonstration or attack, party-members and non-party mass can and must choose to participate in demonstration or attack It is problem of individual's will, not duty. Party committee can't and must not force people participate in its own appeal. If some people reject to participate, it is their decisions and must respect it. But its result is responsible for them,not others. ON the contrary, as you worked in company, although in decentralized network as possible and in responsible post, you must raise profit. It is economical tacit command, even if your action seems to be free. The reason was already described formerly mail. Secondly, who decide member's ability? It is self-decision. Others only recommend but final decision depends on themselves. Stalin degenerate party organization, i.e. Command system, and most of people considers vanguard party as such. It is incorrect. It can prove from Lenin's original paper, mail, etc. That is my opinion, result of study Lenin's original paper, and finally conclusion of experience of 60s world-wide revolutionary movements. I respect mostly your freedom, but unhappily, we live in "Prison society" How can we get liberty? Only by struggle. This is my answer. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Venezuela coup
On 2002/04/16 11:02 PM, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > by miychi > 15 April 2002 21:34 UTC > > >> > 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > > > > > Charles: As Lenin was a dialectician, we can be sure that these opposites are > to be treated in both their unity and opposition, as you do below. Basically > it is a way of relating the masses and their leaders for struggle and for long > term operation of the country. > > ^^^ > > a correct reading of Lenin $B!G (Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a > binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization > of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local > sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the > party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function > and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party > democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of > leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in > other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. > > > ^^^ > > CB: Definitely, democratic centralism is to be treated in a historically > concrete manner. Thus, the unity of democracy and centralism in the Venezuelan > Bolivarian movement is unique. > > > What do you think of the operation of the principle of democratic centralism > in Venezuela as we have learned of the events there ? > > ^comrade Charles Brown^^ I don't know details of Venezuela coup and counter-coup, and character and evaluation of coup and counter-coup is still unclear. There are some explanation that it is conspiracy of CIA or OAS ^or as Chavez says that it is media conspiracy ,not military. But it is clear that non-party mass demonstration facilitated counter-coup. In 1917, anti-war and anti-hunger mass demonstration happened in August, when Lenin did not consider or decide uprising. When mass demonstration mount to reach its top,and begin to build Soviet Lenin returned to Russia and decide uprising finally. And military part of party(lead by Trotsky) occupied Winter Palace, and information sector. Most important is that in August demonstration, mass claimed revolution and built Soviet. Historically speaking non-party mass movement often go ahead of party action or program. This is historical truth.^ Probably similar situation happened in Venezuela. In sum, party and mass movement dialectically intensify each other and in decisive moment small selected member of party and non-party citizen attack central part of power. > > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Anti-coup and mass demonstration
On 2002.04.16 06:24 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In leftist theory, "democratic centralism" refers to the organization of the > revolutionary political party. The theory says that when a party's > membership decides on a policy (a line, a program) it is binding on members > of that party, including its leadership. Though they may disagree with it at > party forums, they should not do so openly, when non-party people are > around. > > Though there are likely organizations in Venezuela that are organized in a > "democratic centralist" way, the mass demonstrations in favor of Chavez > don't fit that description unless they are simply as part of a party. It > looks to me instead that there's a lot of "spontaneity" going on. That is, > people were demonstrating in favor of Chavez because they liked him, not > because they belonged to a party-type organization. The Bolivarist > organization did not simply orchestrate the anti-coup movements. (Of course, > if my facts are wrong, I'd like to be told.) > > BTW, in practice, most "democratic centralist" organizations end up not > being democratic. The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central > committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather than > active, democratic, participants. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >> -Original Message- >> From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:08 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [PEN-L:24943] Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) > ... >> G'day Charles, >> >>> Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in >>> Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and >> their elected >>> representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! >> >> Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're >> watching different Venezuelas. Or both. >> >> ^ >> >> CB: I'm talking about V.I. Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks >> and the Russian Revolution in 1917, and his theory of >> democratic centralism, which is very well demonstrated by the >> overwhelming majority of the masses of people in Venezuela >> since 1998 and their authentic representatives in the Party >> led by President Chavez. What are you talking about ? >> >> ^^^ >> >> >>> So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. >>> >> >> Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... >> >> ^^^ >> >> CB: The evidence for my argument is all over the world news >> for the last few days, and specifics of the argument should >> occur to you without my spelling out for you , but here it >> is. The middle class mass that demonstrated and gave a >> pretext for the coup by the Venezuelan oligarchy, represented >> a minority of the whole population, and thus democracy in >> this situation was represented by Chavez and his >> organizations. The masses in the streets backed up their >> center. About as vivid an example of democratic centralism as >> there ever was. >> >> Of course, the masses have to have a republican structure , >> i.e. it is not direct democracy, in their struggle with the >> bourgeoisie. They have to have leaders because the struggle >> with the bourgeois requires strategy and tactics, in analogy >> to a military conflict. The class struggle has aspects that >> are like war ( Should be obvious from the whole history of >> the 20th Century). It is democracy with a socalled center: >> democratic centralism. This term was originated by Lenin, >> and Venezuela's governing Party is good example of its >> practice since 1998. >> > I don't know detail of Venezuela's coup and return Chavez. But Important is non-party mass demonstration, which often go ahead of party action. In 1917, Anti-war, anti-poverty demonstration mount to reach top in August, when Lenin did not prepare or decide uprising. After these demonstrations,Lenin returned to Russia and decide uprising. So real historical process is never determined from one party's program or action. Party and mass action dialectically intensify each other and in final stage, part of party apparatus(probably military) and part of non-party mass attack and destroy enemy's central power. Regards MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Difference between corporations and party responsibility
On 2002.04.16 07:28 AM, "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:11 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:24950] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > > >> Miyachi wrote: >> >>> From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of >>> centralization of power is not considered as a pair >>> of centralization of leadership and decentralization >>> of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership >>> has been put forward. >> >> Dear Miyachi, >> >> I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the >> world: US financial corporations. They talked about >> centralization of leadership and decentralization of >> responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial >> corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial >> corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without >> authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, >> where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make >> decisions. >> >> What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who >> are responsible have no ability to make decisions? >> >> Best, >> Sabri > = > > To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of > unaccountability. > > Ian > Thank you for your reply As for decentralized responsibility, party cell duty is regular report to central committee and maintain party's program. If he has not ability to this duty, simply he must give up, or choose to change his duty. Here no command exists. Only member's will and passion is required. In a sense This type of organization is network-type like Al-Qaeda. On the contrary, for example, in US financial corporations as you, You may decision business yourself, but you must seek profit in decentralized responsibility. If you fail to raise profit, you fire. It is the difference between party and corporation. In reality you obey corporations as unpaid worker but wage form of payment hide this ruler-ruled relationship. Below is from "Capital" The wage-form thus extinguishes every trace of the division of the working-day into necessary labour and surplus-labour, into paid and unpaid labour. All labour appears as paid labour. In the corvée, the labour of the worker for himself, and his compulsory labour for his lord, differ in space and time in the clearest possible way. In slave 1abour, even that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave's labour appears as unpaid labour. [8] In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer. Hence, we may understand the decisive importance of the transformation of value and price of labour-power into the form of wages, or into the value and price of labour itself. This phenomenal form, which makes the actual relation invisible, and, indeed, shows the direct opposite of that relation, forms the basis of all the juridical notions of both labourer and capitalist, of all the mystifications of the capitalistic mode of production, of all its illusions as to liberty, of all the apologetic shifts of the vulgar economists. If history took a long time to get at the bottom of the mystery of wages, nothing, on the other hand, is more easy to understand than the necessity, the raison d' etre, of this phenomenon. The exchange between capital and labour at first presents itself to the mind in the same guise as the buying and selling of all other commodities. The buyer gives a certain sum of money, the seller an article of a nature different from money. The jurist's consciousness recognizes in this, at most, a material difference, expressed in the juridically equivalent formula: "Do ut des, do ut facias, facio ut des, facio ut facias." [9] Regards MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
On 2002.04.17 02:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > G'day Charles, > >> Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in >> Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected >> representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! > > Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're > watching different Venezuelas. Or both. > >> So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. >> > > Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... > > Cheers, > Rob. > 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin$B!G(Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a $B!H(Jword$B!I(J of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway its power. What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a medal. From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as $B!H(J command from above$B!I(J , and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from the binary scheme of democracy and centralism. we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand there should be $B!H(J the smallest number of the most homogenous group of professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks -V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as possible. On the other side$B!I(J the greatest number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements and bear the responsibilities to the Party. In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership). Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible. This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of the Party. Lenin speaks, $B!H(J the ideology of the centrism shows in principle how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail$B!I(J(One Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and $B!H(J an ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,) Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as long
Analysis of contemporary capitalism
Analysis of contemporary capitalism In the historical disputes among various Marxist parties,there have been many problems at issue for the development of capitalism,for example, the law of capitalist development,the agricultural problems,the theory of imperialism etc. Today the development of the credit system has made a great change in the industrial structure of the imperialistic countries and as a matter of course the credit sytem should be clarified as a theoretical problem. In $B!!(Jspite of this, the problem has not been adequately dealed with by any revolutonary left party, to say nothing of established left parties. On the definite purpose for increasing the cpital acccumulation and creating its technical basis, the bourgeois class have engaged in a shrap controversy on transformation of the industrial structure and development of credit system$B!!(Jamong themselves. This transformation of the capitalist mode of accumulation has changed the ordinary consciousness of the mass which reflected in the ideological world. But the left parties have been far oblivious to this. 1.What made capital commoditified It is now popular among modern theorist to regard money as a symbol. As shown in the assertion of the disintegration of the proletarian class in the classical sense and the denying of the labor theory of value with commoditification of money, the ideological dissolution of Marxism has been in progress systematically. The symbol theory of money is an old theory and many studies have been made in the field of primitive money theory. The question is why this theory has been removed from its original field of the primitive money theory and applied to the present economic situation. With the development of the credit system, capital has been so extensively commoditified that it can represent itself as a commodity in general. The price of commoditified capital is determined indifferent from its original value. Its price mechanism isn't the same as that of commodity in general. Capital is self-increasing value and embodied abstract human labor., but the price of commoditified capital can't be determined through its content. Through amplifying this mechanism to the law of price mechanism, the fact that the value of commodities is determined with the amount of abstract human labor and money is generated from commodities as such will be denied. In fact, the price of commoditified capital is determined with dividing the gross profit into interest and entrepreneur's profit, but in superficies interest is shown as a product of the credit system which represents itself as an illusionary communal behaviors. Consequently it is proper to explain the price of mechanism of commoditified capital by the use value of money as a symbol , that is, a mediator of illusionary communal behavior. Thus the money in the symbol theory, different from the primitive theory of money ,is just an embodiment of capital, and after all it is a capital relation that is symbolized here. However, how the capital relation is embodied in the money can't be seen in superficies. So those who advocate the symbol theory can't understand this context and just suppose the content of this symbol as a communal subjectivity or communal illusion. 2.On the the study of credit theory The symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the commoditified capital through the appearances irrespective of the real capital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary commodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as commodity in general. Against such prevailing thinking many kind of Marxists, although they only acknowledge$B!!(Jthemselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions. But , in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just modification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals the exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the law of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the clarification for commoditification of capital ,which has in original, produced such thinking.. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally ctiricized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may be, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions. It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of Marxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditified capital and its movement law. Thus it is urgent need to study the credit theory, but the significance of the study is not confined to this. The most important is that with the development of the credit system and the generalization of commoditification of capital the mode of capital accumulation have been transformed world-widely, and consequently the appearence forms of crisis of capitalism have also been transformed. This may be in respect to the following fact; the transformation of accumulation mode is base
.On Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin$B!G(Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a $B!H(Jword$B!I(J of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway its power. What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a medal. From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as $B!H(J command from above$B!I(J , and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from the binary scheme of democracy and centralism. we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand there should be $B!H(J the smallest number of the most homogenous group of professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks -V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as possible. On the other side$B!I(J the greatest number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements and bear the responsibilities to the Party. In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership). Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible. This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of the Party. Lenin speaks, $B!H(J the ideology of the centrism shows in principle how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail$B!I(J(One Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and $B!H(J an ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,) Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as long as it should be a Party of Communists. It should not be understood in the limit of the national specialty of Russia or the historical period of Lenin. only the forms or the way in which centralism is accomplished can be changed to the various historical conditions. 2. relation of inner-party democracy to centralism while centralism is the principle of the party organization, inner-party democracy is, for Lenin. a form and means, in which centralism is realized and which is determined by the historical and definite conditions. Concerning the introduction of democracy in t
Again on bureaucracy
On arguing "bureaucracy", important question is what is the aim of "bureaucracy" system Weber did not refer to aim of bureaucracy, rather simply analyzed inner structure of bureaucracy system. In capitalist working place workers are organized to hierarchical order in order to produce more surplus value. But in capitalist society, although public sector workers do not produce surplus value, public servicer are organized hierarchical. It is because in order to effectively administer, Civil Service controller must organize worker hierarchical as same as military. Difference between private sector and public sector is difference of aims. private sector seek profit, public sector seek effective service, So, in private sector capital(Sahchen=thing,i.e. commodity, money and capital) rule worker, on the contrary in public sector,legal person(in legal term)rule worker. In Ex-USSR, firms are state-owned or collective-owned. But in realty party technocrat rule firms. In other words, party technocrat were transformed into privilege class and exploit workers "politically" not "economically". characteristic character of capitalist exploitation is that capital exploit workers "economically" not "politically". In the contrary in Ex-USSR character of exploitation was "political" not "economical". In this sense, Ex-USSR exploitation may resemble feudal system. In feudal system lords, in other words, legal person exploit farmers, and Sachen(comodity, money,and capital) did not rule people. So I reject Tony cllif's definition of USSR as state capitalism. Below is argument about distribution according to labor in which analysis of character of USSR bureaucracy included: "study of the criticism against the $B!H(J gang of the Four$B!I(J by the Chinese Commmunist Party" A; criticism by Wu Lien The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the CPSU in 1956,but it did not become public untill 1963. The CCP formed a different view on distribution acording to labor from tha of the CPSU in the rocess of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of socialistic reform by enlargement of pepole$B!G(Js communes. This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictorship in a socialist society, and particularly in China whether socialism is a reality in present Soviet or Chinese society. Wu Lien$B!G(Js artic;e which was published inj 1960 in $B!H(J the study of economics; no.5$B!I(J defines socialist society as a transitional society from the view-point that in a scoalist society there are classes, $B!H(Jtwo roads$B!I(J, and a need for the power of tge proletarian dictorship. Wu Lien argue thqat the whole process of transformation from a capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of communism,(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat dictorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship and the establishment of $B!H(J the whole people$B!G(Js state$B!I(J at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October, 961), Wu Lien$B!G(Js argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev$B!G(Js policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship at the 22nd Congress. Wu Lien$B!G(Js understanding on distribution accroding to labor is, however, based on a subjective interpretation of $B!H(J the birth-marks of the old scoety$B!I(J and $B!H(J bourgeois right$B!I(J described in $B!H(J Critique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J. The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected. In $B!H(JCritique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J, Marx$B!G(Js description of socialist society states that it is $B!H(J..still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges " Wo Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks ofn the old scociety" as follows. $B!X(J This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the socialisy production relationship. First, in the field of possession of production means ,althoguh economic ownership by all the people has done away with bourgeois right in ralation to production means,due to the influence of the socialist material interest principle , there is an incentive wage system in national coroporations, in which a small portion of the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee ot individulals, and here a bourgoies right is retained. At th same tome ,ata certaion stage of socialism i.e. at an unddeceloped stage, there are two types of joint ownership-economic owners
On bureaucracy
Bureaucracy by Devine, James 04 April 2002 17:22 UTC Charles Brown wrote:>>>Isn't "bureaucracy" a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... <<< I wrote:>> The issue is not whether it's a "Marxist" concept in the sense of whether Marx talked about it as much as whether it fits with Marx's materialist conception of history.<< CB:>Why do you interpret my usage "Marxist concept" as meaning something other than as part of a materialist conception of history ? What else would a "Marxist concept" be except materialist , in the Marxist sense ?< No, I was opposing "Marxist concepts" to "whether Marx talked about it" (i.e., Marxology), as should be clear from the context (which follows). ^^ CB: What is "Marxology" ? How does that even come up here ? JD:>>But see, for example, Hal Draper's book KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION (several volumes, Monthly Review Press), especially volume I. Marx talked a lot about bureaucracy. For example, in CAPITAL, he talks about how bureaucrats (hired managers) were doing more and more of the work that capitalists took credit for doing. BTW, Marx was quite familiar with a quasi-Weberian view of the state bureaucracy, that of Hegel.<< CB: >That is not the way "bureaucracy" is tossed around today - to point out how capitalists are getting out of doing work. "Bureaucracy" is used as an anti-socialist, pro-private enterprise buzz word. < People abuse all sorts of words (Stalin claimed to be a "socialist," while Bush claims to be for "freedom."), but that doesn't mean we should automatically avoid them. I'm trying to clarify a more rigorous concept of "bureaucracy." Your critique of the buzz-word version of the concept helps, but it doesn't say that we should avoid the word. ^ CB: I still don't see any good usage or rigorous usage of "bureaucracy" in what you have said. "Hierarchy" or "elite" is better for all the purposes mentioned. And "bureaucracy" has anti-socialist connotations historically ,for example, in the Reaganite anti- Big Guvment demogogy. ^^^ JD:>>Weber & Marx have different theories of bureaucracy. Weber was pro-bureaucracy [shorthand alert!], seeing hierarchies of this sort as an efficient and "rational" way of attaining goals. (My late friend Al Szymanski (sp.?) once embraced this view, arguing for his version of "Leninism" by saying that a top-down (bureaucratic) organization was the most efficient way to organize a revolution. If corporations use hierarchy, why can't we?)... << CB:>Why not call it a hierarchy ? What is the specific significance of it being in an office or related to "bureaus". Top-down or hierarchy is what is meant, not office work.< You can call it "hierarchy," but the word "bureaucracy" also has a real meaning beyond the buzz-word. Again, I see no reason to abandon a word simply because other people attach other meanings to it that I don't like. BTW, the _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_'s first definition of "bureaucracy" is a body of nonelected government officials. That's the way I would define it, without restricting it to governments. Corporations have bureaucracies, too. ^ CB: This continues the anti-socialist, pro-corporate/private sector connotation PRECISELY ! The dictionary does NOT include corporate hierarchies and elites. You had to add that. The common meaning of the word has the politically anti-socialist, pro-private business connotation , just as I said. Nobody who reads the dictionary definition will know of your addendum. CB:>>>...When a "giant bureaucracy" is mentioned, I get this picture of an enormous collection of people sitting at desks in office buildings. HOWEVER, it is not this bureau-proletariat of secretaries, clerks, mailboys, receptionists, beancounters, etc. that is the "cratic", the power in either Russia or the New Deal, or any government. This mass of deskclerks is not the cause of "redtape" or anti-democratic rule from above, as if they took a vote among the vast bureaucracy to exercise its power on major questions before whatever institution with whatever bureaucracy. "Bureaucracy" is a very misleading concept that is rife in liberal political analysis.<<< JD:>>The thing about bureaucracy is that the power of any individual rises as you go up the hierarchy (though that power is hardly absolute, since people down below can often block the effectiveness of the organization -- that's one of the things that "red tape" is about). The difference between the top bureaucrats and the petty bureaucrats is a little like the difference between the grand and petty bourgeoisie. (Unlike Weber, I see a bureaucracy as involving a lot of competition.) CB:>Even dividing into a couple of tiers, the number of people with power is a very small % of the total bureauworkers. Most of the giant bureau"cracy" , in the sense that it is a large number of people, are not grand or petty bureaucrats , in the sense of having power. Most tasks are m
On terrorism
On 2002.04.03 08:13 AM, "Seyed Javad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What is terror? What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist? These and many such questions have been in one Clausewitz define that war is continuance of politics. If so, in may be possible to say that terrorism is continuance of war. In 9-11. I was asked how about it? I answered Very welcome. I can't never forget Palestine children ware delighted by terrorist attack news. Although if Laden is merchant of terrorism, I welcomed. In current situation, especially Mid-East crisis, are there meaning of distinction between terrorism and war or other forms of armed struggle such as Colombia or Nepal rebel? In 9-11, I thought US suffer for its massive global terrorism, for example, Korea war, Vietnam war, intervention to Chili coup d'etat, Intervention to Nicaraguan revolution, El-salvador, Gulf war ,Kosovo, Afghan war ,intervention to Phillipine, Colombia,etc. US is in reality top of terrorist country, but Bush declare war against terrorism,it is highly ridiculous. Against Global credit capital system, wide range of social movement develops. In the process violent, radical,armed, movement may happen. I think that we may not better determine in advance form of tactics,or movement. If determined, people's power can't appear fully, in contrary restricted. Forms of struggle are many. For example Jihad is religious forms of global class struggle and Jihad admit terrorism. Who can accuse this? MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI
the state
On 2002/03/28 11:55 PM, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the state > by Carrol Cox > 27 March 2002 23:02 UTC < < < > > > > This would fit in with Wood's argument (in _Democracy against > Capitalism_) that capitalism artificially divided the political into the > two separate realms of "the political" and "the economy." If one takes > "politics" to be concerned with the allocation of human activity, then > "economics" is the guise that this political activity takes on under > capitalism. And in the latest stages of capitalism the line has become > thinner and thinner. > > Carrol > > > > CB: Economics is politics , and politics is concentrated economics. > $B#C(Jomrade Carrol If economnic is politics, for example, buyer of commodity and seller exchage commodity politically. Principle of politics is human's will. But in this situation, commodity exchange is not deternmined by political will of both.As Marx said, juditical(i.e.political) relation is but the reflux of the real economic relation. Below is from Capital "In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those object, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subject-matter comprised in each such juridical act. [2] The persons exist for one another merely as representatives of, and, therefore. as owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation we shall find, in general, that the characters who appear on the economic stage are but the personifications of the economic relations that exist between them. " > Marx begins with criticism of religion,(The German Ideology) then criticism of state(Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,,) and finally criticism of civil society. So,later marx's work include criticism of state, which is defined that"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis ""However, it is evident that tradition must play a dominant role in the primitive and undeveloped circumstances on which these social production relations and the corresponding mode of production are based. It is furthermore clear that here as always it is in the interest of the ruling section of society to sanction the existing order as law and to legally establish its limits given through usage and tradition. Apart from all else, this, by the way, comes about of itself as soon as the constant reproduction of the basis of the existing order and its fundamental relations assumes a regulated and orderly form in the course of time. And such regulation and order are themselves indispensable elements of any mode of production, if it is to assume social stability and independence from mere chance and arbitrariness. These are precisely the form of its social stability and therefore its relative freedom from mere arbitrariness and mere chance. Under backward conditions of the production process as well as the corresponding social relations, it achieves this form by mere repetition of their very reproduction. If this has continued on for some time, it entrenches itself as custom and tradition and is finally sanctioned as an explicit law." So Marx seeks rather integration of the economical and political than traditional marxist considers the two as separaeted domain. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
On ideology & socialism
Young Marx defined his work as "show the world why it is strugging" He denied any dogmatism or philosophy and "reform of consciousness consist entirely in making the world aware." So his later work tried to show the world why it is struggling and reform of consciousness in making the world aware. His theoretical work was not to establish new social system planning ,rather to struggle with various mystical consciousness emerged from forms ofcapitalist production. So his emphasis is not only economical analysis, rather strugging with mysterious consciousness which justify current system and oppress people's consciousness. "Capital" is not "Bible of communist" ,rather book of reply against many ideologue which justify status quo, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Prohdon,Sismondy,Tookes, Fllarton etc, Below is letter from Marx to Ruge 1843 "I am very pleased to find you so resolute and to see your thoughts turning away from the past and towards a new enterprise. In Paris, then, the ancient bastion of philosophy -- absit omen! [may this be no ill omen!] -- and the modern capital of the modern world. Whatever is necessary adapts itself. Although I do not underestimate the obstacles, therefore, I have no doubt that they can be overcome. Our enterprise may or may not come about, but in any event I shall be in Paris by the end of the month as the very air here turns one into a serf and I can see no opening for free activity in Germany. In Germany everything is suppressed by force, a veritable anarchy of the spirit, a reign of stupidity itself has come upon us and Zurich obeys orders from Berlin. It is becoming clearer every day that independent, thinking people must seek out a new centre. I am convinced that our plan would satisfy a real need and real needs must be satisfied in reality. I shall have no doubts once we begin in earnest. In fact, the internal obstacles seem almost greater than external difficulties. For even though the question "where from?" presents no problems, the question "where to?" is a rich source of confusion. Not only has universal anarchy broken out among the reformers, but also every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what ought to happen. However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new movement, for it means that we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old. Hitherto philosophers have left the keys to all riddles in their desks, and the stupid, uninitiated world had only to wait around for the roasted pigeons of absolute science to fly into its open mouth. Philosophy has now become secularized and the most striking proof of this can be seen in the way that philosophical consciousness has joined battle not only outwardly, but inwardly too. If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be. I am therefore not in favor of our hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the reverse. We must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their ideas. In particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dezamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism. And by the same token, the whole principle of socialism is concerned only with one side, namely the reality of the true existence of man. We have also to concern ourselves with the other side, i.e., with man's theoretical existence, and make his religion and science, etc., into the object of our criticism. Furthermore, we wish to influence our contemporaries above all. The problem is how best to achieve this. In this context there are two incontestable facts. Both religion and politics are matters of the very first importance in contemporary Germany. Our task must be to latch onto these as they are and not to oppose them with any ready-made system such as the Voyage en Icarie. [A recently released book by Etienne Cabet, describing a communist utopia.] Reason has always existed, but not always in a rational form. Hence the critic can take his cue from every existing form of theoretical and practical consciousness and from this ideal and final goal implicit in the actual forms of existing reality he can deduce a true
Difference on evidence of deheimnisvolle der Warenform in firstedition and fourth edition of Capital
Title: Difference on evidence of deheimnisvolle der Warenform in first edition and fourth edition of Capital On 2002.03.22 00:31 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a message dated 3/21/2002 6:42:04 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've always liked this letter to Kugelmann. Very Hegelian. Very important stress on the importance of theory for revolutionary transformation. Whose translation is this? Andrew Kliman Progress Publisher, Moscow 1969, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works in three Volumes, Volume Two page 418. First Printing. I had looked up the letter on one of the Marx Archive (for easy copying) and it lacked the first three sentences. The above is not the entire letter, which I do not have a copy of. I read in the letter a definitive statement on value (magnitude) and exchange value (prices or exchange relations) and the approach to examining "the essence" of phenomena. Thus Marx states: "The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value." The letter is reproduced below. Marx to L. Kugelmann in Hanover London, July 11, 1868 . . . . As for the Centralblatt, the man is making the greatest possible concession in admitting that, if one means anything at all by value, the conclusion I draw must be accepted. The unfortunate fellow does not see that, even if there were no chapter on "value" in my book, the analysis of the real relations which I give would contain the proof and demonstrations of the real value relations. All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept of value comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of the scientific method. Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products. Science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts itself. So that if one wanted at the very beginning to "explain" all the phenomenon which seemingly contradict that law, one would have to present science before science. It is precisely Ricardo's mistake that in his first chapter on value [On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, Page 479] he takes as given all possible and still to be developed categories in order to prove their conformity with the law of value. On the other hand, as you correctly assumed, the history of the theory certainly shows that the concept of the value relation has always been the same — more or less clear, hedged more or less with illusions or scientifically more or less definite. Since the thought process itself grows out of conditions, is itself a natural process, thinking that really comprehends must always be the same, and can vary only gradually, according to maturity of development, including the development of the organ by which the thinking is done. Everything else is drivel. The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value. The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of production. The rational and naturally necessary asserts itself only as a blindly working average. And then the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, as against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he proudly claims that in appearance things look different. In fact, he boasts that he holds fast to appearance, and takes it for the ultimate. Why, then, have any science at all? But the matter has also another background. Once the interconnection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it is absolutely in the interest of the ruling classes to perpetuate a senseless confusion. And for what other purpose are the sycophantic babblers paid, who have no other scientific trump to play save that in political economy one should not think at all? But satis super
Re: Re: Alzheimer's disease
On 2002.03.22 03:12 AM, "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hope any relatives of sufferers will take cheer >> rather than offence in my passing on that the motto >> of the Irish Alzheimer's Disease Society is: >> >> "Remember those who can't". >> >> dd > > Thanks for this. I was feeling bad for starting the topic after > Jim's response. > > Best, > Sabri > Comrade Sabri Are you Alzhiemer's? If it is so, very sad. But As psychiatrist, I recommend you to participate in social activity, and take anti-inflammatory drug such as ibprofen.It delays progress Alzhiemer'. Yours sincerely MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Book on Marx's Capital
On 2002.03.20 10:24 PM, "Drewk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please feel free to circulate this announcement > > > Just Published in Italian, English, and Spanish: > > UN VECCHIO FALSO PROBLEMA: La trasformazione dei valori in prezzi > nel Capitale di Marx > > AN OLD MYTH: The transformation of values into prices in Marx's > Capital > > Published by the Laboratorio per la Critica Sociale, Rome, 2002. > 190 pages; paperback. > > Essays by Guglielmo Carchedi, Alan Freeman, Paolo Giussani, Andrew > Kliman, and Alejandro Ramos. Edited with a Preface by Luciano > Vasapollo. > > > > The Preface and essays appear in both Italian and English, except > for Ramos', which appears in Italian and Spanish. > > Vasapollo is a member of the faculty of the University of Rome - > La Sapienza. He is also the Scientific Director of CESTES (Center > for Studies of Socio-economic Transformation) and _Proteo_, a > thrice-annual review published by CESTES-PROTEO and the > Federazione Nazionale delle Rappresentanze Sindacali di Base > (RdB), a 50,000-member trade union. > > > > If you are outside of Italy, and wish to obtain a copy of _Un > Vecchio Falso Problema/An Old Myth_, please send a check for $15 > US (which covers postage as well) to > > Andrew Kliman > Dept. of Economics > Pace University > Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> From the back cover: > > 'Some of the essays appearing in this book (by Carchedi, Freeman > and Kliman) have recently been published in PROTEO (a scientific > journal for the analysis of socio-productive dynamics and labor > politics) in order to focus again on an old, false problem: > Marx's transformation of values into prices. The purpose of this > book's essays is not only to prove that this is a non-existent > problem, but also that Marx's theory is a coherent whole held > together by its own internal logic. If one introduces a different > logic into his system, one is bound to "find" logical > contradictions. Since temporalism is an integral part of this > logic, all criticisms, all contradictions, and all solutions to > the "contradictions" based on simultaneism are alien to Marx's > theory (and to reality). Leaving aside their specific features, > the above-mentioned theories share one common feature, that of > ascribing a problematic to Marx that is not his own. As a result, > they all end up by fudging the issues. Maybe there are problems > in Marx, maybe not. But if there are problems in Marx, they are > not the pseudo-problems pointed to by his critics. These > pseudo-problems have been, and continue to be, regarded as real > ones for very clear political reasons. If the logical coherence > of the transformation procedure, and thus of Marx's labor theory > of value, is vindicated, Marxism's unrivaled power as a tool to > understand, and hopefully change, capitalist reality can be fully > deployed. If, on the other hand, one presents redefinitions of > Marx's basic concepts as his own concepts, discovers > contradictions, proposes solutions, and in doing so smuggles into > Marx's theory the notion that capitalism tends towards > equilibrium, the power of that tool will be circumscribed within > capitalism's own confines.' [Translated from the Italian] > > >> From Luciano Vasapollo's Preface: > - > 'The works of the "temporal approach" are systematically > introduced here for the first time in the Italian debate. Thus a > lacuna is filled that will help the Marxists, but especially the > Italian academic world, to emerge from their provincialism. FROM > NOW ON, THERE CAN BE NO "EXCUSE" FOR CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE > "TEMPORAL APPROACH." THOSE WHO DO SO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAL TO > THEIR IGNORANCE, BUT WILL BE FORCED TO ADMIT TO HAVING AN > "INTERESTED" INTERPRETATION.' [Translated from the Italian] >Is new version of capital fist edition? About publishing capital, no first and second edition of capital is translated to English. First edition is very different from fourth edition( by Engels), especially part of value-form. It concerns with our understanding of fetishism. In adding, Sachen and Ding is both translated into "thing" in English. Sachen means property occupied by people, and Ding is merely physical thing. Marx distinguish both. Because Versachlichung der Personen and Verdinglichung is different level of quido pro quo. Without distinguishing both, we can't understand criticism of fetishism correctly. Below is my draft to reply to some "Marxist psychologists" Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism $B!!(J In Theory & Psychology, Volume 9, Number 3 June 1999, the commodity fetishism, the ideology, the false consciousness, and the theory of need are separately argued. But these categories have a common cause and an inner connection. I begin with analyzing the value-form, especially the equivalent form o
Re: RE: Roemer and Exploitation
On 2002.03.20 11:54 PM, "Veneziani,R (pgr)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I SAID: Let us start with the points of agreement: > > 1) Differential Ownership of Productive Assets (DOPA) is certainly necessary > to > have exploitation, at least in Roemer's model. (And I say it in my paper.) > > > ^^ > > CB NOTES: What does this formulation gain over private ownership of the basic > means of production, or private property ? > > > RV: (1) in Roemer's model DOPA is necessary. This is not a theoretical > statement but a technical one. > (2) DOPA stands for Differential Ownership of Productive Assets. The qualifier > "Private" (making the acronym DPOPA) can be taken as granted. > > This does not seem to me the weakest bit of Roemer's account. > Why is differential ownership of productive assets to necessary to have exploitation? If some kind of ownership is not necessary to have exploitation, How this firm has profit? Once I said, Roemer failed to see oppression in exploitation. If it is not so, why Roemer forget collective revolutionary action in his " market socialism"? MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: RE: Roemer and Exploitation
On 2002.03.21 00:51 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the key differences -- perhaps _the_ key difference at the end of the
> day -- between Roemer and Marx concerns the means of subsistence. On the one
> hand, Roemer emphasizes "DOPA," which basically means that a minority of the
> population controls the means of production ("productive assets"). For Marx,
> on the other hand, proletarianization -- the central concept behind Marx's
> theory of exploitation in CAPITAL -- involves the separation of the direct
> producers (workers) from ownership of both the means of production and the
> means of subsistence.
>
> What's the difference? For Marx, the workers' lack of ownership of the means
> of subsistence implies that in order to live, they have to buy the means of
> subsistence from the capitalists and are thus forced (by societal
> circumstance) to sell their labor-power to the capitalists and then work
> beyond the time needed to replace the cost that the capitalists pay to hire
> labor-power, so that surplus-value results. Since they can't survive without
> working for capitalists, the reserve army of labor has a significant impact
> on workers. The capitalist control over the means of both subsistence and
> production gives them control over the production process (so that workers
> are subjected or subsumed by capital) and over accumulation, which gives
> them the whip-hand (supremacy) in society, unless workers are highly
> organized (in unions, a labor party, etc.)
>
> On the other hand, in Roemer's stories, workers have access to means of
> subsistence. They sell their labor-power to capitalists voluntarily, since
> they can always survive on the land or off of the dole. (Strictly speaking,
> R doesn't distinguish between labor-power and labor done, which is a
> theoretical step backwards, back to David Ricardo.) Roemer then can base his
> theory of exploitation on the voluntary-choice model of modern orthodox
> economics, with no significant role for unemployment (the reserve army of
> labor). As I've argued elsewhere (with Gary Dymski), this is a nice story,
> but it really isn't an equilibrium, so that it doesn't really live up to
> orthodox standards that Roemer so admires: the capitalists' profits are
> based on the scarcity of the means of production, so they invest in having
> more of those, which abolishes their scarcity, killing the goose that laid
> their golden eggs. This is made worse by the fact that if they have access
> to the means of subsistence without working for capital, some workers may be
> able to accumulate capital and speed up the process of the abolition of the
> scarcity of the means of production.
>
> In Marx's theory, the abolition of the scarcity of the means of production
> doesn't happen, because as profits fall, the capitalists cut back on
> accumulation. This imposes unemployment on the workers, preventing further
> accumulation on their part, while proving who's boss.
>
> BTW, the workers' lack of ownership of the means of subsistence is usually
> incomplete in the real world, since they own gardens and the like; in the
> 20th century, mass worker action has allowed them to gain some direct access
> to the means of subsistence in the form of welfare benefits, etc. Of course,
> one of the points of neo-liberalism is to make proletarianization total, to
> get rid of the workers' direct access to means of survival.
>
> The incomplete proletarianization of workers doesn't conflict with Marx's
> theory: it means that capital can't exploit workers as much as if the latter
> were fully proletarianized, so that the drive to proletarianize that's so
> central to capitalism (cf. Perelman's INVENTION OF CAPITALISM) continues.
> Neo-liberalism is simply the latest manifestation of this drive.
>
> On the other hand, incomplete proletarianization is central to Roemer's
> story, since it is the basis for his theory of voluntary exploitation. If
> proletarianization becomes complete, then Roemer's voluntary-choice model
> doesn't apply.
>
> Jim Devine
>
> -
> Roberto Veneziani SAID: Let us start with the points of agreement:
>
> 1) Differential Ownership of Productive Assets (DOPA) is certainly
> necessary to have exploitation, at least in Roemer's model. (And I say it in
> my paper.)
>
>
> ^^
>
> CB NOTES: What does this formulation gain over private ownership of the
> basic means of production, or private property ?
>
>
> RV: (1) in Roemer's model DOPA is necessary. This is not a theoretical
> statement but a technical one.
> (2) DOPA stands for Differential Ownership of Productive Assets. The
> qualifier "Private" (making the acronym DPOPA) can be taken as granted.
>
> This does not seem to me the weakest bit of Roemer's account.
>
I agree with you. I replied Stillmann and RV about this point.
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20.JOHBUHSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF.
486-0044
TEL:0568-76-413
Reply to Skiilman and RV on Roemer
On 2002.03.20 01:54 AM, "Veneziani,R (pgr)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Following a thread of discussion on Roemer's theory of exploitation. In reply > to G. Skillman's comments (PEN-L, 11-3, 20:44). > > Let us start with the points of agreement: > > 1) Differential Ownership of Productive Assets (DOPA) is certainly necessary > to have exploitation, at least in Roemer's model. (And I say it in my paper.) > > 2) If profits persist, then given Roemer's Fundamental Marxian Theorem, > exploitation persists, too. This is not under discussion. > > Now back to the differences: > > SKILLMAN WRITES: "despite some (certainly regrettable) *verbal* carelessness > by Roemer in explaining the meaning of his formal conclusions, the latter show > that differential ownership of *scarce* productive assets (DOSPA) is the > necessary (and, subject to a caveat mentioned in my earlier post, sufficient) > basis for capitalist exploitation, not simply differential ownership of said > assets (DOPA)." > > > RV: I don't think it is a mere matter of verbal carelessness. Roemer's > research program is aimed at finding a "more general" definition of > exploitation based on DOPA (and not DOSPA, see Chapter 7 of GTEC) such that > Marx's surplus labour definition is redundant. (The emphasis on DOPA is > indirectly confirmed by Roemer's post-GTEC studies based on equality of > opportunity etc.) In order to do this he has to prove that DOPA and > exploitation are equivalent, i.e. DOPA is necessary and sufficient for > exploitation to occur. > If we agree that this is not the case and that his "careless verbal claims" > are not well-grounded, this is perfect for me, then we have to re-consider the > "careless verbal claims" that his DOPA-based definition of exploitation > substitutes Marx's. > > In any case, as regards DOSPA: > > (a) it does not do the same job as DOPA: one has to provide a 'scarcity' > mechanism through which profits, and therefore exploitation, are made > persistent. But then Roemer's normative claim regarding the role of inequality > in ownership must be changed accordingly, in order to take this other > mechanism into account. This is not a neutral change because in principle the > mechanism guaranteeing persistence would be normatively as relevant as the > initial DOPA, and therefore the claim that inequalities in endowments are the > only relevant thing would need to be qualified. Indeed, the "scarcity" > qualifier becomes the positively and normatively interesting thing. > > (b) Roemer's models are NOT static models, they are dynamic models analysed in > a steady state and under extremely stringent assumptions. Hence, if DOSPA is > the relevant condition, then one must conclude that GTEC does not provide a > general theory of persistent exploitation. Indeed scarcity is not discussed at > all, and no mechanism guaranteeing persistence is provided in GTEC, nor can it > be inferred from Roemer's models. As noted below, arguably no such a mechanism > can be introduced in Roemer's models without substantively changing Roemer's > research program and methodology. > > In particular: > > SKILLMAN quotes Roemer (p. 9) "Suppose, now, there is a limited stock of seed > corn. By 'limited' I mean there is not enough to employ the whole population > in the [capital-intensive] technique." And also Roemer (p. 10) "It is > important to notice that for this example to work [i.e., to exhibit > exploitation] there must be an industrial reserve army--that is, more > producers available than seed corn to employ them. *For if, instead, seed corn > were in excess relative to the labor supply, then the work week in the > [capital-intensive] technique would be bid down to three days* [thereby > eliminating exploitation in this example]." (Emphasis added) And Roemer (p. > 11) "Indeed, the following are requirements for this example to work: (1) a > class of propertyless producers [that's differential ownership], *in relative > abundance to the supply of capital which can employ them"* [that's capital > scarcity] (emphasis added). ALSO similar explicit caveats in _Value > Exploitation and Class_ (pp ! > 18-19) and _Free to Lose_. (p. 23) > > RV: I like these quotations very much. Assume, for the sake of the argument, > that they support Skillman's claim that Roemer had DOSPA rather than DOPA in > mind. Then one has to conclude that Roemer is a very bad model builder given > that (a) in NO MODEL of GTEC disequilibrium in the labour market is allowed; > (b) more strongly, given the subsistence constraint, disequilibrium in the > labour market (unemployment) simply *cannot* be easily included in Roemer's > model. > > Thus Roemer has been again "regrettably careless" in making his methodological > points regarding walrasian models: if an industrial reserve army is > fundamental to have persistent exploitation, how can we reconcile > disequilibrium in the labour market with the Walrasian framework and with the > idea that the pe
Credit system
Your response was read over the course of several days. I agree with its principles. Specifically, you state: "Thus Marx again and again emphasizes that class relation is presupposed from the moment the two face each other as buyer and seller. Marx said that one who see capitalist characteristic within buying and selling is caught in "semblance of circulation." Property relations are fundamental in formation of capital. My statement is confusing and thus incorrect. >This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in > the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new > qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of > capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary. Buying and selling of labor is a property relationship. "Foundation" should read, "foundation in historically evolved property relations." I stated: > Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity > increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently > surplus value. The words "increasingly separated" and the word "increasingly" is an attempt to show a new dimension in the movement and circulation of money seeking profitable fields of investment based on the law system unique to money trading and loaning. It is agreed that no "increasingly separated" movement of money can transcend property relations. In trying to grab hold of what is taking place today I have generally used some writings of Engels that outline the process. I have a different point of view of the growth of homelessness and poverty (perhaps, no really sure?). You state: >In even simple service labor, consumer buys service >and service works beyond necessary labor time. Merely international capital >transfer fund from developed world to developing world, so in developed >world, jobless or homeless problem emerges. Recently England decides new >approach to homeless as defined social exclusion. I do not say you are wrong. I do not say I am right. Marx was quoted as: >With the magnitude of social capital already > functioning, and the degree of its increase, with the extension of the scale > of production, and the mass of the laborers set in motion, with the > development of the productiveness of their labor, with the greater breadth > and fullness of all sources of wealth, there is also an extension of the > scale on which greater attraction of laborers by capital is accompanied by > their greater repulsion; the rapidity of the change in the organic > composition of capital, and in its technical form increases, and an > increasing number of spheres of production becomes involved in this change, > now simultaneously, now alternately. The laboring population therefore > produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by > which it itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative > surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing extent. [15] > This is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; > and in fact every special historic mode of production has its own special > laws of population, historically valid within its limits and only in so far > as man has not interfered with them. First sentence: "the degree of its increase, with the extension of the scale of production, and the mass of the laborers set in motion" = "international capital transfer fund from developed world to developing world," ? Processes within Capital not isolated and independent from itself. Must do more study and thinking. Below is Engels outline of process. This letter is the reason why I like crisis theory with quotes = "crisis theory." Letter to C. Schmidt in Berlin October 27, 1890. "I noticed that in the 'forties already in Manchester: the London Stock Exchange reports were utterly useless for the course of industry and its periodical maxima and minima because these gentry tried to explain everything from crises on the money market, which were generally only symptoms. At that time the object was to explain away the origin of industrial crises as temporary overproduction, so that the thing had in addition its tendentious side, provocative of distortion. This point has now gone (for us, at any rate, for good and all), added to which it is indeed a fact that the money market can also have its own crises, in which direct disturbances of industry only play a subordinate part or no part at all--here there is still much, especially in the history of the last twenty years, to be examined and established. "Where there is division of labor on a social scale there is also mutual independence among the different sections of work. In the last instance production is the decisive factor. But when the trade in products becomes independent of production itself, it follows a movement of its own, which, while it is governed as a whole by production, still in particular cases and within this general
Class relation& buying and selling
On 2002.03.14 08:53 PM, "Tahir Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2002.03.14 01:26 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In this, Roemer remains in the sphere of ownership, and forgets the sphere > of >production. For producing profits material production must be presumed. > And for >production, many firms must interact with each other and exchange > > material, >means of production, or intermediate commodities. Can coupon work > > in these >areas? > >> Roemer considers only relation between citizen and firms on the sphere of > > ownership and forget the presumption of ownership, in other words, > > production. > >> In capitalist society, wages are determined by the socially necessary amount > labor >required for the worker to reproduce himself. But Roemer does not > determine the >quantity of coupon citizen receives, nor what is required to > receive such coupons - >that is to say, "what is the tradeoff." > >> In addition, he does not clarify the relation between coupon and regular > money. >Roemer conception assumes the wage system. However, in the wage > system >workers receive part of the social product in the form of money, not > coupons. So if >he wants shares of the social product he must use money, not > coupons. Because >coupons do not have imminent value. > >> One does not exchange his Sachen (commodity, money, and capital---In any > > English translation of Capital, Marx original words Sachen and Ding are both > > translated into thing but the two are different. Sachen means "property > occupied by >people" and Ding means merely "physical matter." This confusion > makes it difficult >to understand the fetishism attached to commodity > production under capitalist >property relations) with things such as coupons > which have no value. > >> In sum, Roemer's market-socialism only may work on the sphere of ownership, >> and other area remains same as capitalist society. > >> The starting point of modern socialism or communism presupposes collective > > revolutionary action aimed at abolishing Sachen and attaining liberty. Roemer >> "forgets" this revolutionary action and confine himself to considering > phantom >economic system. > >> In reality, the communist movement is a process embracing various stages > > (boundaries)? And under which various economic system may coexist as the > > living expression of transition. Marx referred to the unfolding of this > process as a >revolutionary transitional period. > >> Current world can be totally defined transitional period. So as alternative > to money, >LET, barter, or other exchange means already are used. Perhaps > this is a sign of >radical destruction of civil society. > > MIYACHI TATSUO > > (Unauthorized editing and translation by Melvin P.) > > > > The "radical destruction of civil society" is understood to mean the > processes wherein society is increasingly severed from its foundation in the > buying and selling of labor power. An increasing segment of the world working > cannot sell their labor-power for enough wages to secure adequate supplies of > food, clothing, water, shelter and other means of family reproduction. > > The source of value is human beings labor - sweat, blood, fiber, energy and > daydreams. The nexus of commodity exchange is the amount of socially > necessary labor that goes into their production. Profits come from surplus > value - unpaid human labor. This value is bound up in and borne by > commodities. The commodities must circulate, that is, they must be sold. If > not the value in them cannot be realized and the capitalist will not profit > from their production. > > Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity > increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently > surplus value. This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in > the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new > qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of > capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary. > > An increasing magnitude of the world total social capital cannot be > profitably deployed in the production of commodities on a world scale. That > is the contradiction or fuller scope of "crisis theory" (quote, unquote, > which has only unfolded with the advent of qualitatively new technologies. > Human labor is rendered increasingly superfluous to the production of > commodities as a fundamental feature of the transition period. At the center > of the transition from one mold of production to another is the technological > revolution. > > A measurable qualitative reconfiguration in the organic composition of > capital has taken place. The massive growth of capital investing in values > mode of expression, distinct from the production process is one such > measurement. The transition and growth from the industrial reserve army of > unemployed to a more than less mass of proletar
Re: Re: on class relation and buying and selling
On 2002.03.14 01:26 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In this, Roemer remains in the sphere of ownership, and forgets the sphere > of >production. For producing profits material production must be presumed. > And for >production, many firms must interact with each other and exchange > > material, >means of production, or intermediate commodities. Can coupon work > > in these >areas? > >> Roemer considers only relation between citizen and firms on the sphere of > > ownership and forget the presumption of ownership, in other words, > > production. > >> In capitalist society, wages are determined by the socially necessary amount > labor >required for the worker to reproduce himself. But Roemer does not > determine the >quantity of coupon citizen receives, nor what is required to > receive such coupons - >that is to say, "what is the tradeoff." > >> In addition, he does not clarify the relation between coupon and regular > money. >Roemer conception assumes the wage system. However, in the wage > system >workers receive part of the social product in the form of money, not > coupons. So if >he wants shares of the social product he must use money, not > coupons. Because >coupons do not have imminent value. > >> One does not exchange his Sachen (commodity, money, and capital---In any > > English translation of Capital, Marx original words Sachen and Ding are both > > translated into thing but the two are different. Sachen means "property > occupied by >people" and Ding means merely "physical matter." This confusion > makes it difficult >to understand the fetishism attached to commodity > production under capitalist >property relations) with things such as coupons > which have no value. > >> In sum, Roemer's market-socialism only may work on the sphere of ownership, >> and other area remains same as capitalist society. > >> The starting point of modern socialism or communism presupposes collective > > revolutionary action aimed at abolishing Sachen and attaining liberty. Roemer >> "forgets" this revolutionary action and confine himself to considering > phantom >economic system. > >> In reality, the communist movement is a process embracing various stages > > (boundaries)? And under which various economic system may coexist as the > > living expression of transition. Marx referred to the unfolding of this > process as a >revolutionary transitional period. > >> Current world can be totally defined transitional period. So as alternative > to money, >LET, barter, or other exchange means already are used. Perhaps > this is a sign of >radical destruction of civil society. > > MIYACHI TATSUO > > (Unauthorized editing and translation by Melvin P.) > > > > The "radical destruction of civil society" is understood to mean the > processes wherein society is increasingly severed from its foundation in the > buying and selling of labor power. An increasing segment of the world working > cannot sell their labor-power for enough wages to secure adequate supplies of > food, clothing, water, shelter and other means of family reproduction. > > The source of value is human beings labor - sweat, blood, fiber, energy and > daydreams. The nexus of commodity exchange is the amount of socially > necessary labor that goes into their production. Profits come from surplus > value - unpaid human labor. This value is bound up in and borne by > commodities. The commodities must circulate, that is, they must be sold. If > not the value in them cannot be realized and the capitalist will not profit > from their production. > > Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity > increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently > surplus value. This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in > the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new > qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of > capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary. > > An increasing magnitude of the world total social capital cannot be > profitably deployed in the production of commodities on a world scale. That > is the contradiction or fuller scope of "crisis theory" (quote, unquote, > which has only unfolded with the advent of qualitatively new technologies. > Human labor is rendered increasingly superfluous to the production of > commodities as a fundamental feature of the transition period. At the center > of the transition from one mold of production to another is the technological > revolution. > > A measurable qualitative reconfiguration in the organic composition of > capital has taken place. The massive growth of capital investing in values > mode of expression, distinct from the production process is one such > measurement. The transition and growth from the industrial reserve army of > unemployed to a more than less mass of proletarians possessing labor-power > than cannot be sold to secure nece
On Roemer
MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10, OHATI, MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] criticism of Roemer I don$B!G(Jt konw details of Roemer$B!G(Js argument. I only read his article $B!H(J Anti-Hayekian manifesto$B!I(J in $B!H(J New Left Review 211/1995) . But fundamental thought of Roemer is expressed in the article, I think. So firstly I summarize this article. In this artcle he critisize Stiglitz about his criticism on market socialism which is justified by Kenneth Arrow and Gerald Debreu whose father is Walras. Roemer himself defends Walras. I don$B!G(Jt examine criticism of Stigliz by Roemer. Here only I examine Roemer$B!G(Js proposal on market socialism. He says that$B!I(JI believe the Walrasian model can be used as a tool yo explore the income-distributional consequences of market-socialist proposals...because an actual market-socialist economy would suffer from market failures, one cannot claim that its equilibrium would be Pareto-efficent. But the salient question is, rather, can one create ana economy that is about as efficient as capitalism, yet has qualitatively better distributional properties? $B!H(J Question1; what is relation between income and distribution? and what is the form of income and distribution? In reality, income and distribution are both side of same medal. Income is a form seen from worker, and distribution is a form seen from firm. If so, problem is form of income. He says $B!H(JThe relation between employer and employee is one of pricipal and agent. The principal wants a certain job performed, which she must delegate to an agent, whom she cannot perfectly monitor. The agent has objectives different from the principal$B!G(Js(for instance, not to perform work at a stressful rate). In this situaiton, it may be optimal for the principal to offer a wage greater than the market-clearing wage; for this would give the agent a reason to want to keep the job, and hence to work hard, so as to assure not being caught shirking(If the wage were market-clearing, presumably a dismissed worker could instantly find another job at the same wage) Thus, payment of a wage above the market-clearing level can increase the $B!H(Jefficiency$B!I(Jof the worker;such wages have come to be known as efficiency wages$B!I(J From this, we can understand that his $B!H(Jincome$B!I(J is wage form and his $B!H(J efficiency wage $B!H(J means that if worker receive more wage, worker may work $B!H(J efficietly$B!I(J in other word, efficient for principal. But wage system is characteristic form of payment of capitalist society. In this capitalist society $B!H(Jthe purchase of labour-power for a fixed period is the prelude to the process of production; and this prelude is constantly repeated when the stipulated term comes to an end, when a definite period of production, such as a week or a month, has elapsed. But the labourer is not paid until after he has expended his labour-power, and realised in commodities not only its value, but surplus-value. He has, therefore, produced not only surplus-value, which we for the present regard as a fund to meet the private consumption of the capitalist, but he has also produced, before it flows back to him in the shape of wages, the fund out of which he himself is paid, the variable capital; and his employment lasts only so long as he continues to reproduce this fund. Hence, that formula of the economists, referred to in Chapter 18, which represents wages as a share in the product itself. [2] What flows back to the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion of the product that is continuously reproduced by him. The capitalist, it is true, pays him in money, but this money is merely the transmuted form of the product of his labour. While he is converting a-portion of the means of production into products, a portion of his former product is being turned into money. It is his labour of last week, or of last year, that pays for his labour-power this week or this year. The illusion begotten by the intervention of money vanishes immediately, if, instead of taking a single capitalist and a single labourer, we take the class of capitalists and the class of labourers as a whole. The capitalist class is constantly giving to the labouring class order-notes, in the form of money, on a portion of the commodities produced by the latter and appropriated by the former. The labourers give these order-notes back just as constantly to the capitalist class, and in this way get their share of their own product. The transaction is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the commodity.$B!I(J(From Capital) Thus wage receive form of money. And we can understand his $B!H(J distribution $B!H(J also receive money-form. And his $B!H(J efficiency$B!I(J means in reality increasing surplus value. If so, where is his $B!H(Jmarket-socialism$B!I(J differ from capitalist system? He says $B!H(J I have suggested a property
Re: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus valueand profit
On 2002.03.14 02:32 AM, "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew writes: > >> "A" physical surplus and "the" physical surplus mean exactly the >> same thing in this context. > > > ok > >> >> I do not deny, but affirm "that with rising productivity there is >> indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass >> of >> surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of >> means of production and wage goods." This is the ESSENCE of >> anti-physicalism. > > ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this > greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are > you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical > dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think > you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. > > > >> >> A "rough sense" is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at >> whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. > > ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. > My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from > Catephores' book. > > RB > > What is "physical surplus value"? Surplus value have three forms. Firstly money-form,secondly, commodity-form,and thirdly material. i.e. Means of production-form.
On Rormer
On 2002.03.13 06:41 AM, "Gil Skillman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles, thanks for your post. It is entirely appropriate to demand care > in definition and usage of terms, especially in these first steps. > >>> Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary >>> condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that >>> Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of >>> new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is >>> created in the exchanges between capitalists ? >> >> Gil : No. As I state in point (2) below, value is determined by socially >> necessary labor time. > >> CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment >> that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary >> labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. > > I agree with the distinction you're drawing. I don't think it matters, > since my statement presupposes that labor is the source of value as Marx > defines the term in KI/1, but better safe than sorry. In the same spirit, > I'll note that I'd favor the statement that "labor is the only source of > value" over the statement "labor is the only source of new exchange-value," > since Marx draws a distinction between the two, such that exchange-value is > understood as the necessary "mode of expression, of form of appearance, of > value." Again, I don't think it matters for the purpose at hand, but > there's at least one point in the argument to follow where the distinction > may arise. > >> Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2* >> conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter >> 5 comment "Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is >> equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have >> its origin both in circulation and not in circulation." (p. 268, Penguin >> ed.) My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the >> possibility that surplus value's "origin...in circulation" may *require* at >> least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that >> the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value >> because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. >> Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value >> disparities are mere "disturbing incidental circumstances which are >> irrelevant to the actual course of the process" (p. 269, footnote) is >> invalid. >> >> >> CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, "surplus >> value" and "capital" are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm >> not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine >> graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of >> popup in one's mind) > > No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit. As far as I > can tell, "capital" in the passage I cited above is shorthand for "the > transformation of money into capital," a phrase that Marx uses in the > passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite. > Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses "the transformation of money into > capital" as a corollary of "creation of surplus value"--compare, for > example, his usage of "surplus value" at the top of p. 268 and the > near-parallel use of "transformation of money into capital" near the bottom. > >> When you say " *entirely granting* the point that >> the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value >> because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value." what >> does "the latter" refer to ? "Targetted price-value disparities " ? > > Oops. The first "the latter" refers to the phrase "at least targeted > price-value disparities" and the second "the latter" refers to "surplus > value." > >> I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ? > > I'm making a distinction here between *general* disparities between > commodity values and their respective prices, treated by Marx on pp > 263-264, and disparities between the price and value of a specific > commodity or type of commodity. > >> >> This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused >> I'll stick with the logical point for now: if you establish that condition >> A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established >> that A is "incidental" to B, since the possibility remains that condition A >> is *necessary* for condition B. Marx never addresses the latter possibility >> one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument. > >> CB: Are you saying that "price-value disparities might be both necessary and >> sufficient for surplus-value ? Sorry if I am not quite following the >> reasoning. > > No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that > "price-value dis
Re: Re: Against existing " socialist contry"
Comrade Waistline Thank you your reply I will carefully consider your comments and my inaccurate grasp you point out. Please give me some times to respond your comment. Thank you again.
Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I think that Roemer's limit is about money. He don't refer to abolish money. In " Critique of the Gotha programme" Marx point out that in socialist society exchange through money not exist. MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10.OHTAI,MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comrade There are many debate about market socialism, economic characater of cuba,evaluation of Roemer,etc. We(BUND a faction of new left)already defined current world as " Transitional world which included to define existing "socialist,or communist contry as transitional contry toward socialism,and capitalist contries as credit capitalcountiries which become to contradict itself toward association society, so, our definition was not to recognize any socialist countries existed. Below is published inj 1978 in order to summerize critique of USSR& China party. It can go under current situaiton MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] study of the criticism against the $B!H(J gang of the Four$B!I(J by the Chinese Commmunist Party A; criticism by Wu Lien The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the CPSU in 1956,but it did not become public untill 1963. The CCP formed a different view on distribution acording to labor from tha of the CPSU in the rocess of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of socialistic reform by enlargement of pepole$B!G(Js communes. This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictorship in a socialist society, and particularly in China whether socialism is a reality in present Soviet or Chinese society. Wu Lien$B!G(Js artic;e which was published inj 1960 in $B!H(J the study of economics; no.5$B!I(J defines socialist society as a transitional society from the view-point that in a scoalist society there are classes, $B!H(Jtwo roads$B!I(J, and a need for the power of tge proletarian dictorship. Wu Lien argue thqat the whole process of transformation from a capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of communism,(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat dictorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship and the establishment of $B!H(J the whole people$B!G(Js state$B!I(J at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October, 961), Wu Lien$B!G(Js argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev$B!G(Js policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship at the 22nd Congress. Wu Lien$B!G(Js understanding on distribution accroding to labor is, however, based on a subjective interpretation of $B!H(J the birth-marks of the old scoety$B!I(J and $B!H(J bourgeois right$B!I(J described in $B!H(J Critique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J. The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected. In $B!H(JCritique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J, Marx$B!G(Js description of socialist society states that it is $B!H(J..still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges " Wo Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks ofn the old scociety" as follows. $B!X(J This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the socialisy production relationship. First, in the field of possession of production means ,althoguh economic ownership by all the people has done away with bourgeois right in ralation to production means,due to the influence of the socialist material interest principle , there is an incentive wage system in national coroporations, in which a small portion of the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee ot individulals, and here a bourgoies right is retained. At th same tome ,ata certaion stage of socialism i.e. at an unddeceloped stage, there are two types of joint ownership-economic ownership by all th4 people and socialist collective owbership. Socialist collective ownersgip is what negates private ownership, and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is allowed. Collective ownership is ,however , a transitional forms of economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and when compared to economic ownership by all the people , it has quite a few remnents and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations. Collecitive economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is, in collective ownership
Against existing " socialist contry"
Comrade There are many debate about market socialism, economic characater of cuba,evaluation of Roemer,etc. We(BUND a faction of new left)already defined current world as " Transitional world which included to define existing "socialist,or communist contry as transitional contry toward socialism,and capitalist contries as credit capitalcountiries which become to contradict itself toward association society, so, our definition was not to recognize any socialist countries existed. Below is published inj 1978 in order to summerize critique of USSR& China party. It can go under current situaiton MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] study of the criticism against the $B!H(J gang of the Four$B!I(J by the Chinese Commmunist Party A; criticism by Wu Lien The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the CPSU in 1956,but it did not become public untill 1963. The CCP formed a different view on distribution acording to labor from tha of the CPSU in the rocess of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of socialistic reform by enlargement of pepole$B!G(Js communes. This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictorship in a socialist society, and particularly in China whether socialism is a reality in present Soviet or Chinese society. Wu Lien$B!G(Js artic;e which was published inj 1960 in $B!H(J the study of economics; no.5$B!I(J defines socialist society as a transitional society from the view-point that in a scoalist society there are classes, $B!H(Jtwo roads$B!I(J, and a need for the power of tge proletarian dictorship. Wu Lien argue thqat the whole process of transformation from a capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of communism,(Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat dictorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship and the establishment of $B!H(J the whole people$B!G(Js state$B!I(J at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October, 961), Wu Lien$B!G(Js argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev$B!G(Js policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian dictorship at the 22nd Congress. Wu Lien$B!G(Js understanding on distribution accroding to labor is, however, based on a subjective interpretation of $B!H(J the birth-marks of the old scoety$B!I(J and $B!H(J bourgeois right$B!I(J described in $B!H(J Critique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J. The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected. In $B!H(JCritique of the Gotha Programme$B!I(J, Marx$B!G(Js description of socialist society states that it is $B!H(J..still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges " Wo Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks ofn the old scociety" as follows. $B!X(J This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the socialisy production relationship. First, in the field of possession of production means ,althoguh economic ownership by all the people has done away with bourgeois right in ralation to production means,due to the influence of the socialist material interest principle , there is an incentive wage system in national coroporations, in which a small portion of the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee ot individulals, and here a bourgoies right is retained. At th same tome ,ata certaion stage of socialism i.e. at an unddeceloped stage, there are two types of joint ownership-economic ownership by all th4 people and socialist collective owbership. Socialist collective ownersgip is what negates private ownership, and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is allowed. Collective ownership is ,however , a transitional forms of economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and when compared to economic ownership by all the people , it has quite a few remnents and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations. Collecitive economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is, in collective ownership common property is still low and its scope is limited. Here again a bourgoris right has been retained. Secondaly, in human relationships n the process of labor, there is basically no antagonism between people, but it is impossible to sweep away all the influences of the
Re: Re: Question to Various comments in In
On 2002.03.02 08:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MIYACHI TATSUO wrote, > >> Certainly for production, we presume people's needs. But characteristic in >> capitalist production is that in turn commodities product more people's >> need, not vice versa. In other words, we are ruled by commodities movement. >> It is called fetishism of commodity, > > I share the belief that "needs" and "wants" are endogenous to the economic and > social system. In fact, that is the reason that I think that the FoP should be > defined in reference to (endogenously) determined wants and needs. I don't > think it is appropriate to define the FoP by reference to some > general "ability to produce." > > And, by defining FoP as I think is appropriate, it makes more plausable the > claim that social disruption occurs when the FoP (as then defined by the > social system) conflicts with the current social relations of production. The > motive force is that people come to believe a contradictions exists and they > act to create social disruption. > > The general belief that the FoP come into conflict with the SRP without any > subjective human perception that this has happened, leads to a very odd > assertion that conflict appears by some magical process that does not involve > people's subjectivity. > > In any case, the (true) claim that production is for profit (and not for need > or use) is certain true in general. But, of course, the capitalist can realize > the "value" of what he/she has produced only by selling this to someone > who "wants" it. That is, effective demand plays a key role in the realization > of value in capitalism (where effective demand = wants + income) not simple > needs and wants. But this observation is standard in both political economy > and in neoclassical economics. > > Eric > I agree wit you MIYACHI TATSUO
Re: Re: Re: Question to Various comments in InDigest 77
On 2002.03.02 02:07 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MIYACHI TATSUO wrote, >> In capitalist society that anyone can't argue "Productive forces must >> produce "what people want" Instead, capital produce in its own for >> profit,not in order to human needs. > > My point was that productive forces can't be defined except by reference to > what people want and need and these wants/needs change over time. This is > different from claiming that in capitalism production is for need. I claimed > the former but not that latter. > > Implied is that no "objective"--ahistorical--measure of the FoP can exist that > is meaningful. > > > Eric > Comrade Eric Certainly for production, we presume people's needs. But characteristic in capitalist production is that in turn commodities product more people's need, not vice versa. In other words, we are ruled by commodities movement. It is called fetishism of commodity, Once I wrote reply to " marxist psychologist " and in it I summarized Marx's value theory. I apologize beforehand long citing Marx, but it is pivot to summarize current debate about "productive forces" "Value" etc. Below is my past article. Marx$B!G(Js critique of the fetishism $B!!(J In Theory & Psychology, Volume 9, Number 3 June 1999, the commodity fetishism, the ideology, the false consciousness, and the theory of need are separately argued. But these categories have a common cause and an inner connection. I begin with analyzing the value-form, especially the equivalent form of value, show the mysterious character of commodity-form, and finally show the critique of the fetishism of the commodity. As for the fetishism of the capital, and interest-bearing capital, I only point out the basic mechanism different from that of the commodity. But since some articles analyze the fetishism incorrectly, I reply these arguments. They are swayed by the sphere of the exchange and the circulation, and ignore the critique of the immediate production process and the fetishism of the capital, as a result, They legitimize the capitalist mode of production. 1. On the equivalent form of value In the value-form in Capital, Marx wrote about the equivalent form: The relative value-form of a commodity, the linen for example, express its value-existence as something wholly different from its substance and properties, as the quality of being comparable with a coat for example; this expression itself therefore indicates that it conceals a social relation. With the equivalent form the reverse is true. The equivalent form consists precisely in this, that the material commodity itself, the coat for instance, express value just as it is in everyday life, and is therefore endowed with the form of value by nature itself. Admittedly this hold good only within the value-relation, in which the commodity linen is related to the commodity coat as its equivalent. However, the properties of a thing do not arise from its relation to other things, they are, on the contrary, merely activated by such relations. The coat, therefore, seems to be endowed with its equivalent form its property of direct exchangeability, by nature,.just as its property of being heavy or its ability to keep us warm. Hence the mysteriousness (Ra$B!/(Jtesellhafte-quoter) of equivalent form(Caipital,1,p.149) This is the first peculiarity of equivalent form from which use-value becomes the form of appearance of its opposite, value.(First substitution-Quidproquo) About the second peculiarity of equivalent form, Marx wrote: In order to express the fact that, for instance, weaving creates the value of linen through its general property of being human labour rather than in its concrete form as weaving, we contrast it with the concrete labour which produces the equivalent of linen, namely tailoring. Tailoring is now seen as the tangible form of realization of abstract human labour(Capital,1,p.150). In this substitution concrete labour becomes the form of manifestation of its opposite, abstract human labour. In this form, the relation of the abstract and the concrete is reverse. This is the second substitution(Quidproquo-quoter) . And the third peculiarity of equivalent form is that private labour takes the form of its opposite, namely labour in its directly social form: Because this concrete labour, tailoring, counts exclusively as the expression of undifferentiated human labour, it possesses the characteristic of being identical with other kinds of labour, such as the labour embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, it is nevertheless labour in its directly social form. It is precisely for this reason that it presents itself to us in the shape of a product which is directly exchangeable with other commodities(Capital,1,p.150) This is the third substitution. 2. On the mysterious character(Das Geheimnisvolle-quot
Re: Re: forces of production
On 2002.03.02 08:11 AM, "Greg Schofield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not a reply to anyone in particular - > > Productive Forces --- P = (M + L) - R > > Productive Potential = Means of Production plus Living Labour minus the > Relations of Production > > Of course you need to divide the product by "N" (Consumption Needs) but I > don't know how to do this in an email. > > Most things can be represented algerbraically which is not the same thing as > being quantifiable. > > > > Greg Schofield > Perth Australia > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > ___ > > Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) > * Powerful filters. > * Create you own headers. > * Have email types launch scripts. > * Use emails to automat your work. > * Add comments on receive. > * Use scripts to extract and check emails. > * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. > * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. > * A REXX interpreter is freely available. > ___ > ___ > > --- Message Received --- > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:47:58 -0800 > Subject: [PEN-L:23350] forces of production > > [was: RE: [PEN-L:23348] Re: RE: Question to Various comments in In Digest > 77] > > Michael Perelman writes: >> Marx's idea of social forces may be grounded more in common sense than in > some deep theory. One other factors that I see in his understanding of the > transition to socialism runs as follows: people will see the tremendous > social forces (capabilities or potential) of capitalist production > alongside the actual performance, leading to great dissatisfaction and a > readiness to make a change.< > > right. > > BTW, I think that the pair of forces of production vs. the relations of > production can be seen in volume I of CAPITAL's chapter on the labor process > (ch. 7). The forces of production listed in section 1 on the production of > use-values, while the relations of production are discussed in section 2 on > the production of surplus-value. > >> I remain very skeptical of any attempt to give precise numerical > calculations for any part of Marx's theory. Marx does use rough, back of > the envelope, calculations from time to time. They seem appropriate.< > > quantification definitely seems a bad idea when it comes to the forces of > production. > >> Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical, or precise numerical form, > seems a bit foreign to his overall project, which his understanding the > nature of capitalist society and the weaknesses that will lead to the > creation of a socialist state.< > > I think that quantification makes sense in specifically macroeconomic or > microeconomic contexts. Of course, Marx's theory crosses these boundaries, > mixing economics with what's known as "sociology" these days. > JD > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comrade Greg Schofield Mean of production can't become any "force" To become "force" it must act on some material. Means of production itself are simply things, not forces. Secondly Iiving labor is certainly forces, but itself is VARIABLE CAPITAL Which can't function without means of production In Capital Marx says "The various factors of the labour-process play different parts in forming the value of the product. The labourer adds fresh value to the subject of fiis labour by expending upon it a given amount of additional labour, no matter what the specific character and utility of that labour may be. On the other hand, the values of the means of production used up in the process are preserved, and present themselves afresh as constituent parts of the value of the product; the values of the cotton and the spindle, for instance, re-appear again in the value of the yarn. The value of the means of production is therefore preserved, by being transferred to the product. This transfer takes place during the conversion of those means into a product, or in other words, during the labour-process. It is brought about by labour;" Thirdly why relation of production is excluded or calculated within " productive potential"? " Potential" means some possible " forces" and does not include " relation". How can we see "relation" in "potential"? I Can't understand.
Re: Question to Various comments in In Digest 77
On 2002.03.01 10:54 PM, "Hari Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A number of comments discuss the fact the the societal values placed > upon 'productive forces' varies and thus there is no single barometer of > that, as put by Eric here: > "Productive forces must produce "what people want." And what people want > > changes over time and cannot be tracked by "arbitrary physical objects." > > Eric goes on to say: > " If one class becomes convinced that the existing tools, machines, and > equipment fail to produce "what they want," then they might come to see > that the existing forces of production are insufficient for their needs. > And, perhaps, they might act to alter both the forces of production and > the social relations of production (recognizing that FoP and SRP > codetermine each other)." > And someone sue the analogy of cell phones. > Am I again being too naive by asking whether to focus on a single > commodity like a cell phone misses the more general point - that a > technical advance capable of making a cell phone is then automatically > linked and plays into a host of related technical advnces- > computers/stellites/recordign information/ etc? > Does not one particular technical advance - precipitate or move in > tandem with - a host of related such techncial forces that - pushes the > overall societal 'capability'? I think that the itnerpretation of > producitve forces innovation leading to societal relatiosn innovation - > is refletion of a nodal point that is not simply related to one single > invention/productive advnace - but a cacapity within a society to > develop a range of innovations. In some instances, say the discovery of > iron and its smelting and malaeabilty etc- this may be a single > discovery that itself spawns a whole set of subsequent developments. Is > that not the overall intent of Mar & Engels in this views on what came > to be known as historical materialism? > A cell phone can come & go. (I wish the desire to have them > would go frankly and make the world quieter) but the technology behind > it goes one... > There are I believe, numeorus examples within the realm of biological > history that relate to the leap frog effect of a whole series of > scientific advances that in toto- represent a dialectical leap. > Hari > > I'm sure there are logical connections missing in the previous paragraph > > but > the basic idea is okay, I think. It underlines the importance that > ideology at least idea shave in determing so-called "material" > reality/facts. > > Eric > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In capitalist society that anyone can't argue "Productive forces must produce "what people want" Instead, capital produce in its own for profit,not in order to human needs. See huge commodities unnecessary See "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" "This estrangement manifests itself in part in that the sophistication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) on the one side produces a bestial barbarisation, a complete, crude, abstract simplicity of need, on the other; or rather in that it merely reproduces itself in its opposite. Even the need for fresh air ceases to be a need for the worker. Man returns to a cave dwelling, which is now, however, contaminated with the pestilential breath of civilisation, and which he continues to occupy only precariously, it being for him an alien habitation which can be withdrawn from him any day $B!=(J a place from which, if he does not pay, he can be thrown out any day. For this mortuary he has to pay. A dwelling in the light, which Prometheus in Aeschylus designated as one of the greatest boons, by means of which he made the savage into a human being, ceases to exist for the worker. Light, air, etc. $B!=(J the simplest animal cleanliness $B!=(J ceases to be a need for man"
Re: Productive Forces
On 2002.03.02 01:25 AM, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Productive Forces > > > Another thing that might be said about the interpenetration of physics' > forces, work, power and energy, and the forces of production of a mode of > production is regarding the role of physics' force in the the mode of > destruction and war. Between Marx and Engels, Engels did extensive study on > the history of force as in war. > > The critical issue with force in the physics sense is that it is critical and > decisive in the mode of _destruction_. So to the extent that human history > develops based on war and the state repressive dominance of one group by > another, the group with more force or energy capture used in technology as > weapons perpetuates its legacy. > > > > > > Charles wrote: >> . . . actually the productive _forces_ can be measured to a >> certain extent using the physics concept of "force", in that >> there is at least in the period from European feudalism to >> capitalism a leap in the amount of energy capture and ability to >> do "work" ( in the physics sense of work = force x distance) with >> technology . > > Eric Nilsson > I think I disagree about being able to use "force"--as defined by > physics--to quantify the amount of the productive forces. > > But Charles' point raises an idea I've not thought of before--which likely > has been well-discussed by those more knowledgeable than me: to what extent > did Karl M. get his ideas about productive forces from the ideas of physics > then current in Europe? The notion of "force" (as used in physics) certainly > existed in Europe by the early 1700s. I guess the equations of mv or mv^2 > also existed. Was Karl M. aware of such things and, if so, did it play a > part in the development of his theory of history? > > Eric > > & > > CB: He was certainly aware of these physics basics, but I am sure he did not > reduce his "productive forces" to physical forces. Marx was not a vulgar > Marxist. However, I think his concept of productive forces includes and > transcends the concepts in physics. Don't forget. Physics has "work" too. > > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Productive forces certainly belong to physics. Because human-being are a part of nature, as such they metabolise between nature through labor.
Re: forces of production
On 2002.03.02 05:47 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [was: RE: [PEN-L:23348] Re: RE: Question to Various comments in In Digest > 77] > > Michael Perelman writes: >> Marx's idea of social forces may be grounded more in common sense than in > some deep theory. One other factors that I see in his understanding of the > transition to socialism runs as follows: people will see the tremendous > social forces (capabilities or potential) of capitalist production > alongside the actual performance, leading to great dissatisfaction and a > readiness to make a change.< > > right. > > BTW, I think that the pair of forces of production vs. the relations of > production can be seen in volume I of CAPITAL's chapter on the labor process > (ch. 7). The forces of production listed in section 1 on the production of > use-values, while the relations of production are discussed in section 2 on > the production of surplus-value. > >> I remain very skeptical of any attempt to give precise numerical > calculations for any part of Marx's theory. Marx does use rough, back of > the envelope, calculations from time to time. They seem appropriate.< > > quantification definitely seems a bad idea when it comes to the forces of > production. > >> Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical, or precise numerical form, > seems a bit foreign to his overall project, which his understanding the > nature of capitalist society and the weaknesses that will lead to the > creation of a socialist state.< > > I think that quantification makes sense in specifically macroeconomic or > microeconomic contexts. Of course, Marx's theory crosses these boundaries, > mixing economics with what's known as "sociology" these days. > JD > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Productive force appears in capitalist society as quantity of commodity( total value) which workers produced. As such, if some disabled produce commodities less than " normal" people, he(she)is given less wage. It is a discrimination. Attention that Marx says that "Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. [9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. [10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. "As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time. "Caiptal 1) In contrary of capitalist society, in socialist society, workers are given "wage" according to labor time being nothing to do with quantity of product. So if some disabled work 10 hours he can be given same wage as "normal worker" who works 10 hours being nothing to do with quantity of product.
