Re: Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
> Socialism is necessary in the sense in which food is > necessary: not as something which will be but as something > that must be if we are to survive. > > It is pure religiosity to claim that socialism _will_ come; > it is close to self-evident that unless it comes we will > plunge ever deeper into the barbarism RL predicted. > > Doug doesn't like quotes, but no one has ever said it better > than Mao: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. > > Carrol Dear Carrol, Why are you being so picky? Look, we the non-native speakers are not as good as you are in this bloody language, O.K.? To some of us, including myself, there is not much difference between necessity, certainty and the like. By the way, I understand you quite well: Please accept my apologies Chris because of my unnecessarily critical words about your statements regarding strange attractors. In reality, I knew what you meant perfectly. Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
miyachi wrote: > > > There is not "necessity of socialism" Rather, there is only possibility of > socialism. Socialism is necessary in the sense in which food is necessary: not as something which will be but as something that must be if we are to survive. It is pure religiosity to claim that socialism _will_ come; it is close to self-evident that unless it comes we will plunge ever deeper into the barbarism RL predicted. Doug doesn't like quotes, but no one has ever said it better than Mao: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Miyachi wrote: > Most important is that Marx tried firstly to prove > ability of working class to destroy civil society, > not tried to explain economical phenomena from > without. In Japan, from pre-war to 1960', Marxists > focused mainly market analysis modeled after Stalin's > dogma. Its objectivist tendency was destroyed by new > left movement. Dear Miyachi, Please excuse my ignorance but I don't know much about the new left movement in Japan. Would you give us some information about it? It is good to know that there are many around the world who are trying to make socialism a possibility. Best regards, Sabri
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
on 2002.02.23 05:20 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment >> >>> Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the >>> attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on >>> something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. >> >> Charles writes >> >>> Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the >>> insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship >>> between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist >>> production. If the problem were "solved" , Marx would be refuted. >> >> Depends on what you think the "transformation problem" refers to. As I >> read Marx, the "problem," as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies >> in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate >> surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at >> prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is >> the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's >> original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been >> offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But >> the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is >> critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I >> agree with Doug's negative response to this question. >> >> Gil > > > Does the Sraffa model which presumably makes Marx's demonstration > redundant explain the source of profit any better the Quesnay model > to which as Heilbroner notes it bears a family resemblance explains > the origin of the produit net? > > rb > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is not "necessity of socialism" Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Marx firstly expected revolution when economic panic happened, but later In Capital, Marx depended upon growing social movements themselves. BELOW is From Capital "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." "It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time=3 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=6 and the rate of surplus-labour=100%. If the necessary labour=9 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=12 and the rate of surplus-labour only=33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of p
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism 2
A New Era - A New Doctrine II The teaching of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is all-powerful because it is true. Marx was a genius because he was able before anyone else to abstract from all the writings of history the law system that governed changes in society. Using the law system he discovered, Marx shifted through a mass of data concerning the fact of economic and social development and elaborated the conclusion into the doctrine of the class struggle. People always were and always will be the victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics, as long as they have not learned to discover the interests of one or another of the classes behind any moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Virtually every adult in America understands that we are living in an era of revolution and the revolution is in the economy as expressed in the technology and revolutionizing of all kinds of social products and services. What everyone in society recognizes as revolutionary is a qualitatively new technology that alters all social relationships. The way we communicate with one another is changed forever and continues to change; the way we pay our bills, shop, secure information, go to the movies and purchase tickets, drive our vehicles, cash weekly checks or deposit it into banking accounts, secure education, interact with television, play recording devices and listen to music - everything is being revolutionized and people already know this. The revolution has entered a stage where people begin to fight out the social question posed by the economy revolution. This developing fight to formulate what is wrong in society cannot mature without a cause, a morality and a vision. During the last reform movement within capital, the Civil Rights Movement, there was a cause, a morality and a vision. The vision of a genuine system of justice and equality for all was the cause that excited deep passion throughout every sector of society because it conformed to a general morality that say it is honorable to be fair. One hundred years before the Civil Rights movement the struggle to preserve the Union birthed the cause of ending human slavery. That cause became the foundation of a vision of a new world of human freedom. One Hundred years earlier the cause of national independence - self-determination, united the scattered and contradictory forces around a program of Independence and ushered in 1776. It is the striving of our diverse peoples for a higher vision that demands formulating the righteous cause that can inspire them to unbelievable heights. Lurking beneath the morality of fairness is always class interest, however the vision that inspired was the striving for a better and just world. The cause today is slowly emerging into view - the distribution of the wealth of society according to need. The vision is of a world without human suffering based on want, without race and national hatred, without sexual oppression and human exploitation, a world where an ever expanding technology delivers fuller lives for all, materially, culturally and spiritually in a safe and healthy environment. The historical record clearly proves that it was Marx to first formulate the vision of the new world and this was not a vision called socialism but "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need." Trying to take "socialism" to the working class is useless for several reasons. One important reason is that the process of the decay of capital does not take place on the basis of a general collapse of the system where everything stops working at one time but rather on the basis of the polarization of society into two hostile camps; wealth and poverty. This polarization splits the working class into two hostile camps. One camp is absolutely dependent upon imperialism for its privilege position relative to the other sector of the class. The other sector of the working class faces the razor edge of capital with its standard of living slowly sinking lower and lower, while its rank slowly but consistently grows larger. This process is underway in all countries on earth and in this sense is historic and develops with its own uniqueness in every country. The more stable section of the working class has no interest in socialism, but rather the stability of employment and preservation of its relatively high wages - compared to the bottom. This desire does not prevent large sections of skilled and white-collar workers from being pushed into the lower sectors of the working class. The lower and most destitute sector of the working class has no interest in socialism because it is driven on the basis of its needs - I need this, that and the other. Then of course the banner of socialism was a banner in a historical period of time that no longer exists. Socialism has already defined itself on earth and before the collapse of Sov
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
In the spirit of Sabri Oncu's cheerleading the one I like best is "Go Reds, beat State." Gene Coyle Ian Murray wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Go Marxian economists, Go! > > > > > === > > Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not > exist... > > Ian
RE: RE: Re: On the necessity of socialism
>Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem?< I have a most marvellous solution to this one, but it will not quite fit into this margin ... dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
>Sabri Oncu wrote: > >>P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this >>transformation problem? > >Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the >attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on >something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. > >Doug For the neo Ricardians, the transformation problem is only one of the liabilities of Marx's theory of value, though as I indicated in a previous post, drawing from Geoffrey Pilling's very stimulating Marx's Capital, Marx's own transformation is a theory of class contradiction raised to the level of society as a whole. For the neo Ricardians, there are also questions of redundancy and derivativeness and the possibility of negative values. If Frank Roosevelt's "Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism" is in fact correct (in Jesse Schwartz, ed. The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism--has anyone read the disseration on which this was based?) there are clear political implications. Marx's value theory clarifies the struggle for the self emancipation of the working class from alienated labor while the neo Ricardian theory defends the interest of functioning capitalists, as well as fetishisizes science and technology, against rentiers. Roosevelt argues that it was not accidental that Joan Robinson became a champion of Maoist party leaders and factory managers, not the workers themselves whether they be in the West or the East, the North or the South. I suppose from this reading it would not be accidental that the neo Ricardian theory was embraced by former Stalinists such as Meek and Dobb, either. If this kind of sociology of knowledge has any weight, then one would expect say for it to be defended by those close to those Brahmin controlled CP's in India. Roosevelt's argument has been overlooked, I believe, because it is not a piece of technicist economics but in essence a philosophy of labor. And so little is written which makes a contribution to the philosophy of labor. One thinks of Raya Dunayevskaya (a lot can be learned from her), Lawrence Krader, Enrique Dussel, Istvan Meszaros, Chris Arthur. But there are libraries on dialectics, structural causality, totality, the theory of history and other weighty topics. Marxism seems in fact to have become the last refuge of the bourgeoisie. But there are criticisms to be made. Roosevelt compares the idea of the surplus as physical surplus, as a quantity of mere things to the concept of surplus as surplus *value* which indicates an exploitative social relation in the production process itself. But the surplus does in fact have to be analyzed in terms of use value and value, physical quantity and social labor time ; for while a smaller quantity of the physical surplus could have the same value as a greater quantity, the effects on the accumulation process would be markedly different. For example, if there are more means of production in physical terms, then more labor and surplus labor and surplus value can be absorbed in the following period. I think the value theorists such as Roosevelt are often too anti physicalist in their criticisms of neo Ricardian theories (I submitted this criticism of Kliman and Freeman). Marx's strength was that he analyzed the accumulation process in terms of value and use value. The quantity of the surplus in terms of physical goods matters as much as the quantity of the surplus as value (again Grossmann was the first to emphasize this). Marx's transformation tables are in fact not good at all in capturing the former side; and in this sense the simple neo Ricardian physical input-output matrices do seem to have an advantage over the Marxist value based transformation examples. And I say this despite my great sympathy for the criticisms made by Lebowitz, Roosevelt, Shaikh and Mattick Sr of neo Ricardian theory. Rakesh
