Re: Re: Re: Re: Suppression of Marx
In a message dated 3/5/2002 6:14:29 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Melvin, before becoming a researcher, I was a worker and an Union leader, like you. And I believed in "historical materialism", too. I believed in it, because having not yet visited history by myself, I trusted Marx and Engels about the progressive evolution of society, the consciences, productive forces and superstructures altogether. But after more than 25 years of research, I know, now, that Marx and Engels had been mistaken. Like anybody in their century, they were impressed by the exploding "productive forces" of Industrial Revolution. And they concluded that if the development of productive forces was a cumulative process, so was the social development too. But it was a pure metaphysical reasoning, out of any historical material. Nevertheless, they got an important intuition: the intuition of something irreversible in human economy, the intuition of entropy. Rosa Luxemburg has begun to give this intuition an explicit expression, by showing the strictly exogenous origin of accumulation. The expansion within space (the geographical one and the sociological one) is concretely attested by historians from the very beginning of the known history, whatever be the "mode of production". The motor of this expansion is always the asymmetry of exchanges between the places of accumulation and the periphery of raw-material extraction and working-force exploitation (see Immanuel Wallerstein: "The modern World system", and Guillermo Algaze: "The Uruk World System"). That explains expansionism, imperialism, inter-imperialist competition, first and second world wars, then today's emergence of a single occidental imperialism and of its "globalization". The asymmetry of exchanges are reflected by a systematically negative balance of trade of the pole of accumulation. That is attested for Athens, Rome, 16th century Europe, England, France, Germany, then today's USA, that is for all imperialist poles of accumulation. Such is reality, and not a "class struggle" that has never been so deliquescent than now. Soviet Union has imploded. New Russia has become a source of raw material for the occidental empire. China, a source of cheap working force. All communist parties have been recuperated by social-democrat ones, or atomized. Marxism-Leninism is an historical defeat, because its theoretical base was wrong. We have to admit that, in order to "understand the world". Is accumulation endogenous or exogenous? That is the question. Marx's surplus value (the "absolute" one) postulates an endogenous accumulation. As it is included in the revenue per capita, it enables capital to endlessly make profit without any crisis other than wage earners going on strike. But that does not explain overproduction crises, expansionism, colonialism, imperialism. Actually, this so called "surplus-value" is not a surplus-value. It is indeed a tribute paid by labour force, but it is already included in the investment, as Keynes demonstrated it. It enriches the capitalists, but does not take any part in global accumulation of capital. That is to say globally cumulative profit comes from the multiplication of labour force, not from the individual exploitation. And then can be explained expansionism, etc. Marx and Engels have come up against a contradiction between their intuition of the "limit" and their theory of accumulation that is nothing but the classical-economy one which depends on the good will of the "saver". Rosa Luxemburg surpassed this contradiction, but Lenin did not. Don't trust people who continue talking about "class struggle" that they never experienced and that they only met in the books. Salute and brotherhood, Romain Kroës "Is accumulation endogenous or exogenous? That is the question." For me personally this is a difficult question, whish I cannot grasp as stated, although I understand or rather imagine I understand the inner logic of what is being asked. The question is reformulated in my mind, perhaps incorrectly, because my political posture is dogmatic or rather rigid, or cloaked in the mythology of the "philosophic" method of how I understand Marx approach. "Don't trust people who continue talking about "class struggle" that they never experienced and that they only met in the books" is my rule of thumb in discussions about the perception of the various currents in modern society. Every cry or conflict over injustice, violence or abuse is not necessarily the "class struggle" in my opinion. Actually, I have never experienced what I understand to be the meaning of class struggle in my life, but rather various currents in society struggle against their perception of injustice and this struggle unfolding within the "space" of the political environment, conditioned by "endogenous or exogenous" forces of accumulation. I do agreed the Leninism is primarily a political doctrine of insurgency born under conditions of a war time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>Why is that when the question of oil economics came up, I seemed to >>be the only one who remembered Bina's work though Bina had been a >>co-editor (I believe) of RRPE with many of you? > >Hey, I had Bina on the radio. You're not the only one. > >Doug Doug, this was weeks after discussion had gone on your list without any serious mention of the important works in oil economics (Massarat, Roncaglia, Bromley, Spiro, Adelman and Bina) and after I had posted about my surprise of the low level of discussion on LBO here (I believe) and about Bina's work publically (on the OPE-L) and to you privately a couple of weeks before you interviewed him, no? You hadn't mentioned his work before that right? Before that there was no mention of his work, no acquaintence with his argument against what came to be called the oilism thesis. I am not now defending Bina's argument though it's nice to know that he's a nice guy--never met him myself. But this is far from the point. I am merely saying that discussion of oil economics went on weeks without mention of his work even for the purposes of refutation. And I ask myself why does it seem that no one knows about critical political economic work by a colleague on the economics of oil and US foreign policy when the US has been pursuing a very destructive policy for the last ten years or so? Was no one concerned to read and think hard about Bina's work? Why did his work so easily slip out of memory? I had no interest in revisiting our arguments about trade. This arose out of Michael's insistence that my behavior and tone are just obstacles. It would be much too much for anyone on this list to express appreciation for the concerns that I raised. After all, I did help to stimulate a discussion which was culminated by a very informative post by Hari Kumar. There is much too much unjustified confidence implied in Michael's and Jim D's negative comments about my style that in the absence of sharp and impolite questioning--questioning which does not assume in the face of contrary evidence that the addressee is not ethnocentric and does not respect the desire to be free of the imposition of having to consider matters from the point of view of another oppressed group--there would be easy overcoming of ethnocentric fallacies by which I mean the inability to see matters from the point of view of another oppressed or exploited group with which good American progressives and populists do not identify here as a result of nationalist, ethnic or gender prejudices of which they are not even or at best dimly aware. That I have reached this conclusion about many of my interlocutors does make me ipso facto impolite. Rakesh
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
> Cyrus [Bina] is supposed to be on pen-l. I do remember him very well from my > days on the ed. board. he's a good guy, too. Jim Devine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
Cyrus is supposed to be on pen-l. I do remember him very well from my days on the ed. board. Doug Henwood wrote: > Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > >Why is that when the question of oil economics came up, I seemed to > >be the only one who remembered Bina's work though Bina had been a > >co-editor (I believe) of RRPE with many of you? > > Hey, I had Bina on the radio. You're not the only one. > > Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >Have you ever explained why Henwood was never able to get himself >both to understand why most third world trade unionists oppose the >linkage between trade and labor rights and to recognize that to many >the US union backed anti sweatshop movements is probably a move in >the direction of a protectionist system with which to replace the >MFA? At 9:05 AM -0800 12/29/01, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >After this last post, I retract all criticism of Doug regarding >trade issues. He returned my vinegar with honey. He has thought >hard and long about the problems that we are facing. And I do >benefit from his perspective that begins as always with the class >struggle at home.
Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >Why is that when the question of oil economics came up, I seemed to >be the only one who remembered Bina's work though Bina had been a >co-editor (I believe) of RRPE with many of you? Hey, I had Bina on the radio. You're not the only one. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
>Rakesh, you have recounted in your post maybe half a dozen arguments that >have made you feel aggrieved. I suspect nobody else matches that record. So I must be the source of the problem? And if so, how? Did you or did you not chastise Phillips for a totally unjustified attack on me? Did you or did you not say something when Devine said all smart people recognize that Marx was wrong about what he thought were the most important developmental tendencies? Did you or did you not say something when Schwartz launched ad hominem criticisms against value theorists? Did or did you not find Sawicky's views on trade and the US as Robin Hood obnoxiously ethnocentric? Have you ever explained why Henwood was never able to get himself both to understand why most third world trade unionists oppose the linkage between trade and labor rights and to recognize that to many the US union backed anti sweatshop movements is probably a move in the direction of a protectionist system with which to replace the MFA? What's your explanation for why you tend to reprimand me and not others, given the record above? Do you deny that you are ethnocentric? Do you yourself understand Devine's explanation for why and at what point imbalances become too imbalancing for accumulation to be sustained? Yes, I bring heat on myself because I challenge the smug social democratic, ethnocentric leftism that passes for radical thought. Do I think Phillips' response was justified? No. Not at all. In fact I think with his harkening back to the great days of white Canadian social democracy was implicitly a racist reponse. Do I think Devine may be right about his critique of so called orthodox Marxism? I certainly do not rule out that he is indeed right. As I said, I do not have good direct evidence for my view. Matters are far from settled. I have been challening Fred that a low profit rate does not mean a slow down in the rate of accumulation (and quoted Hollander!), and do not rule out the possibility against orthodox Marxism that we are indeed in the early stages of an upswing. I do not want to be an orthodox crisis theorist. I welcome and want all criticism. Do I think value theorists have fended off the alternative neo Ricardian theory? No. I think both traditions are viable, and I am not overwhelmingly certain that Steedman like critiques are false. As I said, we have to deal with joint production and negative values. Do I think Sawicky's views on trade were ethnocentric? Yes. Do I think Henwood's coverge of trade suffered from ethnocentric blinders and naivety as to the goals of the US unions? Yes. Do I think Henwood is a racist. No. Were the kinds of criticisms that I was making of Sawicky and Henwood after Seattle idiosyncratic? To think so one would have to be quite ignorant of world politics. As I said, they got off easy because the Internet is American dominated, and I am a fellow American. Why do I think you single me out for reprimand? Well you know my answer. Rakesh >I don't have any problem at all with your ideas. I just don't think that >personal arguments have any business here. > >On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 01:56:31PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >> Michael, >> >> What exactly is so objectionable about this message? >> >> I raise several questions: have reason and academic respectability >>been equated >> with a demonisation of Marx's value and crisis theory? Does the the >> ban on Kliman serve as indirect evidence of such a conflation by many >> radical economists? Does Marx's value theory provide the foundation >> for a bullish outlook on American capitalism? >> >> And what is your problem with me? Phillips erupts on me in an abusive >> post, you never publically chastise him. But you chastise me. Devine >> starts crying because I think he is selectively misusing the word >> fascism and then blames me for mis representing his theory of the >> exact sources of instability--did anyone else follow him? Moseley > > didn't. >> >> But you get mad at me for challening Devine after he bombatiscally >> tells us that "intelligent people" know that Marx got it wrong on his >> most fundamental points about developmental tendencies. Which implied >> what about me?! But of course you don't see this insidious comment as >> the cause of my problems with Devine. It must be something that I >> said and did. >> >> Justin started hurling ad hominem comments at me, but you never said >> a word to him. >> >> You blame me for my debate with Henwood, though you don't stop and >> think that to other darkies (especially non American ones) Henwood >> and Sawicky may indeed seem ethnocentric in the way that they >> understand global trade. After all, Sawicky thinks America is Robin >> Hood, and Henwood never got himself to understand why the majority of >> trade unionists are opposed to the linkage between trade and labor >> rights. And Henwood and Sawicky got off e
Re: Re: Re: Re: suppression
Rakesh, you have recounted in your post maybe half a dozen arguments that have made you feel aggrieved. I suspect nobody else matches that record. I don't have any problem at all with your ideas. I just don't think that personal arguments have any business here. On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 01:56:31PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Michael, > > What exactly is so objectionable about this message? > > I raise several questions: have reason and academic respectability been equated > with a demonisation of Marx's value and crisis theory? Does the the > ban on Kliman serve as indirect evidence of such a conflation by many > radical economists? Does Marx's value theory provide the foundation > for a bullish outlook on American capitalism? > > And what is your problem with me? Phillips erupts on me in an abusive > post, you never publically chastise him. But you chastise me. Devine > starts crying because I think he is selectively misusing the word > fascism and then blames me for mis representing his theory of the > exact sources of instability--did anyone else follow him? Moseley > didn't. > > But you get mad at me for challening Devine after he bombatiscally > tells us that "intelligent people" know that Marx got it wrong on his > most fundamental points about developmental tendencies. Which implied > what about me?! But of course you don't see this insidious comment as > the cause of my problems with Devine. It must be something that I > said and did. > > Justin started hurling ad hominem comments at me, but you never said > a word to him. > > You blame me for my debate with Henwood, though you don't stop and > think that to other darkies (especially non American ones) Henwood > and Sawicky may indeed seem ethnocentric in the way that they > understand global trade. After all, Sawicky thinks America is Robin > Hood, and Henwood never got himself to understand why the majority of > trade unionists are opposed to the linkage between trade and labor > rights. And Henwood and Sawicky got off easier on the American > dominated internet since they only had to respond to a fellow > American like me. > > How ethnocentric are you? The America you grew up in rural PA is no > more even if it seems that way in Chico. Sorry Michael. > > Why is that when the question of oil economics came up, I seemed to > be the only one who remembered Bina's work though Bina had been a > co-editor (I believe) of RRPE with many of you? > > I mean how ethnocentric and racist are the RRPE editors? > > The American left is not a pretty thing from where I look. > > Fight imperialism, fight racism. > > > Rakesh > > > >STOP THIS RIGHT NOW. > > > >On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 10:23:44AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >> Eric has now switched his thesis from "RRPE did not put a ban on > >> Kliman because of his politics" to "a RRPE ban does not constitute > >> suppression because Kliman was free to publish elsewhere." Not very > >> fast footed work. Devine continues to imply that much should not be > >> made out of the rejection of a single paper but that's not the > >> question which is why did RRPE decide it never wanted even to > >> consider a paper by Kliman. > >> > >> Eric writes: > >> > >> > >> > Even if RRPE decided never to > >> >publish anything written by, say, Milton Friedman, this would not > >>constitute > >> >suppression as RRPE would not stop Milton from publishing somewhere else. > >> > >> > >> Well let's say RRPE had a ban on Friedman and Kliman. Why those two? > >> Two answers suggest themselves. > >> > >> i. RRPE will not publish articles by a man shorter than 5'7'' > >> > >> ii. RRPE will not publish anything from the right or very much from > >> the so called far left; unlike say Capital and Class it is a social > >> democratic journal whose basic political economy combines the neo > >> Ricardian theory of distribution with a radicalized Keynesian or > >> Kaleckian theory of effective demand (unlike mainstream Keynesians > >> RRPE puts more focus on better domestic and global income > >> distribution and more aggressive public works in generating the > >> effective demand needed for full employment). In fact that is what > >> radical political economics is both theoretically and programatically > >> (or all that it can be rationally be)--so why should RRPE allow in > >> authors and papers (except on rare occassions) that do not attempt to > >> develop but spit out irrational diatribe against radical political > >> economics as so defined? > > > > >> Won't driving Kliman out put RRPE on its way to becoming the > >> theoretical wing of the American Prospect and all that respectability > >> that it implies? > >> > >> This is America after all, and a radical academic journal cannot > >> survive with a Marxist orientation; a social democratic, neo > >> Ricardian and radical Keynesian one has a chance though. > >> > >> Isn't this the issue? > >> > >>
