Yes, addenDUMB: I got so hung up with the idea of execs being paid a
scarcity rent that I lost sight of what they get paid when they don't
receive a scarcity rent, i.e., when they're paid their "Marginal physical
product."
Since corporate execs are, strictly speaking, unproductive workers -- i.e.,
not producing surplus-value directly -- the "marginal product" of an exec's
"labor" is problematic. To a neoclassical, it's no problem: hey, divide the
extra production that results from the exec's exertions by the amount of
those efforts and you've got the MPP. But to a Marxian economist, that's
obfuscating. The "MPP" of the exec would be the rise in the amount that
productive workers produce (extorted by the exec's minions under the
supervision of the exec) divided by the amount of the exec's efforts.
Most execs wouldn't have their salaries determined by that "MPP," by the
way, since much of what they do is pure financial paper-shuffling. Much of
that is quite profitable to the owners of the corporation, thank you very
much, even it doesn't add to the aggregate surplus-value at all.
mea culpa: I've broken two resolutions in one day.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
>From "LYNN TURGEON, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu Tue Jul 8 20:50:57 1997
Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "LYNN TURGEON, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
Subject: [PEN-L:11205] Soviet Imperialism
X-Comment: Progressive Economics
What was the economic basis for Soviet imperialism? In short, who
exploited whom? IMHO, it was the Russians who were exploited by the countries in
their sphere of influence, as well as the underdeveloped countries generally.
The ideological basis for this exploitation goes back to Lenin's ideas
on imperialism. Whereas capitalism produced uneven development, the
post-revolutionary noncapitalist system would tend to "even out development."
Prices oninternational exchanges would ten to now be highly favorable to the
less developedcountries, whether they be India, Slovakia, Cuba, or the countries
of Eastern Europe.
The best documentation of thisreverse exploitation is the recent bookby
Randall Stone,"Satellites and Commissars. Strategy and Conflict in the Politics
of Soviet-bloc Trade."(Princeton,1996) The pressure for the expansion of
Comecon trade came from the countries other than the Soviet Union since
petroleumexports from the Soviet Unionwere highly subsidized.
The same was true for economic relations with the Third World.
Beginning with Khrushchev, the Soviet Union committed itself to a major aid
program with Marxist dogma dictating interest rates in the neighborhood of one
percent. To remain competitive, the advanced capitalist world developed the
International Development Association (IDA) the poor country's branch of the
World Bank with low interest rates competitive with those of the Soviet Union.
Cuba was heavily subsidized by Soviet exports of petroleum for refining
in Duba andsales in world markets with much higher prices. The generosity of
the Russians made the ultimate breadkown of Comecon more difficult during the
post-Communist transition.
TheAswan Dam in Egypt was largely a gift from the Soviet Union as Egypt
learned how to switch sides in the Cold War. Thus, when the Russians sanctioned
the break-up ofthe Soviet Union, they thought that the removal of previous
subsidies to Central Asia, the Baltic Republics and Moldavia would result in an
improvement of their own standard of living.
One of the principal problems faced by U.S. propagandists was their
inability to convince the Third World that there was
somethingcalled"SovietImperialism." This was obvious during the period of the
New International Economic Order in the mid-seventies when Third World
countries tried to emulate the OPEC countries andimprove theirterms of trade
for 17 commodities by establishing an organization that would buy up and store
commodities that were in oversupply, and sell these same commodities when
prices were high. This same principle underlay the New Deal programs to assist
U.S.agriculture. The Sovietsfinally agreed to joinin such an operation but the
West refused to go along with NIEO.
When looking for reasons for the ultimate defeat of Soviet socialism,
in addition to the effects of NSC-68, Soviet foreign economic relations
represents an important reason.Ionce wrote an article, "Is the Soviet Union
Really an Imperialist Power?" for "Contemporary Crises",April,1978, pp.157-166.
Lynn Turgeon
he[rpgra,s tp vp
Sm
tjeo,r
