A friend forwarded a letter to me from a student who's currently taking an orthodox economics course. I interspersed my answers among his or her questions. They represent my opinions. If anyone wants to toss in their two kopecks, please feel free. (Of course, I know you will.) Jim Devine > ... I am currently taking Economic Development with Dr. [x] and am finding his > course very frustrating. He simply talks about the market system being the best and > most efficient system and claims that Marx's socialism and communism, though great > in theory, was not realistic and did not work, showing the collapse of China and > USSR as examples of it. He claims that these communist and socialist countries > focused too much on industrializing and forgot to feed the people within their > borders. He further claims that Marx was right in saying the capitalism will > collapse, but he was only right until 1929, and then Keynesian economics took over. < --> The "socialism" of China and the USSR was not Marx's socialism, since he really didn't write about how socialism should be organized. His subject was capitalism, not socialism and he didn't like the utopian socialists of his era who presented large number of recipes for how socialism should be organized without linking it to the historic tendencies of capitalism. (In my minority opinion, the ideas for how to organize the Soviet economy stem much much more from expediency and books like Edward Bellamy's utopian LOOKING BACKWARD than it does from Marx.) --> To me, the socialism of these countries was mostly aimed at planning their economies in order to attain national economic development. Because both countries' "socialism" began with revolutions based in popular forces (workers in the USSR, peasants in China) there was often great regard for these classes' interests even though they were politically dictatorial. Of course, this misses a lot of detail. --> I don't know where he got the idea that these countries "forgot to feed their people." It's true that people died from famine at times, but that was often due to internal conflict (as with the "Great Leap Forward" in China or Stalin's war against the big peasants in the 1930s). It's true, however, that the Soviet model of planning wasn't very good at producing abundant consumer goods. It was much better at producing standardized stuff (like Mao jackets or little red books). Usually these problems are exaggerated with 20/20 hindsight, while the down-sides of capitalism are ignored. --> some socialists think the market does a good job (see David Schweikart's work). Others disagree, presenting better ways to plan an economy while combining planning with democracy. The journal SCIENCE & SOCIETY has had some useful debates on these issues. --> I'd say that it wasn't Keynesian economics that "saved" capitalism after 1929 as much as a combination of (1) the warfare state, starting with World War II and (2) the welfare state (social democratic programs such as national pension plans and health insurance). The first had always been the exception to pre-Keynesian assertions that the government budget should always be balanced. It became a "permanent war economy" in the US in the period after World War II, acting as a stabilizing balance-wheel on the economy. The second was bigger in Western Europe, where labor movements were much stronger and pushed the governments to institute such programs. To my mind, it was political pressure (either for war or for social democracy) that gave a backbone to Keynesian ideas, so that they were implemented. Most of the Keynesian ideas implemented in the US were pretty conservative (tax cuts for corporations & the rich). These days, the warfare state is taking over as the main prop (since it's hard to cut taxes for corporations and the rich any more). >As he was lecturing on the various economic theories, he came to Marx and only >mentioned that Marxist form of economics claims that "you get paid what you work for" >and there is a reserve of the unemployed. He mentioned nothing about the control of >the means of production or the division of labor. < --> Marx's dicta (which he borrowed from others, I believe) were that in the first stages of socialism, the principle was "from each according to his or her ability and to each according to their work," while in the second stage it was "to each according to their need." --> you are right. Marx put a big emphasis on the process of production, including the division of labor and machinery and their negative effects on workers. To me, this suggests the need for some sort of workers' control of production. Marx was relatively positive toward workers' cooperatives, but saw them as incomplete predecessors of socialism. >In addition to the course material, he talks about his own people, the Iraqis who are >resisting the US occupation, as being terrorists. He wants the Iraqis to stop >resisting and to completely give in to US demands. When I've tried to show an >opposing point of view about what is happening in Iraq, he dismisses it and says the >Iraqis are not ready for democracy because they are used to the rule of a dictator, >that being Saddam Hussein. < --> yuk. So why not bring back Saddam? I'd also ask this creep about what he means by "terrorism." does that include what the Marines did in the early days of their assault on Falluja? does that include the torture of prisoners by US troops and mercenaries? --> If you ask most people what they mean by "terrorism," they usually mean the strategic or tactical use of violence against civilians -- unless it's in a good cause (promoting democracy, etc.) A consistent definition of terrorism would make it harder for this creep to justify the US conquest of Iraq. > I don't mean to rant on and on, but I hope you see my frustration. I acknowledge > that the USSR and China were not strictly Marxists and that they did have their > problems, but it must be presented in its context. My main reason for writing to you > is to ask, how does one go about questioning, discussing, debating these issues in > class? My argument/analysis is also quite limited since I am not fully knowledgeable > on Marxist theory of economics. I give examples to contradict his arguments, but my > analysis is not complete. I am struggling through Dobb, Baran, Sweezy, et. al. and > formulating my own analysis will take some time, but what can I do in the mean time? > Also, could you recommend any books on Marxist economic theory that are current, > because the above mentioned authors wrote during the 1960s and 70s and there have > been many changes in the world since. < --> Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT is the best place to start. I'd also recommend Charlie Andrews' FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, which is available only by ordering it on-line (at http://www.laborrepublic.org ). --> as far as the tactics of dealing with an obnoxious professor (while helping learn what he's teaching), try to understand what he's saying in order to find the internal inconsistencies. Further, ask questions like "how does your assertion that Keynesian economics saved capitalism fit with the fact that the idea of running a government deficit as a way to fight unemployment wasn't accepted in the U.S. until the Kennedy administration?" Just asking about the facts of the matter might undermine this creep.
I hope this helps. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
