Two ex-socialists go funny
- This topic has 106 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Likewise Michael Heinrich in his book ‘An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital’, from the chapter ‘The Fetishism of Social Relations in Bourgeois Society’:
[In copy-pasting this I have used asterisks where the text used italics]
‘In the Preface to the first edition of Capital, Marx writes that he doesn’t “by any means depict the capitalist and the landowner in rosy colours,” *but that his depiction deals with individuals* “only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories,” and therefore the point cannot be to “make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them” (Capital, 1:92). As shown above (see section 4.2 or 5.2), economic actors follow a rationality that is imposed upon them by the economic relations. Thus the constant attempts by capitalists to raise the level of valorization (in the normal case) does not result from an “excessive addiction to profit” on the part of the individual capitalist; it is competition that forces such behavior upon individual capitalists on pain of economic ruin. Everybody, including those who profit from the operation of capitalism, is part of a gigantic wheelwork. Capitalism turns out to be an anonymous machine, without any foreman who steers the machine or can be made responsible for the destruction wrought by the machine. If one wishes to put an end to such destruction, it is not sufficient to criticize capitalists. Rather, capitalist structures in their entirety must be abolished. With the “personification of things and the reification of the relations of production” (Capital, 3:969), capitalism as a whole seems to be largely immune to criticism. Since the capitalist machine appears to be nothing other than the most advanced manifestation of the process of social fife (that social form-determinations can no longer be distinguished from their material content is precisely what is expressed by *the trinity formula*), society cannot extricate itself from this machine. The subjugation to allegedly unavoidable “objective necessities” is, so it would seem, impossible to escape; one must simply come to terms with the situation.
In light of the impositions of capitalism—its crisis-prone development, often catastrophic in its effects upon individual lives, its constant railing into question all living conditions and circumstances—there occur time and time again forms of a blinkered negation of fetishism: “guilty” parties are sought behind the anonymous capitalist machinery that can be made responsible for the misery. Attempts are made to influence their actions; in extreme cases, they are supposed to atone for the misdeeds attributed to them. Thus, in the various capitalist societies, a personalization of fetishistic relations can be observed time and time again. […]
It is seldom the case that capitalists as a whole are made responsible for particular miseries. It is too conspicuous that capitalists are also often the ones being driven, having to obey the “demands of the market” if they don’t want to go under. This appears to be the case for small and medium capitalists, whereas large corporations and “monopolies” are alleged to have the power of eluding such demands, or being able to create them in the first place. As a result, a distinction is made between the good capitalism of the small capitalists and the bad, unscrupulous, exploitative capitalism of the big capitalists. The latter are then regarded as pulling the strings in the background. Another variant of personalization is the reference to “the banks” (or possibly “the speculators”), which by means of credit and stock ownership control a large number of enterprises and are therefore the secret masterminds of the economy. Here, a good, industrial-productive capital is contrasted to an evil, money-hungry financial capital. These acts of personalization are based upon quite real differences: the competitive situation and the room for maneuvering of a small business is usually much different than that of a large business; between banks and industrial enterprises there are often considerable differences of interest concerning many questions. There are also plenty of examples of the bosses of large businesses and banks attempting to exploit their positions of power. Yet even big businesses and large banks cannot permanently extricate themselves from the coercive laws of an economic system mediated by value. Often, big businesses, banks, and speculators are accused of being motivated solely by the quest for profit, but that’s always the case in capitalism for every capitalist, large or small.
[…]
The terms *personification* and *personalization* need to be precisely distinguished. Personification can refer to the fact that a person merely obeys the logic of a thing, such as the capitalist being a personification of capital (in German: *Personifikation*). Personification can also refer to a thing having properties of a person attributed to it, such as capital appearing to be a self-active subject (in German: *Personifizierung*). Personalization is the reduction of social structures to the conscious activity of individuals.’
That’s good stuff. He (and Mau) only need to spell out (which they don’t seem to, though it follows from their position) that governments too are subject to impersonal economic logic of capitalism (“cannot permanently extricate themselves from the coercive laws of an economic system mediated by value”) and so knock the final nail into the coffin of reformism that seeks to make capitalism work for the wage-working majority and their dependents.
Not only that but also the ultimate futility of trying to bring popular pressure on governments and individual capitalist enterprises to get them to act against the logic of capitalism.
Titled ‘Forest and Factory: the Science and the Fiction of Communism’, here is a new contribution — having appeared just days ago — on the topic of production under socialism.
——————————I’ve had a quick look at this piece. It’s long and could do with another reading. It does contain many useful points.
I would focus on just one or two at this stage.
The authors seem to be quite strongly opposed to the “localist” bias of people like Mau. They say, for instance:
“However, our principle objection is not to localization tout court, but rather to the idea that “land, water, energy, [and] technology” can or even should be controlled locally. At the purely technical level, the reality is that very few of these things can be localized to a city-sized commune in a fashion that would actually provide for modern population sizes. Even assuming a given commune has large tracts of arable land, ample reserves of freshwater, and good renewable energy amenities, none of these resources can be efficiently utilized without modern industrial technology that is, on average, extremely difficult to localize. Good luck building and maintaining a water purification plant with no inputs from outside of a 200km radius!”
I agree but at the same time, there is no reason why we should not strive, as a matter of principle, to localise the sourcing of material inputs as far as practically possible (information goods are another matter since they are not scale-dependent). There is a concept called the “ecological transition” coined, I believe, by John Bennett in 1976. He is basically, coming out against the kind of thinking you see in Ricardo´s theory of comparative advantage. For instance, we would surely not want to have the kind of wasteful “Coals to Newcastle” type of phenomena we find today in capitalism e.g. the importation of coal from China or Eastern Europe or wherever. It makes sense to source materials as close as possible to where they are needed.
Bennett´s point is that an over-extended spatial division of labour tends to desensitize communities to the environmental impacts of production decisions. If you in the UK get your salad crops from the greenhouse belt in Almeria in Spain you are not going to worry as much about the environmental repercussions of all this greenhouse production, is what he is suggesting. It’s out of sight and more than a thousand kilometres away from the “White Cliffs of Dover”. In other words, local communities need to bear more of the burden of external costs they generate because it will then incentivise them to reduce these costs
Given that environmental constraints are likely to play a much more important role in decision-making in a socialist society compared to today one can go along with the logic of what Bennett is saying. I think the SPGB´s concept of planning in a socialist society as being multi-tiered – global regional and local – accommodates both this concern and the practical realities of supply chains that the authors refer to.
Another point the authors make concerns the “transition”:
“Communist construction is ultimately defined by its character as a transition from one society into another, and this transition is successful only if the remnants of capitalist society, including temporary measures that may bear some superficial resemblance to wage or price (i.e., labor vouchers or priority distributional weights assigned to scarce necessities) are being inexorably wiped away without regression.”
Of course, we (in the SPGB) don’t ourselves, go along with the idea of a labour vouchers scheme. I think it would prove a lot more administratively challenging and socially divisive than its proponents imagine. It will also, I believe, help to reinforce not diminish, a scarcity mentality. Not good news.
That said, I think a lot more discussion is needed around the subject of shortages – how they are going to be dealt with – in a socialist society, particularly in its early stage. What kind of goods are most likely to be subject to shortages and how ought they to be rationed? I don’t believe a universal system of rationing (like labour vouchers) is required. A partial or selective system would probably do the job
Incidentally, Heinrich was one of the examiners for Soren Mau’s PhD thesis, from which ‘Mute Compulsion’ is derived. It’s freely available here:
While we have been discussing how the production and distribution of wealth could take place in a socialist society as necessarily one without markets or money, ex-comrade Watkins has been at it again. This time he has excelled himself as an outright apologist for “free market” capitalism, alongside those hired by big business at the institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute to do this. Big business subsidises organisations like these to resist government regulation of their “freedom” to seek profits where they judge best.
While we have been discussing how the production and distribution of wealth could take place in a socialist society as necessarily one without markets or money, ex-comrade Watkins has been at it again.
________________________________________From the article
“Capitalism puts the food on the table. Be grateful and don’t expect more than it can give, says Stuart Watkins.”
What a joke. I think Stuart has lost the plot completely. Does he not understand that capitalism is just an “ism” – an abstract set of rules governing production (and a pretty naff set of rules at that, that, for instance, allows food to be destroyed to bump up prices)? “Capitalism” doesn’t produce anything. It’s flesh and blood workers that produce everything in conjunction with naturally given resources.
I find it bemusing these kinds of blatantly bourgeois apologetics that people like Stuart have, apparently, now wholly succumbed to – a totally fetishistic upside-down perspective on the world. He is not alone, there are others who seem to likewise suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome towards “capitalism. For example, Trots who, having passionately advocated for what they call a planned “socialist economy” for a large chunk of their lives, suddenly and inexplicably have some kind of road-to-Damascus conversion (mid-life crisis?) to the so-called free market economy. Indeed, became some of its most dogmatic and religious exponents.
Very strange and very sad at the same time!
Robbo is dead right of course, British and American Bolsheviks ( and Socialists ) who have gone over to become cheerleaders for capitalism are legion. My old mate McDonagh started out in the SPGB and ended up calling himself a Cobdenite Liberal. Mind you he was a nutcase. (McDonagh I mean, not Cobden ).
On the other hand, have you noticed if you meet a conservative toe-rag at seventeen you can put the mortgage on him still being a conservative toe-rag at seventy.
If there is one thing to be said for conservatives, they are consistent.In my entire life in this movement I have known many renegades, it is nothing new. Sometimes those renegades with Marxist and socialist knowledges become more dangerous than the capitalists, the police and the state officials. I do not waste my times with those guys
This reminds me of the recent spate of the ‘In defence of Scrooge’ style articles that have been popping up.
But, this has been bugging me all day: “an economic system based on private ownership and competition, in which companies themselves are free to determine what and how much they produce, aided in their decisions by the prices set by the market” This is not a definition of capitalism: it is possible to have all of these characteristics on an economic system, and for it not to be capitalist (as Kevin Carson, the free-market anti-capitalist would doubtless readily say) – incidentally, he critiques those firms from that definition above against Mises/Hayek’s own theories, and apparently modern industrial bureaucratic capitalism fails the economic calculation argument.
This reminds me of the recent spate of the ‘In defence of Scrooge’ style articles that have been popping up.
But, this has been bugging me all day: “an economic system based on private ownership and competition, in which companies themselves are free to determine what and how much they produce, aided in their decisions by the prices set by the market” This is not a definition of capitalism: it is possible to have all of these characteristics on an economic system, and for it not to be capitalist (as Kevin Carson, the free-market anti-capitalist would doubtless readily say) – incidentally, he critiques those firms from that definition above against Mises/Hayek’s own theories, and apparently modern industrial bureaucratic capitalism fails the economic calculation argument.
—————————————————————————————-
If that is the definition of capitalism, why capitalists are going into wars ? Those so called anarchists capitalists, free marketeers , and capitalists ass kisser ( Hala bolas as they are called in Argentina ) were debunked at the Yahoo WSM forum a long time ago. Members of the Socialist Party swept the floor with their conceptions. It is an absurdity to leave the Socialist Party/WSM to become a capitalist lover. The experiment that is being carried in Argentina has proven that their conceptions are totally wrongs, and unreal, they are reinforcing the repressive forces of the state and they are reinforcing the monetary system, they are becoming more reactionary than the groups that they are always attacking. It is just an anticommunist movement of the capitalist class wrapped in intellectuals theories
I came to this topic hoping for a laugh. Never mind. Here’s a funny sketch (thanks Paddy) instead https://youtu.be/XGFknyGKtao?si=p5JM2cVM421-E89d
Apart from the tendentious definition of capitalism (he was trying to define private enterprise capitalism), the opening subheading is odd too:
“Capitalism puts the food on the table. Be grateful and don’t expect more than it can give.”
Of course workers get fed under capitalism, otherwise they wouldn’t be fit to produce the wealth needed for society to survive or the profits that the capitalist economy runs on.
Chattel slavery in the American South also put food on the table for the slaves there.
Also of course capitalism doesn’t put enough food on the table for many even in the advanced capitalist parts of the world. If capitalism wants to claim benefit for feeding most workers then they must accept responsibility for not feeding everybody adequately. In fact, why doesn’t it feed everybody?
Mind you, it is good advice to not expect of capitalism more than it can give. There is no point in trying to reform capitalism to work in the interest of the wage-working majority as it can’t be. Conclusion: get rid of it.
Incidentally, Cobden was a bit of an nutter too. This factory owner was opposed to Factory Laws, defended adulteration as legitimate competition, and wouldn’t tolerate trade unionism. Most of his fellow capitalists and their political representatives thought that was silly and went ahead and agreed to all the things he opposed.
Cobden’s “classical liberalism” was just a policy and ideology to further the interests of one section of the capitalist class at one time. It has been inherited by a section of Big Business that is opposed to too much government interference in how they run their run their own profit-making. But it is not the mainstream capitalist view. For some reason ex-comrade Watkins has chosen to enrol as one of the champions of this particular sectional capitalist interest.
You all seem to be strangely unaware of two pretty obvious facts. First, I was once a member of your party, and have heard it – and enthusiastically embraced it – all before. No one seems at all curious about that fact. Second, I am a journalist writing for a particular audience, using language that I expect they would understand and making arguments that I hope they find informative, interesting and diverting. I am not writing a propaganda pamphlet addressing socialists, nor am I, as I have said, as ideologically attached to the opinions I write about as you are to yours. In some of my pieces, I give equal weight to two or more completely contradictory arguments. You might sometimes guess my own opinion or commitment from the attempted synthesis of the two, but not always. In fact, I learnt how to write for a certain audience whose views I may or may not share without overemphasising my own possibly heretical take while writing for the Socialist Standard. You may have heard of it. Anyway, as ever, thank you for your interest!
What I’m saying is, if I saw Robbo and Adam and Older Master Smeet in black shirts, linking arms and goose-stepping down the street on a fascist demonstration, I wouldn’t run after them and try to force an “Introducing the SPGB” leaflet on them. I’d probably just think, hmm, how interesting, I wonder whatever happened to them?
Well, Stuart, if you click here:
https://moneyweek.com/economy/giving-thanks-for-capitalism
You see:
“Why you should give thanks for capitalism
Capitalism puts the food on the table. Be grateful and don’t expect more than it can give, says Stuart Watkins.”Are you saying that you didn’t say that? Or that you did, but didn’t mean it? Or that you were simply making the trite point that under capitalism workers get fed plus the socialist point that workers shouldn’t expect more than they get under capitalism?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.