ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There is one passage where they make rather a large concession to the advocates of reformism and/or state capitalism:
In modern models of capitalist economies, there is, of course, an ample role for government. In particular, there are public goods and goods with externalities that will be inefficiently supplied by the free market. Public goods are undersupplied in a completely free market because there is a free rider problem. For example, if national defense, a public good enjoyed by the whole country, were sold at local supermarkets, few would contribute because they would feel their individual purchase would not matter and they would prefer others to contribute while still being defended. Consequently, the market would not provide sufficient defense.
The market doesn’t do this in other cases too, not that state intervention can rectify this.
Here you have to use <em for italics not <i. I made the same mistake over bold by using <b instead of <strong
We are all still learning !
I’ve now finished reading the 50 or so pages. We already know that it is not an attack on socialism/communism. It is in fact a criticism of any state intervention in the working of the competitive, profit-seeking capitalist economy (whether through state ownership or through state regulation) to redirect production, redistribute income or introduce free services (education, health care). According to the report, this leads to a misallocation of resources (ie not what the unregulated market would bring about) resulting in a lower standard of living all round. Hence “the opportunity costs of socialism” of the title.
The report says this applies just as much to the milk-and-water reformism practised in the Nordic countries as to what went on in the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao. It states explicitly that it has been drawn up because “socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse” and it attacks “Senator Sanders” and “Senator Warren” for standing, in a moderate form, for the same sort of thing as Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
To tell the truth, I was surprised at the extent that the authors are “mad marketeers”, citing with approval Hayek, Milton Friedman and … Margaret Thatcher. I can’t imagine that this is going to get them very far in the debate between raw capitalism and reformism. No doubt “Senator Sanders” and “Senator Warren” will be able to defend themselves but, as it’s not a debate between capitalism and socialism we don’t need to take sides, especially as we know that reformism doesn’t and cannot work.
It must be a good sign, though, that the word “socialism” has made “a comeback in US political discourse”. That gives us a chance to get a join in, if only to say that socialism is not about state ownership or regulation. In fact by stating that communism (which = socialism for Marx and us) has never been tried and is “a social arrangement where there is neither a state nor private property” (footnote p. 4) the White House has given us a perfect cue to intervene.
Yes, we will definitely deal with this in the Socialist Standard but note already from the passage quoted by Alan that it is self-confessedly not dealing with what the Leninists call “communism”, i.e what we mean by socialism, but what the Leninists mean by “socialism”, i.e. state capitalism which is neither socialism nor a step towards it.
For classical socialists, “communism” is a purely theoretical concept that has never yet been put into practice, which is why the second “S” in USSR stands for “Socialist.” Communism is, in their view, a social arrangement where there is neither a state nor private property; the abolition of property is not sufficient for communism. As Lenin explained, “The goal of socialism is communism.”
The classic Marxist work debunking Boehm-Bawerk is Rudolf Hilferding’s reply (1904):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm
Ironically, while Boehm-Bawerk had been Finance Minister in the Austro-Hungarian Empire Hilferding was to become Finance Minister in Weimar Germany.
He was also debunked by Louis Boudin in his The Theoretical System of Karl Marx (1907) and by Nikolai Bukharin in his Economic Theory of the Leisure Class (1927).
Bukharin book can be read here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/index.htm
On the other hand, he has redeemed himself with this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/stephen-hawking-claims-no-possibility-god-last-book-ncna921806
By coincidence (unless others contributing to this thread have also had it) I received yesterday an email expressing in its pure form the conspiracy theory that Rothschild financed Das Kapital. Here it is:
“MARX NEVER ONCE MENTIONED ROTHSCHILD. IN HIS MAGNUM OPUS ‘DAS KAPITAL’, THE SO-CALLED RESULT OF 20 YEARS OF RESEARCH, A TOME OF SUPPOSED SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EXPOSE … AND NEVER ONCE TALKS ABOUT THE ROTHSCHILDS OR THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING AND FINANCE SCHEMES THAT DOMINATED EUROPE. IN THE REALM OF ECONOMICS, THERE WAS NO GREATER FORCE THAN THAT OF ROTHSCHILD. SO HOW DOES MARX JUST SOMEHOW COMPLETELY OMIT MENTION OF IT. it needs to be said that Marx was an agent of Rothschild, tasked with weaponizing political philosophy so that the elite could import it to foster civil unrest and even civil war in countries unfriendly to their banking and finance schemes. This they did in Germany and, especially, Russia. May the fact that Marx was hell-bent on misinforming and destroying humanity further contribute to the notion that he was a Satanist? -of the breed of satanic elite that seems to bleed out of the Holy Roman Empire, through the Vatican and it’s Jesuits, and it’s Jewish front as Zionism?? ”
The email also contained a quote from Bakunin endorsing this conspiracy theory (apart from the Satanist part). He may even have been its originator.
ZJW wrote:
I hope that the one on zionism/anti-semitism will be considerably better than this semi- potboiler that the CWO thinks highly of — Zionism and Marxism
I have now read this and, to be honest, I found it quite interesting on the history of leftwing Jewish nationalism. Ok it makes Lenin out to be less of a supporter of nationalism than in fact he was but that’s another issue.
Not read that CWO “semi potboiler” but will. No need to worry. It is not based on Postone’s convoluted theory. It’s a reprint of articles from the Socialist Standard from 1918 through 1937, 1946, 1948, 1961, etc to 2007 with an introduction (which has already been published in the September Socialist Standard). It so happens that 2 of the 8 articles were written by Stefan. I don’t know how quickly, given the other problems at the moment on this site that need dealing with, it will be before it is up here but paper copies are available.
The introduction can be found here:
But first we’ve got to give a resounding NO to this outrageous suggestion to be disccussed at Autumn Delegate Meeting this weekend: “Should Summer School go vegetarian?”
Don’t forget the greenhouse gases released by the military which I hadn’t realised till recently were explicitly excluded from agreements like Kyoto.
The title of this article is misleading as although the military’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions will no longer be exempted automatically, it still will be in practice.
Anyway, all this will go in socialism too.
Sorry that was me not an ex cathedra statement from Head Office. I was at HO yesterday and forgot to change who was logged in.
“10. Future Propaganda Activities. Bruce proposes a trip to see a performance of “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” at Earlsfield in London, in October. Bruce agrees to send information to interested parties.”
Details here: townsendproductions.org.uk/shows/a-new-one-man-magic-lantern-show-of-the-classic-book-the-ragged-trouseed-philanthropists/
It’s in Earlsfield on Wednesday 24, Thursday 25 and Saturday 27 October. Has the branch chosen the date yet as I am sure London members might like to come too?
As I see it’s touring the country till next May I’ll post details under Events too in case members outside London want to see it too. Let’s hope it’s not Labour Party propaganda like the last one I saw.
I don’t think the large size or the italics has to do with Alan J’s eyesight. It seems to be built into <blockquote . Another minor glitch to iron out?
You weren’t supposed to read the article. I didn’t tackle it either. That’s why I watched the video where he explains what he is trying to get at with a minimum of algebra. Basically, as Ricardo and Marx say that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour required to produce it, not just at the last stage of its production but from start to finish, Ian Wright is trying to find a formula to take this into account where there is production for profit.
This involves counting not just the labour that went to produce the materials used at the last stage but the labour that went into producing those materials and then the labour that went into producing the materials those materials used, and so on. As Ricardo put it:
If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made, and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to manufacture them, and bring them to market. First, there is the labour necessary to cultivate the land on which the raw cotton is grown; secondly, the labour of conveying the cotton to the country where the stockings are to be manufactured, which includes a portion of the labour bestowed in building the ship in which it is conveyed, and which is charged in the freight of the goods; thirdly, the labour of the spinner and weaver; fourthly, a portion of the labour of the engineer, smith, and carpenter, who erected the buildings and machinery, by the help of which they are made; fifthly, the labour of the retail dealer, and of many others, whom it is unnecessary further to particularize. The aggregate sum of these various kinds of labour, determines the quantity of other things for which these stockings will exchange, while the same consideration of the various quantities of labour which have been bestowed on those other things, will equally govern the portion of them which will be given for the stockings.
I’m not sure that this could be done in practice but Ian Wright was trying to show that it could be in theory be done even when there is capital investment for profit.
By the way, if you can’t do maths you might be denied access to this forum. I had to answer what is 1 x one.
