ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, it's part of Anti-Dühring (here), a much longer and more dated work published in 1878 based on a series of articles Engels had written over the previous two years.No need for us to reprint it really as there are plenty of editions about. Essential reading anyway even if you don't agree with it if you want to know what more about socialism. I always buy one if i see it on sale in a charity shop. Some copies are available from our Head Office, 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 7UN for £1 plus postage.
Yes, Socialism Utopian and Scientific is the best introduction to "Marxist" ideas. Better in fact than the more widely-read Communist Manifesto. Can be found here:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
Dave B wrote:"The argument was about whether an exchange economy where "all" the producers were "independent owners of their means of production" ever existed historically."I would like to say that all do not think that there was ever an exchange economy, before capitalism, where all things that were bought or sold were produced by simple commodity production.We are agreed then. Argument over.Incidentally, nodern bourgeois academic economics does in effect teach that capitalism is essentially an economy where all the producers are independent commodity-sellers including wage-workers, who are selling their labour. just as others, independent producers, sell or used to sell their products. Of course, as Marx is pointing out in the passages you quote about Adam Smith and Ricardo, this means they can't explain profits properly as surplus value does not exist in the model of a simple commodity production economy. which is essentially what they are positing. Marx solved the problem by his key distinction between labour and labour-power, i.e what wage-workers are selling is not their labour (as independent commodity-producers do), but their labour power with surplus value and profit being the difference between the value of what they produce (their labour) and the value of what they are selling to their employer (their capacity to work, or labour power) which is less. Obviously they're not going to teach that in schools and universities.
There is no logical reason why a an exchange economy composed entirely of independent producers owning their own instruments of production could not have existed (and so given rise that way to the concept of such a society). It's just that, as a matter of historical fact, no such society ever did exist. On the other hand, capitalism, as an exchange economy with wage-labour, exists as well as the concept of capitalism.
LBird wrote:Thus, there is no need for a 'pre-existing' or 'real' 'small commodity mode', because the 'small commodity mode' is an explanatory concept, introduced by Marx to help explain to workers how a more complex capitalism worked.Oh dear. I agree with LBird or vice versa (don't know which is worse).Hilferding is saying the same thing too in one of the passages Dave B quotes and even underlined:[quote-Hilferding]In fact, this can happen only when the conditions for commodity production and exchange are equal for all members of society; that is to say, when they are all independent owners of their means of production who use these means to fabricate the product and exchange it on the market. This is the most elementary relationship, and constitutes the starting point for a theoretical analysis. Only on this basis can later modifications be understood;…………..[/quote]Reminder: nobody is denying that the concept of "simple commodity production" exists and is useful (nor that "simple commodity producers" have existed; some still do).. The argument was about whether an exchange economy where "all" the producers were "independent owners of their means of production" ever existed historically.
Here's a basic definition of socialism from this site here which answers your precise question:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/introductory-articles/what-socialism:
Quote:What is Socialism?Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions. Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply. So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety. We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them. In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.It's not so much always what he says that I object to (except when he says Vote Democratic Party, as I'm sure he will again, odd for an anarchist) as the way he writes especially about foreign policy.
If you do go it might be worth making a few copies of this article from the June 1995 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1995/no-1090-june-1995/levellers-or-diggersIn fact, if no one is going perhaps we could send them some copies to distribute.
I have managed to find someone using Marxist terminology to support the view we've both now rejected about "simple commodity production" leading to capitalism — the Stalinist economist, A. Leontiev in his Political Economy. A Beginners' Course that first came out in 1936:
Quote:Wherein lies the difference between simple commodity production and capitalism? The artisan, handicraftsman, small-scale farmer own their tools, raw material and means of production. They work by themselves, producing their goods with the aid of these means of production. Under capitalism it is different. There the plants and factories belong to the capitalist and in them work hired labourers who do not have their own means of production. Simple commodity production always precedes capitalism. The capitalist system could not arise without simple commodity production. The latter prepares the way for capitalism.In its turn the development of simple commodity production inevitably leads to capitalism. Small-scale commodity production gives birth to capital.One of the misinterpretations of Marxism is the attempt to deny the existence of simple commodity production as the historical precursor of capitalism. The political significance of this distortion of Marxism is clear.Leontiev went on to explain:
Quote:The distortion of the role and significance of simple commodity production forms a basis for the negation of the role of the basic mass of the peasantry as an ally of the proletarian revolution. This distortion lies at the basis of the counter-revolutionary theory of Trotskyism.Now we know. We're Trotskyites !
Dave B wrote:you are a rotter again!Here's the view of one of John McDonnell's economic advisers, Professor Danny Blanchflower, writing in today's New Statesman on this idea:
Quote:The new Labour leaders are not economists and are going to have to learn fast. They will have to accept the realities of capitalism and modern markets, like it or not. No more silly stuff about companies not being able to pay dividends if they don’t do X or Y. If companies are not allowed to pay dividends, share prices will potentially rise instead. If you raise corporate taxes too high, companies may move to Ireland or elsewhere, where they are lower.Every time there's been a Labour government they have learned this. So would Corbyn and McDonnell if they get the chance (though I doubt they will, get the chance that is).
Dave B wrote:Hi AdamYou seem to making two points;“that capitalism was not preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy”“And a non-capitalist economy composed entirely of simple commodity producers never existed historically.”On the second point first, that I will return to later; I do not argue that there was ever an ‘economy’ or for that matter more narrowly an exchange economy, that was entirely composed of simple commodity producers.Very gracious of you to concede my point.
Dave B wrote:What my Hienrichain friends have said to me is, after eventually accepting that simple commodity production did exist, was that it was never a pan-economic system.Even though I never contested that.My misunderstanding. I thought you did. Anyway, of course commodity production existed before capitalism. Whoever said it didn't?
Dave B wrote:And then as the argument goes because it was never a pan-economic system Karl would never have started his analysis from that, why would he?Like capitalism itself was a pan-economic in the mid 19thor even early 20th century?That's the whole point of Marx's method (and not just Marx's of course). He was developing an ideal model of the capitalist economic system so as to try to better understand the more complex real world(and a "simple commodity production" economy was also an ideal model on the way to this).
Dave B wrote:Hi AdamThere is I suppose two essential and equally interesting arguments here;One; is what Karl was on about and what he really meant etcTwo; what early Marxist theoreticians thought he meant.I would like at the moment first to look at how early Marxist theoreticians interpreted what they thought Karl was on about.How second generation Marxists (amongst which the founding members would have been) saw "simple commodity production" would be interesting but I don't think that Luxemburg would be the best example as she differed from Marx in arguing that capitalism could not exist with external, non-capitalist markets. She actually says so in the quote from her you give:
Rosa Luxemburg wrote:Capitalist production as proper mass production depends on consumers from peasant and artisan strata in the old countries, and consumers from all countries; but for technical reasons, it cannot exist without the products of these strata and countries. So there must develop right from the start an exchange relationship between capitalist production and the non-capitalist milieu, where capital not only finds the possibility of realizing surplus value in hard cash for further capitalization, but also receives various commodities to extend production, and finally wins new proletarianized labour forces by disintegrating the non-capitalist forms of production [are these your bolds or hers?]This is her famous/notorious underconsumption theory (that capitalism cannot realise all the surplus value created) and the basis for her mistaken theory of imperialism. She has to posit the existence of a non-capitalist commodity producing sector to explain why capitalism has not collapsed and in fact how it ever got off the ground in the first place. But we can leave that for the others on this thread to argue about.The point at issue is not whether or not petty independent producers owning their own instruments of work and producing goods for sale (commodities) existed but whether a non-capitalist economy composed entirely of such producers ever existed historically. There is no evidence that it did. Of course this sector of a wider exchange economy was outcompeted by larger capitalist enterprises employed wage labour, so it could be said that in this sense simple commodity producers were replaced historically by capitalist enterprises but that's not the same thing as saying that capitalism was preceded by a non-capitalist exchange economy.
