[ALB]

I wasn't agreeing with them, but if you read on you'll come across something more to your liking:

Quote:

Economists seem wont to believe that their “thinking like an economist” mindset is merely a technocratic, ideologically neutral one, but in fact it often comes with a whole lot of baggage. For example: an insistence on quantifying things that may not be quantifiable, and comparing incommensurate concepts (cost-benefit analysis for environmental catastrophe); the idea that people are mostly driven by incentives (see Freakonomics); a use of particular criteria – such as Pareto Efficiency and GDP – to judge the economy/society. We are not claiming that this mindset is ‘wrong’ per se, but that all too often it is taught to students as if it is unquestionable and scientific, rather than simply one of many lenses through which to view the world.

No?

[ALB]

Vin Maratty wrote:

ALB wrote:

 Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.

But you are not saying that a single 'great man' was responsible for that 

No, of course not. It was something that had to happen sooner or later as apartheid was hampering the normal operation of capitalism in South Africa. In any event, it would be F.W. De Klerk rather than Mandela who'd be the imagined "Great Man" here. South Africa's equivalent of Gorbachev.I see that Imposs1904 has just published Pieter Lawrence's excellent 1985 article "Democracy and South Africa" on his Socialist standard Past & Present blog:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/democracy-and-south-africa.html

[ALB]

Thanks but I must confess I had to look up DSGE and IS-LM, but I did understand straightaway headless chicken economics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqYlI agree with this comment you referred to:

Quote:

“Sixth, I am happy to discuss and debate Marx and variants of Marxism with you. Historically he is a great and important thinker. However, he is less relevant to modern societies and economies as we have abandoned command economies for the very simple reason that they do not work. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to North Korea. Take a trip to Cuba (I have). While his ideas are intellectually appealing but Marxist theories have not found success in practice.”The intentions behind the letter are good, but common, saying this, really ? Usually it is the habit of people who have no clue about Marx to reply “North Korea” as soon as they see “Marx” written somewhere (I am not saying it is the case of this Professor, but he uses the same rhetoric). It is indeed another reason to teach more of Marx economics.

Not so sure about this one, though:

Quote:

Suffice to say that Marxism is really just a tool for understanding capitalism, rather than a blueprint for alternative societies.

but as you say:

Quote:

To start, it bears repeating that as a society we do not have political aims. We are not lobbying to get rid of central banks, overthrow capitalism, save the planet or what have you. We are not merely pushing to have “Marx and Keynes”, or any other thinker in economics, taught simply because we happen to like them.

Fair enough.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

I don't see any one here agreeing that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference or that it was not a welcome advance.  What is being strongly argued is that the outcome made no essential difference to the situation – other than the introduction of representative democracy – and explaining why and how this major advance came about.

I think it meant rather more than the introduction of representative democracy. It meant above all the abolition of the colour bar, which so far has meant more for the everyday life of  the "Non-Whites" than has political democracy.

[ALB]

I see they've pulled down a statue of Lenin, even if for entirely the wrong reasons. Still, it will save us having to do it when socialism is established.

[ALB]

Quote:

John Pilger's 1998 documentary "Apartheid did not die"

I can guess what he's arguing but, strictly speaking, the title is inaccurate. Apartheid, as the legal separation of the different so-called "races" in South Africa with jobs reserved for some of them, did die (and a good thing too). And it died because it had proved to be a barrier to the normal operation of capitalism and the process of capital accumulation in South Africa. What its death didn't do was to improve the economic situation of most "Africans", even though it did improve that of some of them, not just businesspeople and politicians (who were able to enrich themselves).but also skilled workers (who were able to move into jobs previously reserved for "Whites"). Come on, let's not say that the formal abolition of apartheid made no difference and wasn't a welcome advance.

[ALB]

Here's something for the new study group to get there teeth into. Part of a talk by Peter Joseph on how the production and distribution of wealth could be organised without money, price or exchange:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9FDIne7M9o#t=1h11mIt's full of graphs and formulas, as modern economists like.

[ALB]

Whether or not Marx was right to make the development of a "polyvalent worker" a precondition of socialism/communism (and I'm inclined to favour his other speculation that it requires a collective workforce capable of applying science to production, which we've already got as, after all, workers now collectively run production from top to bottom),  I don't think it can be said that he thought that this was something that workers could choose to themselves become within capitalism.There is a long exposition of his position in section 9 (on the health and education clauses of the Factory Acts) of chapter 15 ("Machinery and Large-Scale Industry) of Capital in which the following passage occurs:

Quote:

But if, on the one hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly destructive action of a natural law that meets with resistance at all points, modern industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. modern industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, grappled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society ! But then Engels too was the joint author of the German Ideology and part of the "we" in the less deterministic quote Robbo gave from it.In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of  any other socialist.

[ALB]

You're right. This is wrong. As you say, the author is confusing "labour power" and "labour" (the exercise of labour power). Fairly common but generally the other way round, as when people talk of workers selling their "labour" for a wage or salary.The second bit about a reduction in the value of the commodities produced enabling the capitalist employer to extract more surplus value is odd too. Wouldn't this simply mean that the same new value would be distributed amongst a greater number of commodities (so that the price of a unit would go down)? But, other things being equal, this wouldn't alter the total amount of surplus value created either.  The rate of exploitation would remain the same.This could be a confused reference to what Marx called "relative surplus value", when a fall in the cost of living due to a cheapening of the products workers consume to reproduce their labour-power results in a fall in the value of labour-power (though not necessarily a fall in what workers consume) and so to an increase in the proportion of new value created being surplus value. But this applies across the whole economy, not to a single employer (and would only apply when the cheapened commodities are ones consumed by workers)..

[ALB]

Imposs1904 has just posted on his Socialist Standard Past and Present blog the review we did in 1964 of Harrington's book The Other America when it was first published in Britain:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/michael-harringtons-other-america.html

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Actually there was no other option,IMHO, but an accommodation with capitalism as a world system. Mandela was indeed a true Thatcherite.."There Is No Alternative"

True, the post-apartheid government under Mandela did have "no alternative" but to accommodate with world capitalism. But if this makes him a Thatcherite it makes a lot more people one of them. Lenin, for instance, who said in 1921 that the development of capitalism under the control of the state was the only viable way forward for Russia. Even us, who said that Lenin was right given the continued existence of world capitalismOr perhaps that woman should be called a Marxist? Her mistake was to say simply "there is no alternative" when the real situation was "there is no alternative under capitalism". TINAUC.

[ALB]

Something reasonably sensible (and comprehensible) from Zizek for a change:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/mandelas-socialist-failure/?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Quote:

Is this, however, the whole story? Two key facts remain obliterated by this celebratory vision. In South Africa, the miserable life of the poor majority broadly remains the same as under apartheid, and the rise of political and civil rights is counterbalanced by the growing insecurity, violence, and crime. The main change is that the old white ruling class is joined by the new black elite. Secondly, people remember the old African National Congress which promised not only the end of apartheid, but also more social justice, even a kind of socialism. This much more radical ANC past is gradually obliterated from our memory. No wonder that anger is growing among poor, black South Africans.South Africa in this respect is just one version of the recurrent story of the contemporary left. A leader or party is elected with universal enthusiasm, promising a “new world” — but, then, sooner or later, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to “play the game”? If one disturbs these mechanisms, one is very swiftly “punished” by market perturbations, economic chaos, and the rest. This is why it is all too simple to criticize Mandela for abandoning the socialist perspective after the end of apartheid: did he really have a choice? Was the move towards socialism a real option?

He means "towards state capitalism" of course but it's still a perceptive observatuion..

[ALB]

imposs1904 wrote:

Maybe it's just me on the thread, but I'm glad he outlived Thatcher.

Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison for something we wanted and welcomed. i.e. the end of apartheid and the coming of one person, one vote, even if this was because apartheid had become a barrier to capital accumulation in South Africa and even if he supported capitalism. If only Thatcher had spent 27 years in prison.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

At a SWSS meeting in 1987 about Apartheid at my Poly, we had a black guy from South Africa in attendance.

While we're reminiscing about Mandela, South Africa, etc, a few years later the Socialist Party had a debate with the Inkhata party of Chief Buthelezi. Their speaker came armed with their tradional knobstick and played the Zulu warrior. He said Mandela was ok as he came from an offshoot of the Zulu tribe, but that Archbishop Tutu wasn't as he came from a slave tribe.

[ALB]

This should probably be in the joke section, but then most things Boris says probably should be. But in today's Times (of all places) there's an IQ test for the Rich drawn up by Deborah Ross. Here's two of the questions she puts to Boris and other rich people who think they are rich because they are cleverer than most people:

Quote:

If the gap between the rich and poor in the UK has widened to the extent that it is now visible from space (sit on that, Great Wall of China!) then the rich must simply be getting cleverer while the poor must be getting thicker.True • False •

Quote:

If we accept that the Royal Family and the entire cast of Made In Chelsea must be especially clever in some way, and possibly geniuses, then we must also accept that the Duke of Westminster, who was born clever, suddenly became a lot cleverer after his father died.True• False •

 

[Author]

Posts