[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism

Why should he have to do that, though, robbo?Surely 'his science' speaks for itself?If 'Scientific Truth' vindicates Thatcherism, who are we, mere workers, to argue with 'What Science Says'?Surely Dawkins should have simply insisted that 'The Evidence Speaks For Itself'?Why did Dawkins allow political considerations into his beautiful science?Or, were they always there from the start? If so, why would he hide it? Who would benefit from ordinary workers finding out that 'science is ideological'?

 You know my position on these matters, LBird, so why do bring up the subject?  I don't take the position that science is, or ever can be, value free.  Si please stop forever trying to derail the discussion with this obsseesion of yours.  OK?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I didn't notice it at the time but in an epilogue to the 40th anniversary edition of his notorious book The Selfish Gene that came out last year and republished in the March/April 2017 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer Dawkins admits that his definition is not, or no longer, the definition of "gene" used by genetists ("embryologists" he calls them) who are studying how they affect an organism's characteristics. He also concedes that "genes" (in his sense) are often closely associated with other "genes" and that it is only together that they have an effect. The book's title has been changed to The Extended Selfish Gene (reflecting a previous backtracking on what he wrote in 1976).

Quote:

They are also cooperative with other genes with which they share, not just the present particular body, but bodies in general, generated by the species' gene pool.

and so

Quote:

The Cooperative Gene would have been an equally appropriate title for this book…

Pity it wasn't. But it was and reflected the popular misconception that at the time was being promoted more than usual that humans were "naturally" selfish because this was genetically determined. Why did Dawkins agree to his book being called The Selfish Gene? No doubt because its publishers thought it would sell more with that title as opposed to The Cooperative Gene.  So, he played a role, unwittingly perhaps, in promoting "Thatcherism" and "greed is good".

  Mind you, Dawkins did attempt to disassociate himself from the view that what he was arguing for vindicated Thatcherism See here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/co-operation-makes-sense

[robbo203]

There is quite an interesting book written by my old Anthropology professor, Bruce Kapferer – a sort of maverick Aussie academic  now based in Bergen  – about the culture of  nationalism.  It is called "Legends of People, Myths of State:Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia" and was published in 1988 though I see a new revised edition appeared in 2011. Here's a link to the book or part of the book itself:  https://books.google.es/books?id=eww8QyTSxQ8C&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false What Kapferer tries to do is explain the power that nationalism holds over people, and its ability to capture their imagination and help forge their sense of identity.  He uses a comparative approach – comparing Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism with Australian egalitarian nationalism in terms of their different underlying "ontologies" or perception of reality. Australian nationalist ideology is rooted in individualism and since, according to individualist mythology, the individual stands above society and,in a sense, predates society – think of the whole idea of the "social contract" a la Hobbes and co out of which society was supposedly born – this is why the individual is conceived of as being  essentially a product of nature.  Little wonder that in the West where an individualist outlook is deeply rooted , you tend to find a heavy emphasis on "human nature" type of arguments against socialism.  It stems from the logic of individualist thinking itself Kapferer, if I remember correctly, also conjectures that racism itself is an outgrowth of individualist thinking.  This sort of makes sense.  If human beings are the "product  of nature" so to speak then, ideally speaking, each of us must be identical in our basic nature and attributes.  Socio cultural differentiation threatens the natural order and the autonomy of the individual in it. Socio-cultural differences are proof of the power of society  to mould individuals and thus to dominate them..  Hence racism.  At least thats how I remember the argument Kapferer was making…. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism  he argues is completely different insofar as it based on a holistic , not individualistic, worldview.  In such a worldview, the individual is a product of society not nature.  It is the whole that determines the parts – not the parts, the whole. Social differentiation for example, as in the case of the caste system, is vital to maintaining the integrity and coherence of the whole, without which the individual loses his or her sense of identity and undergoes a process of fragmentation or dissolution This, according to Kapferer, is part of the reason for the sheer ferocity with which the Sri Lankan stage waged its war against the separatist Tamil Tigers.  At the symbolic level ,  it represented the fragmentation, or tearing apart,  of the nation state and hence also the  fragmentation of the individual within the body politic of Sri Linkan society. Their whole sense of personal identity is bound up with the maintenance of Sri Lankan society itself I think these kind of "culturist" arguments are quite interesting from the standpoint of building upon, or adding to,  a Marxist materialist explanation for the rise of nationalism and its enduring strength in today's world.  But I don't they can ever be  a replacement of the latter

[robbo203]

The nation state did not materalise out of thin air.  Still less did it always exist as some kind of  looming background presence or potentiality way back in the mists of time as nationalist mythology would have it.  Rather, it  was an almost deliberately crafted invention – see Benedict Anderson's book, "Imagined Communities", on this  –  the outcome of a complex process of structural and spatial reorganisation coinciding the emergence of capitalism.  In Europe in 1500. for instance,  there were approximately 500 more or less autonomous  political units – an intricate patchwork ranging Italian city states (though by then many of these had already fallen victim to conquest) to numerous principalities (often  themselves the product of dynastic splits) and a scattering of consolidated  kingdoms.   Some of these were nominally part of one or two much larger sprawling entities such as the Holy Roman Empire which was as Voltaire once remarked  was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire"  (Essai sur l'histoire générale et sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations,1756).   By 1900, however,  the political landscape looked very different indeed,  The number of self governing units involved had been drastically whittled down to a mere twenty-odd  nation-states having jurisdiction over the entire European landmass (Ch 1, "Reflections on the History of European State-making", Charles Tilley  The Formation of National States in Western Europe ,   Princeton University Press,  1975 , p. 24). In between these two points in time, an array of forces contrived to bring about this transformation, prominent among these being the emergence of absolutist monarchies in several parts of Europe in this period, most notably the bourbon  "Sun" King of France, Louis XIV  .  I am skeptical about the concept of "neo-medievalism", though.  Capitalist ideology and nationalism go hand in glove. While the one prevails, the other will continue – notwithstanding globalisation   

[robbo203]

Bob Andrews wrote:

I'm with you Johnners. And well done Gnome. A delicious smorgasbord of everything that is wrong with the Socialist Party of Clapham and why, unless they apply for a drinks licence for number 52, they are doomed. Look at the history. The political emigrees of 1848 and 1871, after all the political hoo-ha died down, found themselves in drinking dens, boozing, playing cards, smoking, getting themselves recruited as police spies and having sterile political arguments until the emergence of socialist politics in the 1880's came along to spoil it all. We've had almost 130 years ( if you include Morris' Socialist League) of socialist propaganda that has produced nothing, since it is based on a number of false premises. What we need now are licenced premises ( with a nice big telly to watch the footy). As far as socialism is concerned it's: Time Gentlemen Please!

 I had somehow imagined you were a member or sympathiser of the Socialist Studies group , Bob Andrews, but it seems now that you are either a non-socialist, or even anti-socialist, cynic.  Thats OK but why dont you just come out and say it so we all know where you stand?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Is there any corresponding full moon economic theory?

 I think you would have to be a "lunar-tic" to propose such a thing

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

 One way to test the theory would be to see if there is significant temporal correlation between sun spot events and economic events like crises.  Did Jevons ever do this or was it just speculation on his part that such a correlation  actually existed?

 Ah just spotted in your post , Adam, that Jevons did present such evidence but was the correlation "statistically significant"?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

The other objection to the theory is that it tries to explain the regularly recurring economic downturns that are a feature of capitalism by some event outside the system rather than by something inherent in the system itself.

 To be fair, though, you could argue that the sunspot theory could serve as a "triggering" event that impacted upon capitalism/s tendency towards disproportionate growth which underlies the capitalist trade cycle.   So while on its own it cannot account for the trade cycle, it could be incorporated as part of a larger explanation.  So, for example, if good weather caused by changes in solar radiation resulted in a bumper harvest causing prices to drop,  this could have knock on consequences that exacerbate disproportionalities in the economy and so lead to crises. This is only in theory, mind you.  I suppose it would depend on how serious an impact changes in agricultural prices had on the economy.  Capitalism is capable of absorbing minor oscillations in prices without this resulting in crises – though, in the long run, the cumulative effect of these inter sectoral changes will assert itself in the form of the trade cycle. Specifically , in relation to sunspot theory, the impact would be mediated by others factors such as how much of an effect changes  solar radiation actually had on agricultural output itself – the argument that a change in quantity leads to a change a quality which implies there is some kind of threshold the former needs to reach before effecting qualitative change,  This in turn might depend on the kind of agricultural technology employed and whether it could use more of some kinds of inputs (e,g, articfical nitrogen fertilisers) to compensate for the decline of others.  It would also depend, I guess, on how important the agricultural sector is in the economy, generally. In a part of the world where agriculture comprises the majorty of paid empkyment, changes in incoming solar radiation could, in theory, I imagine have significant knock on economic repsercusions One way to test the theory would be to see if there is significant temporal correlation between sun spot events and economic events like crises.  Did Jevons ever do this or was it just speculation on his part that such a correlation  actually existed?

[robbo203]

  There is a related problem to do with the question of whether machines produce surplus value. We talk about the value of a product being determined in the long run by the amount of "socially necessary labour" it contains. This is not something that can be measured by a stopwatch so to speak, but constitutes a kind of "social average".  This is why labour intensive businesses using outmoded technologies cannot be said to produce more value than capital intensive businesses with high levels of labour productivity.    However, the value of a commodity depends on it being sold on the market.  No value is produced to the extent that there is an overproduction of commodities in relation to what the market can absorb and, of course, this makes the question of measuring "value" all the more problematic because we cannot know in advance whether a commodity that has been produced will actually be sold.  It is only in the process of exchange that value manifests itself so to speak.  It is then that the value of goods, the SNLT embodied in them, will express itself indirectly through the prices such goods command – which prices will tend to vary, in the long run, in accordance with the quantity of SNLT embodied in them.  In other words, the expression of value is mediated through money units – prices.  As Marx put it: "Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange…. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result’ ( A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy).  Indeed, it is for this very reason that Michel De Vroey has suggested that the creation of value seems to be located "not in production but at the articulation of production and circulation" ("Value, Production and Exchange" M de Vroey, The Value Controversy, NLB, London, 1981, p.173)  It is this kind of thinking that informs G A Cohen’s claim that the "relationship between the labour theory of value and the concept of exploitation is one of mutual irrelevance" (ibid, P202-223).  Cohen bases this claim on the argument that past labour – the amount of time actually spent on producing a commodity – is not strictly relevant as a guide to what is currently socially necessary labour time which is what constitutes that commodity's value in Marxian terms.   Since SNLT is itself a constantly shifting potentiality it cannot therefore be meaningfully be said to "embodied" in a commodity in the way that actual (past) labour may be said to be thus embodied (as in the case of the machine the worker is using to prpduce some product).  As mentioned earlier, what is socially necessary labour only becomes apparent a posteriori through market competition and is finally determined by conditions subsequent to the actual production of commodities themselves. Thus, commodities that cannot be sold do not possess value.    In effect, what that means is that workers in capitalism do not, and cannot logically, actually "produce" value as such and, hence, cannot be said to "produce" surplus value either.  What they produce are the commodities that contain value – a subtle but all-important difference.  It is because they, and not the capitalists, manifestly, produce what has value (rather than produce value as such) that the workers are exploited by the capitalists in the sense that the capitalists appropriate part of the value of what has been produced but without actually contributing to the production of what has been produced.  This, according to Cohen, makes the exploitation of the proletarian, "more similar to the exploitation of the serf than traditional Marxism says" (ibid p.222) Its an interesting argument.  Any thoughts?

[robbo203]

"Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050"   http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2016/02/09/unless-it-changes-capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050/#2296bf074a36Yet another example of the kind of deceitful "Trojan horse" strategy that, deliberately or otherwise, seeks to steer criticism away from capitalism by engaging in the rhetoric of anti-capitalism.  I despair when I read articles like this with its glib talk  of a "new generation of companies showing the way forward" and "infusing capitalism with fresh ideas".  Its just so much timewasting superficial BS.  Never mind how you get from the highly concentrated and increasingly concentrated and centralised pattern of ownership we have today to one in which we have distributed ownership – how is this going to alter the basics of capitalism and its driving force of capital accumulation or economic growth? There is a fundamental contradiction involved in attributing the  problem of environmental crises to capitalism and then proposing to tackle  these crises  while keeping capitalism intact albeit supposedly modified.  I notice that one of solutions proposed is that of "holacracy" which was being enthusiastically promoted on this forum not so long ago

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Bortkiewicz recognised that Marx didn’t do this, and yet Sweezy accepts Bortkiewicz’s dual-system correction of Marx, thereby “improving” Marx against Marx, but in the name of Marx [Kliman p. 46].

 And yet Sweezy seems to go along with the labour theory of value in the article I mentioned….Could it be that 1) Sweezy changed his mind (is Kliman referring here to the view expressed by Sweezy in 1942 which may be different to what he wrote in 1980?)  or 2) Sweezy is unaware of the basic contradiction involved in adhering to a Marxian labour theory of value and adopting a simultaneist physical approach a la Sraffa?

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 It is instructive to watch carefully as Kliman analyses the entrails of Dimtriev’s argument, and by extension subsequent physicalist [anti-value] “improvements” by Bortkiewicz, Sweezy, Sraffia, Samuelson, Steedman, Okishio, et tutti frutti.  Keen, as commentator, sits off in the salad bowl. 

 I am not so sure you can include Sweezy in this list.  He may have given publicity to Bortkiewicz's argument but I have just been reading his contribution in the book "The Value Controversy" (1981, ed Ian Steedman,  NLB)  in which he very clearly endorses the labour theory of value He argues (p.26) that an analysis of reality cannot effectively be made in terms of prices since this precludes what for him is a key variable in the hstory of capitalism – the rate of surplus value/exploitation  He regards the rate of profit as a secondary variable by comparison.  And contrary to Steedman, he argues that there are "general ways" to surmount the transformation problem – that is to get from the value/surplus value  prong in Steedman's diagram to the price/profit prong.  In other words, prices are ultimately regulated by, and explicable in terms of, labour values It is possible that Sweezy might have had a change of heart since 1942 when he wrote "Theory of Capitalist Development" – I havent read that book so I dont know what his position was  then on the LTV.  But in this article he seems to endorse it

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

From Wikipedia Steve Keen[1] argues that "Essentially, Marx reached the result that the means of production cannot generate surplus value by confusing depreciation, or the loss of value by a machine, with value creation" . His argument is, that a machine can add a value to new output in excess of the value of economic depreciation charged[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Variable_capital

It seems to me that the confusion is Keen’s, not Marx’s, in this case.  He (Keen) maintains that machines add value to a product in excess of the value of the economic depreciation incurred.  But if that were the case then why might not pristine raw materials do the same?    But here’s the rub; pristine raw materials, by definition, don’t have labour time embodied in them – even if machines do – and if you argue that they contribute value to a product, then you are not defining value any more in terms of socially necessary labour time. You are employing a different definition of value and are thus not dealing with the Marxian theory on its own terms.  Unless you deal with the Marxian theory on its own terms and follow its inner logic to its own ultimate conclusion, you cannot claim to have refuted the theory.

[robbo203]

From Wikipedia Steve Keen[1] argues that "Essentially, Marx reached the result that the means of production cannot generate surplus value by confusing depreciation, or the loss of value by a machine, with value creation" . His argument is, that a machine can add a value to new output in excess of the value of economic depreciation charged[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Variable_capital

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

ah so you have an anarchist view. interestingI think there would need to be a constitution explaining everyones' rights pertaining to property, speech, privacy, y'know.by the way don't mean to be patronizing I am really curious to what you think

 You refer to everyone' rights pertaining to property.  It is important to understand what is meant by "property".  In its economic sense the term refers to "means of production".  It does not mean possessions In a socialist society there is common ownership of the means of production from which it axiomatically follows that there is no more economic exchange or exchange-related institutions such as wage labour, profits, markets , banks, tax departments  and so on. Logically, the "rights"  that  arise out of common ownership of the means of production are those of full and unrestricted free access to the products of industry.  The flip side of the coin of free access , is volunteer labour and the sense of obligation that goes with to contribute to society  according to your abilities.. Common ownership  however does not extend to possessions.  I have no more desire to share your toothbrush than you have, mine.

[Author]

Posts