robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi David
Some commentators have argued that Marxist economic theory and Marginalist economic theory do not so much contradict as complement each other in the sense of each having a quite different focus – macroeconomic or microeconomic – and on this basis have sought to integrate one with the other. I’m not sure this is theoretically possible. However I wouldn’t entirely throw the baggage of Marginalist thinking out of the window. Some of its key concepts such as the law of diminishing marginal returns and marginal rates of substitution have merit and can serve as a heuristic for conceptualising how a socialist system of production could be organised.
It is also important to grasp that there are different schools of thought associated with modern economic theory. We tend to think of the theory as a development out of the neoclassical Marginalist revolution of the late 19th century which replaced the labour theory of value of classical economists and Marx with a subjective theory of value. But it is really only the Austrian school of economists represented by people like Von Mises who are thoroughgoing subjectivists and who would argued that price is entirely determined by subjective values – or utility/use value. That is to say, they are confusing/conflating use value and exchange value
Certainly a commodity must have use value in order to be a commodity at all as Marx himself point out. Subjective valuation certainly influences the demand for a good but it cannot explain the ratio in which goods exchange in the long run because an increased demand for a good under capitalism induces an increase in supply so that in the long run supply and demand tend to equilibrate. That being so, why does a car consistently and in the long run sell at a price way above, say, a bicycle? There is a limit to how far you can reduce your price and stay in production. This is determined by your cost of production – an objective consideration. . In capitalism, production grinds to halt if there no profit forthcoming and profit after all derives from the difference between costs and revenue. Meaning prices have to be pitched above your costs of production for production to continue under capitalism. An objective constraint!
The major problems with the subjective theory of value are as follows
1). Your subjective valuation of a commodity means nothing unless you have the purchasing power (objective) in the form of money to influence its price.
2)The theory is based on circular reasoning in that it asserts that utility (subjective valuation) determines price but price also determines utility (e.g. increases the desirability of a commodity through a reduction in its price).
3), the theory is contradictory with the regard to the role of money. Is the marginal utility of money subject to diminishing returns and what does this mean for the marginal utility of other commodities?
Hi Schekn
It strikes me that what we are looking at here with respect to tackling climate change is reminiscent of what the biologist Garret Hardin wrote about in his famous essay in the 1960s on the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin’s basic thesis was seriously flawed. In practice, actually existing Commons do not generally result in serious environmental degradation since they are often quite closely monitored and subject to stringent rules to prevent overuse and destructive exploitation.
More to the point, Hardin’s diagnosis of the problem was misplaced. It was not the fact that there was a commons to which the herders could gain free access that was the root cause of the problem of overgrazing. Rather it was the fact that the cattle herds were privately owned by herders in competition with each other that locked them into the destructive logic whereby each herder benefitted exclusively from the addition of one more head of cattle to his/her herd but where the environmental costs of each additional head of cattle were externalised and shared by all the commoners. This gave each individual herder a built-in incentive to add to his/her herd resulting in generalised overgrazing.
The same kind of logic applies in the case of tackling climate change. The trillions of dollars needed to tackle climate may well be less than the costs of inaction but as a long as each capitalist state is seeking to externalise the costs of tackling climate change – get others to bear to more of the burden of these costs so as not to impair its own economic prospects in its competition with others – inaction will result. States will only be dragged kicking and screaming into action as things get generally worse and the action they take will probably be too little too late.
That is the tendency of capitalism – to get away with what is minimally required. It is why citing Hardin’s model (but correcting its faulty reasoning) might be a useful approach to encouraging environmentalists to taking more seriously what socialists have to say
Hi David,
I dont think there is any problem with communicating personally with members of the EC although I am curious as to why you might want to. As Alan suggests, there is nothing special about EC members and we dont put them above anyone else. You are quite at liberty to communicate with anyone in the SP, we are a party of equals.
I would just make one small observation though that some individuals, because of their personal circumstances, might be a little reluctant or anxious about having their names made too public – perhaps because of family or job reasons. This is understandable. I remember when I worked in the civil services many years ago I discovered to my horror that my many letters to the local press had been monitored over several years by Personnel (they actually kept copies on file). Because of this I was actually required to give a firm assurance on leaving the job that I would not disclose any information relating to this establishment (amusing since I was merely a lowly “clerical officer”) It is quite conceivable that such information could have been passed on to future would-be employers asking for references (in my case that actually did happen when I applied to another branch of the civil service two or three years later! They had a record of my political activism which had been transferred from my original workplace).
I dont want sound overly conspiratorial or whatever but these things can and do happen and so we have to be a bit sensitive to the concerns of particular comrades in the organisation. Personally I dont give a fig now if the powers-that-be know of my activities, – sod ’em! – but others might be a bit more concerned
No doubt if you wrote to the Gen Sec the information you require would be communicated to you in personal correspondence (it appears in minutes of the EC meetings anyway to which all members have access) Alternatively, this forum could reinstate the old messaging facility to facilitate communication between individuals
Hope this helps
Best regards
Robin
JD Wetherspoon’s boss, Tim Martin, has pledged to slash the price of lagers, spirits, wine and cider if the UK leaves the EU, after shaving 20p off a pint of ale to illustrate the Brexit benefits.
Seems like a case of free advertising for a political cause combined with a case of free advertising for a commercial venture. A cynical exercise which we can take with a pinch of salt
If Martin is genuine in his claim in wanting to shave 20p off a pint of ale “to illustrate the Brexit benefits” what’s to him doing the same thing now?
I totally understand your wish to start building the socialist system right now. This kind of position, “we just need to sit tight and WAIT until the rest of the humanity automagically come to realize the socialist values as theirs own”, it is a bit frustrating.
Hi Schekn
I dont think anyone here is suggesting we sit back and wait for people to become socialists. Nor is I being suggested that you cant make lifestyle changes in the here and now even if that in itself is not going to be enough to do the trick. This is not an either/or thing
The idea you put forward of using canteens is OK, I guess. Maybe food consumption in a socialist society will become more of a social activity. A sort of “people’s eating halls” sort of thing. I imagine there will also be a lot more in the way of growing your own food in socialism too and I am all for encouraging these sort of developments right now as a way of helping to shift ideas
But at the end of the day we still plausible model for the allocation of resources in a socialist society and I believe this has to be firmly based on the concept of a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind. I think this is what is basically being discussed in this thread
Hi radu62s
Just to take up your point:
You mention “self regulating system of stock control” as a mechanism to balance supply and demand in the socialist economy. This is a system to replenish the shelves. In Capitalist economy “pricing” is the mechanism to balance supply and demand. If the supply is low the price goes up and reduces demand. Demand means “willingness and capacity to pay” not “need for product”.
But “replenishing the shelves” is precisely what “balancing supply and demand” entails. You are organising the supply of particular products in a way that meets the physical demand for them as represented by the rate at which these items disappear, or are removed, from the shelves.
I cannot stress enough that ANY kind of technologically advanced mass society – including capitalism itself – depends on this mechanism of a self regulating system of stock control. Capitalism would pretty soon collapse if it sought to dispense with it. It would have no way of effectively organising the physical production and distribution of goods to where they are needed without this capacity to monitor stock levels and transmit information to the suppliers of the goods in question.
In capitalism though, as Alan had pointed out, the demand for goods is based not so much on what people may actually want or desire but rather on what they can afford. That is to say, on their “effective demand” to use the jargon. It is purchasing power that constrains what you may want to purchase but that there is a further point to be made here which is that that what you may want to purchase (irrespective of whether you can afford to purchase it) is deeply conditioned by the very nature of capitalist society and its expansionist dynamic
In other words, capitalism has a material incentive to generate what Marcuse calls “false needs” via such mechanism as advertising and by extension, perpetuate scarcity in the form of “artificial scarcity” by means of which it retains its ideological hold over individuals (see for example, https://www.academia.edu/30288232/Herbert_Marcuse_and_False_Needs_-_Appearing_Soon_in_Social_Theory_and_Practice_)
Hi radu62s
I think you have to make a distinction between the mechanism for matching supply and demand and the motives of “consumers” in a socialist society with respect to what and how much they might demand
Despite your claim that “there is no working mechanism to balance supply and demand” there must certainly is! The outlines of such a “working mechanism” is already fully evident in the physical distribution of finished goods, raw materials, machinery and so on, between production centres and distributions centres within capitalism today. The mechanism is called a self regulating system of stock control. As the stock of baked beans on the shelf of your local supermarket declines over time this is monitored and at some point when the supply falls below a certain threshold this triggers a fresh order to the suppliers so that stock on the shelves can be replenished. These days the entire process is largely computerised with bar codes and so on to identify particular items. Socialism will make full use of this mechanism. The big difference is that money accounting of any kind will completely disappear from the picture. The only form of accounting there will be is calculation in kind (e.g. how many cans of baked beans there are on the shelf) which is something we already do alongside monetary accounting under capitalism.
The other argument you make really falls under the heading of the human nature argument that is often raised against socialism. You say
If I can get anything, why not get a new pair of socks or a new shirt every day to avoid washing them. Actually I know somebody that wears new socks every day, never washes them.
I for one find your example quite extraordinary. The idea of purchasing 365 pairs of socks seems to be a case of self indulgence on quite an epic scale. I dont know how much socks costs in your part of the world but here in Spain the cheapest pack of 3 pairs might cost 8 or 9 euros in a supermarket. So your friend spends about 1000 euros on socks every year. That is 1000 euros he or she is unable to spend on other things he or she might want. Or is your friend only greedy when it comes to socks but not say, shirts, since her or she is apparently consciously cutting back on his/her ability to buy more shirts? It strikes me that he or she is either enormously wealthy or eccentric in the extreme. Or both
99.99 per cent of people even under capitalism just dont behave in this manner. Have you been to one of those restaurants where you can eat as much as you want for a fixed price? Do you gorge yourself to point of vomiting then start all over again? No of course you dont. Almost everyone easts to point where their appetite has been sated and no more
There is a larger point to be made here. Socialism is not just about bringing the means of production under common ownership. It is also about a fundamental change in values and culture based on the recognition that we all depend on each other. The very freedom that we will experience in socialism – free access to foods and services and free voluntaristic labour – is conducive to encouraging cooperation in a way that is simply not possible under capitalism. You cannot impose socialism from above. People have got to want it and understand what implies. If everyone engaged in the kind irrational “greedy” behaviour you allude to this would jeopardise the very existence of socialism itself.
Would the very people who had striven to bring about socialism want to undo everything they had fought so hard to achieve? Of course not. Ideas do not come from nowhere. They spring from the kind of society in which we live. Capitalism, because of its own inner expansionist dynamic based on market competition, needs to foster ideas that encourage people to consume more – to consume for the sake of consumption itself – since increased profits through market sales depend on this. It also needs to foster the notion that people are inherently greedy and care only about themselves. This is part of its aparatus of ideological justification. It has the effect of atomising and disuniting people and hence disempowering them. Its a case of divide and rule.
Socialism presupposes a fundamental change in the way people relate to one other and a fundamental change in the values they hold which in and of itself render the kind of human nature arguments people now raise against socialism, utterly obsolete
It always amazes me how sections of the media accused the Russian state of meddling in the US elections but when Trump meddles in the affairs of other countries as with Brexit…
Either we disregard completely the borders of nation states (the preferred option) or stop resorting to double standards
I guess insofar as the demand for certain goods and services that persistently outstrip – which are likely to be on luxury end of the product spectrum because of the way the production priorities of a socialist society are likely to skew the allocation of resources in favour of satisfying basic needs – then probably some sort of rationing will be introduced for these goods and services which will operate alongside free access for other goods and services. There are of course a great many different kinds of rationing procedures one could chose from. I have my own preference which basically involves the grading of housing stock as a criterion for priority access t rationed goods. Its what I call the “compensation model of rationing” (compensation for the some people having to put up with relatively crappy housing for the time being)
Subhaditya,
I am not quite sure what to make of the scenario you paint. How you would come to be the “allocator” of these scarce goods and services you refer to, in the first place? That presupposes private property inasmuch as you have the right to exclude others from the goods and services they need at your whim – or include them on condition that they perform certain sexual services for your benefit.
So we are not really talking about a system of common ownership are we? In such a society if you are so desperate for sex you may well find you are gonna have to drop the kind of sexist attitude that regards the “ladies” as a peice of meat that can be exchanged for some good you are in a postion to “allocate”.
Hi radu62s
To take up your various points…
democracy is a very difficult environment to work within. I am an advocate of democracy, I want the society to work democratically but it does not happens naturally. It takes a lot of effort for a small organization to function democratically, but how about an ecosystem with a large number of organizations where personal ego and views on issues conflict?
We would say a socialist society would be a polycentric society which would operate democratically at different levels – global, regional and local – depending on the nature of the decision to be made. See here https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2019/no-1379-july-2019/socialism-and-planning-what-can-work/
cooperatives are the best economic entities to support a socialist society. Even they exist, they never reached a level to make an impact. The total cooperative’s share of economic activity in UK’s economy is less that 1%. It should be at least 10-20% to have a real impact.
Cooperatives are geared to producing or distributing goods for market sale and as such are subject to the need to secure profits. In other words, they dont actually function outside of the capitalist economy but are part of it. Yes there may be some benefits to workers working in cooperatives under capitalism such as a relatively more congenial working environment and also having more of a say in the running of the business. However, and paradoxically, the more successful cooperatives become, the more they tend to converge with their more conventional mainstream competitors in outlook, organisational stucuture and ethos as the case of Mondragon demonstrates . See for example this critique from Libcom which you can download https://libcom.org/library/myth-mondragon-cooperatives-politics-working-class-life-basque-town
How would you balance supply and demand of goods and services in society? How would you determine who produces what, so everybody can have enough? – whatever solutions you may propose, and I am quite interested to hear them, they would need to be tested in the real world on pilot communities.
Actually, the mechanism for matching supply and demand in a socialist society does not need to be tested because it already functions in capitalism – a self regulating distributed system of stock control using calculation in kind. The differnee is that socialism will dispense with monetary accointing and use only calculation in kind. See this https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2019/no-1380-august-2019/socialism-and-planning-part2-feedback/
Not sure what Asperger’s syndrome has to do with a discussion on Extinction Rebellion. The matter shouldn’t have even been raised
Came across this article on Medium. Normally its behind a paywall so I thought I would grab the opportunity and copy and paste. It might add something to the discussion though I think the writer is living in false hope if he thinks a solution will emerge from within capitalism itself
________________________________________
What Do We Do Now That We Know Climate Change is Inevitable?
https://medium.com/@glenhendrixGlen Hendrix
Climate change experts say global emissions of CO2 must be reduced to 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. It must reach a “net” zero” level by 2050 in order to limit warming to 2.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees centigrade). The goal was originally set at 2 degrees centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but the Paris negotiations changed it to 1.5 degrees C. to appeal to a broader base of nations. This half degree means 10 million fewer people are displaced by the ocean’s rising, a 50% reduction of people experiencing water shortages around the globe, 50% reduction in species losing half their habitat, and a 80–90% destruction of coral reefs instead of 100%. The level of atmospheric CO2, however, has risen from 387 ppm in 2010 to 413 ppm in 2019, a 6.7% increase.
For the first time, Saudi Aramco revealed its finances publicly. Although it was April 1, this was no April Fool’s prank. The company made $111 billion last year, twice as much as Apple, the most profitable public company in the world. ExxonMobil made $20.8 billion. Royal Dutch Shell made $23.4 billion. The financial inertia of the fossil fuel industry is making a mockery of world climate goals. It is not just the fossil fuel industry but the industries it fuels as well. Trucking, shipping, airlines, auto, steel and concrete industries must all switch to electric or hydrogen by 2050 for “net zero” to happen. That’s 31 years away. Can you see all of these industries making the staggering commitments necessary to switch over without laws in place to make them? Can you see all 195 countries on Earth passing laws to force them to do this? It is not going to happen.
If CO2 levels rose 6.7% from 2010 to early 2019, it’s safe to say that by sometime in 2020 it will be an even 7% for the decade and the CO2 level in Jan. 2020 will be 420 ppm, 449.4 ppm in 2030, 480.9 in 2040 and 514.6 ppm by 2050. This does not take into consideration the positive feedback loops evaporating mass quantities of natural gas (methane) into the atmosphere from melting permafrost. Methane is 21 times better at warming the atmosphere than CO2. The hotter it gets, the more methane injected into the atmosphere and so on.So what would more than 2 degrees centigrade do in terms of damage to the world? It could kill 50–80% of the fish in the oceans. Ice melting could raise sea levels by more than three feet by the end of the century. If Greenland and Antarctic ice eventually melts, it could raise oceans 230 feet. While it is doubtful this could happen on Earth, positive feedback loops and runaway greenhouse gasses created the hellish conditions seen on Venus.
That is not going to happen on Earth. As soon as the general population realizes fossil fuel companies have been gas lighting (no pun intended) them for decades, it will become possible to overcome their propaganda efforts and the legalized bribery our congressmen and senators disingenuously call lobbying. By 2050, strict environmental laws will force the fossil fuel industry to change or die. Don’t feel sorry for them. They will build a lot of renewable energy plants and CO2 sequestration plants and still be making money. Taxes will have to go up to pay for research on how to do this. The U.S. saw marginal rates of around 70% to 92% from 1950 to 1981. When you hear rich people complaining nowadays about taxes, take it with a grain of salt. They will be bitching until it’s zero.
The political process will be too slow to mediate the effects of climate change. We must develop a slew of technologies and social standards to counter this lack of social progress.
1. Carbon dioxide sequestration and other technologies actively removing CO2 must be developed and implemented. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are already being developed, but more work must be done to make it economically viable.
2. Reforestation must take place on a grand scale. This will assist in carbon capture and restore habitats to insects and animals.
3. Cheap water technology will need to be implemented to offset the increasing scarcity of potable water.
4. We must find a way to capture energy from low temperature heat from industrial processes and server farms. This is a huge inefficiency in our global society.
5. Grants and prizes must be increased for the development of new technologies to mediate and reverse greenhouse gas levels.
6. Products will have to be designed to be recycled with the least amount of energy possible.
Our social evolution must strive to keep up with technology. Stringent laws concerning carbon output must be enacted on industry and society.
One half of the population acting as if nothing is wrong and living a huge carbon footprint is not going to work.
It is a sad commentary on humanity that the captains of the industries that have taken us so far so fast would play chicken with a world threatening event. It is our responsibility as citizens of this world to reign them in and redirect their efforts to the common good. The only way to do this is to change our leadership by any means, preferably democratic, to people that are clear-headed, logical, moral, and responsible enough to lead us successfully through this age of salvation and into a brave new society of technological marvels in balance with the natural world.Hi Schekn
I understand the point you make about the need to address the threat of climate change bluntly and I certainly don’t wish to come across as complacent about this threat. Maybe we are biologically not hardwired to notice gradual change or to imagine change outside our immediate sensory perception as you say. But if I might throw this point back at you, what kind of response are we hardwired to make on being informed that if we dont do something significant within the next ten years we will slide into “runaway climate change and societal collapse” as a result of which “several billion people will likely die”.
I suspect the vast majority of people on hearing that will either dismiss it as a dystopian fantasy or regard it with utter despair. It is the latter group I am more concerned with who I think are more likely to be sympathetic to what we have to say than those who call for business (or even more business) as usual. You are appealing to their reason with the (purportedly) hard facts established by scientists working in the field of climate change, But that same reasoning ability that allows them to digest this information and appreciate the magnitude of the problem also enables them to see that capitalists and their political representatives are not going to appreciably change direction in the near future. In the near future we are stuck with people like Trump and his fellow moron Bolsonaro in Brazil with his utterly cavalier attitude towards the fate of the Amazon. Also there is a recession on the way and we all know what happens when a recession happens: environmental standards tend to be relaxed in a bid boost economic growth and “create jobs”
So connecting the “fact” of a fast approaching Armageddon, if nothing is significant done within 10 years, with the “fact” that nothing significant is likely to be done, it is difficult to see how this cannot but result in a sense of utter despair and disempowerment, The more insistently you push the facts of impending doom, I suggest, the greater the sense of despair it is likely to elicit.
How would you address this point setting the aside the question of whether the scientists you refer to are actually correct in predicting the likely die off of the bulk of humanity?
All you write is just useless criticism. Why? What are you trying to achieve? Please stop this negativism and rather join our attempts at bringing more members to the party
I am sort of sympathetic to what you are saying here but I strongly agree with ALB and WEZ on the need for constructive criticism. It does worry me that the kind of over-the-top alarmist apocalyptic language employed by some Green activists could prove hugely counterproductive and disempowering and invite a sense of fatalism and apathy. What’s the point in struggling if the world as we know it is doomed to end in 10 , 20 or 30 years time and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to stop that happen? Might as well binge on a diet of hedonistic abandonment while we have the chance
On the other hand, the site you linked to – https://greenanticapitalist.org/ – seems quite encouraging or, at least, makes a number of points with which we could broadly go along with. It is always useful to acknowledge the positive in other people and not simply focus on the negative. The Party could certainly do more in this respect – to brush up on its PR so to speak. You don’t always attract people by being relentlessly negative.
However, while some of the points this organisation makes on its website sound promising I am not entirely surely what to make of them in the wider context of challenging capitalism. Most anti-capitalists despite the way in which they self define themselves, are not really anti-capitalists – they are anti-neo liberalism. They identify capitalism with the free market and neoliberal policies and this demonstrates a major difference between them and revolutionary socialists.
You would know these Green anti-capitalists better than I as you are presumably based in the UK (I am not). What is their take on capitalism and how do they define the socialist alternative to capitalism?
