tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post7570468846819773070..comments2024-02-07T19:30:21.880+11:00Comments on Left Focus: Karl Marx - A Nineteenth Century Life - Review by Eric AaronsVaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-72191707594248525742013-08-25T22:02:45.758+10:002013-08-25T22:02:45.758+10:00The HOW is determined by the majority of society. ...The HOW is determined by the majority of society. However, as Marx was aware, while there is general prosperity there can be no talk of real revolution. As Engels realised, in a nation that exploits the whole world the domestic proletariat actually became more and more bourgois. All that we have today is a remnant of a workers movement, but mostly adulterated with bourgois radical elements who seem more interested in finding causes to agitate over than trying to understand the real forces underpinning economic development. Some have been manipulating their ideology to ingratiate themselves to various mass movements.<br /><br />In Australia where much of the exploitation and low wages necessary for capitalism is hidden in rancid offshore regimes is, for the beneficiaries in Australia it appears they inhabit "the best of all possible worlds".<br /><br />This is the over-arching reality, and replicates the same predicament Marx and Engels found themselves in over the Ernest Jones' Chartist development.<br /><br />However as workers are finding out in Japan and Europe, it all comes to a catastrophe eventually. <br /><br />Then the HOW can be reassessed provided not too much damage has been done in the meantime.<br /><br />Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-61871472941892900502013-08-25T12:00:03.462+10:002013-08-25T12:00:03.462+10:00Chris - sorry for the typos in my other posts BTW;...Chris - sorry for the typos in my other posts BTW; I agree that theoretically there's nothing to say that large scale co-operatives competing with each other on the world market couldn't innovate and respond to market signals as effectively as any capitalist enterprise. Whether a co-operative model could work without competition is another question entirely; There is the practical question of how to create a culture of innovation and responsiveness which is not dependent on competition... ie: It would require a fundamental cultural transformation. <br /><br />But again the question is HOW we get to there from here... How can we develop co-operative enterprise with the knowledge and skill base, with the economies of scale and capital reserves etc, say, of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Sony, Samsung etc? The Ideological obstacles alone are enormous... And surely it would be near impossible without some for of state aid and facilitation... But a good start might be encouraging co-operatives on a smaller scale - with state aid - and on a larger scale with mutualist credit unions etc. <br /><br />Here both public infrastructure and enterprise AND co-operative and mutualist enterprise could chip away at capitalist economic hegemony. Reasserting the role for public infrastructure and strategic natural public monopolies would be a good start too for the reasons I have already given in previous comments here... <br /><br />But as you correctly argue - there is a class struggle dimension to all this - So to avoid getting into a fight we cannot win at this point, we might have to agree to 'caps' on the extent of various forms of socialisation over a long period. (eg: like the 20% cap finally agreed to in Sweden on wage earner funds - though that was too late to save the initiative....) Remember the Swedish trade unions had over 80 per cent coverage - and still they lost the wage earner funds struggle...<br /><br />Re: labour theory of value - I agree that on top of the value embedded in resources naturally, that all added value is derived from labour... But the extent and quality of an object's value is also subjective... There's the objective fact that labour is necessary to add value; But then there's the subjective question of what different kinds of labour are worth; and the subjective use values of the final products... I'd agree, though, that 'demand and supply' is not a fair way of determining the value of labour...<br /><br />Finally in order to get rid of obstructions to sharing innovation there would need to be some kind of international agreement, organisation and co-ordination... Again the problem is how to get to such a global model from where we are now... It would require an genuinely international socialism; and again with a culture whereby all the participants were animated by a spirit of co-operative innovation... Such a shift in culture - and the organisational basis to bring it to fruition - seems very far away... <br /><br />Hence it is more realistic - and perhaps more productive - to aim at a more modest 'beach-head' for a democratic mixed economy - in a way which could conceivably succeed in the foreseeable future... Such a model would concede the reality of a global economy with a central role for the multinationals - simply because the means of transcending that arrangement are not present in existing society... And because the 'great economic powers' would retaliate against any sweeping program of expropriation. But a return to a mixed economy, with strategic public enterprise, services and infrastructure; and with a role for 'democratic funds' - maybe up to 20% of the stock exchange for now; As well as state aid for co-operative enterprise - maybe up to $10 billion a year to start - is a program of socialisation which I think would have a hope of being implemented. Again: it would comprise a 'beach-head' rather than a thorough-going transformation... But establishing such a 'beach-head' could well be the precondition for further challenges later down the track...Vaughann722https://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-40178046532142145332013-08-25T09:48:59.939+10:002013-08-25T09:48:59.939+10:00Swedish capitalists responding savagely to attempt...Swedish capitalists responding savagely to attempts to reclaim wages is obviously "class struggle", and needs to be recognised as such.<br /><br />Innovation is facilitated by normal commercial activity. Capitalists restrict innovation by politics (ie rules over copyright, patents and IP with punative sanctions).<br /><br />Cooperatives will be just as eager for innovation because it will increase their incomes and living standard. They could be even more enthused over innovation and selling innovative goods, because without wage-labour, they will always own the proceeds. This is the whole point of the labour theory of value, and this is precisely the mechanism Eric Aarons (and others) puts at risk by suggesting that capital itself needs a return, or produces value. <br /><br />Co-operatives working together, will be able to arrange any scale of research and development and will have every incentive to do so. Provided a new technique or innovation is shared, there should be no structural unemployment, just generally rising incomes and a rock stable economy. If the innovation is not shared, this means it is capitalised, and then enters the market with false above value prices, and extracts economic profits. This leads to structural unemployment.Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-90174081260058954072013-08-24T13:46:49.457+10:002013-08-24T13:46:49.457+10:00Chris I agree that the Cold War and the Arms Race ...Chris I agree that the Cold War and the Arms Race limited what the USSR could achieve; and I agree that US living standards were enhanced by exploitation of the Third World. But I also think that competition sometimes drives innovation and market responsiveness - So the question is how to democratise the economy without losing this. I also agree that corporations plan - But again that is in the context of market responsiveness and competition driving quality and innovation. So again: "how can we get the best of both worlds"?<br /><br />Also note that I argue for a social wage for both the disadvantaged AND the working class. Collective consumption and where appropriate public provision can drive both efficiency and provision of services on the basis of need.<br /><br />Chris; What you say about the falling wage share of the economy is also true. If you take the example of Sweden there was salary sacrifice for years: "solidaristic wages"; But when the Social Democrats attempted to effectively reclaim some of that lost wags share the Swedish capitalists responded savagely. Also the structure of the wage earner funds scheme did not appeal to all people: Many wanted more personal control; and others were concerned that people only had control in their capacity as trade unionists -rather than as citizens. Ultimately business won, and the Social Democrats lost government for a time.<br /><br />What all that shows is that we need to be realistic about the scope for expropriation; and the likelihood of resistance should workers attempt to law back labour share of the economy via collective capital share or wages... (Collective capital share at least can be pursued in an economically stable way under capitalism - even if not politically sustainable because of the backlash)<br /><br />My personal preference - were the organised working class strong enough - would be to demand collective capital share in return for wage restraint... But this would not work in instances where capital flight and capital mobility applied... And there would have to be a cap - lest the capitalist class saw it as a 'life and death' struggle... (which I do not think we could win)<br /><br />Another alternative would be very gradual socialisation paid for through progressive personal and corporate taxation; and support for co-operatives and mutual associations - supported via state aid; cheap loans; advice, tax credits etc. And again: with long term caps on the extent of such socialisation.<br /><br />And always to talk openly about the obstacles to change; and the desirability of change; as the precedent for reviving socialist politics and a socialist critique in this country....Vaughann722https://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-36965167255646880222013-08-24T10:24:55.748+10:002013-08-24T10:24:55.748+10:00Recent avowals of the social wage and superannuati...Recent avowals of the social wage and superannuation structures are reaching their limits. Both are based on reducing current wages in the expectation of a benefit later on. But the real purpose was to create better conditions for businesses particularly concerning unemployment. However these particular responses do not address the cause for business’s failures to fund jobs or, more fundamentally, to maintain wages factor share in the economy. Under capitalism, wages share is now plummeting across the globe; see: http://archive.is/X5q8b . Also workers wages are falling further and further below productivity; see http://archive.is/EJQf5 If this is not a reputable source, what is?<br /><br />Pretending that workers should cop falling wages now, because they receive later compensation through the social wage and superannuation is farcical in the long-run. Social wages should be paid out of profits. Superannuation only works if the funds that should have appeared as wages now appear as accumulating capital. This just makes things worse in the long-run, particularly when society must now use debt to maintain final consumption levels. If social wages are paid out of profits, final consumption levels are automatically protected and the demand for consumer debt dissipates.<br /><br />Why construct social wages for the disadvantaged, when the disadvantage is caused by the structure of capitalism? Excluding medical conditions, a disadvantaged person under capitalism is no longer disadvantaged when they have the same access to employment as the rest of society. It is capitalism that cherry-picks its workforce thereby artificially creating this pool of supposed disadvantaged.Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-70349416309041556022013-08-24T10:23:44.301+10:002013-08-24T10:23:44.301+10:00A quick response. There are several issues with t...A quick response. There are several issues with this post. Certainly capital strike and diplomatic isolation are serious threats, however the supposed “failure of socialist societies” needs understanding in the context of Western economic warfare, Cold War, arms race, and massive covert spending by Western secret agencies. <br /><br />In this context, the supposed failure of nationalisation and central planning is a furphy. All of Warsaw Pact, Cuban and Yugoslavia economies achieved long-run stable growth that outpaced all capitalist economies starting from the same point – ie complete destruction after World War 2. However this is apparent only after you adjust post-war growth trends to remove the impact of the United States subsidising Western European and Japanese reconstruction. You also have to take into account the ongoing artificial buoyancy in the United States through exploitation of the Third World. <br /><br />What sort of society would Australia be if we were unable to export products and had to spend divert 50% of productive capacity on socially useless armaments and military?<br /><br />Every single major global corporation uses central planning and operates as a single corporation owned by a pseudo-nation of shareholders. The decision to close Australian car factories and food production in Australia was taken by company executives in the United States and Japan as part of their “central planning”. Coles and Woolworths are controlled by central planners. Australian post-war reconstruction and the Snowy Mountains Scheme were all centrally planned. Every government department across the land is centrally planned. Presumably the ABC and SBS are centrally planned as, presumably, is Murdoch’s empire. There is no problem with central planning, it is just a matter of how it is implemented and what mechanisms of governance and accountability exist. Why wouldn’t any cooperative want central planning for its operations? And then why wouldn’t a regional centre want central planning of the local economy? As we learnt in the Nineteenth century, if you don’t central plan your railways they all end-up with different standards and utter confusion. How is single-desk marketing not representative of central planning? <br /><br />Any fiasco under central planning can just as easily erupt under anarchical commercial conditions and the cry for better regulation echoing around the world today is a belated cry for central planning. The only alternative is self-regulation and who really wants that?<br /><br />The only issue is the level at which central planning operates and its form and function. Judging, or associating, socialist central planning by or with yesterdays Cold War standards only panders to outdated Cold War prejudices. You need central planning to construct competent cooperatives and obtain the necessary public funding for external social services.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-52467499133102508912013-08-23T13:17:56.593+10:002013-08-23T13:17:56.593+10:00Yes it would be great to be able to abolish capita...Yes it would be great to be able to abolish capitalist profits and wage labour and replace them with a system of co-operative labour without exploitation - and yet somehow maintaining dynamics of constant innovation and checks upon efficiency and quality. But the question is how we could get there from where we are right now. (if we can at all) Economic interdependence means any radical attempts to 'abolish capitalism' would be met with capital strike, diplomatic isolation etc. And we are also in a situation where such notions are thought discredited by the general public. Finally, change should be gradual - because too much is at stake -and previous self-avowed socialist societies failed when it came to mass nationalisation and central planning.<br /><br />That leads to the question what IS possible in the here and now; and that's where I think a 'democratic mixed economy' comes in. Basically like the old mixed economy, but with a strong emphasis on supporting and encouraging non-exploitative co-operative and mutalist enterprise and self employment via state aid, tax breaks and the like. <br /><br />It would not be a perfect system - but it would involve a curtailment of exploitation in many sectors; while delivering dividends to the public to be employed for social purposes, and sometimes to be redirected for cross-subsidisation. Establishing a state sector mining company could be especially helping in socialising the gains from mining in their tens and billions - and redirecting those for social purposes.<br /><br />And as argued earlier: such reforms could add to the survivability of capitalism in some respects, while also gradually 'peeling away' the prerogatives of the capitalist class. (see: Nils Karleby; though unlike Karleby I would put more emphasis of strategic socialisation via public ownership)<br /><br />If the result was, say, socialisation of dividends providing an extra $50 billion (in today's terms) in revenue to be directed into the social wage the gains for disadvantaged and working class people could be very significant. And then add to that the benefits of a more robust progressive tax system.<br /><br />Another issue is how we review social democratic and democratic socialist internationalism in the face of world-wide capitalist hegemony - to develop 'openings' to challenge and transform the system via international solidarity, co-ordination and co-operation. But again: that is more easily said than done - as the world's social democratic parties have mainly abandoned internationalism - supposing for a long time that the gains of the Keynesian welfare state were permanent - and then capitulating when global capital retaliated from the 1970s onward... Tristan Ewinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-12212417772226792762013-08-22T21:48:45.246+10:002013-08-22T21:48:45.246+10:00Innovation brings immense, obscene, illegitimate, ...Innovation brings immense, obscene, illegitimate, returns to innovators under capitalism. But this is not equilibrium.<br /><br />Microsoft just has to ensure that there is restricted competition - then all the wealth flows their way. If I own a bridge across the river and I can prevent others building bridges, then I will see my bridge, my "innovation", earning huge returns. This applies to all innovations under capitalism.<br /><br />You only get equilibrium with perfect competition, and as every microeconomic textbook explains, profits are always competed down to zero. At this point, prices = values.<br /><br />As long as Microsoft can block competition, it maintains profits. The real value of computer software and operating systems is in fact just around what you have to pay for something like Ubuntu.<br /><br />In the 1980-90's, Microsoft was able to sell software with packaging and manuals, worth relatively little, for exorbitant amounts - around $600 to $800. This created a flow of wealth from practically every country on earth to the United States so that Gates now has wealth in fact larger than some nations. All due to capitalist politics.<br /><br />People need to be very careful and rigorous when proposing that we "socialise profits". The word profit is quite vague.<br /><br />Why would you socialise self-earned individual profits. Anyone can profit from their own labour.<br /><br />Why would you socialise windfall profits.<br /><br />Even when there is sufficient competition, markets take time to adjust, so a period of profit will emerge naturally before being competed away. I do not see any great need to socialise such transitory profits. <br /><br />The profits that come from capitalism, cannot be socialised. They must be abolished. We have capitalist profits today because society has "alllowed" (?) the population and debt to steadily increase. Also, across the globe, the share of wealth going to wages has steadily fallen - see:<br /><br />http://archive.is/EJQf5<br /><br />http://archive.is/X5q8b<br /><br />Modern capitalist profits are destroying the environment, the global economy, and our futures.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br />Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-36414099116313736612013-08-22T17:28:31.826+10:002013-08-22T17:28:31.826+10:00Chris, you probably have a better understanding of...Chris, you probably have a better understanding of Marx's own definitions - as personally I haven't read beyond the Introduction to Capital and that was a long time ago; Mostly I've done my reading from the 'Selected Works' of Marx and Engels from Progress Publishers; as well as various works by Bernstein, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and Kautsky; I would love to really get stuck into Capital one day though. Sometimes I find myself struggling with the falling rate of profit and labour theory of value; and econometrics scare me for the time being. :-) I bought a 'student's edition' of Capital for the purpose of filling the gaps in my knowledge and understanding... I think I will finally get around to it when I finish my PhD. Though maybe I'll read Kautsky's 'The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx' first.<br /><br />But for me socialism in practice can involve a mixture of meritocratic and communist principles - ie: a mixture of provision in return for contribution - and redistribution on the basis of need. In many instances social democracy in practice has involved a mixture of those principles... Hence the advanced welfare states - the Nordics, Denmark, Holland etc. I think we need to be flexible with our definitions also because there are many valid Left traditions....<br /><br />I'm also wondering: If innovation does not deliver a significant return to the individual innovator under capitalism how can we explain Bill Gates?<br /><br />But re: public ownership there are a range of arguments and benefits that I think socialists today should keep in mind.<br /><br />firstly: we should recognise the benefit of socialising profits and redistributing the proceeds for social wage and infrastructure provision; of factoring in redistributive cross-subsidies for disadvantaged groups; and a competitive footing to prevent monopolism and collusion which hurts consumers...<br /><br />secondly: Even though adding to the survivability of capitalism strategic and 'natural' public monopolies can provide benefits for us in our capacities as workers, citizens and consumers - because the material gains from structural economic efficiencies are passed on... ie: <br /><br />thirdly: We don't need to be locked into an 'either/or' model - ie: either co-operativism or an expanded public sector... The above arguments provide arguments to have a mixture of both... Hence my use of the term "democratic mixed economy". <br /><br />But co-operatives attack capitalist exploitation at its roots; And small scale co-operatives especially can also have the benefit of greatly ameliorating alienation... As it is a model which gives workers more immediate creative control of their labours, and over the products of their labours.....<br /><br />Vaughann722https://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-52163925302873341982013-08-22T15:01:25.269+10:002013-08-22T15:01:25.269+10:00Even under capitalism, at equilibrium, there is no...Even under capitalism, at equilibrium, there is no "profit advantage accuring to any innovator of technical <br /><br />innovation". This is always competed away, and the innovator only receives a wage plus whatever other socially <br /><br />necessary costs apply, such as replacing tools and materials used in R&D.<br /><br />While all workers in society may gain continuous increases in wealth (and utility), the amount of value remains the same.<br /><br />The fact that bourgeois businesses use politics to expropriate wealth should not tempt Australian Marxists to accept such distortions.<br /><br />Within a cooperative enterprise, the technical innovator will only receive the wage that is due, on the same basis as everyone else (ie "socially necessary labour"). The proceeds of the innovation are shared by all. Otherwise the cooperative is disrupted as one class emerges out from the rest.Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-480969003104481102013-08-22T11:49:07.417+10:002013-08-22T11:49:07.417+10:00The key to Marx's analysis of the falling rate...The key to Marx's analysis of the falling rate of profit-- Das Kapital, not the Grundrisse -- is that the proportion of the value of a commodity contributed by labour over that contributed by fixed capital reduces as a result of technical innovation. So I don't get your claim 'value relations normalise'. What 'normalises' is the immediate profit advantage which accrued to the innovator of the technical innovation. <br /><br />The remark in the Grundrisse was in reference to a time when the (final) labour component of the commodity would become so small as to be almost irrelevant to exchange value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-65967857172347275112013-08-20T15:49:02.084+10:002013-08-20T15:49:02.084+10:00Another really good piece from a 'reflexive...Another really good piece from a 'reflexive' Marxist, thanks. Although the moving to a meaningful effort to formulate alternative social, political and economic systems that takes into account the problems of 20th-century socialist efforts is perhaps the focus of many readers of this blog, but Eric can't do that work for us ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-45911224969928214232013-08-20T09:01:51.739+10:002013-08-20T09:01:51.739+10:00Marxists do not equate socialism with public owner...Marxists do not equate socialism with public ownership of means of production. <br /><br />Socialism equates to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution". This is the negation of the specific foundation of bourgeois production which always gives to some more than they themselves ever produced (fuedalism, merchantilism, capitalism).<br /><br />Public ownership may have advantages, but private ownership of means of production, where the owner only obtains a socially necessary wage, is entirely compatible with socialism. <br /><br />You achieve nothing by bellowing for public ownership, if the public enterprise then tries to maximise its profits using all the typical commercial and financial games we are witnessing today.<br /><br />Eric's recourse to Grundrisse (p704 - 705) to supposedly use Marx's private,unauthorised, draft notes to counter his public, published, final texts over the labour theory of value, is totally mistaken.<br /><br />The section Eric cites, concerns how machinery creates a contradiction between the development of bourgeois production and it foundation. It does not range over labour value theory, but considers the vast expansion of wealth and productive capacity and damage done to the relationship between use value and exchange value.<br /><br />Naturally, under capitalism, machinery is introduced because it creates a competitive advantage. However, when everyone adopts the same machinery, society still has the vast new quantities of wealth, but value relations are now normalised.<br /><br />Those seeking to destroy the labour theory of value - in fact - just destroy our hopes and our future.Chris Warrennoreply@blogger.com