An article in TechDirt gives a good general account of some of the democratic issues involved in the case of the British government's harassment of the Guardian journalist involved in the Snowden whistle-blowing affair, Glenn Greenwald and his partner, David Miranda.
TechDirt Data destruction orders direct from Cameron
Since the article ignored both historical and class perspectives I made the following comment rooted in the perspective of the Permanent Revolution, ie that the bourgeoisie as a class is totally incapable of taking society forward even to realize bourgeois democratic ideals that are incomplete or even quite absent, and that such ideals can only be achieved in passing by the working class when it achieves the broader goal of emancipating all humanity in a non-capitalist world run by associated producers on socialist lines:
Clear enough for an article lacking historical and class perspective. Should be enough to stimulate any remaining serious bourgeois democrats to take action. Ha-fucking-ha.
We should be clear that there will not be any massive bourgeois democratic response against this violation of fundamental bourgeois democratic rights. The only defenders of such democratic rights on a mass scale are organized socialist movements - workers and poor peasants fighting against the capitalists and imperialists who are daily ruining their lives with overwork in harsh conditions or enforced idleness, and the poverty accompanying both.
The only way to put an end to this kind of inhumanity - both the violation of rights and the brutal exploitation - is to replace capitalist society with a non-capitalist one. The great bourgeois democratic reforms (parliamentary rule, universal franchise, equal legal rights for all, universal education, national liberation) have been achieved in most places, and the bourgeoisie is quite satisfied now, thank you very much. Historical change is class-led, by the class with most to gain and nothing to lose. That used to be the bourgeoisie, from around 1500 to 1789, say. Now it isn't any more. It's the working class and the poor peasants who are one bad harvest away from dispossession and the megacity slums.
So any serious non-socialist radical democrats had better start reading up on history and class and put their effort behind creating an alternative society removing power from the worn-out, incompetent, brutal and incorrigible capitalist bourgeoisie.
23 August 2013
12 August 2013
David Hawkes in the TLS and Chomsky (eclectics and science)
On FaceBook a mate of mine linked to an article by David Hawkes in the TLS about Noam Chomsky: How Noam Chomsky's world works
I made the following comment:
I made the following comment:
This is a
weasel article full of half-truths and very slippery deductions. Chomsky
himself is to blame (as always ) for not going the whole hog and
following reason along the path it beat after Kant and the French revolution
using Hegel and especially Marx. But Hawkes is either disingenuous or blind to
his own analytical shortcomings here (pot kettle black as Chomsky might be
tempted to say).
In the first
place, rooting language in a biological capability doesn't turn people into
objects or language into a non-social phenomenon. We use our brains to orient
ourselves in the world as subject (or let's say a self-orienting object among
non-self-orienting objects) and language is one of our special human faculties
for doing this. Science and logic and so on have nothing to do with capitalism
as such, they are formalized and institutionalized human capacities and
activities that have developed in various kinds of societies to improve our
self-orientation. Capitalism as a form of society drove this development much
further than any previous society. Now capitalism is incapable of taking things
any further and socialism will either take over the baton or humanity will
collapse into an unimaginable state of barbarism.
Hawkes
gestures abstractly at Marxism in what he writes, but makes damn sure not to
give chapter or verse or make any concrete observations.
Chomsky is
empirical and rational, and driven by scientific curiosity. Once something
appears to him to be empirically and rationally validated he takes it as a
basis for a next step. In this he is ruthlessly logical. The US government lies
and goes to war using violence and atrocities for the benefit of big capital.
The US media establishment supports it to the hilt. So get used to it.
Structuralist and behaviourist linguistics only scratched the surface of human
language and drew all kinds of misguided conclusions about it. Chomsky blew
them out of the water by taking structuralist method as far as it would go and
transcending it, as any good philosopher and/or scientist would. As Syntactic
Structures brilliantly demonstrated in 1957, and I was privileged to discover
in 1965.
Anyhow, more
of a conundrum in Chomsky is the modesty of his approach. What is revolutionary
is the ruthlessness with which he holds to scientific principles and the
insistence with which he asserts his findings and pursues their logic, not the
content of his findings as such. The problem for reactionaries and trimmers and
eclectics (like Hawkes) is that they don't understand the depth of his
certainty and conviction once his principled conditions for reasonable proof
are met. The trimmers are swept around like dust by winds and tides (Dante has
them blowing about helplessly on the banks of the Styx, despised even by Charon
and refused even the basic courtesy of admission to Hell - they have done
nothing worthy of eternal residence anywhere ). Like all good
scientists, Chomsky gives us an Archimedian "pou sto" (somewhere to
stand) - a stable fulcrum that we can use our levers with to move the earth.
One that winds and tides swirl around, not one swirled around by winds and
tides.
6 August 2013
Hegel Boot Camp and grappling with Reason
On Mike Roberts's blog The Next Recession (arguing that the most important factor driving the current crisis in capitalism is the tendential fall in the rate of profit/LTRFP), there is a lively discussion in progress taking its starting point in the misrepresentations of Marx and his ideas perpetrated by Marxists without Marx such as Michael Heinrich and his sponsors the Monthly Review group. The discussion has ranged well beyond Heinrich and his shallow work and moved on to important differences between serious Marxist economists. These differences include the approach to fundamentals of scientific inquiry, which induced me to make the following proposal for a Hegel Boot Camp to bring all would-be Marxists up to speed on the Hegelian foundations of Marx's work:
Well, I’d like to send everybody here on a summer boot camp
to work through Hegel’s Logic together.
Programme:
Prepare by reading the lot — Part One, Objective Logic, Book One: Being, Book Two: Essence; Part Two, Subjective Logic: The Concept.
Prepare by reading the lot — Part One, Objective Logic, Book One: Being, Book Two: Essence; Part Two, Subjective Logic: The Concept.
Daily routine: participants take turns presenting papers in
plenum, followed by group sessions. Morning and afternoon same story. Evening
free form social hive buzzing over day’s harvest.
Expected course of events:
First week, “Being”: leads up to dissolution of Kant’s mind-forged manacles and Saturday night dance and barbecue round the bonfire of the Antinomies.
Second week, “Essence”: leads up to acknowledgment of contradiction as fundamental and inescapable ground of knowledge, thought and being. Dissolution of “induction” as a possible source of knowledge ;-)
Third week, “The Concept”: leads up to acknowledgment that Kant’s a priori insight was a damn sight more powerful than he ever imagined ;-) , and that Hegel didn’t exactly stand him on his feet regarding this but rather blew open the gates of concrete and steel that he misused the antinomies to construct in the path of scientific and philosophical inquiry.
Fourth week, Science and Philosophy: papers and discussion on Anti-Dühring, Dialectics of Nature, Empirio-Criticism, and free choice topics. Purpose: to digest general methodological consequences of weeks one to three.
Fifth and final week, Economics and Politics: “Capital” and Marx’s and Engels’s trajectory from the 1840s using the methodological foundations and consequences thrashed out previously.
First week, “Being”: leads up to dissolution of Kant’s mind-forged manacles and Saturday night dance and barbecue round the bonfire of the Antinomies.
Second week, “Essence”: leads up to acknowledgment of contradiction as fundamental and inescapable ground of knowledge, thought and being. Dissolution of “induction” as a possible source of knowledge ;-)
Third week, “The Concept”: leads up to acknowledgment that Kant’s a priori insight was a damn sight more powerful than he ever imagined ;-) , and that Hegel didn’t exactly stand him on his feet regarding this but rather blew open the gates of concrete and steel that he misused the antinomies to construct in the path of scientific and philosophical inquiry.
Fourth week, Science and Philosophy: papers and discussion on Anti-Dühring, Dialectics of Nature, Empirio-Criticism, and free choice topics. Purpose: to digest general methodological consequences of weeks one to three.
Fifth and final week, Economics and Politics: “Capital” and Marx’s and Engels’s trajectory from the 1840s using the methodological foundations and consequences thrashed out previously.
After such a learning experience our present discussion
would be much less of a mess. Fewer misunderstandings and grabbing the wrong
end of sticks. Because everyone would have a much better grasp of criteria for
scientific validity in general, and of Marx’s understanding of scientific
procedure in particular.
For instance, we wouldn’t be sloshing around in the dark in
an Arctic quagmire trying to wallop each other with cudgels labelled
“induction” or “inevitability”. We’d have a much better idea of what Marx
considered his categories of the theory of capitalism to be, as he presented
their unfolding and development from the simplest “cell” of economics, the
commodity, into the most advanced organism the capitalist mode of production
could generate – the credit system.
There’s a technology of thought as well as machines, and
except for a very few exceptions (Boolean logic, for instance) it’s been stagnating
since 1848. The suppression of Hegel’s revolutionary advances on Kant, and
Marx’s revolutionary advances on Hegel has been much more effective in crushing
progress in thought than even the institutional and legal instruments of
patents and copyright have been in crushing progress in material technology and
culture.
As I’ve written earlier, there’s a difference between the
collapse of capital as a mechanism of production and circulation (the immanent,
ideal, “mathematical”, pure, deductive, theoretical, whatever aspect) and the
collapse of capitalism as a social formation, a mode of production. Capital is
a process involving dead elements of completed labour. Capitalism is a social
formation composed of living human producers caught up in the capital process.
Living labour trying to orient itself and navigate a violent ocean using alien
instruments in a ship it has been forced to build to an alien design.
The better we understand the design of this ship Capital,
and the currents swirling under it, and the strengths and weaknesses of its
boiler and hull, and the way it is being sailed, the easier it is for us to
mutiny, seize it and expel the capitalists from the bridge, sail it into calmer
waters, and carry out a complete refit to our own design for our own ends.
This discussion is not just about Economics, it’s not even
just about Political Economy. It’s about understanding political economy in the
context of human society and history in general. And while digging into what
Marx actually wrote is a sine qua non for being able to do this, and
consequently a huge benefit emerging from this discussion of Heinrich and his
distortions of what Marx actually wrote, we mustn’t stop there or we’ll just
end up being so many clever dick Jack Horners admiring the plums our thumbs
have pulled out of the pudding and pie. We have to understand why he wrote it,
and how he was able to write it, and in what circumstances, both material and
immaterial.
This is the challenge of social-historical practice, of
thinking politics, and it is the challenge that would make our Hegel boot camp
into a more exciting intellectual experience than most of us might imagine.
Hegel is no agnostic, unlike Kant. He is after the Truth and won’t rest till he
can grasp it, judging the correlation between ideas, reality and experience.
And once you are in the hunt for the truth, you’re hooked: “das einzig
konsequente Mittel gegen die Vernunft ist, sich mit ihr gar nicht einzulassen”
(“the only consistent way to fight reason is not to engage with her at all”).
Andrew Kliman was good enough to comment on this:
I
don’t think Morph’s comments sufficiently appreciate the differences between
(a) philosophical knowledge of the kind that Hegel sought, (b) the kind of
knowledge that Marx understood the LTFRP as providing, and (c) what people are
engaged in when they make inductive inferences, which is not knowledge-acquisition.
AFAICS, Hegel was saying that philosophy needed its own methods, not that other
methods are incorrect in their own spheres.
and I responded:
Thanks for “engaging with reason” ;-) We shouldn’t forget
that our Reason is not just thundering in revolt, but is also Red in tooth and
claw!
Hegel was concerned with the processes of thought and logic in relation to the truth. The energy with which he explored the foundations of every element involved in this is unexampled – his intensity is on a par with Marx’s and I’m not exaggerating. But it was a different field and more in thought than reality – although once he came to a conclusion he applied what he had learned in more applied fields of knowledge. So I think Andrew K needs to be more specific about “philosophical knowledge” before we can start comparing. But let’s say that Hegel sought the ultimate foundations of knowledge, continuing and developing Kant’s almost equally ferocious and dedicated drive in the same direction.
We can’t single out Marx’s view of the place of the LTFRP and compare it to this. We have to see it in its place in the totality of Marx’s public work, both intellectual and political to make a fair comparison. Marx tackled the whole of Western Philosophy head on as a student, as we know from his doctoral thesis among other things, and came to the conclusion that Hegel, using the whole of this tradition, had found the ultimate foundations of knowledge as far as they could be discovered using an idealist perspective. From then on Marx applied himself to continuing and developing Hegel’s revolutionary work on a materialist basis – the dialectical aspect of Marx’s work coming in from Hegel’s fundamental solutions of the problems of thought, which Marx had no reason to reject or modify, except as regards their roots in the spirit. We know this from his comments in the correspondence with Engels regarding the use he made of Hegel’s logic. (And as we also know, Marx never regarded anything as correct unless it arose from first principles, and he applied first principles everywhere and always, with a speed and sure-handedness that comes from long practice that makes it hard to spot sometimes).
So Andrew’s distinction between Marx/LTFRP and Hegel’s search for philosophical knowledge doesn’t really hold water. Marx was criticizing a whole mode of production, a whole civilization, and this is a very general agenda that has clear parallels with Hegel’s criticism of all hitherto practised philosophy, especially given Hegel’s extremely broad and inclusive view of philosophy as including thought and human practice – maybe I should have mentioned the Phenomenology or brought it in as part of the preparatory reading for my boot camp to make this clear.
As for inductive inferences not being knowledge acquisition this is nothing but verbal wand-play. I brought in induction in a slighting (not sleighting ;-) ) way because all induction is based on principles and axioms that can only be teased out deductively. This is the inescapable a priori of thought so to say, the revolutionary insight Hegel acknowledged in Kant, and an insight that freed up Marx to pursue such a ferociously (again) deductive method in his study of capital.
We could compare it to the gravitational power of a black hole – the deductive theoretical black hole of Capital centred on the commodity and the value theory sucking astronomical quantities of inductive empirical material into its orbit (eg the material on the 10-hours day, primitive capitalist accumulation and all the parliamentary Blue Books). Only I won’t, because we’d have to invert the whole metaphor and turn a black abysmal Inferno of a black hole into a Paradiso of clarity and light.
Hegel was concerned with the processes of thought and logic in relation to the truth. The energy with which he explored the foundations of every element involved in this is unexampled – his intensity is on a par with Marx’s and I’m not exaggerating. But it was a different field and more in thought than reality – although once he came to a conclusion he applied what he had learned in more applied fields of knowledge. So I think Andrew K needs to be more specific about “philosophical knowledge” before we can start comparing. But let’s say that Hegel sought the ultimate foundations of knowledge, continuing and developing Kant’s almost equally ferocious and dedicated drive in the same direction.
We can’t single out Marx’s view of the place of the LTFRP and compare it to this. We have to see it in its place in the totality of Marx’s public work, both intellectual and political to make a fair comparison. Marx tackled the whole of Western Philosophy head on as a student, as we know from his doctoral thesis among other things, and came to the conclusion that Hegel, using the whole of this tradition, had found the ultimate foundations of knowledge as far as they could be discovered using an idealist perspective. From then on Marx applied himself to continuing and developing Hegel’s revolutionary work on a materialist basis – the dialectical aspect of Marx’s work coming in from Hegel’s fundamental solutions of the problems of thought, which Marx had no reason to reject or modify, except as regards their roots in the spirit. We know this from his comments in the correspondence with Engels regarding the use he made of Hegel’s logic. (And as we also know, Marx never regarded anything as correct unless it arose from first principles, and he applied first principles everywhere and always, with a speed and sure-handedness that comes from long practice that makes it hard to spot sometimes).
So Andrew’s distinction between Marx/LTFRP and Hegel’s search for philosophical knowledge doesn’t really hold water. Marx was criticizing a whole mode of production, a whole civilization, and this is a very general agenda that has clear parallels with Hegel’s criticism of all hitherto practised philosophy, especially given Hegel’s extremely broad and inclusive view of philosophy as including thought and human practice – maybe I should have mentioned the Phenomenology or brought it in as part of the preparatory reading for my boot camp to make this clear.
As for inductive inferences not being knowledge acquisition this is nothing but verbal wand-play. I brought in induction in a slighting (not sleighting ;-) ) way because all induction is based on principles and axioms that can only be teased out deductively. This is the inescapable a priori of thought so to say, the revolutionary insight Hegel acknowledged in Kant, and an insight that freed up Marx to pursue such a ferociously (again) deductive method in his study of capital.
We could compare it to the gravitational power of a black hole – the deductive theoretical black hole of Capital centred on the commodity and the value theory sucking astronomical quantities of inductive empirical material into its orbit (eg the material on the 10-hours day, primitive capitalist accumulation and all the parliamentary Blue Books). Only I won’t, because we’d have to invert the whole metaphor and turn a black abysmal Inferno of a black hole into a Paradiso of clarity and light.
2 August 2013
Snowden isn't alone
This is a very general comment I made on FaceBook about the Snowden debate:
What scares the US imperialist government is
that Snowden (and Manning and Assange and and and) aren't alone. They represent
millions of people. They alone did what they did, but not in social or
political isolation. They are the tip of a huge iceberg. In the old days it was
the mass struggle for bourgeois democracy (aka civil rights, freedom from
arbitrary government intrusion and oppression), these days it's for a much
wider and broader goal including human rights like health education and welfare
for all and economlic equality (aka socialism). This is a war (we can call it
class war, between the class of those who own the factories and facilities we
need to make and do things and the class of those who don't own shit but are
forced to work hard for these others just to stay alive).
And this class war and the representative role of Snowden etc is why the scandals and political fighting don't just evaporate despite all the efforts of lickspittle apologists for tyranny to belittle, criminalize and intimidate.
The big problem for most people today is that the official surface discussion in the US and other states around the world is one big lie never ever naming things by their real names or explaining what all the drama is about. So some people really get hung up about Snowden's girlfriend being a pole dancer or about the fact not that he had to run for his life from the "land of the free TM ha-fucking-ha" but that he ran to this or that other country where he was able to find shelter.
And this class war and the representative role of Snowden etc is why the scandals and political fighting don't just evaporate despite all the efforts of lickspittle apologists for tyranny to belittle, criminalize and intimidate.
The big problem for most people today is that the official surface discussion in the US and other states around the world is one big lie never ever naming things by their real names or explaining what all the drama is about. So some people really get hung up about Snowden's girlfriend being a pole dancer or about the fact not that he had to run for his life from the "land of the free TM ha-fucking-ha" but that he ran to this or that other country where he was able to find shelter.
4 July 2013
Deposing Mursi in Egypt and Democracy
After the news that president Mursi had been deposed by the military in Egypt, a FaceBook friend wrote:
To which I responded:
I'm not going to celebrate a
military coup against a democratically elected leader, no matter who he is.
Hard to see any good coming out of this.
To which I responded:
Democracy is more than elections, it's practical rule
by the people and for the people through duly elected representatives, and it's
the practice and persistence of the democratic popular rule that is more
important. As in language learning the thing is "communication over
correctness", in politics it's not the formalities of selection that are
the gold standard, but the realities of priorities in long-term action. The
selection of a team can be carried out with impeccable formality, and the team
can still play like shit. If there's scope for running change and improvement,
well and good, and little harm done. If not, there's a crisis and emergency
tensions explode in violence.
In a lot of countries, Egypt included, there are such shifts in the relationship of the active masses to power and social norms taking place that there is little scope for running change and improvement within the social structures in operation. Which means that all the social weight of different social groups/strata/classes hurls itself into the arena higgledy-piggledy and piecemeal, now in part, now all at once, now in a flash, now like treacle, and in situations like this "democratic elections" is a paper label that will be torn to shreds if it isn't securely fastened on a solid substrate and protected by the transparent armour of social practice.
Contradiction and dialectics rule on the surface of today's events in North Africa and the Middle East, and not just in the depths like everywhere else. It's quite conceivable that a military intervention can be more democratic than an elected official's actions. For instance, a case can be made that the military interventions of Chavez were more democratic and proved so in the long term than the formally democratic actions of the US administrations of recent decades... not to mention the formally undemocratic actions of these same US administrations
Judging events in Egypt by the standard of democratic elections (a most elastic and slippery standard!) at the moment is political and historical myopia.
In a lot of countries, Egypt included, there are such shifts in the relationship of the active masses to power and social norms taking place that there is little scope for running change and improvement within the social structures in operation. Which means that all the social weight of different social groups/strata/classes hurls itself into the arena higgledy-piggledy and piecemeal, now in part, now all at once, now in a flash, now like treacle, and in situations like this "democratic elections" is a paper label that will be torn to shreds if it isn't securely fastened on a solid substrate and protected by the transparent armour of social practice.
Contradiction and dialectics rule on the surface of today's events in North Africa and the Middle East, and not just in the depths like everywhere else. It's quite conceivable that a military intervention can be more democratic than an elected official's actions. For instance, a case can be made that the military interventions of Chavez were more democratic and proved so in the long term than the formally democratic actions of the US administrations of recent decades... not to mention the formally undemocratic actions of these same US administrations
Judging events in Egypt by the standard of democratic elections (a most elastic and slippery standard!) at the moment is political and historical myopia.
Discussing the same question on a mailing list, I commented:
The problem - as we can see in the US - is democracy in daily action, not so much the formalities of election. The better the daily dose of democracy, the better elections will work. Formal democracy is an indispensable social decision-making tool where the realities of power and consensus permit it.
The problem - as we can see in the US - is democracy in daily action, not so much the formalities of election. The better the daily dose of democracy, the better elections will work. Formal democracy is an indispensable social decision-making tool where the realities of power and consensus permit it.
In most countries today the realities of class (or other mass social grouping's) power are contentious or becoming so, and consensus is flying (or has flown, or has always been) out of the window, which means that democratic formalities provide no solution for smooth social functioning. When this happens only coercion will work, and this means violence, and "bodies of armed men" to exercise it - as Engels defined the state.
In North Africa and the Middle East (NAME) today we are seeing (as in so many other places before) a living example of the brokering of social power between mass groupings of social interests (classes, strata, etc) and armed bodies. During such a transitional revolutionary period (think of the French Revolution) formalities take second place and the working out of the various contradictions and antagonisms can take years.
In NAME we have the further powerful influence of events and solutions (or unresolved crises) in neighbouring and distant but involved countries.
The Weimar republic is a good example of this process - one that went wrong as far as democracy in the sense of rule in the interests of the mass of the people is concerned. October 1917 is another good example, where the outcome was right - until the counter-revolutionary Stalinist bureaucracy was able to seize power while the situation was still in post-revolutionary flux.
The NAME revolutions are still unfolding, so it's pointless to hope for any formal solution soon. What should emerge eventually, unless we get the formal stasis ("peace of the graveyard") of totalitarian dictatorship or its imperialist comprador equivalent, will be a situation where the most powerful group/class is in undisputed control of power, economic decision-making and social levers of cohesion (media/propaganda). Then sufficient consensus will have been achieved and formal mechanisms for election and the exercise of social power will function smoothly.
12 June 2013
The NSA's totalitarian surveillance and the US Constitution
An article in the Register tries to deal with the ongoing massive violation of private individuals' lives and integrity by the NSA by invoking the principles underlying the US Constitution.
Trevor Pott: NSA Prism - boycott US tech
I commented:
Let's think historically, since the Enlightenment and Hammurabi have eased the way for us here.
The productive forces of human society are enormous and constantly growing, and one of the things they are doing is connect us all up so we know what's happening to everything everywhere, as in automatic inventory, just-in-time production and delivery etc. We also know who's where and doing what.
Now, the last time the productive forces of humanity took a huge leap forward in world-changing historical terms was when the merchants and bankers turned themselves into manufacturers, and the city took over from the land. Aka the origin of capitalism. This took centuries, but gradually, from the Reformation around 1500 to the French Revolution around 1800 via the English Revolution of around 1650, feudalism as a mode of production and fundamental form of social organization was ejected, violently, and replaced by capitalism. This happened because the productive forces were tied down and being strangled. Workers under feudalism weren't free but tied to the land as serfs, to guilds as apprentices and journeymen, and to lords and masters as servants, and the same went for the means of production. Capital couldn't be bought or sold or moved at will, but was locked into traditional and inefficient niches. The battle for freedom for capital and labour freed them up, and with them the productive forces.
This is happening today only now it is capitalism that is tying everything down and holding everything back in the name of private ownership of the forces of production and the profit this must generate. We can now produce everything we need to feed, clothe, house, educate and thrill everybody. We have the physical means in the machines, the agricultural capability, and above all the science and technology to manage, develop and plan worldwide deployment of production and the requisite skills. However...
The feudal constraints on business, movement, thought, etc are now parallelled by capitalist constraints on the free exchange of ideas or of scientific and technological discoveries, in the form of copyright and patents, and on a more and more bizarre insistence on holding back production to protect profits. Housing construction for instance only occurs when a) it doesn't threaten rent incomes, and b) it not only generates a surplus over labour and materials input, but a whopping great ten percent more in money terms that is pocketed by the owners of building companies to consume as they and only they see fit. Diamond-studded dog collars and all.
Not to mention the boosting of private profits by a) taxing workers' incomes to subsidize corporations (corporate welfare) and b) shovelling huge amounts of the surplus we produce into totally unproductive branches of industry (death and destruction in the military, and misery and ignorance in addiction, sex industries and gambling).
Anyway, the crises we are going through right now and the surrealistic abuse of advances in science and technology perpetrated by governments like the US, are all part and parcel of the age of transition between an outworn mode of production, capitalism, and a mode of production more appropriate for the productive forces of human society, socialism.
One of the things capitalism is doing in its death throes is throwing off a spectacular display of sound and fury and phosphorescing lights claiming that it is the end product of human history and that there is no alternative to its methods and traditions. This has been pretty successful at fooling "public opinion" that history doesn't exist and that socialism is an impossible illusion.
One of the things the present crisis is doing, however, is to show us precisely the historical incapacity of capitalism not only to solve the problems of humanity, but even to solve its own selfish problems of making stuff and selling it. And it also shows us to just what brutal and destructive lengths capitalism in government is prepared to go to preserve its monopoly of power and wealth. Perverting all its own proud revolutionary democratic principles from the struggle against feudalism (eg the US Constitution) in the process.
Capitalism in its current form is inseparable from oppression, war and the abuse of power. It's utopian madness to dream that there is a good capitalism underneath all the scabs and putrid sores. Just as it was utopian to dream of a good feudalism underneath the boils and gangrene of the Old Regime.
Think historically, and there are solutions.
Ignore history, and you'll be trapped in your own nightmare for ever.
Trevor Pott: NSA Prism - boycott US tech
I commented:
Let's think historically, since the Enlightenment and Hammurabi have eased the way for us here.
The productive forces of human society are enormous and constantly growing, and one of the things they are doing is connect us all up so we know what's happening to everything everywhere, as in automatic inventory, just-in-time production and delivery etc. We also know who's where and doing what.
Now, the last time the productive forces of humanity took a huge leap forward in world-changing historical terms was when the merchants and bankers turned themselves into manufacturers, and the city took over from the land. Aka the origin of capitalism. This took centuries, but gradually, from the Reformation around 1500 to the French Revolution around 1800 via the English Revolution of around 1650, feudalism as a mode of production and fundamental form of social organization was ejected, violently, and replaced by capitalism. This happened because the productive forces were tied down and being strangled. Workers under feudalism weren't free but tied to the land as serfs, to guilds as apprentices and journeymen, and to lords and masters as servants, and the same went for the means of production. Capital couldn't be bought or sold or moved at will, but was locked into traditional and inefficient niches. The battle for freedom for capital and labour freed them up, and with them the productive forces.
This is happening today only now it is capitalism that is tying everything down and holding everything back in the name of private ownership of the forces of production and the profit this must generate. We can now produce everything we need to feed, clothe, house, educate and thrill everybody. We have the physical means in the machines, the agricultural capability, and above all the science and technology to manage, develop and plan worldwide deployment of production and the requisite skills. However...
The feudal constraints on business, movement, thought, etc are now parallelled by capitalist constraints on the free exchange of ideas or of scientific and technological discoveries, in the form of copyright and patents, and on a more and more bizarre insistence on holding back production to protect profits. Housing construction for instance only occurs when a) it doesn't threaten rent incomes, and b) it not only generates a surplus over labour and materials input, but a whopping great ten percent more in money terms that is pocketed by the owners of building companies to consume as they and only they see fit. Diamond-studded dog collars and all.
Not to mention the boosting of private profits by a) taxing workers' incomes to subsidize corporations (corporate welfare) and b) shovelling huge amounts of the surplus we produce into totally unproductive branches of industry (death and destruction in the military, and misery and ignorance in addiction, sex industries and gambling).
Anyway, the crises we are going through right now and the surrealistic abuse of advances in science and technology perpetrated by governments like the US, are all part and parcel of the age of transition between an outworn mode of production, capitalism, and a mode of production more appropriate for the productive forces of human society, socialism.
One of the things capitalism is doing in its death throes is throwing off a spectacular display of sound and fury and phosphorescing lights claiming that it is the end product of human history and that there is no alternative to its methods and traditions. This has been pretty successful at fooling "public opinion" that history doesn't exist and that socialism is an impossible illusion.
One of the things the present crisis is doing, however, is to show us precisely the historical incapacity of capitalism not only to solve the problems of humanity, but even to solve its own selfish problems of making stuff and selling it. And it also shows us to just what brutal and destructive lengths capitalism in government is prepared to go to preserve its monopoly of power and wealth. Perverting all its own proud revolutionary democratic principles from the struggle against feudalism (eg the US Constitution) in the process.
Capitalism in its current form is inseparable from oppression, war and the abuse of power. It's utopian madness to dream that there is a good capitalism underneath all the scabs and putrid sores. Just as it was utopian to dream of a good feudalism underneath the boils and gangrene of the Old Regime.
Think historically, and there are solutions.
Ignore history, and you'll be trapped in your own nightmare for ever.
1 February 2013
Re sub-imperialism
Fred Feldman posted a contribution to the Green Left discussion group on Yahoo on the use of "sub-imperialism" to characterize a number of countries today, such as China, Russia and India.
I replied as follows:
--- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Feldman" wrote:
> Actually, if Green Lefters defend China as an oppressed nation against
> imperialism (not just "oppose an attack" but SOLIDARIZE WITH CHINA against
> an attack), that would be adequate since there is a basis for reasonable
> Marxists to disagree about the class character of the state. But in fact the
> trend seems to be toward proclaiming China an imperialist power (perhaps
> with the highly subjective category of "sub-imperialist" as a transitional
> characterization), which clearly implies no defense against anybody anytime.
>
> Thus a war between China and the United States or China and Australia would
> be an inter-imperialist war with "a plague on both your houses" as the
> indicated political stance.
>
> If Green Left's Marxism still includes "revolutionary defeatism" in a war
> between China and Australia, that would mean considering the defeat of
> Australia as the lesser evil in a war with China from the standpoint of
> making a socialist
> revolution in Australia. From this standpoint, Chinese revolutionaries
> would be expected to take the same stand - defeat of their "imperialism" as
> the lesser evil. Chinese people who took the side of their country against
> US, Japanese, and/or Australian imperialism would be regarded as traitors to
> socialism.
This shows how important the question of the character of the Chinese state is to revolutionary Marxists. Because it's so important it's crucial not to play fast and loose with the terms in which the characterization is made. To speak of a "trend" towards considering China imperialist while at the same time claiming that "there is a basis for reasonable Marxists to disagree about the class character of the state" is to play fast and loose with terms like "imperialism" and "Marxism", not to mention "reasonable".
Marxism would not "trend" towards a characterization in this way. Some Marxists might, but then the question would be how far a trending impressionist agrees with Marxist economic analysis, and whether this is "reasonable". Let's be clear. There is disagreement, even among serious revolutionary Marxists, about the class character of the Chinese state. But so far this has not been the subject of any serious large-scale debate. A key issue for those who originally held with the characterization of Deformed Workers' State seems to be how far the reforms of 1979 constitute a restoration of capital. But the bullet in this debate hasn't yet been bitten.
Why was the situation different in the mid-1930s regarding the Soviet Union? For this argument it's enough to say there was a revolutionary Bolshevik current in the USSR and the world that was strong enough and confident enough in its Marxism and place in the class struggle to bite the bullet and consider the hugely contradictory situation that had arisen after October succeeded in overturning the capitalist state of Tsarist Russia, but where this new non-capitalist state had either become capitalist once more or remained non-capitalist while displaying blatantly anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary characteristics.
I'm referring, obviously, to the Left Opposition and the embodiment of its Bolshevik leadership in Trotsky and those closest to him.
In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky came down firmly, Marxist-style, on the side of the most contradictory alternative - a state which was at the same time non-capitalist, anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary. He did this because it best fitted the facts, and his presentation of these facts and his reasons for interpreting them as he did convinced the non-Stalinist revolutionary left that was moving towards the foundation of the Fourth International after the catastrophic defeat of the workers movement in Germany.
The closest thing this movement has had to a similar decisive intervention concerning the character of a state is Peng Shuzi's work on The Causes of the Victory of the Chinese Communist Party (www.marxists.org/archive/peng/1951/nov/causes.htm) and the debate leading to the characterization of Deformed Workers' State.
Neither Peng nor the Fourth had the theoretical or organizational authority of Trotsky or the pre-war Left Opposition, so there was little to deter impressionist non-revolutionary Lefts like Tony Cliff from proclaiming early in the 50s that The Revolution Betrayed had been mistaken, that the USSR was capitalist and that China was too. Their Marxism couldn't stand up to the combined pressure of bourgeois witch-hunting and Stalinist propaganda.
The problem for us today is that this has been happening by default within the genuinely revolutionary tradition of the Fourth and closely allied movements. The bitter contradictions digested in The Revolution Betrayed have not been understood as such. It could even be argued that the bitterness and scale of the contradictions inherent in the Chinese state and regime are even greater than those in the Soviet Union.
Whatever the case, the contradictions have not been confronted openly and massively, so the trial is not just not over, it hasn't even started.
Which presents us with a huge and responsible task.
Including the main reason for my present contribution, which is to disagree flatly regarding the term "sub-imperialism".
Fred declares that the category is "highly subjective" and used as a "transitional characterization". Maybe he meant "impressionistic" - in which case he should have said so. But "subjective" can be compared to "objective" and related to facts, which Fred doesn't do. As for "transitional", well, things change, powerful states and economies become weak and vice versa, so there is a case for terms describing such change to be labelled transitional. Trotsky and the Fourth labelled their programme "transitional" for good reasons.
Fred writes:
> The sub-imperialist category is misleading because it effectively eliminates
> the qualitative distinction between imperialism and not-imperialism,
> oppressed and oppressor nations, and it is infinitely expandable and
> basically un-scientific. If China is imperialist or sub-imperialist, why not
> Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, or even Vietnam? If India is imperialist or
> sub-imperialist, why not Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia?
But this is not so if sub-imperialism has been defined clearly in terms of transition from less powerful to more powerful, and its preconditions have been set out. In the first place, it is misleading to lump together "imperialism and not-imperialism,
oppressed and oppressor nations", simply because imperialist oppression is not the same as any old oppression of one nation (or entity) by another. So we'll ignore that, although it forms the basis of most of the arm-waving examples Fred gives. It is not in the least intrinsically "infinitely expandable", as that depends on the definition and preconditions.
For instance, sensible definitions of sub-imperialist would have to include such empirical qualities as great size, great population, and economic and military viability on a grand scale. The military viability would include things like complete impossibility of total invasion and occupation. The history of Russia gives an indication of the kind of countries that might come into consideration here. The "sub" would have to include the transitional element of not yet big enough and ugly enough to face down the US in an open confrontation, despite a desire to do so and probable capacity to put up a good fight.
There is nothing strange about any of this, and in fact the definition would enable a good description of the relative strength of such acknowledged imperialisms as Germany, Britain, France, Sweden, etc.
Lenin takes relative change between imperialist countries for granted when he writes of "aspiring imperialisms" such as Japan and Germany and compares them to the old established imperialist powers of Britain and France. And in 1900, the US was the biggest aspiring "sub-imperialism" of them all.
And the definition given here, preliminary as it is, would be able to handle the status of Korea, Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia without pausing in its stride.
Fred concludes by writing:
> The tendency is to envision an almost exclusively imperialist world - one in
> which almost every state not directly controlled by imperialism economically
> and politically like the Marshall Islands or Puerto Rico or Chad tends to
> "rise" to imperialist or subimperialist status, becoming a challenger to
> "old" imperialist powers for re-dividing the world (like Germany in the two
> world wars) and thus one of the driving forces toward world war. This is
> not theoretically impossible, but highly improbable in anything like the
> near future.
Which of course is as impressionistic as the approach he is criticising. Much as most governments would dearly love to elbow their way closer to the fleshpots and bury their snouts in the trough with the US, it is farcical for them, or us, to dream of such a thing, let alone "envision" it. Put this generally, it is in fact "theoretically impossible" - at least for a Marxist Marxist - and it certainly has no bearing on whether or not one or two of the most powerful and expansive non-acknowledged imperialist countries (say Russia and India, leaving China and Brazil aside for the moment) are in a position to challenge or actually even in the course of challenging the currently hegemonic imperialist power(s).
As I understand it, "sub-imperialism" refers to imperialist potential in a country that for a variety of reasons is still clearly 'sub'ordinate to the leading imperialist countries. Some countries might make it all the way, and watch once leading countries eat their dust as they fall by the wayside. Some might just hover mid-league for ever, so to say. But we have to acknowledge change as it happens, and do our best to grasp what's going on and why. That is our duty both to the working class as revolutionary socialists and to science as thinking citizens.
I replied as follows:
--- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Feldman" wrote:
> Actually, if Green Lefters defend China as an oppressed nation against
> imperialism (not just "oppose an attack" but SOLIDARIZE WITH CHINA against
> an attack), that would be adequate since there is a basis for reasonable
> Marxists to disagree about the class character of the state. But in fact the
> trend seems to be toward proclaiming China an imperialist power (perhaps
> with the highly subjective category of "sub-imperialist" as a transitional
> characterization), which clearly implies no defense against anybody anytime.
>
> Thus a war between China and the United States or China and Australia would
> be an inter-imperialist war with "a plague on both your houses" as the
> indicated political stance.
>
> If Green Left's Marxism still includes "revolutionary defeatism" in a war
> between China and Australia, that would mean considering the defeat of
> Australia as the lesser evil in a war with China from the standpoint of
> making a socialist
> revolution in Australia. From this standpoint, Chinese revolutionaries
> would be expected to take the same stand - defeat of their "imperialism" as
> the lesser evil. Chinese people who took the side of their country against
> US, Japanese, and/or Australian imperialism would be regarded as traitors to
> socialism.
This shows how important the question of the character of the Chinese state is to revolutionary Marxists. Because it's so important it's crucial not to play fast and loose with the terms in which the characterization is made. To speak of a "trend" towards considering China imperialist while at the same time claiming that "there is a basis for reasonable Marxists to disagree about the class character of the state" is to play fast and loose with terms like "imperialism" and "Marxism", not to mention "reasonable".
Marxism would not "trend" towards a characterization in this way. Some Marxists might, but then the question would be how far a trending impressionist agrees with Marxist economic analysis, and whether this is "reasonable". Let's be clear. There is disagreement, even among serious revolutionary Marxists, about the class character of the Chinese state. But so far this has not been the subject of any serious large-scale debate. A key issue for those who originally held with the characterization of Deformed Workers' State seems to be how far the reforms of 1979 constitute a restoration of capital. But the bullet in this debate hasn't yet been bitten.
Why was the situation different in the mid-1930s regarding the Soviet Union? For this argument it's enough to say there was a revolutionary Bolshevik current in the USSR and the world that was strong enough and confident enough in its Marxism and place in the class struggle to bite the bullet and consider the hugely contradictory situation that had arisen after October succeeded in overturning the capitalist state of Tsarist Russia, but where this new non-capitalist state had either become capitalist once more or remained non-capitalist while displaying blatantly anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary characteristics.
I'm referring, obviously, to the Left Opposition and the embodiment of its Bolshevik leadership in Trotsky and those closest to him.
In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky came down firmly, Marxist-style, on the side of the most contradictory alternative - a state which was at the same time non-capitalist, anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary. He did this because it best fitted the facts, and his presentation of these facts and his reasons for interpreting them as he did convinced the non-Stalinist revolutionary left that was moving towards the foundation of the Fourth International after the catastrophic defeat of the workers movement in Germany.
The closest thing this movement has had to a similar decisive intervention concerning the character of a state is Peng Shuzi's work on The Causes of the Victory of the Chinese Communist Party (www.marxists.org/archive/peng/1951/nov/causes.htm) and the debate leading to the characterization of Deformed Workers' State.
Neither Peng nor the Fourth had the theoretical or organizational authority of Trotsky or the pre-war Left Opposition, so there was little to deter impressionist non-revolutionary Lefts like Tony Cliff from proclaiming early in the 50s that The Revolution Betrayed had been mistaken, that the USSR was capitalist and that China was too. Their Marxism couldn't stand up to the combined pressure of bourgeois witch-hunting and Stalinist propaganda.
The problem for us today is that this has been happening by default within the genuinely revolutionary tradition of the Fourth and closely allied movements. The bitter contradictions digested in The Revolution Betrayed have not been understood as such. It could even be argued that the bitterness and scale of the contradictions inherent in the Chinese state and regime are even greater than those in the Soviet Union.
Whatever the case, the contradictions have not been confronted openly and massively, so the trial is not just not over, it hasn't even started.
Which presents us with a huge and responsible task.
Including the main reason for my present contribution, which is to disagree flatly regarding the term "sub-imperialism".
Fred declares that the category is "highly subjective" and used as a "transitional characterization". Maybe he meant "impressionistic" - in which case he should have said so. But "subjective" can be compared to "objective" and related to facts, which Fred doesn't do. As for "transitional", well, things change, powerful states and economies become weak and vice versa, so there is a case for terms describing such change to be labelled transitional. Trotsky and the Fourth labelled their programme "transitional" for good reasons.
Fred writes:
> The sub-imperialist category is misleading because it effectively eliminates
> the qualitative distinction between imperialism and not-imperialism,
> oppressed and oppressor nations, and it is infinitely expandable and
> basically un-scientific. If China is imperialist or sub-imperialist, why not
> Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, or even Vietnam? If India is imperialist or
> sub-imperialist, why not Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia?
But this is not so if sub-imperialism has been defined clearly in terms of transition from less powerful to more powerful, and its preconditions have been set out. In the first place, it is misleading to lump together "imperialism and not-imperialism,
oppressed and oppressor nations", simply because imperialist oppression is not the same as any old oppression of one nation (or entity) by another. So we'll ignore that, although it forms the basis of most of the arm-waving examples Fred gives. It is not in the least intrinsically "infinitely expandable", as that depends on the definition and preconditions.
For instance, sensible definitions of sub-imperialist would have to include such empirical qualities as great size, great population, and economic and military viability on a grand scale. The military viability would include things like complete impossibility of total invasion and occupation. The history of Russia gives an indication of the kind of countries that might come into consideration here. The "sub" would have to include the transitional element of not yet big enough and ugly enough to face down the US in an open confrontation, despite a desire to do so and probable capacity to put up a good fight.
There is nothing strange about any of this, and in fact the definition would enable a good description of the relative strength of such acknowledged imperialisms as Germany, Britain, France, Sweden, etc.
Lenin takes relative change between imperialist countries for granted when he writes of "aspiring imperialisms" such as Japan and Germany and compares them to the old established imperialist powers of Britain and France. And in 1900, the US was the biggest aspiring "sub-imperialism" of them all.
And the definition given here, preliminary as it is, would be able to handle the status of Korea, Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia without pausing in its stride.
Fred concludes by writing:
> The tendency is to envision an almost exclusively imperialist world - one in
> which almost every state not directly controlled by imperialism economically
> and politically like the Marshall Islands or Puerto Rico or Chad tends to
> "rise" to imperialist or subimperialist status, becoming a challenger to
> "old" imperialist powers for re-dividing the world (like Germany in the two
> world wars) and thus one of the driving forces toward world war. This is
> not theoretically impossible, but highly improbable in anything like the
> near future.
Which of course is as impressionistic as the approach he is criticising. Much as most governments would dearly love to elbow their way closer to the fleshpots and bury their snouts in the trough with the US, it is farcical for them, or us, to dream of such a thing, let alone "envision" it. Put this generally, it is in fact "theoretically impossible" - at least for a Marxist Marxist - and it certainly has no bearing on whether or not one or two of the most powerful and expansive non-acknowledged imperialist countries (say Russia and India, leaving China and Brazil aside for the moment) are in a position to challenge or actually even in the course of challenging the currently hegemonic imperialist power(s).
As I understand it, "sub-imperialism" refers to imperialist potential in a country that for a variety of reasons is still clearly 'sub'ordinate to the leading imperialist countries. Some countries might make it all the way, and watch once leading countries eat their dust as they fall by the wayside. Some might just hover mid-league for ever, so to say. But we have to acknowledge change as it happens, and do our best to grasp what's going on and why. That is our duty both to the working class as revolutionary socialists and to science as thinking citizens.
"Embodied Cognition" -- empirio-criticism rides again
An article in Scientific American on "Embodied Cognition" prompted a commenter to declare: "The phrase "embodied simulation" is confusing." I agreed and added the following comment as a rider to a previous comment I made referring to Lenin's book on empirio-criticism:
jayjacobus is right about the confusion. There's an interplay between reality and perception of it, and perception itself is a reality, so we have perceptions of perception. It's like consciousness and self-consciousness, and this relationship has been a central problem for philosophy. One of the most primitive responses has been to invent a previous cause, and stop the infinite regression by calling some given cause final or ultimate or prime or whatever. This "embodied simulation" nonsense is the same kind of thing - what it doesn't do is answer the question of reality, ie what is being simulated.
This is a philosophical perpetuum mobile that pretends it isn't.
Now Kant was smart, so he stopped his infinite regression pain by claiming that the ultimate ground for everything was ultimately unknowable, which was the agnostic thing to do. Hegel was smarter but far less diplomatic, and said "look, reality and our perception of it is full of contradictions, live with it", and moved beyond Kant, opening the way for Marx to move beyond the whole supernatural 'perception/consciousness/thought first' approach.
For empirical beings, we are very attached to abstract ideas. The reason is simple - we process continuous empirical reality including ourselves using discrete abstract reflections of it in thought. So if you want to call this processing 'simulation', be my guest. Ditto if you want to be empirical by calling it 'embodied'. Well done. Which leaves us as bodies that think. Square one.
Moving in a world of discrete, abstract reflection our mirror minds naturally assume everything is discrete and abstract as soon as it thinks about it, except that the basic presupposition for our survival in reality is concrete continuity. And since survival is opportunistic and iconoclastic, we survive in reality at the expense of broken intellectual dogma, icons and fetishes.
This drama is entertainingly embodied for me in Lucretius's great Latin poem On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura), and in Hegel's two great works The Phenomenology of the Spirit and The Science of Logic. These are guaranteed pre-Marxist so clear of any ideological tarring and feathering that anything written after 1848 might risk. For a scientific mind they are immensely rewarding, and even a short dip is very invigorating!
jayjacobus is right about the confusion. There's an interplay between reality and perception of it, and perception itself is a reality, so we have perceptions of perception. It's like consciousness and self-consciousness, and this relationship has been a central problem for philosophy. One of the most primitive responses has been to invent a previous cause, and stop the infinite regression by calling some given cause final or ultimate or prime or whatever. This "embodied simulation" nonsense is the same kind of thing - what it doesn't do is answer the question of reality, ie what is being simulated.
This is a philosophical perpetuum mobile that pretends it isn't.
Now Kant was smart, so he stopped his infinite regression pain by claiming that the ultimate ground for everything was ultimately unknowable, which was the agnostic thing to do. Hegel was smarter but far less diplomatic, and said "look, reality and our perception of it is full of contradictions, live with it", and moved beyond Kant, opening the way for Marx to move beyond the whole supernatural 'perception/consciousness/thought first' approach.
For empirical beings, we are very attached to abstract ideas. The reason is simple - we process continuous empirical reality including ourselves using discrete abstract reflections of it in thought. So if you want to call this processing 'simulation', be my guest. Ditto if you want to be empirical by calling it 'embodied'. Well done. Which leaves us as bodies that think. Square one.
Moving in a world of discrete, abstract reflection our mirror minds naturally assume everything is discrete and abstract as soon as it thinks about it, except that the basic presupposition for our survival in reality is concrete continuity. And since survival is opportunistic and iconoclastic, we survive in reality at the expense of broken intellectual dogma, icons and fetishes.
This drama is entertainingly embodied for me in Lucretius's great Latin poem On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura), and in Hegel's two great works The Phenomenology of the Spirit and The Science of Logic. These are guaranteed pre-Marxist so clear of any ideological tarring and feathering that anything written after 1848 might risk. For a scientific mind they are immensely rewarding, and even a short dip is very invigorating!
10 January 2013
Market failure, creativity, and online gouging
Cory Doctorow has written an article in the Guardian entitled
"Just because everything has value doesn't mean it has a price". Cory Doctorow: Charging for everything kills creativity About the implications of charging for every little bit of imagined use that
can be extracted from an online offering. It's part of a series called
"Digital rights, digital wrongs". It's interesting because of its
focus on something that capitalism just can't handle, namely
"externalities". Better otherwise known as "market
failure". His line is that charging for everything will kill creativity.
I commented:
We're back with the problems Marx faced trying to work out
the relationship between social production and private appropriation, value,
price and profit, and the inadequacies of Adam Smith and Ricardo's attempts to
resolve them.
Nothing of value is produced without our labour. So it's natural to expect an equivalent return for it. The problem is a) what is a true equivalent, and b) who will determine this and implement it in society.
Marx resolved the problem of "true equivalence", so problem a) is taken care of. But problem b) is in complete contradiction to the findings of a), since the people determining and implementing equivalence exploit most of us (wage-earners) by creaming off what we produce above and beyond survival (keeping body and soul together at the normal standard of living for our society) and making it their private wealth instead of our shared social wealth.
Cory D ignores this, and ends up arguing for Utopia, since he implies there's a way of accommodating a) with b). This is nonsense, cos ownership is all in our society, and ownership of capital (control of other people's work) is a class monopoly.
This is a pity, cos the main thrust of his argument goes some way along the constructive realistic road discussed seminally by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductionhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
The thing is that the whole of capitalist production today is a market failure. In other words the traditional (or post-traditional, imperialist) market is a useless mechanism for coordinating and eliciting socially useful effort. Market techniques can be very useful in some kinds of distribution, in that they provide spontaneous feedback and self-organization, but they're no good when it comes to deciding social priorities at the limits of resource availability, and they're disastrous in relation to the inevitable necessity of disaster management.
Production and distribution today is a huge social problem worldwide, and some of its most glaring effects are in the realm of ideas and culture. But the solution isn't going to come from economic measures but from political measures that affect the economic foundations of our society.
Till we introduce socialism (non-capitalist ownership and control of production) there will be no solution and Cory will have to keep repeating himself and running on the spot (not to mention the idiots who claim that locking everything down and charging us for the air we breathe is the right way to go).
Nothing of value is produced without our labour. So it's natural to expect an equivalent return for it. The problem is a) what is a true equivalent, and b) who will determine this and implement it in society.
Marx resolved the problem of "true equivalence", so problem a) is taken care of. But problem b) is in complete contradiction to the findings of a), since the people determining and implementing equivalence exploit most of us (wage-earners) by creaming off what we produce above and beyond survival (keeping body and soul together at the normal standard of living for our society) and making it their private wealth instead of our shared social wealth.
Cory D ignores this, and ends up arguing for Utopia, since he implies there's a way of accommodating a) with b). This is nonsense, cos ownership is all in our society, and ownership of capital (control of other people's work) is a class monopoly.
This is a pity, cos the main thrust of his argument goes some way along the constructive realistic road discussed seminally by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductionhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
The thing is that the whole of capitalist production today is a market failure. In other words the traditional (or post-traditional, imperialist) market is a useless mechanism for coordinating and eliciting socially useful effort. Market techniques can be very useful in some kinds of distribution, in that they provide spontaneous feedback and self-organization, but they're no good when it comes to deciding social priorities at the limits of resource availability, and they're disastrous in relation to the inevitable necessity of disaster management.
Production and distribution today is a huge social problem worldwide, and some of its most glaring effects are in the realm of ideas and culture. But the solution isn't going to come from economic measures but from political measures that affect the economic foundations of our society.
Till we introduce socialism (non-capitalist ownership and control of production) there will be no solution and Cory will have to keep repeating himself and running on the spot (not to mention the idiots who claim that locking everything down and charging us for the air we breathe is the right way to go).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)