Re: China's new Marxist left - a Dutch socialist reply concerning managerial socialism ideology
The capitalist, as representative of capital engaged in its valorisation process - productive capital - performs a productive function, which consists precisely in directing and exploiting productive labour. Marx distinguishes in the manuscripts of Das Kapital between what he calls the functioning capitalist or entrepreneur and coupon clippers, and he regards the technical organisation and coordination of production as a productive force. Thus, for Marx, the management function was always a two-edged issue; a technical division of work between thinkers and doers or between co-ordinating and executive functions was often technically necessary for productive efficiency (we cannot all do everything, and must co-operate to maximise results), but this technical division of work (specialisation) was interlaced with a social division of work, which had nothing to do with any technical requirements, but rather with power-relations and the private appropriation of net profits. In the personality structure of the individual, these two sides are combined in the concept of responsibility, which denotes both technical skill and a personal moral development enabling leadership in organising people to do things, i.e. a degree of self-management or self-determination, which enables the management of others. However, the concept of responsibility in civil society is not neutral, but has an inevitable moral-political dimension, because of structural class conflict and competition in capitalist society among employers, between employers and employees, and between employees. Since, however, under capitalism the economising of work is subordinated to the imperative of realising and privately appropriating the maximum possible surplus-values through market sales, as net income, it frequently becomes difficult to distinguish clearly between technically indispensable specialisations, and modes of organising production which owe their characteristics mainly to the imperative of the private appropriation of wealth, or to power relations deriving from the ownership and control of private or publicly owned assets. That is to say, market competition can be as much a constraint on the development of the productive powers of creative human work as an incentive or stimulus to develop them further, and this creates new categories in the division of work, exclusively concerned with the defence and realisation of surplus-values, as net income entitlements. I am using the term creative human work in the broad cultural sense - i.e. human culture includes everything humans have made, in contrast to that provided by nature. A bricklayer creates just as much as an artist does, he creates pavements instead of sculptures maybe, but it is creative work anyhow. I also use the expression private appropriation of net profits deliberately, since this appropriation is as much a question of relations of production (ownership entitlements) as of relations of distribution (access entitlements to functions and occupations which permit this appropriation, and functions concerned with the realisation of surplus-values in trading). Professionalisation processes in capitalist society can show similarities to the medieval guild system, i.e. rules of inclusion and exclusion are enforced which (1) protect incomes, (2) prevent certain social classes from entry into occupations, and thus from certain types of income entitlements. Free markets such as envisaged in Marx's model of a purified capitalism are hypothetical, basically a bourgeois myth, the question is really more how exactly markets are regulated (i.e. what legal and enforcement rules apply). Simply put, the thought of Aristotle and Plato was based on slave-labour, without which they would not have had the time to philosophise. Nevertheless, part of the thought of Aristotle and Plato proved of enduring value, so much so, that we still refer to their ideas today. The fact that we do so, does not constitute a justification of slave labour. But it does affirm that such a mental-manual division of labour could produce constructive results, whatever the oppression, which could not be have been achieved if everybody had to do everything it takes to survive for himself. Naturally, the rich and the tyrants will always argue slaves are necessary, and they will justify that e.g. by saying that some people are just stupid or defective, they haven't got what it takes, or they just want to be slaves. But socialists think that stupidity or intelligence is something that humans produce or reduce, rather than something which is just natural. It's a result of civilisation and emancipation processes. The more pertinent conclusion to draw, is that the achievement of human progress depends crucially on teamwork, on cooperation. When bourgeois ideologues extol the virtues of competition, they don't know what they are talking about. Because to engage in private competition at all, already presupposes an enormous
Re: China's new Marxist left
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon. Who are the capitalists you're thinking of? Entrepreneurs who run companies? Large shareholders? Portfolio managers? CEOs? Boardmembers? Senior managers? Middle managers? Doug
Re: China's new Marxist left
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon. Who are the capitalists you're thinking of? Entrepreneurs who run companies? Large shareholders? Portfolio managers? CEOs? Boardmembers? Senior managers? Middle managers? Doug Hi Doug, If they are not involved in production activities, obviously none of their labor should be considered as productive. So, in this regard the issue is an empirical one, i.e. one should observe, for example, how a given entrepreneur who runs his own company spends his work-day. When one is only interested in aggregate measurement of PUPL, then the BLS classifications are usually a good starting point as you know. On the other hand, one has to have a notion of what constitutes production activities before starting to apply any criteria for PUPL to any capitalist setting. I still think that my CC piece (w/ Savran; partially based on Anwar's work) does a good job in clarifying what production, circulation, etc. mean. Here is the link to that piece: http://www.simons-rock.edu/%7Eeatonak/pupl.htm Ahmet
China's new Marxist left
I don't know if you could say that the 'Marxists' were entirely marginalised. At an official conference of Marxist economists in Beijing less than two years ago, I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. (All this in response to a call from above for updating the law of value for the modern socialist market economy--- and a week before a number of capitalists received the 'model worker' awards for May Day.) Han Deqiang (mentioned in a note by Stephen as China's best left economist) was not invited to the conference (but instead was speaking to many students). He said he probably was not invited because he didn't agree with the theory of productive forces (ie., that all that matters is that the productive forces advance). He will, however, be at the Marx Conference in Havana in May (along with David Harvey, Samir Amin, Istvan Meszaros, Leo Panitch and a host of others). in solidarity, michael Re: re China's new Marxist left by jjlassen 25 January 2004 20:01 UTC Michael, The academic left is much more marginal in China than in the US, and even more removed from the experiences of the producers than here. Zuo Dapei, wrote a short piece on heterodox economics in China. It gives a sense of what's 'left' in economics (which is, as in the US, *the* hegemonic academic discipline of social science): http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?type=articleid=31 On the hopeful side, a group of leftist academics recent teamed up to set up a book store and meeting place for lectures and movies, called Utopia. If people are passing through, it's the place to go. Their website is at: http://www.wyzxwyzx.com/ (but it's all in Chinese) Cheers, Jonathan Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Anauco Suites, Room 601 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: China's new Marxist left
Michael Lebowitz wrote: I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. This is ironical, right? Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China's new Marxist left
Louis, I believe it's the situation that's ironic. michael's assessment is right on the mark. Jonathan Michael Lebowitz wrote: I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. This is ironical, right? Louis Proyect - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: China's new Marxist left
Michael Lebowitz wrote: I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. This is ironical, right? Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org I hope so! Ahmet Tonak
Re: China's new Marxist left
Michael Lebowitz wrote: I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker.Lou asked: This is ironical, right? --nope, jonathan is right, that is exactly what michael saw and heard. I heard and saw the same time and again in the Marxist journals and conferences.In fact, I sat in on a meeting of the editorial board of the now defunct (I think?) magazine of the Marxist left in China (whose name now escapes me, Jonathan?). The editors were responding exactly to the argument within Chinese mainstream marxism that captialists are now workers who produce value and thereforebelong in the Communist Party. The edition was being put out to refute this idea. I brought up at the meeting a quote from Jesse Jackson during the American Airlines strikethat when the airline attendants went on strike in 94, the company fell apart almost immediately. If the CEO and board had gone on strike, the company could have continuedfunctioning...now, who produces value? steve
Re: China's new Marxist left
Mike L writes: the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. so there's a move from Marxism to Saint-Simonism? Jim D.
Re: China's new Marxist left
Well if Marxism is the official ideology of the Communist Party of China and the Party embraces capitalists the ideology must follow suit. If Marxists want to retain their jobs they have to show creative adaptation! That is a law of value of some sort... Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: Re: China's new Marxist left Mike L writes: the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. so there's a move from Marxism to Saint-Simonism? Jim D.
China's new Marxist left?
Steve comments: This is ironical, right? --nope, jonathan is right, that is exactly what michael saw and heard. I heard and saw the same time and again in the Marxist journals and conferences. In fact, I sat in on a meeting of the editorial board of the now defunct (I think?) magazine of the Marxist left in China (whose name now escapes me, Jonathan?). The editors were responding exactly to the argument within Chinese mainstream marxism that captialists are now workers who produce value and therefore belong in the Communist Party. The edition was being put out to refute this idea. I think that journal was called Pursuit of Truth and no longer exists. On the other hand, there must be currents within currents in China. Eg., the paper I gave at the Beijing Conference talked about how commodity exchange (while not to be identified with capitalism) creates conditions for the restoration of capitalism because of the nature of people produced under these relations and that only the conscious creation of new social relations, the invading communist society from below, could check this.(I didn't mention China but it was clear what I was talking about.) I learned recently that the paper was translated and published in September in the first issue of a new journal, the journal of the Shanghai School of Economics. Somebody must want to discuss these questions. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Anauco Suites, Room 601 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
re China's new Marxist left?
Michael L. wroteI think that journal was called "Pursuit of Truth" and no longer exists. --right, that's the one. On the other hand, there must be currents within currents in China. Eg., the paper I gave at the Beijing Conference talked about how commodity exchange (while not to be identified with capitalism) creates conditions for the restoration of capitalism because of the nature of people produced under these relations and that only the conscious creation of new social relations, the invading communist society from below, could check this.(I didn't mention China but it was clear what I was talking about.) --you could have directly mentioned China, would have probably beena good idea, to open up debate. I learned recently that the paper was translated and published in September in the first issue of a new journal, the journal of the Shanghai School of Economics. Somebody must want to discuss these questions. --there surely are, they're in the minority, but they do exist. steve
Re: China's new Marxist left
I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. This is ironical, right? I would be one of the last people to defend the Chinese Communist Party. Nevertheless, capitalists have a dual role; expropriator and -- albeit to an infinitely smaller degree -- expropriated: The capitalist, as representative of capital engaged in its valorisation process - productive capital - performs a productive function, which consists precisely in directing and exploiting productive labour. The capitalist class, in contrast to the other consumers of surplus value, who do not stand in a direct and active relation to its production, is the productive class par excellence. [See Ricardo] (As director of the labour process the capitalist can perform productive labour in the sense that his labour is included in the overall labour process which is embodied in the product.) Marx, 1864, Results of the Direct [or Immediate] Production Process http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm regards, Grant.
Re: China's new Marxist left
I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. This is ironical, right? I would be one of the last people to defend the Chinese Communist Party. Nevertheless, capitalists have a dual role; expropriator and -- albeit to an infinitely smaller degree -- expropriated: The capitalist, as representative of capital engaged in its valorisation process - productive capital - performs a productive function, which consists precisely in directing and exploiting productive labour. The capitalist class, in contrast to the other consumers of surplus value, who do not stand in a direct and active relation to its production, is the productive class par excellence. [See Ricardo] (As director of the labour process the capitalist can perform productive labour in the sense that his labour is included in the overall labour process which is embodied in the product.) Marx, 1864, Results of the Direct [or Immediate] Production Process http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm regards, Grant. I am, as many others on this list, very familiar with above quote from Marx. In terms of LTV the issue is the classification of productive and unproductive activities, and then the classification of labor associated with those activities. Strictly speaking, issue is not classifying people per se. As Marx said above, even a capitalist, in terms of his/her activities, may engage in productive activities. If it is the case, there should an associated productive labor. Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon. If this is the case then the Chinese economists' attempt to theorize their capitalists' productive function should be seen as a crude, pseudo-theoretical justification for constitution of capitalism in China. Ahmet Tonak
China's new Marxist left
NY Times, January 25, 2004 China's Leaders Manage Class Conflict Carefully By JOSEPH KAHN BEIJING If Karl Marx were alive today, Guangdong might be his Manchester. Like England's 19th century industrial center, 21st century Guangdong, China's southern commercial hub, is the world's factory. And like Manchester, Guangdong is also creating a stark divide between labor and capital, a split that once became the ideological basis for revolutions around the world, including China's own. Tens of millions of industrial workers are struggling toward basic rights, to earn enough to send their children to school, for laws that would allow them to bargain collectively. And they are losing. If Marx could see Guangdong today he would die of anger, says Dai Jianzhong, a labor relations expert at the Beijing Academy of Social Science. From that perspective, China is speeding in reverse. Even more than England or the United States in their industrializing heydays, China's growth relies on cheap labor. The foreign-invested factories here, including production centers for most multinational companies, depend on a flexible work force that actually grows cheaper by the year. Guangdong has grown by more than 10 percent annually for the past decade. But its factory workers, mostly migrants from the interior, earn no more today than they did in 1993, several Chinese studies have found. The average wage of $50 to $70 a month also buys less today than it did in the early 1990's, meaning workers are losing ground even as China enjoys one of the longest and most robust expansions in modern history. This is partly a paradox of globalization. China has attracted more foreign investment by far than any other developing country, nearly $500 billion since it began internationalizing its economy. But it continues to draw capital essentially because it is willing to rent workers for falling returns. The free-market economic policies have not left China worse off on the whole. They have lifted it out of the ranks of the world's poorest countries, created a nascent middle class of service industry workers in the big cities, and made China the largest Asian exporter to the United States. But China is living through a Gilded Age of inequality, whose benefits are not trickling down to the 700 million or 800 million rural residents who live off the land or flock to the cities for factory or construction jobs. The situation has given rise to a new group of Marxist critics who call themselves China's new left. Wang Hui, a new left thinker, published a book late last year, titled China's New Order, attacking China's leaders for using state interference and even violence to enforce its vision of international capitalism. He says the leaders have colonized their own citizens. Not surprisingly, Chinese officials do not put it that way, and few here believe that China needs another Marxist revolution. Nor would Communist Party officials say that democracy, rather than an authoritarian political system, is needed to bring greater social justice to China. Still, Communist leaders increasingly seem convinced that neither economic growth nor China's tattered legacy of socialist laws will prevent social unrest, even violent upheaval of the kind that helped bring the party to power in 1949. President Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, have vowed to raise peasant incomes and stop the most egregious abuse of workers. Executives of multinational corporations say they have a harder time getting appointments with Mr. Wen and Mr. Hu than they did in the past. Inequality these days is too stark to be ignored, says Kang Xiaoguang, a leading political analyst in Beijing. The party has begun to recognize that its legitimacy cannot come from economic reform as such. It needs to stress fairness and justice. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/weekinreview/25kahn.html Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
re China's new Marxist left
The unfortunate thing about the NYT article is it doesn't really feature any Marxists. Dai Jianzhong is a fine and rare type of labor scholar in China, I"ve met him in Beijing and he counts quite a few Marxists as friends, but he's not a person who would categorize himself as Marxist. Wang Hui most certainly is not Marxist, though he's a very interesting andenlightening read. The best left economist in China is Han Deqiang, it's really strange the author either doesn't know him or hasn't interviewed him given his prominence on the academic left in China. steve
Re: re China's new Marxist left
Could Jonathan or Steve give us an idea of the academic left in China? Is it as marginal as it is here? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: re China's new Marxist left
Michael, The academic left is much more marginal in China than in the US, and even more removed from the experiences of the producers than here. Zuo Dapei, wrote a short piece on heterodox economics in China. It gives a sense of what's 'left' in economics (which is, as in the US, *the* hegemonic academic discipline of social science): http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?type=articleid=31 On the hopeful side, a group of leftist academics recent teamed up to set up a book store and meeting place for lectures and movies, called Utopia. If people are passing through, it's the place to go. Their website is at: http://www.wyzxwyzx.com/ (but it's all in Chinese) Cheers, Jonathan - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: re China's new Marxist left
Sorry, forgot to give the place! The bookstore/salon is in Beijing. jl - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
