Re: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Romain Kroes: On the other hand, the exogenous realizing surplus value allows a theoretical approach of both imperialism history and today's Globalization, by taking together Luxemburg's and Wallerstein's works. Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the existence non-capitalist modes of production? Are there any such geographical and sociological spaces left in any part of the world for the realisation surplus value? Ulhas
Re: Re: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the existence non-capitalist modes of production? Are there any such geographical and sociological spaces left in any part of the world for the realisation surplus value? Ulhas There are very few spaces left, now. Geographically, the whole world is already more or less integrated into the net of the financial markets. Sociologically, the ruin of the mean classes is already done in Latin America and at stake in Europe and furtherly in the USA. That means that the last world system is approaching its last limit of accumulation, at which it will take the whole civilization with it to its grave, if not replaced in time. But as in besieged Bysance, scholars are still busy discussing the sex of angels. RK
RE: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline? Romain Kroes writes:Not only Marxists have no coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism, but they are prisoners of a contradiction between Lenin's theory and Rosa Luxemburg's. does this conclusion follow from a full search of the Marxist literature on imperialism? It seems to me that most Marxists follow Lenin, often with modifications, while there are other alternatives besides Luxemburg. The Monthly Review school springs to mind... For Lenin, imperialism is motivated by the race to a superprofit. For Rosa Luxemburg, it is motivated by the accumulation process which needs relentless expansion. For the former, imperialism is the product of the behaviour of capitalists looking for ever more profit. For the latter, it is the product of an organic necessity. This contradiction has its origin in the problem of realizing the surplus-value. Trying to explain the extended reproduction of capital by the addition of an endogenous profit, Marx did not succeed. Rosa Luxemburg discovered this failure and resolved the problem by the exogenous surplus-value realization, that is by an expansion into geographical and sociological spaces. There is no doubt that the current Globalization [theory?] agrees with Rosa Luxemburg. I disagree. Marx showed very clearly that capitalism need not suffer from chronic realization problems, i.e., that it was _possible_ for surplus-value to be realized internal to the system. (There are lots of critiques of Luxemburg in the literature, so her school is very small.) The problem (for me, at least) is that this possibility is usually not realized. For example, in some eras (such as our own) wages are pushed down relative to labor productivity, so that realization problems due to under-consumption are always in the wings. However, there are short-term solutions to this (e.g., the US credit-based boom of the late 1990s and the US as the consumer of the last resort for the rest of the world). And other periods don't see the same kind of underconsumption undertow (e.g., the 1960s). Lenin's theory is reducible to the human-nature metaphysics, I don't think so: Lenin's theory (though somewhat crude, as one might expect from a pamphlet that he himself saw as inferior to Bukharin's contribution) is one of a structural tension, one of capitalists continuously being _pushed_ by circumstances to struggle with each other to attain monopoly. As with Marx, Lenin's vision of capitalism doesn't start with human-nature metaphysics (the maximizing consumer, etc.) but with the structure of the system. A full Marxian analysis would include both the structural tensions that push individual capitalists to expand _and_ the conditions that allow the organic whole to engage in relatively harmonious expanded reproduction. When these clash -- as they regularly do -- we see economic (and sometimes social and political) crises. One solution to this kind of mess is geographical expansion, though that kind of solution (like others) doesn't solve the structural problems that produce capitalist crises. while Rosa Luxemburg's continues the scientific Marxism that have been ignored, even censored by both reformists and Leninists for almost ninety years. while Luxemburg's analysis is scientific Marxism, I don't think it makes sense. (One thing about scientists is that they're often wrong.) Since it's easy to find a copy of her stuff -- it's published by Monthly Review Press -- I wouldn't call it censored. It might be out of print, but that's because of low demand. I know that I have several of her books. It is besides noticeable that the belief in an endogenous realizing surplus value gathers, on the same side, the persisting social-democracts and the Marxist-Leninists (including Trotskysts). If surplus value realization is endogenous, capitalism does not need any expansion and it has no limit in accumulating within a closed area. See the above: we don't need Luxemburg's analysis to understand that capitalism often faced limits that cause profitability problems that are often solved via geographical expansion. JD
Re: Re: Re: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Romain Kroes wrote: Geographically, the whole world is already more or less integrated into the net of the financial markets. But how deeply rooted is this net, to mix metaphors hideously? In national economies, the financial system is deeply bound up with issues of ownership and control of productive capital, whether we're talking American-style shareholder value or German-style bank ownership. Lots of international capital flows are just hot money moving in and out. They inject and withdraw liquidity, but don't necessarily get deeply involved in the local scene. Direct investment is another matter. Doug
Re: RE: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline?James Devine writes: I disagree. Marx showed very clearly that capitalism need not suffer from chronic realization problems, i.e., that it was _possible_ for surplus-value to be realized internal to the system. - But Marx did not succeed in passing from the simple reproduction to the expanded one. Even in the 48th chapter of vol.3, after having previously claimed that the question did not matter, he continued looking for the realization of surplus value within the circulation process. Only dogmatism and devotion or reverence can explain that most Marxists still believe that Marx has solved the problem of accumulation process. Rosa Luxemburg did it. But her solution did not fit Lenin's theory of proletariat diktatorship, nor Stalin's permanent terror, assassinations and internments this theory justified. (...) in some eras (such as our own) wages are pushed down relative to labor productivity, so that realization problems due to under-consumption are always in the wings. - Wages pushed down are in not any case source of underconsumption (if not temporily in a frictionnal unbalance), as it is a transfer from the labor cost to the capital one, that is a transfer of consumption. As Marx mentioned it: a transfer to luxurious production and consumption. As for the overproduction tendency, it is related to the rise in prices with respect to the global distributed monetary purchasing power, as Juglar's works have demonstrated it. (...) Lenin's theory (though somewhat crude, as one might expect from a pamphlet that he himself saw as inferior to Bukharin's contribution) is one of a structural tension, one of capitalists continuously being _pushed_ by circumstances to struggle with each other to attain monopoly. As with Marx, Lenin's vision of capitalism doesn't start with human-nature metaphysics (the maximizing consumer, etc.) but with the structure of the system. - But what is the mysterious force that through the circumstances continuously pushes capitalists to struggle with each other to attain monopoly, if not the nature of capitalists? Where is then the relation to the system, if not in the propensity to accumulate ever more profit? A full Marxian analysis would include both the structural tensions that push individual capitalists to expand _and_ the conditions that allow the organic whole to engage in relatively harmonious expanded reproduction. - Which are thestructural tensions that push individual capitalist to expand? Were they not pulsions? When these clash -- as they regularly do -- we see economic (and sometimes social and political) crises. One solution to this kind of mess is geographical expansion, though that kind of solution (like others) doesn't solve the structural problems that produce capitalist crises. - What are these clashing? Why do they regularly do? Expansion indeed does not solve the structural problems, it only shifts them. But it increases accumulation. Did not colonialism do it ? (...) I wouldn't call it censored. It might be out of print, but that's because of low demand. I know that I have several of her books. -I do not know about the USA, but I can tell you that in France Rosa Luxemburg and her master work Die Akkumulation des Kapitals are mentioned in not any education program among the authors and works to be studied. And for having written a thesis prolonging Luxemburg's works, I am still barred from defending it. Barred by Marxists! . (...) we don't need Luxemburg's analysis to understand that capitalism often faced limits that cause profitability problems that are often solved via geographical expansion. - May be you do not need, but it is Rosa Luxemburg who first wrote it. Additionally, geographical expansion does not often but always solve crises. Is not imperialist war the recurrent mean of escaping a crisis? Best regards, James RK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Doug wrote: (...) Lots of international capital flows are just hot money moving in and out. They inject and withdraw liquidity, but don't necessarily get deeply involved in the local scene. Direct investment is another matter. - But what about the resultant of capital flows? If this resultant is null or randomizing, you are right. But the resultant of direct investments and returns to the main financial places is strictly directed from the periphery to the centers of the net. That means that Africa, for example, returns more capital than it receives as investments and aids. That is the reason why Argentina's internal market is dying. The world is more or less governed by the negative trade balance of the USA and by the one of Western Europe with respect to the rest of the world minus the USA. And the strictly directed resulting balance of capital is the reverse of this systematic distribution of the sign of trade balances . The integration is not yet complete. But it is on the way, and such is the so-called Globalization. Is it not the proof that Rosa Luxemburg was right against Lenin? Regards RK
