Julien , you are fun( and informative) to read.jo*
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:24:52 +0200 Julien Pierrehumbert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Julien to Tahir, again.
>I've added my answer to Tahir on the thread "a defintion of wage" to
>reduce
>volume. We were drifting anyway.
>
>>>>Every civilised economic system IS capitalist.
>>
>>>now you're coming saying that capitalism dates back at least
>>>to the bronze age...
>>
>>No, capitalism developed some 300-400 years ago and now the
>>whole ("civilised") world is capitalist.
>
>Are you trying to confuse me? Are you saying that civilization began
>300-400
>years ago???
>
>>I'm not especially optimistic in the shorter term - that's
>>why the demand for a "solution" by next year just sounds
>>puerile to me.
>
>I have NOT done that. Please, read in context. I was doing a thought
>experiment to say that someone could keep his dismissive
>"newsbulletins" for
>himself... or something that started with that. I have said plenty of
>times on that
>thread that it was NOT realistic.
>
>>The only thing that will save something of
>>civilisation from the meltdown of capitalism is a large
>>...
>
>Now you want to save civilization while you identified it with
>capitalism. I'm lost.
>
>>I'm clear that this planetary
>>community cannot be based on commodity production. Agree or
>>not?
>
>We had discussed the commodity earlier on CL-talk and my requests for
>clarification were not answered. I await an explanation of what
>commodity
>production means to you to answer. But my spontaneous thought is that
>we are
>burdened with too much "cannot"s.
>Anyway, I disagree with the internationalist TINA which says that any
>solution
>must be global.
>
>>Sure, but which reforms are going to save this planet, the
>>human race and civilisation? See you argue carefully now!
>>...
>>Most people on this list could lecture you on how to save
>>it
>>partially without overthrowing capitalism completely if they
>>cared.
>>
>>"If they cared"? But what else is this list about?
>
>Well, many don't want to have anything to do with reforms while if
>they cared
>most people have partial solutions.
>
>>And what
>>does saving it partially mean?
>
>It means not saving it but slowing the pace of its destruction.
>
>>I want to give up being a marxist and any convincing
>>explanations here will do it for me.
>
>Please! Can't you understand living in a society where people are
>different
>then you means compromises? You don't have to give marxism up to
>support
>something else.
>
>>But how can you agree and then still argue for money? ...
>
>I don't argue for money. I just happen to think that having money,
>while
>probably not the best solution, is not the straight way to hell.
>
>>>>Money means wage labour means markets means capitalism means the
>>>>state.
>>>
>>>[my disagreement]
>>
>>You can have all of these things separated in a purely ideal
>>and conceptual universe, but historically your separations
>>are nonsense.
>
>No. Historically money came into beign much earlier than capitalism
>(you said
>yourself it began a few hundred years ago). There were also many cases
>of
>states with markets but not wage labour. They were also cases of
>stateless
>people trading. I guess I don't need to give you precise examples as
>you can
>probably come up with dozens yourself if you think a bit. They were
>also
>probably cases of states without money a long time ago depending on
>your
>definitions.
>
>>States as we know them came into being to
>>regulate class conflicts, to protect markets, private
>>property, trade routes, etc. Why else?
>
>For example to satisfy the hunger for power of a monarch. Or to settle
>forcefully
>reglious disputes. Or to beat aggressive foreign states at their own
>game.
>Among other examples. Your vision of the world is too partial IMO.
>There's no
>use to try to squeeze everything in a simple theory.
>
>>As for capitalism, it
>>is just the logical extension of commodity production
>>throughout society, for which development you need money and
>>wage labour.
>
>Lots of people would disagree with that. But again, maybe it's only a
>definition problem.
>
>>Yep, take a look. If you had done so before, you would have
>>known that I was arguing solidly within the marxism of Karl
>>Marx ...
>
>Well, what I've read of Karl was not very convincing and also boring.
>I must
>have picked the wrong bits. Maybe I have read mostly the stuff
>published after
>his death. I don't know. What is certain IMO is that he said many
>silly things.
>Anyway, I can usually make more sense out of commentators and
>contemporary marxists.
>
>
>>and economists like yourself..
>
>I don't have that title. As I told Mark, you don't need economists to
>do
>economics. They're usually so [censored intemperate language].
>
>>Money, because it involves an abstraction from the
>>production and distribution of use values can be accumulated
>>as capital.
>
>When the means of production are not held privately? No!
>
>>You would not need to "forbid"
>>people from accumulating.
>
>Exactly. So let there be money and trading of private items and
>services.
>What's the problem?
>
>>And if you didn't want to accumulate it as
>>capital what would it be for?
>
>For plenty of things. Money has many faces (apart from the one of the
>boss :-).
>You can notably use money as a unit of value, as a means of exchange,
>and
>as a store of value (even socialism won't make all movements of goods
>and
>services simultaneous). More pratically, people will use it to trade
>their
>personnal items and to buy services to each other. It would be
>superior to
>barter. It will make the life of people wanting to live out of an
>unofficial
>economic niche easier. People will also want to play poker and other
>games
>of this sort. They could use it for hoarding but you can fight this
>tendency with
>inflation if it's undesirable. Of course this list is not exhaustive.
>
>>As for your reference to
>>"non-labour value" (where you insist on including "capital"
>>- hello!!!), by which I suppose you mainly mean natural
>>resources, surely it is not beyond us to devise a system of
>>distributing these according to need and through a system of
>>arbitrary equivalences with the value that has been rpoduced
>>through labour.
>
>Surely. But then we might as well realize that while we're doing
>arbitrary things,
>we might as well forget computing labour times... at least it seems so
>at first
>glance. The problem is that unless you're lucky and have the right
>equivalences, some people will not be able to buy what they want with
>their
>"labour tokens". And even if you have the right qquivalences, you'll
>still be left
>with unavoidable short-term imbalances. So I think that a simulated
>market
>process (or a real one) which would determine the "prices" of items
>and
>services would be useful to balance supply and demand.
>You might think that this is hair-splitting but if you do not allow
>for the dynamic
>corrections we're talking about, you'll be unable to take any kind of
>ecological
>reform of your economy without creating shortages. With pure
>labour-time
>determined "prices", you will have to overexploit the earth if you
>want no
>shortages. The "prices" of items with heavy "ecological footprints"
>have to be
>set higher if you want your brand of socialism to do any good.
>As to your hello!!!, you can bring everything down to the labour used
>to
>develop (wide meaning of the word) it. But in the real life labour
>alone doesn't
>deliver. Capital is of course the product of old labour but not only
>of that.
>Resources have also been used to create the capital. Besides, you
>can't
>bring capital into existence instantaneously just by "spending" the
>amount of
>labour necessary to produce it and even if you could there's usually
>an
>enormous difference between that amount and the amount that you would
>include as "value of dead labour" or whatever in your calculations for
>each
>given planning period during the life of that bit of capital. There is
>therefore a
>scarcity of capital different than the scarcity of labour and
>therefore a value of
>capital of a different nature than the value of labour.
>
>>The fact is that only under capitalism is it
>>possible for someone to accumulate huge resources without
>>any labour, just by virtue of ownership. [...] And
>>this is because commodification has been generalised to
>>every corner of social life under capitalism and there is no
>>way of putting the genie back into the bottle.
>
>I'm still not convinced that it's a sufficient cause and I'm quite
>sure that there
>are ways to put the genie back into the bottle. It's possible to drive
>profits
>underwater either through unionism or taxes, f.ex.
>
>>As I said, if you want to lobby your
>>politicians wherever it is that you are, fine, but we can
>>talk a year or two from now and see what that has yielded.
>
>I did not pick it up, because it was quite bizarre. Lobbying? me?
>Writing letters
>for Amnesty Intl. cases and stuff like that is OK, but would
>politicians listen to
>me on issue where something important is a at stake? Anyway, there's a
>better
>way than lobbying in countries with decent democraties (not the US):
>vote
>against them. The politicians I've voted for didn't need lobbying to
>act
>decently... until now. OK, most didn't get elected at the national
>level because
>the party is too marginal.
>It will probably have yielded nothing in a year or two. What had and
>will have
>yielded more however is direct democracy. You'll probably consider
>those
>petty advances (or defenses) but had the victories we have had here
>happend in the USA, you would surely be impressed. And if the left did
>ont
>leave populism to the right, there would be a lot more action.
>
>>But I think those kids and workers on the streets of Seattle
>>and London and the other instances that will follow soon
>>have a better sense - that the struggle is anti-capitalism,
>>not just anti-imperialism or anti-fascism - they just need
>>some guidance that's all.
>
>I heard that they were shouting "Capitalism? No thanks. We will burn
>your
>fucking banks!" That looks good enough for me.
>Seriously, I don't think they need guidance. Stop beign patronizing.
>
>Cheers too (whatever that means),
>Julien
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
