age: 3 > Date: 11 Aug 2000 19:17:16 +0200 > From: "TAHIR WOOD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [CrashList] (Absolutely my last on) Capitalism & Civilization > >>> "Julien Pierrehumbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/11 11:05 > AM >>> > It came back already. Just one: Plundering villages, killing > people randomly in > cruel and gore ways, starving them, etc. is progressive if > they are socially > retarded non-whites (Marx on the 1857+ revolt in India - > it's obviously my very > personal rendering of his position). > > Yes this is very, very obvious. > > >Oh yes! It's called state capitalism, for want of a better > >term. This is not rocket science: the state owns the banks; > >the bureaucrats control the state; the bureaucrats are a > >bureaucratic capitalist class. Capish? > > OK, here's your only point in the whole post. > I did not consider that because I think that if there is > only one capitalist (the > state) who has nearly total power over society, the > incentives for > accumulations are inexistent or of a different nature (I > answered to your linking > of money and accumulation). Besides, state capitalist > accumulation can of course happen without money. > > This probably requires some explanation. > > >The "prices" of items with heavy "ecological footprints"have to be > >set higher if you want your brand of socialism to do any good. > > > >We could just agree on a ceiling for each person's > >consumption of these items. > > Then you see my point. To each according to his labour time > is not a good solution. > > It's not the final solution, but it is still operative here. > There is an absolute limit to all goods that one may need or > desire regardless of whether this limit is attributed to > labour or to nature. But one should note that the > consumption of natural resources without the intervention of > ANY human labour is a very rare instance indeed. The point > is that through money, already within the capitalist system, > there is an implicit recognition that labour is the basis of > one's right to consumption. (I have ten dollars - that > represents an amount of dead labour - therefore I have the > right to consume the corresponding quantity of goods). But, > crucially, the transferrable and accumulable nature of money > means that the right is not necessarily bestowed upon the > person who has mainly created that value through labour. (On > the contrary.) But the socialist principle is for the > producer to retain that right - that is why money is not the > best way of apportioning one's right to consume according to > one's contribution to production. In several earlier posts I > therefore mentioned the need to develop a different kind of > index or measure. This would then operate, whether the good > to be consumed is water, a CD or a Chinese takeaway. In > other word if there is a water shortage you get a lesser > amount of water for a given amount of labour, but the amount > of water you get is still proportional to it - just the > amount per unit of labour is changed. This could be done by > arbitrary agreement. > > This is not the best solution imaginable, because it > operates on the basis of unequal capacities, mainly the > capacity to work. It would be nicer to get to a stage where > everyone just took the amount of water they needed and left > the rest for others, regardless of who did what work. But > now we are getting back to ground covered already and that's > why I'm discontinuing the thread after this. > > If you prefer rationing to market-pricing, it's OK for me. > Good, although rationing is not quite what I described. > > The stuff below I will not comment on because I think it > comes out of a kind of misunderstanding between us. I said > something much simpler than what you think I said, so your > answer is a bit of overkill: I just meant that removing the > imperative towards profit makes no sense within an unchanged > system, taking the system as a whole. And profit implies to > me surplus value and therefore exploitation. (And perhaps > also a final entropy to the system.) I wasn't concerned with > more localised or shorter term effects such as you describe. > That's more for the microeconomists amongst us. I have other > hairs to split. > > > I've a very good down-to-earth example for you: you surely > heard about those dot-com companies. > Now, barring speculative excesses, there are more > theoretical reasons for the > continuation of investment even if profits are not believed > to be restored through in the future: > First, there is a limited supply of actual money. It is > already uninvested, of > course. If profits drop and people scramble on notes, it > won't reduce the amount of investment unless more notes are printed. The real > issue is the potential for a credit crunch. A credit crunch could be a > very bad thing or not depending on the conditions, but there are ways to fight it > consequences. Second, if there is inflation, it makes sense not to hoard > money as long as the negative profits are not too high compared to the inflation. > Third, the government or the unionized workers who benefit > of the fall in profits can invest for no profit. > Fourth, even buisnesses that are making losses pay > interests. It can make sense to lend to them as long as they have more assets than > debt. > Fifth, in today's world, most of the investment is done by the corporations > themselves out of their ordinary revenue and not by the capital markets. A fall > in profits would of course also affect this kind of investment, but less IMO. > There is of course the issue of a scramble for foreign gold (a higher price for > domestic gold has little effects IMO) or a foreign currency. _______________________________________________ > Message: 4 > Date: 11 Aug 2000 19:33:25 +0200 > From: "TAHIR WOOD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [CrashList] State Capitalism (was Capitalism & Civilization) > >>> "bon moun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/11 2:58 PM >>> The other point that needs to be made here--as the discussion begins to drift-is how this highly sectarian bit of trotskyism was inserted. > > Oh man! I am much, much more sectarian than that. In an > earlier post that you missed I described Trotskyism as just > dissident Stalinism. But to answer the main point: it was > inserted by me sticking it in. > > Lenin refered to state capitalism as a stage in the construction > of socialism under specific historical circumstances > > Yes and you're still trying to recycle that one. > "Construction of socialism" out of state capitalism is one > of those highly plausible notions (at first glance) that > turns out to be utterly wrong. > but the bit about bureaucrats becoming a class (an indefensible distortion of the marxian concept of class) > How so? > CSC has become shorthand for a very flaky premise upon which an essentially counter-revolutionary argument is constructed. > No SC itself is the counter-revolution and it began with > "Leftwing Communism: an Infantile Disorder" which laid the > first foundation of an essentially nationalistic Russian > state capitalism becoming confused with socialism. The only > way to ever make good on that is to start over. By the way, > do you know where Lenin learned this "marxism" from? > > Tahir _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
