M-TH: underconsumptionism Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 1 10:26:53 MDT 1998
Previous message: M-TH: Re: LI-CRG: money imbroglio Next message: M-TH: underconsumptionism Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James, Once again you cut off part of the quote. The aspect in which Lenin most directly contradicts the point of your argument, compounding my suspicion of your dishonesty. Here is the original exchange again with the fuller quote from Lenin, which you cut short a second time below: ___________________ James Heartfield wrote the folloiwng in response to my statement: Charles: >Why would the bourgeois >always be seeking new markets and yet >discouraging consumption ? This is not >Marxist logic. ________ James H. 'On the problem of interest to us, that the home market, the main conclusion from Marx's theory of realisation is the following: capitalist production, and consequently, the home market, grow not so much on account of articles of consumption as on account of means of production. In other words, the increase in means of production outstrips the increase in articles of consumption.' Lenin, Development of Capitalism in Russia, p 54 _____________ Charles : But in the same passage Lenin went on to say: "For capitalism, therefore, the growth of the home market is to a certain extent "independent" of the growth of personal consumption, and takes place mostly on account of productive consumption. BUT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERSTAND THIS "INDEPENDENCE" AS MEANING THAT PRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ENTIRELY DIVORCED FROM PERSONAL CONSUMPTION: THE FORMER CAN AND MUST INCREASE FASTER THAN THE LATTER (AND THERE ITS "INDEPENDENCE" ENDS), BUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, PRDUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ALWAYS BOUND UP WITH PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. MARX SAYS IN THIS CONNECTION: "...WE HAVE SEEN (BOOK II, PART III) THAT CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION TAKES PLACE BETWEEN CONSTANT CAPITAL AND CONSTANT CAPITAL..."(MARX HAS IN MIND CONSTANT CAPITAL IN MEANS OF PRODUCTION , WHICH IS REALISED BY EXCHANGE AMONG CAPITALISTS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT). "IT IS AT FIRST INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION BECAUSE IT NEVER ENTERS THE LATTER. BUT THIS CONSUMPTION DEFINITELY LIMITS IT NEVERTHELESS, SINCE CONSTANT CAPITAL IS NEVER PRODUCED FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT SOLELY BECAUSE MORE OF IT IS NEEDED IN SPHERES OF PRODUCTION WHOSE PRODUCTS GO INTO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION " (DAS KAPITAL, III, 1, 289, RUSS. TRANS., P242; OR MOSCOW 1959 P.299-300) emphasis added by Charles. So, when we read the whole passage we see that Lenin and Marx agree with us not James H. in this thread. (end of original exchange) ___________ You may be insulted, but you are the one who did something that would raise reasonably suspicions in anybody's mind. Why did you leave out the portion of the quote from Lenin that immediately follows what you quoted and very much contradicts what you were quoting Lenin for ? Either you did it on purpose or it is a big oversight (in a daze). Why did you do it again in your post below ? Cutting off the portion of the quote of Marx by Lenin that cuts against your argument the strongest. As for you being insulted by my posts and not reading them, that would be like a wrongdoer being insulted when their wrong is pointed out. It is a further fraudulence, fraudulent posturing. Perhaps others will read my posts exposing your half-quoting and discount your arguments accordingly. It is not a matter of you being insulted. It is a matter of you cleaning up your act. In the quote from Mattick below first I point out that neither you nor Mattick claim that Marx did not say it. Secondly,you act as if Mattick is somekind of authority who can reverse the plain meaning of Marx's words in the quote:" The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses..." You and Mattick can try to twist that all you want, but it's meaning is clear. "Ultimate reason" means "ultimate cause". So when you try to say Marx didn't make this part of whatever theory of crisis he putforth, you just can't do it. As has already been said about 50 times on this thread, the well known fact that Marx is always analyzing contradictions means that the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is also part of his analysis of the cause. You keep dishonestly portraying what others and I are saying as if we don't include the latter. That is more evidence of your dishonesty. You blatantly half quote your opponents as well as Lenin. Charles Brown >From the market to the Marxit Then Charles quotes > Lenin went on to say: > >"For capitalism, therefore, the growth of the home >market is to a certain extent "independent" of the >growth of personal consumption, and takes place >mostly on account of productive consumption. >BUT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERSTAND >THIS "INDEPENDENCE" AS MEANING THAT >PRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ENTIRELY >DIVORCED FROM PERSONAL CONSUMPTION: " But did I say any different? Where did I say that production was entirely divorced from consumption? I only said >'On the problem of interest to us, that the home market, the main >conclusion from Marx's theory of realisation is the following: >capitalist production, and consequently, the home market, grow not so >much on account of articles of consumption as on account of means of >prouction. In other words, the increasse inmeans of produciton outstrips >the increase in articles of consumption.' > Lenin quotes Marx: > >"The ultimate reason for all >real crises always remains the >poverty and restricted consumption >of the masses as opposed to the >drive of captialist production to develop >the productive forces as though only >the absolute consuming power of >society constituted their outer limit " >(Capital vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. >472-73) ; quoted in The Development >of Capitalism in Russia. I agree with the following from Paul Mattick who quotes the above passage in his Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory, adding 'However, these remarks provide no foundation for a theory of crisis based on underconsumption, nor can the realization of surplus value be made the principle problem of the capitalist mode of production.' (p62) The restricted consumption of the masses is the precondition of exploitation, the source of surplus and of the drive to expand the forces of production. Overaccumulation of capital, not overproduction of commodities is the origin of capitalist crisis. How anyone could read The development of Capitalism in Russia as anything other than a polemic against underconsumptionism is a mystery to me. ElsewhereIn message <s612395c.056 at ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes >Charles: Here Heartfield arrogantly > I've >already caught James H. in dishonest half >quoting > fraudulently > Your statement that >someone has is dishonest like the rest >of your argument. >Your arguments dishonestly >ignore what we have said repeatedly. >You argue >as if you are in a daze. But if Charles really thinks that I am dishonest, fraudulent, in a daze, then there is little point in continuing this conversation. Holding such a low opinion of me, I can't see why Charles would be sufficiently interested in what I say to answer it; and I on my part have no wish to read Charles' posts only to be insulted. -- Jim heartfield This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
