Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Doug Henwood wrote: Hugh Rodwell wrote: The reason our indirect (not so bloody indirect actually) apologists for capital (such as Doug and Chris, with Rob flapping around them like one of Dante's trimmers on the banks of the Styx) [...] keep trying to make us think that capital is doing OK and will save the world if only it's managed properly, is that they cannot conceive of a society without capital. Here's one of many reasons why "revolutionary" Marxists are so fucking exasperating. Capital is "doing OK" only in the sense that it is politically secure. The Asian financial crisis that some of the more fevered among us thought would bring on the long-awaited death agony seems not to have done its terminal work. Maybe next time. Capitalism is not politically secure. It requires an enormously active and expensive (and destructive and suffocating) apparatus of repression and menace to survive. Without the political repression, the exploitation relations of capital vs labour wouldn't survive a day. As for death agony, Doug just doesn't know what the phrase means. It means the long struggle of an organism against impending death, not the death itself. The death itself is a release from the death struggle. Now if the October revolution and its consequences aren't sufficient to get into Doug's wooden head that capitalism as a system is facing imminent death, historically speaking, in world terms, then the only thing that will convince him is the death itself. Because October expropriated capital in vast areas of the world, survived the imperialist reaction (albeit gravely wounded) and, despite being run by a regime of counter-revolutionary imperialist agents, managed to meet basic social needs for decades without mechanisms of capitalist exploitation. This without having hegemony in the world market as far as automatic economic operations go. No healthy economic system would have failed to wipe the floor with the opposition put up by the Soviet Union and its fellow proto-socialist states. But these states represent the new historical system, and imperialism represents the old, worn-out, dysfunctional and obsolete system. It took decades for the Stalinist counter-revolutionaries to hand the state founded by October back to the capitalists. For me and any reasonable observer this all indicates that capitalism as a system is dying. This was obviously Marx's view and his studies of the system give us a scientific ground to corroborate our observations. It's not just impressionism, but logically validated. So if capitalism is dying, it's in its death agony. It's as simple as that. And as anyone knows, this fight with death can be short or protracted, can have periods of apparent recovery, long depressions, stagnation, sudden bursts of fever, etc. If we compare the political superstructure with medical care, then imperialism is treating itself to a hugely expensive life support system, but nothing more. The role of the treacherous leaderships and the various apologists for capital is simply to keep the patient in the machine, and stop the people pulling the plug on it. So, as long as Doug confuses "death agony" with "death", we'll be treated to more of the same shit. For him, obviously, not dead means the same as full of beans, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and ready to rock. He ought to reread the Tale of the Ancient Mariner and cop an eyeful of the Nightmare Life-in-Death instead. Capital is not "doing OK" in the sense that it is not delivering a materially stable, socially enriching, and ecologically sustainable life to most of the people on earth. Well, I declare! The challenge for "revolutionary" hacks like you, Hugh, is to translate that sense of non-OKness into a real political movement. I'm afraid invoking Trotsky won't do it. I'm not a "hack". Headwood is a hack. He turns out column inches to order for money. Hence his one-line cheapos (just lerve the charity!) on Thaxis. The political movement is there. It just lacks leadership and direction. Despite the openly treacherous leadership (example: the British trade union leadership, and the "Labour"! party leadership during the Liverpool dockers strike, against "reforms" that aimed to bring British docks back to the nineteenth century) many powerful struggles (such as the dockers in Liverpool and elsewhere) have taken place and constantly spring up afresh. At the moment they are gathering steam and clout. Trotsky can be used the same as Marx, Engels, Lenin and others can be used. Using isn't the same as "invoking". Doug's semantics are as confused as his own political recipes. They do not see capital as a historical development from previous non-capital forms of production, and they do not see it as developing into a subsequent non-capital form of production. Funny, I thought the passage Chris quoted from Marx and then me showed exactly that. But I know that caricature is a lot easier than actually reading a text. Well, we can leave the Swedish
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
test --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Robert Malecki wrote: I see that Doug is still upset because Workers Vanguard tore his "WallStreet" apart. And cyberspace reflects the dismal shape of the left in general. But for you who is soft on the Stalinists to talk about sectarians and censors must be the understatement of the year. If I remember correctly it was foremost you and Proyect who wanted to do the censoring back on the old Jefferson Village lists. Which led to Proyect and yourself building new lists to stop any serious discussion. And these days I hear that you and Proyect are scraching each others eyes out. He dumped you from his list and obviously this is the only censorship ever practiced against your particular brand of liberal new left politics. Anyway for our new readers the article which takes up Doug's "Wall Street" can be found at http://www.algonet.se~malecki just push on the "Wall Street" button! Bob, none of these links work. The link *Wall Street* on your webspace doesn't work either. The problem is, I don't even have to read the WV critique of *Wall Street* to know what it says. I've read WS cover to cover nearly 3 times and have read just about every issue of WV for the past 5 years. J. Seymour and J.Norden aside, the analytical toolkit of WV is very small and extremely formulaic. I bet I could even write the WV articles myself. How about "As revolutionary Marxists, we oppose any rapprochement with the capitalist state and its blood-soaked imperialist rulers. The workers of the world must unite to smash the capitalist state." Actually, I'm quite sympathetic with the positions taken in WV. I even considered joining the Sparts when I was about 17. But, WV is as formulaic and dull as a Keith Richards guitar solo--especially for people who already accept a Marxist framework for understanding the world. For people who aren't already Marxists, the paper probably reads like a document from outerspace . Less Keith Richards, more Sonny Sharrock. Sam Pawlett --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Fortunately, the links on the LBO links page work just fine. Visit http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_links.html, scroll about 4/5 of the way down, or search for "Malecki." Links not only to the WV critique of Wall Street, but to Malecki central and a direct link to his hot-as-a-pistol memoir! Cool! Now we just need some Ennio Morricone musicpreferably from the theme from "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly". Sam Pawlett --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Deadwood writes! Fortunately, the links on the LBO links page work just fine. Visit http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_links.html, scroll about 4/5 of the way down, or search for "Malecki." Links not only to the WV critique of Wall Street, but to Malecki central and a direct link to his hot-as-a-pistol memoir! Doug Hej Doug! I must be doing something right! I believe I am one of the few people on Internet that you have devoted both a considerable amount of your webspace too and constantly raise this stuff up to discussion. So under all those synical one liners I have obviously touched a nerve. And like I said before. When da revolution comes we gonna turn that left liberal rag you publish into a chicken farm and something useful to the workers of the world. Warm Regards Bob Malecki --- Check Out My HomePage where you can, Read or download the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball! and "Radiotime"-the Book! Now the International Communist League Page! Just push on the "Spartacist" Button. Or Get The Latest Issue of, COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people. Checkout the "Non RADIO News" Page.. And now the "Black", "Brown and "Yellow" pages.. http://home.bip.net/malecki http://www.algonet.se/~malecki Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Dave Bedggood wrote: Interesting that Doug Henwood thinks that non-profit ownership is perceived as a threat by Ford. Ford FOUNDATION, not the Ford Motor Corp. And point was, if you even bothered to read the original text, was that the various community organizations in the U.S. were in many cases at first genuine self-organizing attempts by working class and poor people, especially in black neighborhoods. The Ford FOUNDATION spotted those it thought interesting and started offering them grants. This led to the creation of a large sector of foundation-supported "community" organizations in the U.S. who came to be recognized by the ruling class as the semi-official representatives of the urban poor. I would say that the reason that Ford is interested in non-profit enterprises is that they recognise them as a form of disguised wage labour subcontracting to the large corporates. No. Many city governments in the U.S. contract with nonprofits to provide social services. It's a nice way to avoid unionized municipal workers. But it has nothing to do with making motor vehicles. So much better if these non-profit enterprises are based on communal land. Nationalising the land is actually part of the bourgeois programme. I have no idea what your point is here. A lot of the U.S. land mass is government-owned - much of the interior west - but that's completely irrelevant to this topic. The New York City government often seizes the property of tax delinquents, but it always attempts to reprivatize it when the market is receptive. There's no significant amount of communal land in U.S. metropolitan areas, and the U.S. bourgeoisie would regard anyone promoting a land-nationalization program as dangerous and possibly insane. The bosses have no call to pay rent to landowners or to pay speculative or monopoly rents. In the old days the petty bourgeois worked their butts off to survive paying the rent first before they took any wage equivalent. Unpaid domestic labourers have always worked for the bosses, and are even cheaper than non-profit social wage production. The giant Japanese combines have long used small family businesses as subcontractors to subsidise corporate profits. Dressing up work which does not return a profit as a 'social' goal while the major corporates rule the world, is just another way to repackage wage exploitation. That's why the only way to end exploitation is to expropriate the giant chunks of dead labour and put them to work under a workers plan. Gosh, never thought of that! Piddling around with pygmy enterprises is pathetic. Which was one of my points. Can you emerge from your dogma long enough to attempt to comprehend the discourse of others? Doug --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
At 15:36 30/05/99 +0200, Hugh wrote what was only his second contribution in 4 weeks, despite a post at 4 weeks ago emphasising that we are in a revolutionary situation. My own theory of his relative silence is that on the question of Kosovo he has major differences with Bob Malecki tactically and strategically, and instead of arguing on the merits of the case, he thinks it important to keep an opportunist bloc with Bob, because It's all the crisis of leadership, as Trotsky said. He hopes by minimising his differences, Bob will listen to his lead. Want to help bring a revolutionary crisis to a successful conclusion? Help build a revolutionary working-class leadership like the LIT. Hence also the froth with which he tries to attack what I and Doug have written as non-revolutionary. Chris argues as if any reforms at all are anathema to revolutionary Marxists. My words were carefully chosen and they do not preclude revolution. I challenge Hugh to substantiate his argument by direct quotation. This is crap. Having set up the straw man, he is knocked over with bravura. The purpose of the exercise. The question is who initiates the changes and why. No. Here is a line of demarcation. Hugh clearly does not accept my argument that capitalism is reforming itself all the time. He applies a virginity test to reforms. They must not have been fingered by the bourgeoisie first. This is nonsense. If you accept Marx's argument about the socialisation of the means of production going on independently of the conscious will of anyone, then there will be times when this process can be accelerated by positive initiatives or purely negatively, reactively by the bourgeoisie. It absolutely requires the working class and working people to identify those possibilities and the divisions within the bourgeoisie about which way to turn, to be able to ally with a section of the reforming bourgeoisie, and then take over the momentum from them. The postwar welfare state era in Europe was initiated by the bourgeoisie as an expensive concession to buy off the working class before it became conscious of the revolutionary character of its demands and especially its own social clout. With the help of the Stalinists in Moscow and the CPs worldwide, the bourgeoisie succeeded. This undialectical and pessimistic description of the class struggle does not recognise that without progressive struggle in the countries concerned and in the world situation, the bourgeoisie would never have felt under pressure to make such concessions. Contrast the positive way Marx hailed the victory of the 10 hours bill. As for the present stage, "reforms" is just a euphemism for slash and burn reaction, Nonsense. This is Hugh in his most hacklike revolutionary agitator mode. No doubt the third world has borne the burden of the latest crisis of capitalism, but the proposition that there are no reforms other than slash and burn reaction, contadicts Hugh's argument of a few lines earlier about buying off the working class. The western governments have just lowered interest rates to ease the pressure on mass consumers and keep them purchasing. Not much slash and burn there - with good reason - the crisis might have spread to the imperialist heartlands. so why anyone at all apart from the bourgeoisie and their spittle-licking Third Way social-democrat and recycled Stalinist pals would welcome such "reforms" is a mystery. Bombast. But tautological I suppose. If anyone can see any reforms going on short of slash and burn, their only purpose in referring to them must be to be lick-spittle, not in order to analyse the situation more accurately, and then to aid the process of the working class and the working people taking the initiative. But after the flourishes we come to the core proposition of Marx under discussion:- As for Marx's meaning, it was always that the question at the heart of capitalist society was the exploitation of labour by the mechanism of unequal exchange between labour and capital. Labour sells its labour power, whose exercise produces value in far greater amounts than the labour power costs. Because of the sale (variable capital for labour power), capital acquires the right to appropriate the labour and its value. But Marx is *also* saying that there is a process of socialisation of the means of production going on. He even says in Chapter 27 of Volume 3 (thanks for the reference Doug) that one of the two characteristics immanent in the credit system is .. "to reduce more and more the number of the few who exploit the social wealth". Marx argues that the joint stock company causes the undertakings of capital to "assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings". "It is the abolition of private property within the framework of capitalist production itself." !!! This is perhaps for Hugh, a mere pirouette - Whatever pirouettes the capitalists, their direct representatives and
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Doud writes: Judging by cyberspace, Marxism is indeed in dismal shape. It's mainly a gang of sectarians and censors. Very sad. Doug I see that Doug is still upset because Workers Vanguard tore his "WallStreet" apart. And cyberspace reflects the dismal shape of the left in general. But for you who is soft on the Stalinists to talk about sectarians and censors must be the understatement of the year. If I remember correctly it was foremost you and Proyect who wanted to do the censoring back on the old Jefferson Village lists. Which led to Proyect and yourself building new lists to stop any serious discussion. And these days I hear that you and Proyect are scraching each others eyes out. He dumped you from his list and obviously this is the only censorship ever practiced against your particular brand of liberal new left politics. Anyway for our new readers the article which takes up Doug's "Wall Street" can be found at http://www.algonet.se~malecki just push on the "Wall Street" button! Warm Regards Bob Malecki --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Both Hugh and I and Dave know very well where we have each other. Certainly we never agree to disagree when we have our differences. However we do agree about your both democratic imperialist and reformist approach to politics. Most of what Hugh and Dave writes in polemics against both you Chris and Doug. I certainly agree with. But it has nothing to do with a "block". And certainly if there was something that I did not agree on I certainly would take it up. Warm regards Bob Malecki --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Hello Hugh, I had a feeling we might be hearing from you ... and you know I'm too busy to bang on like this, but ... As for the present stage, "reforms" is just a euphemism for slash and burn reaction, so why anyone at all apart from the bourgeoisie and their spittle-licking Third Way social-democrat and recycled Stalinist pals would welcome such "reforms" is a mystery. Nothing 'third way' about anything I've read here of late (with the possible exception of Chris's stance on Yugoslavia, but then that's my reading of him and I should leave that one to him). The 'third way' is an incoherent lie that doesn't even enjoy the virtue of being believable to the majority of the lied-to. It'll be an historical lesson in failed public relations exercises within five years, imho. Whatever pirouettes the capitalists, their direct representatives and apologists, and their indirect agents and apologists try and dazzle us with, the choreography is less important than the dance. This is how I read Doug's differences with Dave Hawkes, and certainly how I meant my part in it. Until the rule of capital is ended, this expoitation will continue. Agreed. Capital rules like never before, and exploitation is rife like never before (even if many western workers are not as miserable as they were a century ago). The reason our indirect (not so bloody indirect actually) apologists for capital (such as Doug and Chris, with Rob flapping around them like one of Dante's trimmers on the banks of the Styx) keep trying to make us think that capital is doing OK and will save the world if only it's managed properly, is that they cannot conceive of a society without capital. Well, I'll give you one out of three, Hugh. I cannot conceive of a society without capital. But I cannot conceive of a society ruled by capital as a long-term scenario either. The contradictions are manifest and the urgency is mounting for revolutionary transformation - else where all gorn. I suspect I'd be delightedly at home in some societies sans capital, and even less delighted than I am now in others. It depends on stuff we never seem to pursue in depth. I do not flap around apologists for capital and I read neither Chris nor Doug as such apologists. And capital ain't going okay - it's just here, and it ain't out of tricks yet. They do not see capital as a historical development from previous non-capital forms of production, and they do not see it as developing into a subsequent non-capital form of production. For them production is capital and capital is production (same crap as the market socialists), period. Market socialism has its virtues - as amelioration to our more urgent concerns and as compelling rhetoric in a general society even more blinded by the commodity than I. And even less convinced of its potential for authoring change, at that. But if Rob would flap less and look about him more, he'd see just how energetically the Dougs and Chrises attack revolutionary analyses and policies, and how eager they are to support bourgeois alternatives as long as there's some euphemistic label assuring them that their particular brand of capitalism is humanitarian, just, user-friendly and possessing a social conscience. Let's talk to each other (especially our fellow workers) about flexing a little solidarity in pursuit of aims that might be reached and might convince them of their potential, eh? That's the development of self awareness and the development of theory emanating out of practice. Solid Marxist stuff, I'd have thought. He'd also see how the working class is always confused with the labour aristocracy and the petty-bourgeoisie when it comes to property, shares etc. Class analysis in Marx's terms leads to the conclusion that history is the history of class struggle, and none of the great revolutionary thinkers and leaders ever subsequently departed from this fundamental axiom as stated in the fanfare opening of the Communist Manifesto. And no one who denies its validity has any claim to be a revolutionary socialist or a Marxist. Henwoodist or Bufordist, yes, but not Marxist. I was hinting that the international class situation might be a little altered, that's all. White collar, and some blue collar, western workers now enjoy an objectively different relation to production than do most of the rest of the world's workers. If large-scale collective socialist insurrection is gonna happen anywhere in the immediate future, I suggest the old 'third worldists' may have had a point - it'll happen there. I reckon our job is still to do with attaining mainstream access, protecting what's left of what our grannies won for us, pushing reforms that can move people, and building an integrated institutional setting that helps people get together to theorise (together) express (together) their currently private angsts and doubts. Reformism as revolution, if you like. Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Reforming Capitalism
Hugh Rodwell wrote: The reason our indirect (not so bloody indirect actually) apologists for capital (such as Doug and Chris, with Rob flapping around them like one of Dante's trimmers on the banks of the Styx) Luv ya too, Hugh! keep trying to make us think that capital is doing OK and will save the world if only it's managed properly, is that they cannot conceive of a society without capital. Here's one of many reasons why "revolutionary" Marxists are so fucking exasperating. Capital is "doing OK" only in the sense that it is politically secure. The Asian financial crisis that some of the more fevered among us thought would bring on the long-awaited death agony seems not to have done its terminal work. Maybe next time. Capital is not "doing OK" in the sense that it is not delivering a materially stable, socially enriching, and ecologically sustainable life to most of the people on earth. The challenge for "revolutionary" hacks like you, Hugh, is to translate that sense of non-OKness into a real political movement. I'm afraid invoking Trotsky won't do it. They do not see capital as a historical development from previous non-capital forms of production, and they do not see it as developing into a subsequent non-capital form of production. Funny, I thought the passage Chris quoted from Marx and then me showed exactly that. But I know that caricature is a lot easier than actually reading a text. But if Rob would flap less and look about him more, he'd see just how energetically the Dougs and Chrises attack revolutionary analyses and policies, and how eager they are to support bourgeois alternatives as long as there's some euphemistic label assuring them that their particular brand of capitalism is humanitarian, just, user-friendly and possessing a social conscience. You really have no idea what you're talking about. This is not what I think at all, and I've alienated and angered a lot of people precisely by attacking all those soulful capitalists. Sorry to trouble you with a text, Hugh old comrade, but here's what I actually had to say about soulful capitalism in Wall Street. Enjoy! Doug This is why you won't find anything in this chapter on the "progressive use" of pension funds. Peter Drucker's fears of "pension fund socialism" of the 1970s have realized themselves in the portfolio manager capitalism of the 1990s which is no surprise, since it's quite natural that capital should appropriate the pooled savings of workers for "management." The whole idea of creating huge pools of financial capital should be the focus of attack, not the uses to which these pools are put. Instead of funding infrastructure development through creative pension-fund-backed financial instruments, finance it with a wealth tax instead. The lesson of the Swedish wage-earner funds should be chastening to pension-fund reformers (Pontusson 1984; 1987; 1992). The funds were originally conceived by social democratic economists as a scheme for socializing ownership of corporations. In the original mid-1970s proposal, firms would have been required to issue new shares, in amounts equal to 20% of their annual profits, to funds representing wage-earners as a collective. In the space of a decade or two, these funds would acquire dominant, and eventually controlling, interests in corporate Sweden. This idea scandalized business, which launched a great campaign to discredit it a task that was greatly simplified by the fact that the funds never attracted broad popular support. The Social Democrats and the unions watered the plan down, and a weak version was adopted in the early 1980s. The funds quickly began behaving like ordinary pension funds; their managers, in a vain attempt at legitimation, began trading stocks in an effort to beat the market averages. Eventually, late in the decade, the wage-earner funds were euthanized. Why did they fail? For at least two reasons. First, business correctly saw the initial version as a challenge to capitalist ownership, a reminder that finance is central to the constitution of a corporate ruling class. And second, they never attracted popular support essential to any serious challenge to a corporate ruling class because they were so abstract. As Pontusson (1992, p. 237) put it, "when collective shareholding funds are reduced to deciding whether to buy shares in Volvo or Saab," it's hard to muster popular enthusiasm. More direct interventions are required active public industrial policy and greater worker control at the firm level if ordinary people are to get interested. The stock market, on the other hand, is the home turf of financiers, and any games played on their turf usually end up being played by their rules. INVESTING SOCIALLY Over the last decade essentially since the campaign to purge stock portfolios of companies doing business in South Africa started in the early 1980s we've seen an explosion in investment funds devoted to goals beyond mere profit-maximization.
