Marx vs. Roemer
Marx vs. Roemer by Gil Skillman 11 March 2002 21:31 UTC ^ Gil, Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is created in the exchanges between capitalists ? Charles CB writes CB: To be more precise, Marx's position is that labor is the only source of new value, exchange-value. Individual capitalists may increase or lose some of their share of the total surplus value by various buying and selling of all types among themselves. Marx's recognizing this does not contradict his basic proposition that labor is the only source of new value, exchange-value. and JKS replies Right, so you have profit taht is generated by possession of monoply advantages that does not represent value in Marx's sense. Note that this profit is not a result of redistribution of SV, a point that can be made if we imagine a situation with two capitalists, one of whom acquires a monopoly and behaves as monopolists due. His monopoly rent is not redistribute from the other guy, it's due rather to his possession of the monopoly (Marx's point): so, profits without value that are therefore NOT due to the expoloitation of labor--rather to the exploitation of consumers. Right, Gil? I'm not sure, given some syntactical and spelling oddities in your statement above. Let me try to address that point directly: 1) Although monopoly power (or perhaps more to the point, monopsony power exercised by capitalists in markets for labor power) may increase the rate of surplus value, other things equal, it is not necessary for the *existence* of surplus value in Marx's analytical framework. 2) What *is* necessary for the existence of surplus value, by Marx's stipulation, is that new value is produced subsequent to, and dependent on, the initiation of a circuit of capital (denoted M--C--M'). Since value magnitudes are determined by socially necessary labor time expended in production, surplus value therefore cannot arise merely from the redistribution of value that existed prior to the initiation of the circuit. Thus, the mere existence of monopoly power in commodity markets is also not *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value as Marx defines the term. 3) It does not, however, follow from (1) or (2) that disparities between commodity values and their respective prices are incidental to the existence of surplus value, as Marx explicitly claims at the end of Volume I, Chapter 5. What Marx affirms in Chapter 5 is that such disparities are not *sufficient* of themselves to account for the existence of surplus value. However, this leaves entirely open the possibility that particular price-value disparities might be *necessary* (and therefore not incidental!) to the existence of surplus value, *and Marx doesn't address this possibility one way or another in Chapter 5.* The reason this is potentially relevant is that Marx stipulates *two* conditions for the existence of surplus value: A) As noted above, new value must be produced subsequent to, and financed by, the initiation of a circuit of capital. B) A portion of the newly produced value must be appropriated by someone (i.e., the capitalist) *other* than the one(s) who created that value (cf Marx's discussion of the leather and boots example on p. 268 (Penguin ed.)). Granting that *targeted* price-value disparities cannot, by definition, account for condition (A), Marx's argument in Chapter 5 entirely fails to address whether they might in any case be *necessary* for condition (B). And since he does not consider this possibility, he cannot validly conclude at the end of Chapter 5 that price-value disparities are merely disturbing incidental circumstances which are irrelevant to the actual course of the process. [p. 269, footnote] NB, I'm making no claims here about the significance of this lacuna vis-a-vis Marx's Volume I argument. If the reader feels that this logical deficiency is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, so be it. Gil
Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine)
Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine) by Rakesh Bhandari 12 March 2002 00:58 UTC -clip- And Strachey replies: Marx did not say the ever increase rate of accumulation necessary to keep the wheels of capitalism turning could oly be achieved by 'reducing consumption.' What he did say was that in capitalist societies consumption could not be allowed to increase, at any rate substantially, rapidly, or to be precise, in proportion to the increasing productivity of labour, because of the necessity to maximize accumulation. Thus 'the pivot of the whole argument' is is not that 'investment cannot increase unless consumption declines.' The pivot of the argument is that investment (or accumulation) cannot be increased sufficiently rapidly to keep the wheel of industry turning if consumption is allowed to rise as fast as teh rise in the productivity of labour. It is this which blocks the way to all those attractive solution by means of a policy of high wages with which we are familiar. pp. 246-47 CB: But Marx would not say the partisans of the working class should not raise reform demands for a policy of high wages. Marx did not tailor the First International's program to helping the capitalists raise their profits back up as the way of getting out of crises, would he ?
Global banks go local in Asia to fund growth
The Economic Times Monday, March 11, 2002 Global banks go local in Asia to fund growth REUTERS TOKYO: Liberalisation since Asia's financial crisis has enabled banks with global ambitions to accelerate their strategy of serving markets locally instead of funding business across borders, the Bank for International Settlements said. The BIS said newly compiled data showed Asian banking markets to be more globalised than had previously been thought, but it raised the question whether the trend would continue once the wounds of the 1997 crisis had fully healed. In its latest Quarterly Review, released for publication on Monday, the Basel-based BIS measures the trend by comparing a bank's locally funded foreign assets to its total foreign (cross-border plus local) assets. In 1985, the ratio for Asia and the Pacific excluding Japan was 15.21 per cent. It climbed gradually to 34.74 per cent by 1997 but then took off and reached 75.56 per cent by last year. The BIS listed several reasons for the sea change, not least the impact of the third-world debt crisis of the early 1980s, when several governments imposed payment moratoriums on cross-border loans because of foreign-exchange crises. Once bitten twice shy, banks shifted from the strategy pursued during the 1960s and 1970s of typically funding foreign assets with eurocurrency deposits: locally funded assets, though risky, are in principle not affected by payment moratoriums. Whether adopting a global consumer or wholesale model, banks are increasingly looking to serve customers through a local presence funded locally, the BIS said. DISTRESS The phenomenon is not confined to Asia. In Latin America, the ratio of the BIS reporting banks' locally funded foreign assets to total foreign claims is 0.97. In North America, it is 0.76. Yet the sharp increase in Asia's ratio does not denote that foreign banks are sweeping all before them. Their locally funded lending accounts for less than 10 per cent of domestic bank credit, compared with nearly 50 per cent in Latin America. But the BIS said the shift was notable as a reflection in part of the distress of many banking systems caused by the 1997 crisis. The fragile state of local banks jolted governments into relaxing restrictions on foreign ownership and made it easier for multinational banks to grab market share. Just last Friday, South Korea's Woori Finance Holding Co, a government-owned company that owns Hanvit Bank and four other financial institutions, said U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers had offered to invest up to $1 billion in what could be one of the largest foreign investments for the country. Banks with global ambitions have found it attractive to buy local banks put up for sale following crisis-related nationalisations owing to loan losses, the BIS said. Seoul pledged to privatise its financial sector as one of the conditions of a $58 billion rescue arranged by the International Monetary Fund during the 1997 financial crisis. Taiwan is committed to opening up its banking market, as is China following its entry into the World Trade Organisation. Nevertheless, the BIS sounded a note of caution as to the future of the local-funding trend. Unlike Latin America, which runs a current deficit, Asia is generating substantial surpluses and so will have a natural inflow of liquidity to find investment. It might not need to keep bending over backwards forever to accommodate foreign banks. Will East Asia continue to open its domestic markets to foreign banks even after local banks repair the damage sustained during the Asian crisis? the BIS asked. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
Re: Re: Protection, Contagion, Reflation
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: At any rate, the US ruling class is saying to its counterparts that the rate of accumulation which it sustains on the basis of American style hyper-exploitation and massive indebtedness is no longer strong enough to carry the burden of ensuring the expansion of East Asian and European capital as well. The fraternity of capital has broken down. Applause! Applause! ...and an important applause from the developing world within which the US now places our foreign investment starving friends from South Africa on this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1857000/1857968.stm I say let the US-EU trade wars continue! Diane
the global village
A newer version of the global village... http://www.luccaco.com/terra/terra.htm
Re: Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer
In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002 5:10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keep saying, it Charles, and maybe people will believe it. However, you've worn me out, so you must be right, Marx solved all our problems, and I embrace the true faith and swear on the hammer and sickle never to doubt the LTV or write any more recipes for future cookshops. Just kidding. But I am worn out on these topics. The LTV doesn't even interest me that much, and I have set market socialism on a back burner for a bit. Call me what you like, I don't see these discussions going anywhere. We don't convince each othe, and I don't even think we much illuminate each other, except for the stray post, like your nice last on SV. So let it go, let it go. So, denounce and expose me as fraud, a faker, a cowardly bourgeouis sell-out, I don't care, I'm tired, I was up all night, I quit. If you have questions about issues raised in my papers other than these, which were not central to those papersa nd were not discussed in them except incidentally, I'll address them if I have anything to say. I won't ride your hobbyhorses any more. jks From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23841] Marx vs. Roemer Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:36:46 -0500 Marx vs. Roemer by Justin Schwartz 08 March 2002 17:08 UTC Marx was wrong not to want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and ^^^ CB: I take it you mean that a coherent and defensible notion of exploitation AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed by Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA. Justin : No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. To refute it, you have to show TIAA. ^^^ CB: Yes, the obverse. Marx does show a TIAA as much as you do. You don't demonstrate the viability of market socialism any better than Marx demonstrates the viability of non-market socialism, planned socialism. ^^^ Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed. Justin: No, anyone can list a pie in the sky story about hwo wonderful things will be if only. What is need to show TIAA is to specidy the institiuonal structure in outlinew ithout enough detail to answer plausible objections. If it won't work in theory,w hy think it will work in practice? ^^^ CB: But your version is as much pie in the sky and wonderful things. Marx's version does work in theory. Your objections to his theory fail. ^ (b) that the labor theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible ^ CB: Indefensible from what ? Everytime you raise some attack , it has been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly free labor, labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value stands up in the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value. Justin: I don't awntto get into this. Obviously I don;t agree, and you won't agree, so let's leave it, eh? I see no point in spinning our wheels on this one. ^^^ CB: You do get into it all the time. You keep claiming that Marx's theory doesn't work out in theory, but it does. If you don't demonstrate it, then I might as well keep pointing out that you haven't demonstrated it. You keep asserting that Marx's theory doesn't work out ,but you don't support your assertion. You must be constantly called on that. ^ Charles: When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the thread. What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it is a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of what you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to discuss it. Justin: Pose me a specific question, and if I ahve the energy and inclination, i will try to answer it. I alsoo lookeda t those exchanges, and I don't read them as evasive or refusing to answer any concrete question. ^^^ CB: I have posed a number of specific questions in the past, and then you don't want to get into it . If I take the time to look into your paper, I don't see why you won't get into it. As I say, I understand the asymetry that you are being subjected to critical examination, and I am not. But this a
Chronicle on Prewitt's resignation
Monday, March 11, 2002 Resignation at New School U. Adds to Ph.D. Students' Fears About Programs Being Shortchanged By CHRISTOPHER FLORES Ph.D. students at the New School University are worried that last week's resignation of a graduate dean -- after less than a year in office -- is the latest sign that their programs are being shortchanged financially. Kenneth Prewitt, who was appointed dean of the graduate faculty of political and social science in April 2001, tendered his resignation of the position to Bob Kerrey, former U.S. senator and president of the university. The resignation is effective as of July 1. Mr. Kerrey, who appointed Mr. Prewitt to the position, said in a memorandum to the university community that Mr. Prewitt's decision stemmed from his desire to focus on his research. Ken Prewitt did submit a letter of resignation, but it is possible that he may rescind that resignation, Mr. Kerrey said. There is no question that in addition to the desire to do research that he has had a considerable amount of frustration in his first year here. Students of the graduate school, however, said they believed that Mr. Prewitt had resigned in protest of what they view as the administration's shortchanging of the graduate faculty. Mr. Prewitt could not be reached for comment. About 100 students forced their way into the university leaders' annual budget meeting on Thursday, demanding an explanation for the failure of the administration to make promised hires in weakened departments. Student are especially concerned about the anthropology department, which is currently operating with only one senior and two junior professors. Additionally, the sociology and philosophy departments were each promised two new hires that have not come through, according to several students. This semester, the anthropology department has been on the edge of collapse, said a student who spoke on the condition of anonymity. There has been at least one anthropology class -- a Ph.D. class -- which has been run by the students themselves. There was a promise four weeks ago by the administration that they would make three senior hires for the anthropology department. There was nothing to indicate that this was going to take place, and the next thing we knew Prewitt -- our staunchest defender -- had resigned. On a broader scale, students are concerned that the administration is sacrificing the academic quality of the university in the hopes of balancing budgets by reducing costs, eliminating tenured positions, and not replacing professors. This is a very fragile institution. It's got exceptional academic excellence, but it's got a financial foundation that needs to be strengthened, said Mr. Kerrey. The anthropology department has suffered some losses. The department chair left, as well as two other faculty members. We are in a search to try to solve that problem, but [students] are understandably concerned about our ability to do that. When Ken Prewitt came on, he made it clear to us that he was strongly committed to furthering the needs of the graduate faculty in order to make it a stronger academic institution, said another student. He committed himself to a two-year contract because he felt that this would be sufficient time to get the ball rolling. So word of his resignation caused panic because it indicated that clearly there is some crisis. We found it hard to believe that someone so committed to the graduate faculty would just leave to pursue his own academic interests. It's an insult to our intelligence. Mr. Kerrey maintains that Mr. Prewitt's stated reason for resigning was to focus on his research, but concedes that frustration may have played a role in the decision. Part of the problem is that ... in academia, when someone submits a letter of resignation, there is an expectation that the recipient can either accept it or reject it, said Mr. Kerrey. In my experience, when somebody resigns, it's a resignation; it's not the opening round of a negotiation. But the door is open for Ken to stay, and I hope that he will. Mr. Prewitt will address the concerns of the graduate faculty in a meeting on Wednesday. Before coming to the New School last April, Mr. Prewitt was director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Defending civilised values by torture
Defending civilised values by torture by Ken Hanly 12 March 2002 06:42 CB: The Big Brother mindcontrol technique in this article is the soft implication that torture is not done by the CIA or other US secret police, but isn't it ? Why do we accept the U.S. secret police's claim that it doesn't use torture especially with respect to foreign agents of various types ? Didn't the CIA train the Shah's police in torture, for example ? ( No criticism of Ken Hanly implied). ^^ US sends suspects to face torture Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
Re: Defending civilised values by torture
Talk about your axis of evil! No wonder the US has so little global credibility: it keeps trying to have its moral cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, we're waging a war on terrorism, which is used to justify the amazing cloak of secrecy over our military's actions. On the other, the prisoners captured in this war are yet somehow not prisoners of war? What? On one hand, the US is the land of rights and liberty, fighting the evil foes of same. On the other, the US hands over these prisoners to regimes that are *certain* to violate those rights in the extreme. I wonder if Amnesty International might be petitioned to investigate and raise the visibility of these violations? Gil US sends suspects to face torture Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The normal extradition procedures have been bypassed in the transportation of dozens of prisoners suspected of terrorist connections, according to a report in the Washington Post. The suspects have been taken to countries where the CIA has close ties with the local intelligence services and where torture is permitted. According to the report, US intelligence agents have been involved in a number of interrogations. A CIA spokesman yesterday said the agency had no comment on the allegations. A state department spokesman said the US had been working very closely with other countries - It's a global fight against terrorism. After September 11, these sorts of movements have been occurring all the time, a US diplomat told the Washington Post. It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can't do on US soil. The seizing of suspects and taking them to a third country without due process of law is known as rendition. The reason for sending a suspect to a third country rather than to the US, according to the diplomats, is an attempt to avoid highly publicised cases that could lead to a further backlash from Islamist extremists. One of the prisoners transported in this way, Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni, is allegedly linked to Richard Reid, the Briton accused of the attempted shoe bomb attack on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December. He was taken from Indonesia to Egypt on a US-registered Gulfstream jet without a court hearing after his name appeared on al-Qaida documents. He remains in custody in Egypt and has been subjected to interrogation by intelligence agents. An Indonesian government official said disclosing the Americans' role would have exposed President Megawati Sukarnoputri to criticism from Muslim political parties. We can't be seen to be cooperating too closely with the United States, the official said. A Yemeni microbiology student has also been taken in this way, being flown from Pakistan to Jordan on a US-registered jet. US forces also seized five Algerians and a Yemeni in Bosnia on January 19 and flew them to Guantanamo Bay after the men were released by the Bosnian supreme court for lack of evidence, and despite an injunction from the Bosnian human rights chamber that four of them be allowed to remain in the country pending further proceedings. The US has been criticised by some of its European allies over the detention of prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After the Pentagon released pictures of blindfolded prisoners kneeling on the ground, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was forced to defend the conditions in which they were being held. Unsuccessful attempts have been made by civil rights lawyers based in Los Angeles to have the Camp X-Ray prisoners either charged in US courts or treated as prisoners of war. The US administration has resisted such moves, arguing that those detained, both Taliban fighters and members of al-Qaida, were not entitled to be regarded as prisoners of war because they were terrorists rather than soldiers and were not part of a recognised, uniformed army.
Re: Defending civilised values by torture
Of course it could very well be that the US uses torture as well as shipping people out to be tortured to maintain a pretense that it does not. Since this is an economics list we should also recognise that torture may be much cheaper in Egypt and other places -as well as the fact that the torturers have a family values advantage because family members can also be threatened. It may be a question of presumed value per torture dollar so to speak. I gather though that some intelligence experts are against torture on pragmatic grounds. People being tortured might say or confess to anything in an attempt to avoid the torture and so information obtained through torture is often false. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23874] Defending civilised values by torture Defending civilised values by torture by Ken Hanly 12 March 2002 06:42 CB: The Big Brother mindcontrol technique in this article is the soft implication that torture is not done by the CIA or other US secret police, but isn't it ? Why do we accept the U.S. secret police's claim that it doesn't use torture especially with respect to foreign agents of various types ? Didn't the CIA train the Shah's police in torture, for example ? ( No criticism of Ken Hanly implied). ^^ US sends suspects to face torture Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
FW: (SCPEL) U.C. Billions in Reserve
--- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: SCPEL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/11/02 11:47:49 AM = Santa Cruz Progressive Email List (SCPEL) = - Message begins - Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 12th, there will be two *special* presentations by respected economist Dr. Peter Donohue, Ph.D on UC's budget. The Coalition of University Employees (CUE), the union that represents UC clericals across the state, his hosting Dr. Donohue, who has been researching UC's finances for the past year and found that UC has billions of dollars in unrestricted reserves it could use to fund better salary increases. CUE is in bargaining with UC right now and UC is offering a 1% cost of living increase for 2001-2002. This is a great opportunity to learn more about CUE's assertions that UC has accrued billions of dollars in surplus funds over the last decade and that there's plenty of money to give clericals and other workers a decent wage increase. Please check out http://www.cuesantacruz.org/Donohue.htm to get more info about Dr. Donohue, to download a flyer and read the press release! There will be TWO meetings on March 12th: Main UCSC Campus: Noon-1:00pm at the Kresge Seminar Room (room 159 at Kresge College). Downtown Santa Cruz: 5:30pm-7:00pm in room 232 at the University Town Center Please forward this email to all you think might be interested! Questions? Contact CUE organizer Leslie, 420-0258 _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - Message ends - = Was your message not posted? Visit: http://members.cruzio.com/~spitzer/scpel.html#criteria Submit messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, send a blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, see below. = ==^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?ausWeS.a26nIH Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: Defending civilised values by torture
Further to your remark here is a summary of some of the material from CIA training manuals used at the School of the Americas and elsewhere. The School was not closed down but it was renamed since the original brand name was so tarnished. Of course this is in the past before the US became the defender of civilised values and was merely projecting its power and protecting its interests. More material is available at: http://www.soaw.org/manuals.htm Cheers, Ken Hanly From Bad to Worse: The CIA Manuals The two recently declassified CIA manuals make even more chilling reading. The CIA had written KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation in 1963 for use by US agents against perceived Soviet subversion. (KUBARK was the CIA's code name for itself. ) While it was not intended to train foreign military services, its successor, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual --- 1983, which drew heavily on material in KUBARK, was used in at least seven US training courses conducted in Latin American countries between 1982 and 1987, according to a June 1988 memo placed inside the manual. This 1983 manual originally surfaced in response to a June 1988 congressional hearing which was prompted by allegations by the New York Times that the US had taught Honduran military officers who used torture. The 1988 hearing was not the first time such manuals had surfaced. In 1984, a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations created a considerable scandal. These two CIA textbooks deal exclusively with interrogation and devote an entire chapter each to coercive techniques. Human Resource Exploitation recommends surprising suspects in the predawn hours, arresting, blindfolding, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado, it advises, and deprived of normal routines in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, sound proof, dark, and without toilets. The manuals do admonish that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain itself. However, they then go on to describe coercive techniques ''to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist.'' These techniques include prolonged constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or placebos. According to the Baltimore Sun, the methods taught in the 1983 manual and those used by [the US-trained Honduran] Battalion 316 in the early 1980s show unmistakable similarities. The paper cites the case of Ines Murillo, a Honduran prisoner who claimed she was held in secret jails in 1983, given no food or water for days, and kept from sleeping by having water poured on her head every ten minutes. Dismissive of the rule of law, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual-1983 states the importance of knowing local laws on detention, but then notes, Illegal detention always requires prior [headquarters] approval.'' The manual also refers to one or two weeks of practical work with prisoners as part of the course, suggesting that US trainers may have worked with Latin American militaries in interrogating actual detainees. This reference gives new support to the claims by Latin Americans held as prisoners and by US nun Dianna Ortiz, tortured by the Guatemalan army in 1989, that US personnel were present in interrogation and torture rooms. In 1985, in a superficial attempt to correct the worst of the 1983 manual, a page advising against using coercive techniques was inserted and handwritten changes were haphazardly introduced into the text. For example, While we do not stress the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them and the proper way to use them, has been coyly altered to, While we deplore the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them so that you may avoid them. But the entire chapter on coercive techniques is still included, again with some items crossed out. Throughout, the reader can easily read the original underneath the corrected items. These corrections were made in response to the 1984 scandal when the CIA training manual for the Contras hit the headlines. The second manual, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, is clearly the source of much of the 1983 manual; some passages are lifted verbatim. KUBARK has a similar section on coercive techniques, and includes some even more abhorrent elements, such as two references to the use of electric shock. For example, one passage requires US agents to obtain prior Headquarters approval ... if bodily harm is to be inflicted, or if medical, chemical, or electrical methods are to be used. A third condition for obtaining prior approval is, ominously, whited out. * - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Michael writes: One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. Marx did offer one simple proof of the role of surplus value in the creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil
Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation
Hello, Rakesh. You write in part Production (P) is explanatorily fundamental to the scarcity of DOPA (S) and thus the persistence of exploitation (E). That is, P=E implies P+S=E It's into the hidden abode of production one must enter to explain the persistence of scarce DOPA relative to labor, no? Walrasianism Marx is not suited for that kind of investigation, is it? I'm going to tread lightly here, because we both know from our mutual experience on OPE-L that we're probably not going to end up agreeing in any case. All I want to do, therefore, is address your question in good faith by indicating the grounds for an alternative viewpoint that allows for the relevance of Roemer's analysis to Marx's Volume I argument concerning the persistence of exploitation. I don't thereby assume that you'll find these logical grounds appealing or relevant. You suggest above that Production (P) is explanatorily fundamental to the scarcity of DOPA (S) and thus the persistence of exploitation (E), and suggest further that Walrasianism Marx is not suited for that kind of investigation. The basis you offer for the first statement is It is the scarcity of surplus labor in the production process that ensures the relative scarcity of capital with respect to labor: the diminishing flow of surplus value relative to rising minimum capital requirements constrains and discourages the rate of accumulation that would be needed as the OCC rises to absorb not only a growing population but also the proletarians, artisans and peasants continously displaced by technological change and the expansion of commodity production. I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25 analysis of the general law of capitalist accumulation, to the effect that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation. (This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.) But I don't see why anyone has to venture into the hidden mode of production to yield *this* particular point. For example, Marx's argument holds if it's true that the only funds for accumulation come from the retained earnings of capitalists. This result could certainly be generated by the appropriate (and empirically motivated) Walrasian intertemporal model. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. (1) differences in preferences are the typical neoclassical argument to justify differences in wealth, and Roemer explicitly rejects this sort of argument. See for instance, the discussion about differences in rates of time preference in Roemer 1981, p.85, and Roemer, 1982, p.12. (A particularly detailed discussion is in Free to loose, but I do not have the reference because I left my copy in Italy!!). Gil, what are the page numbers here, do you know? pp 60-63. But I want to take exception to the sense of RV's objection here. I agree emphatically with RV and Roemer that differences in (time) preferences cannot legitimately be used to justify differences in wealth. I never suggest they could be. Rather, wealth-induced differentials in time preference are invoked in my model to *explain*, not justify, persistent exploitation, and this is entirely consistent with Roemer's discussion, where he says: Marxists and left-liberals view rates of time preference as socially determined. Therefore in their view it is not possible to justify exploitation and inequality by appealing to different rates of time preference, for those differences arose from prior conditions of inequality and oppression. Exactly. And *given* such socially-determined differences, I show that one can account for the persistence of capitalist exploitation. Gil
A calming predicate from the New York Times
What is a calming predicate? Is Justin freelancing for the New York Times ;) ? I guess calling US allies a mighty coalition of civilized nations is meant to calm them down, or sedate them perhaps, so that they dont get upset when the US attacks Iraq or they are asked to contribute to just cause, enduring freedom, etc. or whatever calming description is the phrase of the day. Cheers, Ken Hanly Mr. Bush's remarks, delivered on a brilliant but cold morning with the Washington diplomatic corps in attendance and the flags of 179 nations behind him, seemed an attempt to reassure nations unsettled by the unilateralist tone of his State of the Union Address on Jan. 29. Today the president reached out to the same allies he had not even mentioned in the earlier speech, praising them as a mighty coalition of civilized nations in what appeared to be a calming predicate for action against Iraq.
calming predicates in the New York Times
I have never seen the phrase calming predicate beforeI wonder how reassured allies will be in being assured that they will be included and play their part in US-led coalition against terrrorism. Cheers, Ken Mr. Bush's remarks, delivered on a brilliant but cold morning with the Washington diplomatic corps in attendance and the flags of 179 nations behind him, seemed an attempt to reassure nations unsettled by the unilateralist tone of his State of the Union Address on Jan. 29. Today the president reached out to the same allies he had not even mentioned in the earlier speech, praising them as a mighty coalition of civilized nations in what appeared to be a calming predicate for action against Iraq.
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive profit. This is proved for even for economies without joint production, that are able to reproduce themselves over time, in Andrew J. Kliman, Simultaneous Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of Profit, _Capital and Class_ 73, Spring 2001. So there are lots of people who do dispute that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for ... the existence of profit, by virtue of adhering to the interpretations they hold. Andrew Kliman P.S. I hope to say more about this and related matters in a week or two, but I thought it necessary (and sufficient) to make this factual correction here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Michael writes: One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. Marx did offer one simple proof of the role of surplus value in the creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil
Marx vs. Roemer
Marx vs. Roemer by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 16:06 UTC Charles, you ask Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is created in the exchanges between capitalists ? Gil : No. As I state in point (2) below, value is determined by socially necessary labor time. ^ CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. ^ Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2* conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter 5 comment Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and not in circulation. (p. 268, Penguin ed.) My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the possibility that surplus value's origin...in circulation may *require* at least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value disparities are mere disturbing incidental circumstances which are irrelevant to the actual course of the process (p. 269, footnote) is invalid. CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, surplus value and capital are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of popup in one's mind) When you say *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. what does the latter refer to ? Targetted price-value disparities ? I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ? This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused I'll stick with the logical point for now: if you establish that condition A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established that A is incidental to B, since the possibility remains that condition A is *necessary* for condition B. Marx never addresses the latter possibility one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument. ^^^ CB: Are you saying that price-value disparities might be both necessary and sufficient for surplus-value ? Sorry if I am not quite following the reasoning. Gil 1) Although monopoly power (or perhaps more to the point, monopsony power exercised by capitalists in markets for labor power) may increase the rate of surplus value, other things equal, it is not necessary for the *existence* of surplus value in Marx's analytical framework. 2) What *is* necessary for the existence of surplus value, by Marx's stipulation, is that new value is produced subsequent to, and dependent on, the initiation of a circuit of capital (denoted M--C--M'). Since value magnitudes are determined by socially necessary labor time expended in production, surplus value therefore cannot arise merely from the redistribution of value that existed prior to the initiation of the circuit. Thus, the mere existence of monopoly power in commodity markets is also not *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value as Marx defines the term. 3) It does not, however, follow from (1) or (2) that disparities between commodity values and their respective prices are incidental to the existence of surplus value, as Marx explicitly claims at the end of Volume I, Chapter 5. What Marx affirms in Chapter 5 is that such disparities are not *sufficient* of themselves to account for the existence of surplus value. However, this leaves entirely open the possibility that particular price-value disparities might be *necessary* (and therefore not incidental!) to the existence of surplus value, *and Marx doesn't address this possibility one way or another in Chapter 5.* The reason this is potentially relevant is that Marx stipulates *two* conditions for the existence of surplus value: A) As noted above, new value must be produced subsequent to, and financed by, the initiation of a circuit of capital. B) A portion of the newly produced value must be appropriated by someone (i.e., the capitalist) *other* than the one(s) who created that value (cf Marx's discussion of the leather and boots example on p. 268 (Penguin ed.)). Granting that *targeted* price-value disparities cannot, by definition, account for
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 17:55 UTC Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. ^ CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the definition of profit. ^ It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. ^^^ CB: Is that does not follow... ?
Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer
Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer by Justin Schwartz 11 March 2002 22:15 UTC ^^^ Charles: Justin, my recall is that , like a number of themes on this group of related lists, this one ( Analytical Marxist reading of Marx, etc.) comes and goes. So, I have a feeling we will revisit it. I may try to get some questions on your paper to you offlist. ^ Keep saying, it Charles, and maybe people will believe it. However, you've worn me out, so you must be right, Marx solved all our problems, and I embrace the true faith and swear on the hammer and sickle never to doubt the LTV or write any more recipes for future cookshops. Just kidding. But I am worn out on these topics. The LTV doesn't even interest me that much, and I have set market socialism on a back burner for a bit. Call me what you like, I don't see these discussions going anywhere. We don't convince each othe, and I don't even think we much illuminate each other, except for the stray post, like your nice last on SV. So let it go, let it go. So, denounce and expose me as fraud, a faker, a cowardly bourgeouis sell-out, I don't care, I'm tired, I was up all night, I quit. If you have questions about issues raised in my papers other than these, which were not central to those papersa nd were not discussed in them except incidentally, I'll address them if I have anything to say. I won't ride your hobbyhorses any more. jks
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Charles, you write CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the definition of profit. First things first: where does Marx make surplus value part of his definition of profit? It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. ^^^ CB: Is that does not follow... ? Yes Gil
urpe@assa
Does anyone know the details on submitting session proposals for the URPE meetings at ASSA, D.C., 2003--deadline, who to send it to, e-mail, etc.?
Re: urpe@assa
Mathew, the URPE@ASSA coordinator is Mieke Meurs at American University. I can look up her e-mail address if you need it. The deadline is generally not until May or June, so you're not under the gun here. If Mieke doesn't send an announcement directly to PEN-L, I'll forward the announcement when I get it. Nothing has been sent out yet, as far as I know. Gil Does anyone know the details on submitting session proposals for the URPE meetings at ASSA, D.C., 2003--deadline, who to send it to, e-mail, etc.?
Everybody play nice....
Steel war 'threatens global trade round' Charlotte Denny Wednesday March 13, 2002 The Guardian The incoming head of the World Trade Organisation has warned the United States and Europe that they are endangering the new round of global trade talks with their increasingly acrimonious dispute over American steel tariffs. Supachai Panitchpakdi, a former Thai deputy prime minister who takes over as director general of the WTO in September, urged the combatants to try to resolve their differences through dialogue rather than letting the row escalate. [The steel issue] is coming at a time that we might be needing a larger degree of international cooperation for the final solution for the [trade liberalisation] round, Mr Supachai said. President Bush enraged the EU and other steel producers last week when he announced tariffs of up to 30% on foreign imports. Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have already challenged the US decision at the WTO. Mr Supachai said he was concerned that the steel issue could derail progress on other trade issues ahead of the Geneva-based body's next ministerial conference, in 2003 in Mexico. We should move ahead in spite of the steel conflict. We should move ahead as much we can on trade negotiations, he said. Trade experts said EU threats to explore ways of short-circuiting the WTO's disputes procedures could sour the atmosphere in Geneva. Among the options being considered by Brussels is a WTO provision allowing it to impose its own tariffs if Washington refuses to compensate it for lost steel sales. Nobody has ever done that before, said Rachel Thompson, a trade analyst at Apco. That would really raise the temperature. A spokesman for trade commissioner Pascal Lamy said Brussels was still exploring its options. Whatever we do, we will play by the rules. Brussels has given Washington 30 days to respond to the call for compensation, and will have to give a further 30 days' notice if it decides to impose tariffs of its own on US goods.
Zoellick weighs in
[Financial Times] The reigning champions of free trade Robert Zoellick insists that the US was within its rights to impose tariffs on steel, and warns against ill-considered retaliatory measures. Published: March 12 2002 20:04 | Last Updated: March 12 2002 20:53 President George W. Bush acted last week to help the US steel industry regain its footing in accordance with World Trade Organisation rules. We have explained since last June that the problems of the global steel industry - overcapacity traced to a long history of government subsidies, market controls and protections - called for multilateral action, not finger-pointing. In that same spirit, I should like to share the Bush administration's views on this issue. First, we should put this action in perspective. The US imports well over $1,000bn (£700bn) a year in goods from around the world, of which all steel products account for roughly 1 per cent. Last year the US ran a $427bn trade deficit. It is not unreasonable in these circumstances to use the domestic and international tools available to help a US industry cope with an influx of imports that has contributed to massive bankruptcies and loss of jobs. Some of our trading partners have expressed concern that this heralds a protectionist turn in US policy. They are wrong. Within only a year, this administration has forged strong free trade credentials. From the launching of new global trade negotiations in Doha, to ending the impasse blocking China and Taiwan's entry into the WTO, to completing trade agreements with Jordan and Vietnam, to pushing ahead with negotiations to form the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the world's biggest open market, Mr Bush has time and again demonstrated his commitment to open trade. And he is determined to extend the benefits of open markets to the world's poorer nations by seeking to expand preferential access to US markets and exploring free trade agreements with countries in Africa, Central America and the Asia-Pacific. Each of these stepping stones will ultimately lead to a trading system that creates sustainable prosperity for America, our main trading partners and the world's developing nations. As for the decision itself, the US has long been the market of first and last resort for steel, as evidenced by our status as a leading steel importer. That fact, together with the drop in demand in Asia for steel as a result of the meltdown of Asian economies in the late 1990s, plus a continuing strong dollar that fuels export-led growth globally, has conspired to bring an unprecedented flood of imports into US markets. WTO rules allow for safeguard measures precisely to enable countries to cope with such disruptions. Today about 30 per cent of US steel-making capacity has filed for bankruptcy. Domestic steel prices in the last quarter of 2001 were at their lowest for 20 years and nearly all US steel operations, regardless of efficiency or business model, were spilling red ink. Since 1997, 45,000 US steelworkers have lost their jobs. To try to tackle these problems comprehensively, Mr Bush launched multilateral talks last June to press the fragmented global industry to close down inefficient capacity. The talks were also aimed at tackling rampant market distortions, traced to a long history of national planning for Commanding Heights industries. The president also made clear that we would not just wring our hands while diplomats met in drawing rooms: he asked the International Trade Commission, an independent agency, to investigate the effects of imports on the US's steel industry and its workers. In response to the ITC's unanimous finding that imports were a substantial cause of serious injury to the US steel industry, the Bush administration imposed the carefully constructed safeguard measure to give the industry adequate breathing space while minimising the impact on steel consumers. The US action on steel is temporary. Tariffs will be phased out over a three-year period, during which time US steel-makers are expected further to restructure, reduce excess capacity and increase productivity - a process that the US government will monitor closely. We hope that steel companies worldwide will follow that lead to produce a healthier, freer international steel market. Beyond the short-term nature of the relief, the administration has taken steps to minimise the impact of steel safeguards on our trading partners. For example, we exempted countries that have committed to the highest level of reciprocal market access - our North American Free Trade Agreement and FTA partners. The safeguard includes generous quotas for the crucial steel products of Russia and Brazil. There are important exclusions for other nations, including Australia and South Korea. Most developing countries will continue to enjoy open access to the US market. All these measures are consistent with WTO rules and represent the US effort to lessen any disruptions the temporary safeguards may
the role of monopsony
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23852] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer] I wrote:... I think that it's a big mistake -- or even a rhetorical bait and switch -- to suddenly change over to talking about monoposony in labor-power markets. I read Shane [Mage] as talking about monopoly in product markets, not monopsony. Maybe it wasn't a bait switch, but it definitely changing the subject away from what Shane was talking about. Thus, I've changed the title above. Gil now writes:I don't think it's a mistake, because in Chapter 5 [of volume I of CAPITAL, hereafter KI/5], where this issue arises, Marx makes no distinctions about *which* commodity markets he's talking about. If the argument holds for the expression of price-setting power in one commodity market, it should hold for the expression of price-setting power in *any* commodity market (including the commodity called labor power). Marx clearly distinguishes amongst commodities, especially between labor-power and non-labor-power commodities. (In most of KI after chapter 3, he abstracts from the use-value of non-labor-power commodities.) Of course, it makes sense to treat labor-power differently than other commodities, as Marx does throughout CAPITAL, since it's not produced by capitalists as part of the M-C-M' process. This is but one reason why serious students of Marx have always singled out labor-power as a peculiar commodity. Unlike for other commodities, Marx explicitly assumes that the price of labor-power is fixed in KI/5. I believe that he did this partly because he wanted to make the case that the problem with capitalism was _not_ that workers were paid too low a wage; Marx saw the case of low wage exploitation -- or what's called super-exploitation -- as easy or trivial to understand (see below). (Marx probably saw this type of exploitation as a distraction from the main point of the book, though he does talk about the depression of the wage below the value of labor-power later on.) On the other hand, the case of exploitation that exists _despite_ the assumed fact that wages were set according to bourgeois right (which here means that its price is in proportion to its value) is more problematic, i.e., needing of explanation. Thus, he does not do for labor-power what he does for other commodities in this chapter, i.e., look at the effects of price/value deviations. The big problem here is that the value of labor-power is inherently vague an object of struggle, unlike the value of other commodities. (I think Marx made a mistake to embrace the Ricardian tradition on this one, despite his move away from the physicalist definition of subsistence; it usually is.) But another, clearer, way to see what Marx was talking about -- one that fits with the fact that in KI after ch. 3 he was dealing with capital in general (abstract capital) in conflict with labor in general (abstract labor) -- is that he aimed to understand how the societal _average_ rate of surplus-value could be positive. In chapter 5 and the rest of CAPITAL (even volume III), his main focus was not deviations of the rate of surplus-value between industries, with some involving super-exploitation. (He does talk about super-exploitation within industries, as with the workshops that had backward technology in competition with mechanized workshops having to make up for it by super-exploiting their workers.) In general, he doesn't deal with the heterogeneity of labor, since almost all of his emphasis is on abstract labor. Gil said:... due to the empirically relevant fact that workers face significant costs of job search (...). Then more monopsony power, and thus more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any other capitalist. Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more surplus labor. said I:You'd think that in a neoclassical world, the capitalists would also face search costs in their efforts to hire employees. This would give the employees who currently have jobs a little bit of monopoly power vis-a-vis their employers. There's no reason in the neoclassical world for the monopsony power of the employers to _a priori_ exceed the monopoly power of the employees, so that we've got a indeterminate bilateral monopoly situation. Gil: There's also no necessary grounds in neoclassical terms for insisting on bilateral search costs. The point here is theoretical possibility, not generality. Okay, let's grant this theoretical possibility (despite its clear improbability). Suppose that some capitalists have monopsony power and more importantly that this is a big enough phenomenon on the societal level that it raises the (aggregate average) rate of surplus-value. The latter assumption is needed to make sure that the super-exploitation isn't counterbalanced on aggregate by the below-average degree of exploitation in other sectors. (A real-world example might be capitalism under the Nazis, where employers were given all sorts of market power and the mobility of workers
re: Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine)
In a pen-l message on March 12, it is asserted that:It seems that Joan Robinson and John Strachey had an argument similar to the recent one between Devine and Moseley. The record should be clear that there is no similarity between the quoted passages to the discussion between myself and Fred. We were talking about the causes and importance of empirical fluctuations in the profit rate. Jim Devine
RE: Re: Defending civilised values by torture
Since this is an economics list we should also recognise that torture may be much cheaper in Egypt and other places -as well as the fact that the torturers have a family values advantage because family members can also be threatened. It may be a question of presumed value per torture dollar so to speak. so that some countries might have a comparative advantage in torture services? Jim
RE: capitalism's predictability.
I had said: Marx's definition of what he meant by capitalism took an entire volume. His understanding of accumulation takes even more (e.g., the last part of vol. III). This is tragic, of course, since Marx never finished volumes II and III or the book on wage-labor. Charles writes: I was just trying to use a phrase that connected to your saying the following in which you term Marx not finishing Vol. III as a tragedy. Perhaps I should have said , maybe it wasn't such a tragedy but an intentional act on Marx's part not to give a full and as if perfect, quasi-perfect theory all the way through all the issues in Vol. III, because there is no such theory. And by the logic of the rest of what he says, we can infer this. So, from the rest of what he says, and what he did in not completing a theory of capital's movement right down to the most concrete detail in Volume III, we might infer, without a ouija board, that it wan't a tragedy. It's likely that Marx first dealt with those issues he thought were most important, so he started CAPITAL with exploitation, not crises. I don't think Marx wanted the theory of capitalism's laws of motion to be incomplete, though. He was the type who wanted to understand what was going on. I don't know if it's a good thing that he never finished his crisis theory or not. It did leave the opportunity to be creative to future generations. I answered: ... (2) The anarchy of production is just one structural problem that's inherent in capitalism. Another is the aggressive competition amongst capitals (a related issue, but not the same as the anarchy of production). (It's possible that something like that might show up in a different form in a planned system, e.g., as competition amongst state bureaucrats. Maybe that had something to do with the blood purges in the USSR in the 1930s and after.) More important is the structural antagonism between the two main classes. A fully socialist revolution would get rid of all of these structural tensions, replacing anarchy, competition, and class with democracy. Charles writes: That is an intereting question. Does Marx forecast no competition in socialism and communism ? As far as I can see , thinking about it, the problem with competition is when it impacts the working class in its role in the process of unemployment-poverty in general in a crisis or not. But competition's role in this is through anarchy. The competition spurs overproduction among the competitors as a whole, i.e. it produces an misfit between supply and demand, i.e. anarchy. Competiton between enterprises, friendly, fair and not cutthroat, organized like sports, might have a place in socialism and communism. I thought I was clear that I was talking only about aggessive competition. Jim Devine
Re: re: Strachey/Robinson debate (wasMoseley/Devine)
In a pen-l message on March 12, it is asserted that:It seems that Joan Robinson and John Strachey had an argument similar to the recent one between Devine and Moseley. The record should be clear that there is no similarity between the quoted passages to the discussion between myself and Fred. We were talking about the causes and importance of empirical fluctuations in the profit rate. Jim Devine Jim, I have some web addresses for all natural memory boosting supplements if you want them--haven't had to use them myself yet--though in your case I think a little less blind knee jerk reaction would be the best cure. Are you sure that there is no similarity between what Strachey who was at this point in 1938 still, like Fred, a FROP theorist was trying to say in response to Joan Robinson and what Fred is getting at in his response to you? Even if turns out that careful analysis reveals that there is no overlap between the Strachey riposte to Robinson and what Fred said below in a response to you--and I am not denying that your later response to Fred was quite reasonable, if not persuasive--I think I can be excused for thinking there may be a connection. After all, I said that the old argument *SEEMS* similar to the present one. Show me why not; or please do consider apologizing. I would appreciate it. I doubt that Michael will encourage you to do so, but that would be nice. You could also express appreciation for my having taken the time to have typed in the hard-to-get quotation from a defunct journal and raised the question of whether there are echoes of an old debate in the new one. rb Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Fred B. Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22962] Re: Devine/Moseley discussion Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a belated response to Jim D.'s post of Feb. 3. Jim, thanks again for your thoughtful posts. I too have found our discussion stimulating. I have been thinking about our agreements and disagreements, and trying to further clarify my own ideas. Due to limited time, I want to concentrate on the last part of your post which deals with the key issue of what adjustments are necessary for a sustainable recovery from the current recession. This last part of your post is as follows: On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Devine, James wrote: The other crucial question is: what is necessary for a sustainable recovery from the current recession? I argue that a sustainable recovery requires an increase in investment spending, which in turn requires an increase in the rate of profit. One of the main ways to increase the rate of profit is to cut wages. This conflict between profit and wages is an unavoidable fact of life in capitalism, and it is intensified in recessions. Cutting wages is the old time religion for capitalists. (To quote Andrew Mellon, the Paul O'Neill of the late 1920s and early 1930s, liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.) It perhaps makes sense within the logic of capitalism - an essentially anti-human system - that the only way capitalism can prosper is on the backs of the workers. But, as I've said in my papers on the origins of the Great Depression of the 1930s, this logic only works if there's enough aggregate demand to allow the realization of the increased profits that result from cutting wages (relative to labor productivity). In a serious recession of the sort I think may be developing, business investment spending is blocked by extreme excess capacity, business debt, and pessimistic expectations. In that situation, capitalists are in a double bind: conditions push them to slash wages and speed up labor processes, which helps with profit production but (all else equal) makes the realization problem worse. This is what I've called the underconsumption trap. (If, in addition, we get into a full-scale deflation process involving falling nominal wages, that makes things even worse.) In this situation, the workers' struggle to prevent wage cuts and the like (or to actually raise wages) actually help capitalism, by allowing consumer spending to stay stable (or to rise). Keynesian fiscal policy can work here, though of course with the current balance of political power it's likely to involve tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending. You seem to be agreeing with me when you say the following: However, cutting wages will also reduce consumption in the short-run, and thus will make the recession worse. This is especially worrisome at the present time, because of the unprecedented levels of debt of all kinds - business debt and household debt and US debt to foreigners. These high levels of debt make the economy vulnerable to a more serious downturn. Therefore, the current dilemma seems to be: that which is necessary to
Re: Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation
Gil wrote, quoting me: The basis you offer for the first statement is It is the scarcity of surplus labor in the production process that ensures the relative scarcity of capital with respect to labor: the diminishing flow of surplus value relative to rising minimum capital requirements constrains and discourages the rate of accumulation that would be needed as the OCC rises to absorb not only a growing population but also the proletarians, artisans and peasants continously displaced by technological change and the expansion of commodity production. I also had written the following on which Gil did not comment: To say that additional capital is increasingly in short supply vis a vis the new and displaced laboring population as accumulation progresses only means that in the course of accumulation the primordial source of this capital, surplus value, becomes progressively more scarce, too small, in relation to the already accumulated mass of capital Gil replies: I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25 analysis of the general law of capitalist accumulation, to the effect that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation. (This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.) But I don't see why anyone has to venture into the hidden mode of production to yield *this* particular point. which point exactly? the point in the excised paragraph above about the primordial source of capital? For example, Marx's argument holds if it's true that the only funds for accumulation come from the retained earnings of capitalists. This result could certainly be generated by the appropriate (and empirically motivated) Walrasian intertemporal model. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. How do you explain persistent scarcity? What do you mean by scarcity? You refer at some point to capital constrained equilibrium--is this a well understood defintion of scarcity to the economic theorists on the list? Are these questions taken up in your formal reply to which Roberto V has referred? By the way, what do you make of Keynes' argument about the relationship between the declining marginal efficiency of capital as capital becomes less scarce though not necessarily less physical productive? What is the connection between the scarcity to which you refer and Keynes' nebulous idea of capital scarcity (or the lack thereof)? I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. I am not suggesting a necessary connection. Gil writes: Exactly. And *given* such socially-determined differences [in time preferences--rb], I show that one can account for the persistence of capitalist exploitation. Well, this very concept of time preferences surely needs unpacking. Rakesh
Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Michael writes: One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. Marx did offer one simple proof of the role of surplus value in the creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil I have not read Andrew's paper, but it would be nice to be able to assess his provocative claim that the assumption of simultaneous valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit. Andrew seems to have a good taste for difficult, important and in this case fundamental problems in the so called modern interpretation of Marx It would be helpful, I believe, if we could discuss as topics in the history of economic thought (a) the idea of the surplus (I would like to defend Marx's unappreciated idea, recovered by Grossmann, that it has two forms--a value form and a use value form, one the product of abstract, general homogenous labor and the other the product of concrete labor; Marx, who was after Babbage perhaps the greatest 19th century economic student of science and technology, NEVER says that changes in the use value quantity of physical surplus are conditioned solely on changes in the surplus quantity of abstract homogeneous, general social labor time ) and (b) the methodology of comparative statics, in particular its working assumption of simultaneous valuation. For topic a, there is a good, introductory discussion in Peter Lichtenstein's An introduction to post-Keynesian and Marxian theories of value and price though I think he misses entirely Marx's discovery of the dual form of the surplus. And the existence of two surpluses comes up in Andrew and Freeman's work which studies the relationship between surplus *value* and the *physical* surplus. I have offered a criticism of their treatment. I do not read them however to be denying the existence of a physical surplus but rather to be demonstrating that the attempt to calculate the profit rate based soley on the physical surplus (as well as a fixed distributional parameter) necessarily presupposes the dubious simultaneous assumtion of input=output prices and that such an assumption is at odds with both Marx dynamics vision and more importantly the dynamics of capital accumulation. And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? What would be a good introductory treatment to problem (b)? Aside from logical claims, I thought Michael's (as well as Shane's) point was not that the labor theory of value is provable or deducible but rather that it is a reasonable working hypothesis which can be applied on the basis of the categories developed out of it to the empirical analysis of capitalist dynamics (Shane's dissertation) and in particular to the problems of capitalist crisis (Michael's qualitative value theory). John E has added--and I was hoping for good replies--that it provides the best basis for aggregation and the analysis of totalities as well. Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. And so on. Rakesh
