Tariq Ali Christopher Hitchens Debate On Iraq Palestine
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:42:48 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Tariq Ali vs. Christopher Hitchens on the Occupation of Iraq: Postponed Liberation or Recolonisation? * A debate on the U.S. occupation of Iraq with two renowned authors and former friends: Tariq Ali, author of Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq, and Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq. Listen/Watch/Read http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/04/1523254 * Headlines, December 4 * - Rwandan Journalists Sentenced For Role in Genocide - U.S. Rejects Iraqi Plan to Conduct Census - U.S. To Create Iraqi Paramilitary Force - 70% of U.S. Says Iraq War Didn't Reduce Threat - Coroner: Cincinnati Man's Death Caused by Police - GOP Congressman Sued For Anti-Islam Remarks Listen/Watch/Read http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/04/1519254 = = = = = = = = = COMING UP ON DEMOCRACY NOW! Friday, Dec. 5 * News Bulletin: Chemical Weapons Discovered in Texas the Media Ignores the Story.* We look at the story of a Texan white supremacist who faces life in prison for building a weapon of mass destruction, a sodium cyanide bomb. And unlike other terrorism cases, the story has received almost no media coverage. = = = = = = = = = ABOUT DEMOCRACY NOW! Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 170 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, community, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio and the internet. The program is hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. = = = = = = = = = Now real-time CLOSED CAPTIONED on TV! You can also listen to and watch all Democracy Now! shows online: http://www.democracynow.org To bring Democracy Now! to your community, go to: http://www.democracynow.org/bringDNtoyou.html = = = = = = = = = To Subscribe, go to http://www.democracynow.org/maillist.pl -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: USA humbled
Looks like defeat to me If so, this is very significant. It does not come about by accident, especially as Bush is focussed on re-election. It is a signal of major shifts in the power relationships of late capitalism. Chris Burford - Original Message - From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] USA humbled Looks like defeat to me. The local rags arent' giving it much spin or headlines...except to offer the consolation that the tarriffs were there to offer the steel industry time to retool and reinvent themselves...that this work was largely doneso now US steel is newly competitive and tarriffs aren't needed anymore. Right, Joanna Chris Burford wrote: Bush's withdrawal of protective steel tariffs looks a significant defeat, a signal about the real balance of power, which is not overwhelmingly in favour of the USA. Or does it look differently to the west of the Atlantic? Or is it largely invisible? Chris Burford London
The Marxian Imagination (by Julian Markels)
* THE MARXIAN IMAGINATION Representing Class in Literature by Julian Markels September 2003 ISBN: 1-58367-097-1 $19.00 paper 160 pp. Literary Studies Sophisticated theorizing and deft interpretations. . . . A significant contribution to Marxist theory and the theory of the novel. -- JIM PHELAN, Professor of English, Ohio State University and editor of Narrative An excellent work. . . . Literary critics, economists, and sociologists will find stimulating new approaches here to the vexed question of class in today's changing world. -- ANNETTE RUBINSTEIN, author of American Literature: Root and Flower and The Great Tradition in English Literature There are no books in this field as skilled, as beautifully written, as well-informed, and as fully and wonderfully accessible as The Marxian Imagination. -- JAMES KINCAID, Aerol Arnold Professor of English, University of Southern California The Marxian Imagination is a fresh and innovative recasting of Marxist literary theory and a powerful account of the ways class is represented in literary texts. Where earlier theorists have treated class as a fixed identity site, Markels sees class in more dynamic terms, as a process of accumulation involving many, often conflicting, sites of identity. Rather than examining the situations and characters explicitly identified in class terms, this makes it possible to see how racial and gender identities are caught up in the processes of accumulation that define class. Markels shows how a Marxian imagination is at work in a range of great literary works, often written by non-Marxists. In a field notorious for its difficulty, it is also a remarkably accessible text. Its central arguments are constantly developed and tested against readings of important novels, ranging from Dickens' Hard Times to Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible. It concludes with a telling critique of the work of the major Marxist literary theorists, Raymond Williams and Fredric Jameson. Table of Contents PART I: The Literary Representation of Class Chapter One - A Marxian Imagination Chapter Two - Class in Dickens from Hard Times to Little Dorrit Chapter Three - Representing Class in the Realist Novel PART II: Some Consequences for Critical Theory and Practice Chapter Four - Socialism-Anxiety: The Princess Casamassina and Its New York Critics Chapter Five - The Gramscian Ordeal of Meridel Le Sueur Chapter Six - Denying the Imagination in Marxian Cultural Studies: Raymond Williams and Fredric Jameson CODA: Imagining History in The Poisonwood Bible http://www.monthlyreview.org/marximaginationxcerpt.htm Notes Index About the Author JULIAN MARKELS is professor emeritus of English at Ohio State University, Columbus, and the author of _The Pillar of the World: Antony and Cleopatra in Shakespeare's Development_ and _Melville and the Politics of Identity: From King Lear to Moby Dick_ [http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-01995-4.html]. http://www.monthlyreview.org/marxianimagination.htm * * Julian Markels, Socialism-Anxiety: The Princess Casamassima and Its New York Critics, _College Literature_ 27.2 (Spring 2000), pp. 37-56 . . . In his 1907 Preface to the New York Edition, James recalls the novel's gestation with impassive assurance. He says that from his long habit of walking the streets, Hyacinth Robinson sprang up for me out of the London pavement as some individual sensitive nature . . . capable of profiting by all the civilization, all the accumulations to which [the London streets] testify, yet condemned to see those things only from outside-in . . . mere wistfulness and envy and despair (1908, 1:vi). His envy and despair lead him to adopt an aggressive, vindictive, destructive social faith (1:xvii), and for his story to arouse pity and terror it was then only necessary that he should fall in love with the beauty of the world, actual order and all, at the moment of his most feeling and most hating the famous `iniquity of its social arrangements' (1:xvii). All this sounds as if he was fully in command of a classical tragedy at the time he sat down to write. But in the tragedies to which James compares his, Hamlet and Lear arouse pity and terror by confronting two moral positions between which there is no easy choice, and the conflict between a love of worldly beauty and a vindictive social faith whose substance is mocked by inverted commas is not that sort of conflict. The beauty of the world will trump vindictiveness every time, and there can be neither pity, terror, nor much engaging suspense in watching it do that. Yet James's condescension to socialism in the retrospect of the Preface is not what informs his novel, and neither is his implication in the Preface of having been in command of his subject from the beginning. Here is his notebook entry for August 10,1885, a month before The Princess's first installment was to appear: It is absolutely necessary that at this point I should make the future evolution of The Princess
'Baghdad Boil' Disease Afflicts 148 GIs in Iraq
* 'Baghdad Boil' disease afflicts 148 GIs in Iraq Anita Manning USA Today Dec. 5, 2003 12:00 AM Nearly 150 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been diagnosed with a parasitic skin disease and hundreds more could unknowingly be infected, doctors reported Thursday. Doctors fear that soldiers returning from the front may consult doctors in the United States who have never seen the disease. Complicating matters: The best drug used to treat it is not licensed in the United States. Leishmaniasis, which soldiers have coined the Baghdad Boil, is carried by biting sand flies and doesn't spread from person to person. It causes skin lesions that if untreated may take months, even years, to heal. The lesions can be disfiguring, doctors say. So far, 148 soldiers have confirmed cases, but hundreds more are expected, says Army Lt. Col. Russell Coleman, an entomologist who spent 10 months in Iraq with the 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory. He reported the outbreak Thursday to the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, meeting in Philadelphia. Sand flies are active during warm weather, and soon after U.S. troops arrived in Iraq in late March, we started seeing soldiers basically eaten alive, Coleman says. They'd get a hundred, in some cases 1,000 bites in a single night. Insect repellants and bed nets are standard issue, Coleman says, but many units failed to pack them when they were deployed. The sand flies have vanished with the cooler weather in Iraq, but because of a long incubation period, lesions may not appear for six months or longer after infection occurs. Coleman and Army Lt. Col. Peter Weina, a leishmaniasis expert still in Iraq, predicted in April that there would be 400 cases. All affected soldiers are being sent to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to be treated with the drug Pentosam. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1205iraq-boil05.html * Juan Gonzalez, Baghdad Boil Festers as New Enemy of G.I.s, November 25, 2003, http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/140016p-124146c.html Sand Flies Dangerous in Iraq: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5358 * Military blood bank needs new donors By Fred Zimmerman, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Monday, November 17, 2003 CAMP LESTER, Okinawa - The instant disqualification of potential blood donors returning from Iraq is putting a strain on Okinawa's blood supply. The Armed Services Blood Bank Center here is saying it's in dire need of new blood donors. Any servicemember who steps foot inside Iraq will be disqualified from giving blood anywhere from one to three years, Becky Leavitt, a blood-donor recruiter, said Friday. Depending on where servicemember spent time, they can be banned because of the possibility of exposure to leishmaniasis or malaria, she said. . . . http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104article=18048archive=true * * Leishmaniasis Leishmania parasites are named after W.B. Leishman, who developed one of the earliest stains of Leishmania in 1901. Widespread in 22 countries in the New World and in 66 nations in the Old World, leishmaniasis is not found in South-east Asia. Human infections are found in 16 countries in Europe, including France, Italy, Greece, Malta, Spain and Portugal. Occurring in several forms, the disease is generally recognized for its cutaneous form which causes non-fatal, disfiguring lesions, although epidemics of the potentially fatal visceral form cause thousands of deaths. . . . http://www.who.int/tdr/diseases/leish/default.htm * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical concept: investment drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives investment; current profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates. You are partly correct I think, but partly not. (1) For Karl Marx, the rate of profit (RP) is not just a jerk-off; and it is meaningless to talk about it without the mass/volume of profit (MP) (2) the economic significance of RP MP cannot be seen separately from the rate of reinvestment of realised surplus-value (the rate of accumulation) by type of activity, the turnover-time of capital, and the behaviour of a monetary currency (3) for Marx. private profit income is an appropriation which represents a fraction of the social surplus product - it is a yield on capital ownership, and the ownership of money capital, beyond social reserves, constitutes a claim on the social surplus product. (4) Consequently, in Marxian theory, profit constitutes the income of the bourgeoisie as a social class, apart from interest rent, and not just an accumulation/investment fund. (5) How exactly you measure the yield on capital invested may have an apologetic or justificatory function which prevents the real economic relationship from being understood. 2) BUT to be a mechanic you need to know what's under the hood. e.g. is the profit rate rising because labor has been squeezed or because of something going on in the physical capital (see #3)? A marxist will measure the labor squeeze in terms of 'surplus value' but any other measure would do (up to this point only!) I agree you need to know what is under the hood, but not all measures will do, because not all measures describe the same relation, and obviously if, say, you are a trade unionist, then it makes a big difference whether the drop in income is 5% or 10%. Some sociologist might say well it just fell but for workers the quantitative importance is significant. The structure of Marx's Capital involves a recategorisation of already existing ideas and theories in order to describe reality more accurately in a way that explanatory and predictive conclusions can be drawn from that. To me, there is data - calculated and categorized in accordance different frameworks, more or less. Or, I go pomo: There is no data in the world.] Agreed. Pomo is essentially arbitrary, jism as theory. But it is absolutely not true that bourgeois economics cannot admit class conflict and so on, and describe it in some way. Point is rather, the ruling class description performs an apologetic, justificatory function aimed at reconciling social classes, so that efficient exploitation by the ruling class can continue or recommence. In unfair distribution of wealth, we talk about fair production of wealth, and in unfair production of wealth we talk about fair distribution of wealth, in such as way, that the foundations of class power are never threatened. If we talk about specifically bourgeois categorisations, this is not just a short-hand, but refers to the fact that in the real world, the way in which a category or concept is formulated, can mean the difference between 50 dollars and 50 million dollars, or the difference between life and death. A gentleman of distinction is thus able to distinguish appropriately between different phenomena, reaping wealth, avoiding the loss of capital or his life. This is incidentally not a joke, because I have helped design government questionnaire surveys professionally, and by just asking a couple of badly formulated questions of an enterprise, I could affect the Balance of Payments negatively or positively by $600-800 million dollars Jurriaan
Re: The Marxian Imagination (by Julian Markels)
Thank you for that reference. J.
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Doug writes: Trying to quantify it [surplus value] reminds me of Hayek's Prices Production. Doug Could you elaborate on the analogy? Are you saying that quantifying surplus value (or rather a workable proxy, in the same way the NIPA accounts are workable proxies) is too difficult empirically or is it theoretically illogical ? Thanks Paul
Edward Wolff on financial claims to the social surplus product, or why qualitative research is not sufficient except among jerks
In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth. (...) the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s. (...) The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively. The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth. This is a very concentrated distribution. (...) The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings. (...) The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth. The middle class's major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth. The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth. (...) The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family. (...) In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock. By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families. But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock. So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock. (...) I would model (taxation) after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter. It would not be a very severe tax. In fact, the loading charges on most mutual funds are typically of the order of 1 or 2 percent. It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families. (...) The minimum wage has fallen by about 35 percent in real terms since its peak in 1968. We should think about restoring the minimum wage to where it used to be. That would help a lot of low-income families. The unemployment insurance system is in a real mess; only about one third of unemployed persons actually get unemployment benefits, either because they don't qualify or because they exhaust their benefits after six months. Typically the replacement rate is about 35 or 40 percent. In the Netherlands, the replacement rate is 80 percent. Our unemployment insurance system is much less generous than in other industrialized countries and can certainly be shored up. Of course, the welfare system is in a total state of disrepair, since it provides very restrictive coverage. Even before the switchover from AFDC to TANF with the 1996 welfare reform bill, real welfare payments had declined by about 50 percent between 1975 and 1996. So we had already experienced an enormous erosion in welfare benefits, even before we adopted this new system. Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Wealth_Divide.html
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Mark Perlman has a wonderful account of Kuznets and the creation of national accounts in the US -- how it was designed as a war planning tool. Come to think of it, he was trying to calculate the surplus, to see how much production could be diverted to the war. In this sense, Doug can be correct, but I still don't get the Hayek analogy. On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:27:24AM -0500, Paul wrote: Doug writes: Trying to quantify it [surplus value] reminds me of Hayek's Prices Production. Doug Could you elaborate on the analogy? Are you saying that quantifying surplus value (or rather a workable proxy, in the same way the NIPA accounts are workable proxies) is too difficult empirically or is it theoretically illogical ? Thanks Paul -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marketing reconstruction in the US
Seems to me that most Iraqi businesses would not be able to attend a meeting such as this. The locale shows who is running things and who will be favored no doubt. But with 100 per cent repatriation of profits allowed a flat tax and who knows what other incentives Iraq, is ripe for international capitalist vultures, that is providing they can stay behind those impenetrable walls one company is selling. Cheers, Ken Hanly December 5, 2003 THE RECONSTRUCTION At U.S. Meeting, Iraq Appears Open for Business By MICHAEL JANOFSKY RLINGTON, Va., Dec. 4 - The room had the feel of a souk, a constant buzz, chatter in lots of languages, display tables showing off wares. In fact, it was a marketplace of sorts, just off the lobby of a Sheraton hotel here, but one with a specific purpose: more than 400 people from 30 countries had gathered Wednesday and Thursday for a conference focusing on how to rebuild Iraq and get a piece of the $18.3 billion Congress has authorized for the effort. There were bankers, architects, lawyers, engineers, real estate developers, insurance agents, construction specialists, transportation experts, communication company owners, investment counselors and more than 40 Iraqi officials working with the Coalition Provisional Authority, who were eager to meet as many suitors as possible. If the participants conveyed a common message it was this: despite suicide bombers, snipers and attacks from Saddam Hussein loyalists, Iraq is open for business. There were sobering reminders of the daily dangers that confront both military personnel and civilians, including one company selling vehicle armor protection and another selling walls so strong that they could withstand .50-caliber bullets. We're working on one now that will be able to sustain a shoulder-fired rocket attack, said Prentice Perry, vice president of the wall company, Therma Steel. The company motto, he said, is, We stand behind our walls. But for the most part, the networking was upbeat, as business and government leaders sought each other out as potential partners in the enormous task of reconstructing the country. Our purpose is to help United States companies connect with Middle Eastern countries and with individual Iraqis with lots of emphasis on the alliances already on the ground, said Samir Farajallah, president of New Fields, the United Arab Emirates company that organized this meeting and another one last month. You hear a lot of negative stories out of Iraq, but the truth of the matter is, there are a lot of very successful stories. As the ranking Iraqi participating in the conference, Sami al-Maajoun, the minister of labor and social affairs, said he was very encouraged by American and British efforts to engage in rebuilding. So far, the efforts have grown out of an initial round of contracts between the United States and large multinational corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, to take on big-ticket items like safeguarding oil fields, paving roads and rebuilding schools. In marked contrast to the openness of the meeting this week, those contracts were often awarded without competitive bidding in a process that has been criticized as being inscrutable to outsiders. Now, Mr. Maajoun said, Iraq is ready for many more partners. Iraqis are crying out for employment, he said. We want to rebuild. Construction means jobs that will bring Iraq back to the situation it should have been in as far as its own wealth is concerned. The efforts promise to be anything but easy, complicated by developments on the ground and evolving laws arising from an evolving government. While large projects require direct participation and approval by the United States government, smaller ones may not, and the distinctions are not always clear. We explain how the processes work - or not work - and give some idea of how they may work in the future, said Bill Espinosa of Pillsbury Winthrop, a law firm represented at the conference that does extensive work in international development. We've seen a lot of interest in Iraq, but there is also a lot of frustration involved in a significant way. One source of that frustration, said Sam Kubba, chief executive of the American Iraqi Chamber of Commerce, are the competing views of how Iraq should achieve self-rule. The Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by the provisional authority, agreed in a vote Sunday that full national elections sought by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, would be the best way to choose an interim government. The council established a committee to examine whether it was feasible to organize full elections for June. Mr. Kubba, whose organization of American Iraqi businessmen was set up this year in Washington, called their differences a potential disincentive to future investment, making them a very serious conflict that holds serious consequences if not resolved.
Kuznets
[was RE: [PEN-L] Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)] speaking of Kuznets, awhile back Doug noted that the US is in the beginning of a new Kuznets curve. In the KC, we first see increasing income inequality and then decreased inequality as the economic growth process. As Doug and many others have pointed out, inequality has been rising since the 1970s (without abundant economic growth as a benefit). Others have posited an environmental KC, in which the process of industrialization first raises pollution and then (because people can afford to do so) lowers it. Our fearless and wise leader, the Generalissimo Dubya is now moving us into a new environmental KC, with rising pollution. BTW, Paul Baran's concept of the surplus (in THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH) seems akin to Kuznets' view that the surplus could be used as a planning tool. This is quite different from Marx's concept. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel) Mark Perlman has a wonderful account of Kuznets and the creation of national accounts in the US -- how it was designed as a war planning tool.
Re: unproductive expenditures and surplus-value
I wrote: : I don't understand this. Why should the wages salaries of unproductive labor-power (U) be included as part of surplus-value (S)? didn't Marx once say that S corresponded to profits+interest+rent (with the latter being phenomenal forms of the former)? that excludes U. from the point of view of the capitalist class, isn't U part of _costs_? is it possible for the capitalists to accumulate based on U? or must they accumulate based on S, net of U? If they can't use U for accumulation (any more than they can use the wages salaries of productive labor-power for accumulation), why not focus on S, net of U? Shane Mage replies: This, essentially, is exactly Marx's position... Since addition of previously existing values is precisely the way in which constant capital transfers value to the product, it is clear that Marx regards the capital laid out for unproductive but necessary labor as part of the circulating portion of constant capital. this makes sense to me. Shane doesn't mention that his calculation of the rate of profit in his unpublished but well-distributed dissertation follows Marx on this point. Fred Moseley has argued that the changes in the Marxian rate of profit (measured counting U in the numerator) helps us understand changes in the conventional rate of profit (with U as part of costs). That makes more sense to me (on the abstract level). But, in the end, isn't it the conventional rate of profit (CRP) that's important to the laws of motion of capitalism? and in the determination of the CRP, isn't the mathematical role of U _exactly the same as_ the mathematical role of the wages salaries of _productive_ labor-power (V)? ... Marx's answer is that fixed constant capital can and does tend to rise without limit, but employed productive labor-power is limited both by the available labor force and by the strength of the working class which, by constantly pressing for a reduction in the workday or workweek, tends historically to reduce the total productive labor-time, from which surplus-value takes the form of a deduction. Thus fixed capital must historically tend to grow faster than relative surplus-value. but doesn't technical change cheapen constant capital (in value terms) so that the value composition of capital doesn't rise as much as the technical composition of capital? In fact, can't the VCC _fall_? Jim Devine
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Paul writes: 1) Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical concept: investment drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives investment; current profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates. Marx didn't emphasize the role of expectations. That's a helpful addition that came from the Keynesians. One example is Robinson. Bourgeois categories (as you put it) just don't have the same role for profit (to be picky, they haven't got profit at all in the 'perfect market' model). Depending on the flavor of neoclassical economics the long run is driven by (disembodied) technical change/population growth and blah blah. The NC folks also emphasize saving over investment (ignoring Keynes or assuming full employment). The Marxian view of economic growth as a disequilibrium process centered on accumulation and the rate of profit is much better. 2) BUT to be a mechanic you need to know what's under the hood. e.g. is the profit rate rising because labor has been squeezed or because of something going on in the physical capital (see #3)? A marxist will measure the labor squeeze in terms of 'surplus value' but any other measure would do (up to this point only!) right. [digression: Tonak's point was that the other authors were measuring something totally different called 'surplus' which Tonak/Shaikh say is a non-marxist concept, closer maybe to some Ricardian traditions, and a normative, subjective concept about what it should *really* take to produce something. It was this type of calculation that I was asking Tonak about.] The big difference is that for Tonak, Shaikh, and a lot of others, unproductive expenditure (U) should be counted as part of surplus-value, so that the numerator of the rate of profit is S+U, where S is surplus-value net of U. To Mage, as noted in a separate missive, the numerator is S, with U counted as part of constant capital (C). To yet others, the numerator is S, with U counted as equivalent to V, the wages/salaries of productive labor-power. So far this is still big tent: Classicals and Marxists together need to recalculate the standard format of the data. Neo-Classicals don't think in terms of labor-capital tradeoffs and don't seek to separate the components of the profit rate into labor vs capital and since N.C.s predominate the NIPA doesn't calculate in ways others can use. So one has to recalculate and re-categorize the date. No data should be taken for granted and used uncritically, but if you follow either the U is part of C view or the U is like V view, the difference with the bourgeois accounts is pretty minor in practice. (BTW, the national accounts for the US are more Keynesian than neoclassical, though there's a lot of overlap.) ... [BTW, does anyone know if any serious Marxist EVER did say OCC = FROP = system collapses or was that just a straw man we were taught? Was it always clear that FROP was a tendency that weighs upon other, upward, pushes going on at the same time leading to a dynamic system in struggle? In any event, the point is that again one wants to measure both the tendency and the counter flows to see how the ebb and flow is going and conventional NIPA can't do it.] I once read an article by Cogoy or Yaffe (or both?) that had a OCC == FROP == collapse scenario. It doesn't make sense. Capitalism will never permanently collapse until there's an alternative mode of production to replace it. JD
Re: USA humbled
The EU was set to impose tariffs on imports of Florida oranges. Seth Re: USA humbled by Devine, James 05 December 2003 it's a defeat in that Bush had to choose between losing votes in states that would be slammed by the EU (and also the possibility of a true trade war) and losing votes in the states whose steel industries are no longer protected. But the US industries that use steel are going to gain. Jim Looks like defeat to me. The local rags arent' giving it much spin or headlines...except to offer the consolation that the tarriffs were there to offer the steel industry time to retool and reinvent themselves...that this work was largely doneso now US steel is newly competitive and tarriffs aren't needed anymore. Right, Joanna _ Winterize your home with tips from MSN House Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
Re: USA humbled
and not California ones? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine The EU was set to impose tariffs on imports of Florida oranges. Seth
Re: USA humbled
As I understand it, the idea was to target the tariffs on electoral battle ground states and to target goods that could be bought elsewhere so that European prices would not be affected much. I doubt that they could get their tariffs precise enough to let Cal. oranges slide under, but it is a nice idea. On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:48:36AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: and not California ones? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine The EU was set to impose tariffs on imports of Florida oranges. Seth -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: USA humbled
Michael Perelman wrote: As I understand it, the idea was to target the tariffs on electoral battle ground states and to target goods that could be bought elsewhere so that European prices would not be affected much. I doubt that they could get their tariffs precise enough to let Cal. oranges slide under, but it is a nice idea. Aren't Florida oranges mostly for juice, and Calif mostly for eating?
FDI annual survey rules
[Federal Register: December 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 234)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 67939-67941] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05de03-3] === --- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 806 [Docket No. 030818205-3281-02] RIN 0691-AA48 Direct Investment Surveys: BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. --- SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations that set forth reporting requirements for the BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. The annual survey is comprised of four forms--the BE-15(LF) long form, the BE-15(SF) short form, the BE-15(EZ) form, which is a new form, and the BE-15 Supplement C-Claim for Exemption From Filing a BE-15(LF), BE-15(SF), or BE-15(EZ). The annual survey is a sample survey that collects data on the financial structure and operations of nonbank U.S. affiliates of foreign companies needed to update similar data for the universe of U.S. affiliates collected once every 5 years in the BE-12 benchmark survey. The data are used to derive annual estimates of the operations of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies, including their balance sheets; income statements; property, plant, and equipment; external financing; employment and employee compensation; merchandise trade; sales of goods and services; taxes; and research and development activity. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, to measure changes in such investment, and to assess its impact on the U.S. economy. DATES: This final rule will be effective January 5, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Obie G. Whichard, Chief, International Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone (202) 606-9890. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 2003, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published in the Federal Register (68 FR 51942) a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. No comments on the proposed rule were received. Thus, the provisions in the proposed rule are adopted without change. Description of Revisions The BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is mandatory and is conducted annually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108)--hereinafter, ``the Act.'' BEA will send the survey to potential respondents in March of each year; responses will be due by May 31. BEA will introduce a sampling procedure to help reduce respondent burden for some U.S. businesses. The procedure utilizes the new BE- 15(EZ) form; this form provides a few basic indicators for non-sample firms that can be used as a basis for estimating data that they otherwise would have to report on the lengthier BE-15(LF) and BE-15(SF) forms. To bring the annual survey into conformity with the Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States-2002, the following changes are being made to the Code of Federal Regulations: (1) Direct that only nonbank majority-owned U.S. affiliates of foreign companies report on the BE-15(LF) long form (minority-owned affiliates will report on the BE-15(SF) short form, or [[Page 67940]] the BE-15(EZ) form, regardless of size); (2) raise the exemption level on the BE-15(LF) long form from $100 million to $125 million (reporting on a given form is required if the affiliate's assets, sales, or net income (or loss) exceed the exemption level); and (3) exempt nonbank subsidiaries or units of U.S. bank or bank holding company affiliates from reporting. In addition, the following changes are being made to the forms: (1) Add questions to the BE-15 (LF) long form to collect detail on premiums earned and claims paid for U.S. affiliates operating in the insurance industry, and to collect detail on finished goods purchased for resale for U.S. affiliates operating in the wholesale and retail trade industries; (2) in conjunction with increasing the exemption level for reporting on the BE-15(LF) long form, add four items to the short form that will serve to improve estimates of gross product for majority- owned U.S. affiliates--certain realized and unrealized gains and losses, U.S. income taxes, interest received, and interest paid; (3) in conjunction with requiring all minority-owned U.S. affiliates to file on the short form, revise the State Schedule to collect additional detail, by State, for
FW: Today's Papers: the space cadet President
from SLATE's news summary: Rumors of a return mission to the Moon earn front page mentions today in the [Washington Post] and USA Today. First reported yesterday, administration officials tell the papers they are considering the moon mission among a list of unifying national goals heading into re-election year. Other goals could include promoting longevity or fighting childhood hunger or illness. ... I was hoping that Dubya would decide that he would be the special education President! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Mark Perlman has a wonderful account of Kuznets and the creation of national accounts in the US Would this be Mark Perlman, The Character of Economic Thought, Economic Characters, and Economic Institutions ? J.
Re: USA humbled
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/03 11:58AM Aren't Florida oranges mostly for juice, and Calif mostly for eating? about 90% of florida oranges used for juice... keep the x in xmas, michael hoover
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Paul wrote: Doug writes: Trying to quantify it [surplus value] reminds me of Hayek's Prices Production. Doug Could you elaborate on the analogy? Are you saying that quantifying surplus value (or rather a workable proxy, in the same way the NIPA accounts are workable proxies) is too difficult empirically or is it theoretically illogical ? Thanks To an outsider, it looks like a weird private language, a quirky obsession. I had in mind Keynes's characterization of PP - It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam. Doug
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Paul wrote: 1) Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical concept: investment drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives investment; current profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates. Fine with me (and Keynes too, though as Jim D pointed out, expectations was his innovation - too subjective for a lot of orthodox Marxists, I'd guess). Bourgeois categories (as you put it) just don't have the same role for profit (to be picky, they haven't got profit at all in the 'perfect market' model). Depending on the flavor of neoclassical economics the long run is driven by (disembodied) technical change/population growth and blah blah. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like NIPA profit measures. Why is it so important to translate those into allegedly Marxian categories. Every quarter when the flow of funds numbers come out, I divide NIPA profits by the FoF measure of the capital stock and get a profit rate for nonfinancial corps. It tells me that profitability peaked in 1966, fell into 1982, rose into 1997, fell into 2001, and has since recovered. What does all the translation mumbo jumbo add to this analysis? If it's that too much K is tied up in unproductive pursuits, why the recovery from 1982-97? It doesn't inspire confidence that every Marxist who does the translation comes up with different results. 2) BUT to be a mechanic you need to know what's under the hood. e.g. is the profit rate rising because labor has been squeezed or because of something going on in the physical capital (see #3)? A marxist will measure the labor squeeze in terms of 'surplus value' but any other measure would do (up to this point only!) And, say, unit labor costs and other conventional measures can't tell you this? What is the productivity revolution but a rise in the rate of exploitation? So far this is still big tent: Classicals and Marxists together need to recalculate the standard format of the data. Neo-Classicals don't think in terms of labor-capital tradeoffs and don't seek to separate the components of the profit rate into labor vs capital and since N.C.s predominate the NIPA doesn't calculate in ways others can use. So one has to recalculate and re-categorize the date. [I won't touch the 'bourgeois data' reference. To me, there is data - calculated and categorized in accordance different frameworks, more or less. Or, I go pomo: There is no data in the world.] Is that pomo? Data and information are human inventions - they don't exist outside our social heads. 3) But then you want to figure out what exactly is going on in the capital side of the equation. So you have to breakdown price effects, productivity (technological improvement), and the simple arithmetical lowering you get by just adding more of the same capital without technological improvement (the OCC issue). Some (neo-marxists?), like the Wolfe article I posted, don't see much in the OCC. But they still need to recalculate the NIPA data to get at all these other issues. Again, what does this kind of analysis really tell you? One CAN string along a series of short period analysis and for a while it is a practical solution for short term policy proposals (some Keynsians, like Paul Davidson, would say forever). But when deep fundamentals change ... aren't YOU going to want these recalculations? Gimme an example of what's changed - one that I couldn't come up with using conventional economic stats. Doug
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Moseley re-cast the data into authentic Marxian categories. I agree with Doug. I also agree with G. Lukacs -- Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a 'sacred' book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. Talk about Procrustes trying to put his guest to bed! The world has changed since 1867, and Marx's categories were never perfect to begin with. What, for instance, is unproductive labor? All labor is service-provision, whether it be bending metal into shapes, or putting food in a bag and handing it to somebody. Both are productive work, both alter the world to make it more favorable to a human being. As to finance, insurance, and real estate, some percentage of what happens there is legit service-provision, is it not? Same for management. Much of managers' salaries are disguised property income (part of the surplus), but some part is pay for work. As to the size of the surplus being a useful tool for thinking about socialism -- yes, very true. Nevertheless, doesn't the size of the surplus under socialism depend on both democratic decisions that have yet to even be formulated, as well as on the degree of economic shrinkage we experience when we start to replace corporate dominance? There is undoubtedly a gigantic amount of surplus wealth we are now producing. How much we can and want to produce under economic democracy -- who knows? If you add together profits, rental income, interest income, depreciation allowances, and, say, half of corporate officer compensation, straight out of NIPA tables, doesn't that give you a pretty clear picture of exploitation? Why translate this information into terms nobody but us can fathom?
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Michael Dawson wrote: If you add together profits, rental income, interest income, depreciation allowances, and, say, half of corporate officer compensation, straight out of NIPA tables, doesn't that give you a pretty clear picture of exploitation? Why translate this information into terms nobody but us can fathom? Because it makes you think you're getting to a level of truth deeper than vulgar categories allow, even if no one can convincingly explain what that payoff from that increased depth is? Doug
Inflation and productivity questions
I wanted to ask for help on two questions, one on inflation and the other on productivity. As to the inflation question, a while back business week had a special article on fees. The article argued that many businesses unable to raise prices are adding fees, like banks for example. My question: do these fees enter into the CPI, or are we understating inflation? As to productivity, a while ago there were articles showing that a lot of the productivity increase came from the sector that produced computers. And that the increase in productivity in that sector was the result of statistical work designed to take into account quality increases. As a result, the national income accounts showed a higher value of output than actually produced or sold. Those articles also made the point that the higher productivity figures resulting from that calculation were not comparable with productivity figures from other countries, because most did not do that adjustment. My question: are recent productivity gains a product of the same statistical adjustments? Thanks, Marty Hart-Landsberg
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Moseley re-cast the data into authentic Marxian categories. Michael Dawson writes: I agree with Doug. I also agree with G. Lukacs -- Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a 'sacred' book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. I'd agree with that, but a lot of Marx's method is reflected in his substantive conclusions, so we can't make a hard-and-fast separation here. Form and content are not totally distinct. Talk about Procrustes trying to put his guest to bed! The world has changed since 1867, and Marx's categories were never perfect to begin with. What, for instance, is unproductive labor? All labor is service-provision, whether it be bending metal into shapes, or putting food in a bag and handing it to somebody. Both are productive work, both alter the world to make it more favorable to a human being. It was Smith, not Marx, who saw service labor as unproductive. Marx's productive labor simply was productive of surplus-value, so that services could be productive. Marx's unproductive labor is involved in the circulation of commodities (rather than their production) or in supervisory roles in production. I find it relatively easy to define this, as people like Tonak Shaikh do. The question is whether Marx's concept is _useful_ for understanding the world. I'm not convinced that it is. My presumption is that it isn't. One problem is that unproductive labor can be indirectly productive (Jim O'Connor's term), which fuzzes up the concept, suggesting that different types of labor-power have different _degrees_ of productivity (direct and indirect). As to finance, insurance, and real estate [FIRE], some percentage of what happens there is legit service-provision, is it not? Same for management. Much of managers' salaries are disguised property income (part of the surplus), but some part is pay for work. Converting a theoretical concept into an empirical one is always difficult, no matter the flavor of economics you're practicing. (Neoclassicals have the same problem, though Marxists are more likely to admit to it.) You try to do as well as you can. Further, though the FIRE sector undoubtedly includes some productive activity, a relative increase in the FIRE sector is _prima facie_ evidence of an increasing role for unproductive expenditure. That is, FIRE spending is a proxy for one kind of unproductive expenditure. Doug H. has used it in this way in his empirics. As to the size of the surplus being a useful tool for thinking about socialism -- yes, very true. Nevertheless, doesn't the size of the surplus under socialism depend on both democratic decisions that have yet to even be formulated, as well as on the degree of economic shrinkage we experience when we start to replace corporate dominance? There is undoubtedly a gigantic amount of surplus wealth we are now producing. How much we can and want to produce under economic democracy -- who knows? the planning version of the surplus (including unproductive expenditure) is extremely problematical. As I've noted, it comes from Baran, not Marx. (Actually, something similar can be seen in Thomas More's UTOPIA and Edward Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD. Both, BTW, are very interesting.) If you add together profits, rental income, interest income, depreciation allowances, and, say, half of corporate officer compensation, straight out of NIPA tables, doesn't that give you a pretty clear picture of exploitation? Why translate this information into terms nobody but us can fathom? On a theoretical level, surplus value (a term that nobody but us can fathom) is part of a theory that gives a greater understanding than say, neoclassical economics or empiricism. The point is to separate it from versions that obfuscate (such as those that include unproductive expenditure as part of S) and to explain to those other folks what we're talking about. Surplus value can be easily explained as property income. I think it's a mistake to avoid difficult language (such as surplus value) just because people don't understand it. Difficult language will continue to be used (words like democracy, freedom, and justice) whether we like it or not. Dropping our hard concepts simply means that hard concepts from other brands of political economy (e.g., opportunity cost, factors of production, pure competition, human capital) dominate. to Michaels' questions above, Doug answers: Because it makes you think you're getting to a level of truth deeper than vulgar categories allow, even if no one can convincingly explain what that payoff from that increased depth is? The idea that there's a level of truth deeper than vulgar categories says (in modern social-scientific terms) that we need to have some sort of theory about how
Re: Inflation and productivity questions
With regard to productivity, Robert Gordon was the most prominent sceptic. He has back off from his scepticism somewhat. I don't think fees are part of the CPI. Nor are sales taxes although corporate taxes are, at least that is my understanding. On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:08:18PM -0800, Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: I wanted to ask for help on two questions, one on inflation and the other on productivity. As to the inflation question, a while back business week had a special article on fees. The article argued that many businesses unable to raise prices are adding fees, like banks for example. My question: do these fees enter into the CPI, or are we understating inflation? As to productivity, a while ago there were articles showing that a lot of the productivity increase came from the sector that produced computers. And that the increase in productivity in that sector was the result of statistical work designed to take into account quality increases. As a result, the national income accounts showed a higher value of output than actually produced or sold. Those articles also made the point that the higher productivity figures resulting from that calculation were not comparable with productivity figures from other countries, because most did not do that adjustment. My question: are recent productivity gains a product of the same statistical adjustments? Thanks, Marty Hart-Landsberg -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Yes, a very interesting person. On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Mark Perlman has a wonderful account of Kuznets and the creation of national accounts in the US Would this be Mark Perlman, The Character of Economic Thought, Economic Characters, and Economic Institutions ? J. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
relevant post for the day
what's bottom quoting? um-m-m, citing and relying on utterances of G.W. Bush? Dan -- -- BUSHES WILL TREMBLE WHEN KUCINICH IS NOMINATED BY BOTH THE GREENS AND THE DEMOCRATS. -- END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Alternate Sundays 6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT) http://www.kvmr.org I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Re: Productive labour - reply to Jim
Jim, You wrote: The question is whether Marx's concept is _useful_ for understanding the world. I'm not convinced that it is. My presumption is that it isn't. Well, I didn't have much success today myself, but at least I tracked down something I lost. But just a quick comment on the conceptual issue: I think a concept of productive labour is necessarily implied by Marx through the distinction between newly created value and conserved value, thus, the distinction pertains to that labour which creates new, additional value, and labour which only conserves or circulates value, and the relationship between those. Thus, the concept of productive labour also has implications for the boundaries of the sphere of production itself, and the boundaries of commodity production, what the attributes of a commodity are as an object which can satisfy a human need, to which private property rights can be attached and exchanged. In this context, Ernest Mandel referred to a number of necessary distinctions that ought to be made, required to understand the historical evolution of the capitalist mode of production and the specifically capitalist division of labour: - commodity production versus other production - production versus circulation (exchange) and consumption - material (tangible) production versus non-material production - production of use-values and production of exchange-values - production of value and creation of revenue (refer his brief discussion in the introduction of Cap. Vol 2, Penguin edition). We could add to this nowadays, the distinction between relations of communication and relations of exchange. If, however, we just approach that problem via a statistical classificatory exercise, we may not solve it conceptually, it must be understood dynamically, i.e. in movement, i.e. it's really about the dialectics of use-value and exchange-value, and how this affects the transformation or modification of the social division of labour by the specifically capitalist mode of production, and the output-orientation of the production process. To give just two examples: (1) if surplus-labour has been performed, but the output has not been sold, then no surplus-value is realised and therefore, as far as the owner of capital is concerned, the labour wasn't productive in any transactional sense; (2) a worker may perform both productive and non-productive activities in one job. Generally, Marx adopts the criterion for social accounting purposes, that if a labour function (a task) is itself unproductive, then if this task, previously shared by many different workers, becomes the specialised function of one worker who has this as a job, which helps generate surplus-value for the owner of capital, then the function itself does not thereby become productive - but whether this theorem is always correct is a moot point, it must be understood dialectically, which in a few cases could be very difficult. The three things to understand about it, I think, are that (1) the concept of productive labour should not be viewed as static, cut-and-dried, fixed and eternal, but historically and developmentally, i.e. it is historically defined according to the real development of the social and technical division of labour, the real development of real capitalist societies. Only empirical analysis can reveal what the real magnitudes are and what the class relationship is. (2) the definition or determination of productive labour itself is not neutral but subject to a contest between social classes, and the only objective definition, is a definition in terms of what labour is conducive to the expansion of the capitalist mode of production as a whole, the expansion of the mass (volume) of surplus-value, but acquiring precision here requires an empirical analysis. If real production stagnates while financial claims to the social product multiply, then you can say that the capitalist mode of production is in decline, but saying that in itself doesn't of course resolve the conceptual problem. (3) whether or not labour has been productive or not can really be known only a posteriori in capitalist society, because the commodity-producing living labour, in contrast to labour power, is in most cases definitely valued in the market only after it has been performed when its product (a good or service) is exchanged and paid for. Labour-value is lodged, or as Marx says, crystallised or corporealised, in commodities which are exchanged for money (a commodity is a tradeable object, which may be a good or service; in the case of a true service, the production and consumption of the service in Marx's sense are simultaneous), and thus we must be able to distinguish between the total commodity product, and financial claims on this product. If we start saying, for example, that financial claims on the total commodity product are part of the commodity product, then this just confuses things, because then we conflate financial claims on material wealth,
Re: Estimating the surplus - Turkey (Cem Somel)
Yes, a very interesting person. And I'm a dork ?
productive labour - addition
Kozo Uno makes the additional point that work is not naturally productive, both in the sense that it takes work to make work productive, and that productive work depends on tools and techniques to be productive. Thus, he seeks to distinguish between a transhistorical concept of productive labour, and a specifically capitalist concept of productive labour. The transhistorical concept is that the producer must be able to create a product larger than is required to sustain and reproduce the labour-power of that producer over time, i.e. a magnitude greater than the equivalent of his means of subsistence. The specifically capitalist concept is that the work creates surplus-value which is privately appropriated upon realisation in exchange. The two may not imply each other; thus, in the case of slave labour, forced labour or super-exploitation, the producer becomes expendable in the relentless pursuit of surplus-value (cf. the history of Bolivia). Reference: Kozo Uno, Principles of Political Economy (Harvester Press). Thomas Sekine explicates the concept in a useful note. J.
Re: Productive labour - reply to Jim
Hope this helps: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm = * There must always be a struggle between a father and son, while one aims at power and the other at independence. SAMUEL JOHNSON 31 March 1778 in James Boswell The Life of Samuel Johnson 1791 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
HELP QUICK PLEASE!!!
I'm writing an article for my campus newspaper and I need some help finding information on how the Hussein regime came into power. Can anyone point me to some available we sources? THANK YOU SO MUCH! Benjamin Gramlich
Re: HELP QUICK PLEASE!!!
I know he's sort of a right wing renegade, but I read Miyaka's Republic of Fear at the time of the first Gulf War, and thought well of it. But for lefter accessible stuff, go to the Middle East Reports (MERIP) site. jks --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm writing an article for my campus newspaper and I need some help finding information on how the Hussein regime came into power. Can anyone point me to some available we sources? THANK YOU SO MUCH! Benjamin Gramlich __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
