Re: imperalist booty
Tom Walker wrote: The reference is to page 706 of the English translation, Vintage Books. At some level the distinctions between wealth, value and capital may be straightforward but they're not so at the margins. Marx, as I read the passage, quotes approvingly of the notion that "real wealth" is disposable time *outside that needed in direct production*. Therefore only a portion of value -- that which is directly consumed -- would count as wealth. And use value includes more than value. The blackberry I pluck from the roadside bramble and eat has use value even though I would hardly describe my activities of plucking, chewing and swallowing as labor. But I would add that wealth is more than the stock of use values in that it also includes _potential_ use values, which may only be potential in some remote and unknown way and thus, for all we know, unlikely to be used. Maybe I'm splitting hairs by distinguishing between recognized use values and potentialities that we don't and may never know about, I don't think so. Are you taking account of the developmental aspect of Marx's definition of "wealth" i.e. wealth as "the development of all human powers"? I pointed to this connection some time ago. I think Marx adopts as the ultimate end the "realm of freedom" - a community of universally developed individuals creating and appropriating beauty and truth within relations of mutual recognition. This requires "free time" i.e. time free from instrumental labour. This is time both for the activities which are ends in themselves and for the individual development these activities require. This individual development would also work to expand free time because it would improve productivity - "efficiency" - in the realm of necessity. These ideas serve to tie together Marx's various definitions of wealth. In particular, they connect wealth as universal development to wealth as free time. "What is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics - and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds - this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end. " Grundrisse p. 488 "The real wealth of society and the possibility of a constant expansion of its reproduction process does not depend on the length of surplus labour but rather on its productivity and on the more or less plentiful conditions of production in which it is performed. The realm of freedom really begins only where labour determined by necessity and external expediency ends; it lies by its very nature beyond the sphere of material production proper ... The true realm of freedom, the development of human powers as an end in itself, begins beyond it [the "realm of necessity"], though it can only flourish with this realm of necessity as its basis. The reduction of the working day is the basic prerequisite." Capital vol. 3 pp. 958-9 "The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the masshas ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few,for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of [706] penury and antithesis. The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum,
imperalist booty
From: andie nachgeborenen -clip- Even if one insisted that a materialist explanation must be economic, all you would have to say is that imperialism against the third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits for the first world; it would not have to be the chief or primary source of profits. Indeed, it would not have to be net-profitable, as long as the losses in terms of the cost could be palmed on on others, e.g., the workers through taxes for defense, the deficit, etc. ^^^ I don't like to quote go back and look up Lenin's exact discussion of this, because people start to act like it's treating _Imperialism_ as dogma, but when this comes up nowadays, I keep thinking that "superprofits" doesn't mean chief or primary source of profits in Leninist economics. I'm pretty sure of that. It is more sort of "excess" or over the top profits, that are one of the advantages of monopoly. Superprofits means monopoly profits, cutting edge profits. Socalled superprofits are made from racism in the U.S., however, the superprofits from racism in the U.S. are not meant, in Leninist economist terminology to be chief or primary source of profits ( See Perlo , Leninist economist on this). >From the figures Doug and I were discussing, even though it is less than a percent of U.S. GDP in 2002, over the past 50 years and more, superprofits from imperialism and domestic racism would be sufficient in amount to buy off the labor lieutenants of capital, and many seargants and corporals of capital , plus much of the NAACP, 10- 15 % of the working class clergy across the U.S., many leaders of communist and socialist orgs, et al. We need a vulgar materialist analysis of imperialist booty calls on the leaders of the U.S. working class over the past 20, 40 60, 80 years. Time series. Afterall, the wc consciousness of the working class struggle today was made 20 years ago. The icing on the cake could be very thin and feed this group of , what a million, 200,000 today ?
Re: imperalist booty
In reply to Julio Huato, The reference is to page 706 of the English translation, Vintage Books. At some level the distinctions between wealth, value and capital may be straightforward but they're not so at the margins. Marx, as I read the passage, quotes approvingly of the notion that "real wealth" is disposable time *outside that needed in direct production*. Therefore only a portion of value -- that which is directly consumed -- would count as wealth. And use value includes more than value. The blackberry I pluck from the roadside bramble and eat has use value even though I would hardly describe my activities of plucking, chewing and swallowing as labor. But I would add that wealth is more than the stock of use values in that it also includes _potential_ use values, which may only be potential in some remote and unknown way and thus, for all we know, unlikely to be used. Maybe I'm splitting hairs by distinguishing between recognized use values and potentialities that we don't and may never know about, I don't think so. It's true that "value valorizes itself by by repeated exploitation of fresh labor." But the amount of that value in turn is established "in retrospect" by the revenues it receives. Let's say I own a portfolio of securities with a "value" of $10,000 that pays dividends of $1,000 a year. What happens to the value of my porfolio if the dividend is increased to $2,000 a year? It most likely goes up. Although I may be exploiting labour more intensively in the dividend, have I added any exploited labour to my principal? No. So where did the extra value of my principal come from? Strictly speaking , it's fictitious. I might even go further and say that, viewed in retrospect, all capital thus becomes "fictitious" to the extent that even the value of physical assets is nothing in the absence of the continuing revenues. But that is viewed in retrospect. We don't just appear at that retrospective point from thin air. We have to get there first. I won't argue for or against Louis Proyect's views on plunder, although I can imagine that the magnitude of that plunder is immense. Especially in terms of real wealth, as distinct from the slag heaps of highly acclaimed "values" spewed out by capitalist industry. I would agree that imperialism and abuse neither arise from the nature of capital nor are the essential characteristics of it. But they are essential characteristics of the actual history we have lived with capital. That says something, even if it is only that capitalism thrives in vile conditions. The state both enforces rules and violates them. Sovereignty, after all, is a claim to a monopoly of violence, not its abolition. Are you saying that the state that sends Martha Stewart to jail for lying about her stock transactions is a different state from the one that lies about the reasons for going to war and then, when the lies cease to be operative, blythely and with impunity produces a new set of lies? I would say they are just two faces of the same state. I leave Louis Brandeis to speak for himself. If he still can. >But I don't understand why the tendency of the average profit rate is relevant to this discussion. Because if the accumulation of capital worked in a storybook step-by-step fashion the rising proportion of capital to labour would cause the revenue per unit of capital to decline: simplistically, revenue would increase arithmetically while capital would increase geometrically. I dread even mentioning this caricature for fear that it will come back to haunt me someday as something that I've said actually happens. It doesn't happen and in very general terms it doesn't (it couldn't) precisely because wealth we didn't know existed can become use-values and value can evaporate or be mysteriously back-formed from revenue, etc. >But as a whole, capital must be productive or perish. Depends on what you mean by "productive" and "perish". State owned enterprises in the Soviet Union regularly met their production targets by producing unsaleable goods for the warehouse and consuming inputs with higher value that their outputs. That's what is happening here (in terms of wealth if not in terms of value). But exactly who and what perished when the USSR collapsed? What will perish when the current stage of capitalist subtraction -- not of value but of real wealth -- finally reaches its limit? Will it be capital per se or simply the last shred of bourgeois legitimacy and legality formerly associated with capitalism (re: the Brandeis quote). >Wealth on the other hand has to be painstakingly produced. Yes. But not necessarily by the expenditure of labour power. Again, see Grundrisse e.g., pp. 704-709. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: imperalist booty
Tom Walker wrote: We need to be careful about three distinct relationships here that tend to get confused one for another: wealth, value and capital. Perhaps the confusion results from the fact that they can be readily exchanged for each other. Perhaps capitalism results from the fact that they can be confused with one another. If there is confusion, let's clarify it. IMO, the distinctions are straightforward. Wealth is a set of use values that can be used or consumed directly or productively (or wasted). By value we usually mean the amount of social labor time required to reproduce wealth. Less frequently, we spell out the whole definition by saying that value is a "social relation," and by that we mean that only under specific social conditions the social labor required to reproduce wealth is value (or the substance thereof), namely when producers are private and independent owners and interact via markets. By capital we usually mean value that "valorizes" itself, that is to say, value that replicates and augments itself. How does value valorizes itself thus becoming capital proper? Is it a mystical process? No, value valorizes itself by the repeated exploitation of fresh labor. How else can it do it if the ultimate resource there is is human labor time? Less frequently, we say that capital is a "social relation," and by that we mean that only under specific social conditions the labor power of direct producers becomes a commodity and is thus subject to economic coercion and exploitation; namely social conditions such that labor and wealth ownership are divorced. Capital is value that grows continuously by recurrently exploiting labor. Underlying the continuity of capital is the ever renewed, discrete exploitation of labor, which recurrently replaces the value of c altogether and produces value anew (v + s). Without it, the continuity of capital is not there. The continuity of capital is phenomenic. The recurrence of surplus value production out of fresh labor is essential. But let me go back to the original issue, and I'll comment below on the rest of your posting. In ancient societies, huge lumps of wealth were accumulated by extra-economic means. They did not lead to the remarkable wealth expansion the Western world witnessed from the 16th century on. Why? Karl Marx located the essential difference in the peculiar *economic* form in which labor is exploited under capitalism. Louis Proyect locates it in the accumulation of capital by extra-economic means, in colonial plunder, in imperialism. Louis believes this idea is needed to justify serious anti-imperialist views. I don't think so. Even Adam Smith was seriously and consistently anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, yet he believed colonial exploitation, imperialism, etc. where in the way of capitalism proper. IMO, people have a hard time with this because profit-making does push people to break all codes of conduct, legal or ethical. So it'd seem that imperialism and abuse arise from the nature of capital. Marx on the other hand took pains to show that extra-economic trickery and abuse were not the essential characteristics of capital, they are in fact common to most human history. The implication is that capital is more formidable the better it keeps its base instincts in check. The essence of capitalist production does not lie in violating legal and ethical codes, but in abiding by them, sticking to the rules of private ownership and voluntary commerce. But isn't the sheer force of the state in the background making sure these rules are enforced? Yes, absolutely. But being in the background enforcing rules and being in the forefront violating rules is an entirely different thing. Marx's insight is illuminating, because we can really understand real tensions going on in the world today by taking this distinction seriously (instead of erasing it by conflating imperialism and capitalism). Consider the following op-ed piece by Anthony Lewis in today's NY Times: But commitment to law is not a weakness. It has been the great strength of the United States from the beginning. Our leaders depart from that commitment at their peril, and ours, for a reason that Justice Louis D. Brandeis memorably expressed 75 years ago. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher," he wrote. "For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself." I'll leave it at that. Tom Walker continued: Or, to say the same a bit differently, capital is able to continually overcome an otherwise operative tendency for a fall in the rate of profit because of shape shifting between wealth, value and capital. I don't understand. What do you mean by overcoming the fall in the rate of profit by "shape shifting between wealth, value and capital"? A fall in the average rate of profit is offset by a lower va
Re: imperalist booty
there is the banana story, a pound earns the direct producer less than a dime and it sells for more than a dollar."Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)]Doug writes:>I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the FirstWorld is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which issomething I hear people assert pretty often.
Re: imperalist booty
Julio Huato wrote, >Considered as wealth, the colonial booty was already consumed, directly or >productively. Or it was wasted. Therefore, its value is gone to never >return. >The value of wealth, productive or not, the value of any non-directly-human >input of production, once consumed, is gone as well. If a society is to be >reproduced, then entirely new value needs to replace it, because the only >way value can be preserved beyond its existing use value form is to be >replaced altogether by newly created value. We need to be careful about three distinct relationships here that tend to get confused one for another: wealth, value and capital. Perhaps the confusion results from the fact that they can be readily exchanged for each other. Perhaps capitalism results from the fact that they can be confused with one another. Or, to say the same a bit differently, capital is able to continually overcome an otherwise operative tendency for a fall in the rate of profit because of shape shifting between wealth, value and capital. What you say is correct with respect to value. Value doesn't continue to exist beyond its consumption either directly or productively. Capital, however, describes a relationship that lays claim to a portion of value as it's being produced -- in theory the difference between the cost of reproducing labour power and the value produced by the expenditure of that labour power REGARDLESS OF THE COST OF THE OTHER INPUTS. That's a political claim and doesn't depend on any physical process of production. Capital itself _need not be productive at all_ but may be "fictitious." Wealth, I would like to say, is "disposable time and nothing more." If that sounds abrupt and enigmatic, the reference is to remarks by the old man (another year older, even) in the Grundrisse and ultimately to the anonymous 1821 pamphlet by Dilke. Money doesn't grow on trees but wealth can and does. Wealth falls from the sky like rain and shines down on us from the heavens. But an immense quantity of wealth can also be destroyed in the pursuit of a insignificant amount of value. That would appear to be the "stage" of capitalism that we're currently in: the one in which, overall, the expansion of value needed to service the accumulation of capital requires the destruction of more wealth than it creates. Unless we can sort the three out, we're seriously fucked. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: imperalist booty
Tom Walker wrote: But capital is all about the past: dead labour. Or so the Germans would have us believe. Those who appropriated the most dead labour in the past are entitled to appropriate more dead labour, compounded, in the future. Doesn't matter if you appropriated it there then and here now. Joan Robinson quipped the only thing worse than having one's labour power exploited is not having one's labour power exploited. Considered as wealth, the colonial booty was already consumed, directly or productively. Or it was wasted. Therefore, its value is gone to never return. The value of wealth, productive or not, the value of any non-directly-human input of production, once consumed, is gone as well. If a society is to be reproduced, then entirely new value needs to replace it, because the only way value can be preserved beyond its existing use value form is to be replaced altogether by newly created value. Even ancient old gold coins, to the extent they were found in the sea bottom or preserved in coffers or museums, ongoing labor allows their preservation. Stealing doesn't produce value and, therefore, doesn't produce surplus value. So, the question is: What pre- or co-existing social conditions in the West allowed for the value of the colonial booty to be replaced over and over again by ever-expanding newly created value in the West? The answer is in Marx's Capital, volume I, parts III-VII and it has a name: capitalist production proper, not primitive accumulation or "imperialism." That is why colonial plunder gave the West an advantage. Stealing a car or killing the driver doesn't make anyone a Toyota engineer. Now, if you're a struggling engineering student and cant pay your tuition and expenses, please stay away from my neighborhood. In the framework of conventional economics, sitting on wealth entitles the owner to at least the compounding "risk-free" return rate. But somewhere in the hidden assumptions (and revealing these assumptions is in part what Marx set out to do) is the fact that, without ongoing capitalist production ready to consume such wealth productively and replace its value, it's like going to a potluck dinner where every guest assumes someone else will bring the food. For years and every which way, I've been telling this story to Louis Proyect and others who haven't been able to read Capital yet. Nothing suggests to me that this time they'll see my point, but I keep trying. Because the old man from Trier persuaded me, I cling to the silly idea that he will persuade them as well... :-) Max B. Sawicky wrote: This is germane to the reparations question. The value of wealth in modern capitalist societies exists because of the labor of modern direct producers as we speak. To the extent this labor is highly socialized (i.e., interdependent), communism becomes a necessity. Communism is not about re-distributing ownership, but about changing the way we engage with nature its about socializing this "ownership" of nature on the basis of the increasing socialization of modern production and life. That said, we don't know whether the reparations movement will take off. It depends on how the struggle evolves in the poor countries. It's good to try, like demanding that banks erase the Third World's debt. It's not to repair the damage done. The directly injured are not around anymore. It's to fix the present and create a better future. If the idea is adopted by masses of people, then it'll be a real movement (for a reform nothing necessarily wrong with reforms). My point is that there's no theoretical justification for the reparations, neither in the framework of conventional economics nor in the Marxist critique like there was no theoretical justification for primitive accumulation. It's just class struggle. Julio _ De todo para la Mujer Latina http://latino.msn.com/mujer/
Imperialism, was Re: imperalist booty
(I changed the subject line because I think the question of imperialist booty interferes with the analysis of imperialism. It creates the illusion that the leopard could change its spots.) "Devine, James" wrote: > > > I think Lennon (or what it Lenin?) had something to say here. You're talking about > > _imperialist policy_, which may or may not have a direct economic motivation. (My > > feeling is that most policies reflect the combined interests of coalitions of > > powerful blocs, some of which typically are crudely economic. But not always.) On > > the other hand, sophisticated opponents of imperialism see it not as a policy but > > as a social organization or institution that developed historically and > > characterizes world capitalism (and changes over time, so there are stages of > > imperialism). Imperialist policy -- such as the fear of a good example that > > Chomsky points to -- is generated within the framework of imperialism as a social > > system. It's the system that helps determine which groups have the power to form > > coalitions to determine policy, among other things. This is my interest. I really don't understand why some marxists are so anxious to prove that capitalists or capitalism _need_ imperialism or that imperialism is nasty. We do have a fact of some 400 years duration that core capitalist states have been invariably imperialist, and continue to be so. If, as Jim puts it here, imperialism is a social system (my wording has usually been that it is the mode of existence of capitalism), then arguments that capitalism "needs" imperialist profits (or needs imperialism) are as beside the point as it would be to argue that an organism "needs" carbon! Capitalism and imperialism are inseparable, and would be _even if_ imperialism hurt rather than aided profits. The whole attempt to prove that imperialism is bad seems to me to undercut marxism. (I say in this in abstraction from the argument over whether Marx's "disapproval" of capitalism was a "moral" judgment or not. He certainly wanted to destroy it.) What we need to do at a level of theory is _understand_ or _explain_ imperialism, not endlessly argue how bad it is. At the level of practice what we need to do is build opposition to specific imperialist policies, such as, for example, the current u.s. occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of the former Yugoslavia, etc. U.S. troops out of everywhere. Carrol
Re: imperalist booty
Doug Henwood, >I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of >course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on >this list. But capital is all about the past: dead labour. Those who appropriated the most dead labour in the past are entitled to appropriate more dead labour, compounded, in the future. Doesn't matter if you appropriated it there then and here now. Joan Robinson quipped the only thing worse than having one's labour power exploited is not having one's labour power exploited. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: imperalist booty
If 'rich' means stock of wealth, then the present value of stolen resources (and labor, incl slaves, forgot about that till Louis noted it) is wealth that would not be held by the descendants of colonists, hence they would be a lot less rich. This is germane to the reparations question. mbs - Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: imperalist booty > Max B. Sawicky wrote: > > >My guess is that the present value of historic resource > >rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial > >areas is huge. > > I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of > course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on > this list. > > Doug
Re: imperalist booty
I wrote: >> The assertion [that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third] seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.)<< JKS writes: >No, I think it's based on a confusion between the moral and explanatory dimensions of value theory. I think that advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce.< I think it's a bit more complicated: for example, "third worldists" such as AG Frank argue that the Third World _could have_ and/or _would have_ developed and become capitalist if Europe hadn't conquered it, preventing that growth. (Of course, then the Third World would have dominated Europe, preventing _it_ from developing, no?) >Although it is controversial, Marx of course never regarded the appropriation and redistribution of surplus value, by itself, as wrong. He never thought that the workers deserved what they produced because they produced it. He thought profits arose from the capitalists appropriating the surplus over what the workers needed to live, but such redistribution requires something else other than the mere fact that something goes from a producer to a nonproducer to be the basis for a criticism. Otherwise those unable tow work would be entitled to nothing, and he expressly insists on their being provided for.< I dunno. Marx did use moral sounding language, such as likening the capitalists to vampires. My understanding is that Marx saw the production of surplus-value under capitalism as "immoral" in much of his presentation in CAPITAL, volume I, because it contradicted the bourgeoisie's own standards of morality (freedom, equality, etc.) That was his presentation, but I think it captures his ideas better (cf. CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM) to say that the problem is a lack of democracy in the production, allocation, and use of the surplus-product. Following this, I've defined capitalist surplus-value extraction as being "exploitation" in a moral sense because it's taxation without representation. (I presume, as I presume Marx did, that exploitation is akin to taxation, since it is based on inequalities of power.) >The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of be said by way of attacking imperialism against the third world even if it it had no effect, or a negative effect, on first world capitalist profits. It's unjust and creates unnecessary inequality (Marx would not like that, too bad for him); it's oppressive and destroys freedom and fosters misery, it subverts democracy and promotes war. So there are a lot of good reasons to oppose it even if the the first world is not mainly rich because it exploits the third world.< right. but what's "too bad for him" about Marx not liking the creation of unnecessary inequality? >If the concern is not moral but explanatory -- which, given the heated rhetoric of advocates I do not believe, that one cannot account for why imperialism occurs unless it is the source of first world wealth, that is a fallacy. Even if one insisted that a materialist explanation must be economic, all you would have to say is that imperialism against the third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits for the first world; it would not have to be the chief or primary source of profits. Indeed, it would not have to be net-profitable, as long as the losses in terms of the cost could be palmed on on others, e.g., the workers through taxes for defense, the deficit, etc.< right. Part of the problem is that "extreme Third Worldists" want to say that the domination of the third world is the _only_ source of first-world profits, while "extreme First Worldists" want to say that the simple story of capitalist appropriation of surplus-value (in CAPITAL) is the _only_ source of first-world profits. More sophisticated advocates of both viewpoints say that domination of the third world is _a_ source of first-world profits, but they often miss the fact that they're agreeing. That is, there's not that big a difference between those who see the first world as rich primarily at the expense of the third and those who say that the First World's exploitation of the third isn't primary even though it's a real phenomenon. >But in fact I think that a materialist explanation need not be economic in this sense and that actual imperialist activities in the third world often can be shown to have other bases than making profits. Vietnam is a big counterexample; attempts to make it out as a corporate grab for Southeast Asian natural resources were not persuasive, and the Pentagon's Paper's conclusion that it was largely about prest
Re: imperalist booty
Max B. Sawicky wrote: My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge. I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on this list. Doug
Re: imperalist booty
My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge. >From a little essay I wrote: For starters, Abdel-Fadil (1987) claims that colonial powers had seized 85 percent of the planet's surface area by 1914. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: imperalist booty [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:>I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often.< The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D.
Re: imperalist booty
Justin Schwartz wrote: advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce. Assuming that this is a reference to what I have said, let me reply. In the early stages of capitalism, there is little production of surplus value as understood in Marx's writings on the factory system. You had slavery or other forms of forced labor. You had outright theft of land from indigenous people, which was essential to capital accumulation in Europe. You had *theft* of already existing commodities such as gold and silver from the temples and treasuries of the Incans and Aztecs. You had a myriad of economic relationships that do not fit neatly into the M-C-M' paradigm, but that does not mean that capitalism (and imperialism) were not taking shape. Marx wrote: >>The history of the colonial administration of Holland and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century "is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness" [5] Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the chief agents in this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. An official report says: "This one town of Macassar, e.g., is full of secret prisons, one more horrible than the other, crammed with unfortunates, victims of greed and tyranny fettered in chains, forcibly torn from their families."<< I would say that *stealing* men is about as critical to the birth of capitalism as anything else. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: imperalist booty
No, I think it's based on a confusion between the moral and explanatory dimensions of value theory. I think that advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce. Although it is controversial, Marx of course never regarded the appropriation and redistribution of surplus value, by itself, as wrong. He never thought that the workers deserved what they produced because they produced it. He thought profits arose from the capitalists appropriating the surplus over what the workers needed to live, but such redistribution requires something else other than the mere fact that something goes from a producer to a nonproducer to be the basis for a criticism. Otherwise those unable tow work would be entitled to nothing, and he expressly insists on their being provided for. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of be said by way of attacking imperialism against the third world even if it it had no effect, or a negative effect, on first world capitalist profits. It's unjust and creates unnecessary inequality (Marx would not like that, too bad for him); it's oppressive and destroys freedom and fosters misery, it subverts democracy and promotes war. So there are a lot of good reasons to oppose it even if the the first world is not mainly rich because it exploits the third world. If the concern is not moral but explanatory -- which, given the heated rhetoric of advocates I do not believe, that one cannot account for why imperialism occurs unless it is the source of first world wealth, that is a fallacy. Even if one insisted that a materialist explanation must be economic, all you would have to say is that imperialism against the third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits for the first world; it would not have to be the chief or primary source of profits. Indeed, it would not have to be net-profitable, as long as the losses in terms of the cost could be palmed on on others, e.g., the workers through taxes for defense, the deficit, etc. But in fact I think that a materialist explanation need not be economic in this sense and that actual imperialist activities in the third world often can be shown to have other bases than making profits. Vietnam is a big counterexample; attempts to make it out as a corporate grab for Southeast Asian natural resources were not persuasive, and the Pentagon's Paper's conclusion that it was largely about prestige in the cold war rings true. Likewise the wars against Nicaragua and Cuba -- here Chomsky's talk of "the threat of a good example" is more plausible. The US ruling classes definitely do not want successful paths of independent development with freedom and prosperity. Ultimately they may worry that this would threaten their profits, but that's quite indirect. They don't really stand to make money squashing Nicaragua, probably the reverse, and the Cuba embargo may help ADM but hurts the oil companies and the sugar ones. One might go one, but there are many reasons why the US commits imperialist acts, and the profit motive enters as a constraining background factor in most of them, rather than as a direct motivation. jks --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist > booty)] > > Doug writes:>I keep wanting to see some rigorous > proof that the First > World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, > which is > something I hear people assert pretty often.< > > The assertion seems to be based on the implicit > assumption that first-world workers don't produce > surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the > whole story is one of redistribution between regions > (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) > > (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) > > Jim D. > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Re: imperalist booty
Jim, this list is not x-rated. You should not discuss your sex life here. On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 02:15:25PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: > > (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) > > Jim D. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
imperalist booty
[was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:>I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often.< The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D.
