Re: [Marxism] on economics & Michael Roberts

[Shalva Eliava via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

"Marx's entire life's work is premised on the fact that workers have the
capacity to organise to replace capitalism. Given that reality, that
some Marxists feel the need to claim that the LTRPF 'leaves little to no
room for the political' is slightly odd."

Well it is odd, but it's the basis of fundamentalists' analysis. Here is
Sherman writing in Foundations of Radical Political Economy (1987):

___
There seem to be in Marx two different views of values and prices that
surface at different points in his work. On the one hand, Marx takes for
granted the labor theory of value, which he took - and developed - from
Ricardo. In this view, Marx sees certain inexorable laws of capitalism
deriving from the labor theory of value. The notion of such inexorable
laws derives partly from the classical economists and partly from Marx’s
Hegelian tradition. The other view in Marx, which conforms more to the
genius of his own historical approach, visualizes prices and wages as
the result of human relationships and class conflict.

Marx’s first view, the labor theory of value as the foundation for a set
of inexorable laws, is followed by a group often labeled as
fundamentalist, since they agree that the fundamentals of political
economy are all presented by Marx. Three leading members of this group
are Anwar Sheikh, Willi Semmler, and John Weeks, all of whom consider
themselves to be “orthodox” Marxists - though they differ among
themselves on some more minor points. Thus, John Weeks argues that
Marx’s work is characterized by the “central role of the law of value
and its most important manifestation, the tendency of the rate of profit
to fall. This interpretation of Marx’s work...can be called…’orthodox’
Marxism.”

The emphasis of Weeks (and Shaikh and Semmler) is on the acceptance and
elaboration of the labor theory of value as found in their
interpretation of Marx. It is an economic determinist view in that
prices, profits, and wages are determined by impersonal economic forces
and not primarily by class conflicts. The theory is stated in terms of
the technology of commodity production rather than human relations: the
value of any commodity is the inherent amount of socially necessary
labor embodied in the commodity. Thus, Weeks even claims that Frederick
Engels “completely misconstrued Marx’s value theory” because Engels
emphasized that class conflicts determine profit and wage levels and,
therefore, income distribution, whereas Weeks believes that Marx argued
only in terms of the inherent value of any commodity, including labor.
In Weeks’ view, class conflict cannot change what the theory of value
has ordained.

The fundamentalists then argue, as Weeks stressed in the quote, that the
labor theory of value inexorably leads to a tendency of the rate of
profit to fall. This is seen as Marx’s central contribution, and the
sole cause of economic crises. In understanding
capitalism...fundamentalists downplay any views based on class
relations, lack of demand by exploited workers, or extensive monopoly.
In this view of economics as a set of impersonal laws of value, coupled
with their tendency to downplay messy phenomena like insufficient demand
or monopoly power in setting prices, they are remarkably like the
neoclassical economists [S.E.: indeed, latter day fundamentalist Andrew
Kliman regularly cites the work of right-wing economists to argue
against claims by other leftists that the worker’s share has declining;
c.f. http://bit.ly/1Z1anSN and http://bit.ly/1FxJI8u and
http://pages.citebite.com/v4j6x6x7j0qsh ]. When asked about the price of
a ton of steel, both fundamentalists and neoclassicals will discuss the
inherent value of the commodities (including labor) that went into it.
Both treat labor as being like any other commodity, and neither
discusses the human relationships involved.

Bowles and Gintis argue that Marx himself, because of his classical and
Hegelian background, sometimes remained in the fundamentalist commodity
mode of thought (though he was its strongest critic at other times).
Thus, Marx argued for socially necessary labortime as the value of any
commodity on the following reasoning: First, Marx argues that every
market exchange (under pure and perfect competition) must be the
exchange of two equal values. Second, he contends that the value must be
given by something contained in each commodity. Marx goes on to argue
that, if two things are being exchanged there must exist in equal
quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be
equal to a third, which is itself neither the one or the other. What is
this mysterious something giving value to all commodities? Marx 

Re: [Marxism] on economics & Michael Roberts

[Shalva Eliava via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I can't say that I've read much of Michael Roberts' non-blog work (or that of 
the other new prophets of "the tendency" like Carchedi and Kliman), but I have 
to agree with the old RPE critique (explicated best in Howard Sherman's work) 
of their intellectual forefathers that "the tendency" is a technologically 
determinant view of capitalism that leaves little to no room for the political. 

Then again, having read some of his blog posts on the situation in Greece and 
Ukraine, Roberts does seem to think that there are political solutions to the 
crises in those states that do in fact sound Keynesian. The question that is 
always in the back of my mind when I read those posts is why any revolutionary 
movement should bother to do those things if they will inevitably hit up 
against the immoveable object that is "the tendency"...especially if we all 
acknowledge that socialism in one state is impossible.



> 29 сент. 2015 г., в 19:39, MM via Marxism  
> написал(а):
> 
>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2015, at 2:51 AM, Gary MacLennan via Marxism 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> It seems to me that Roberts tends to dismiss the political and place  all
>> his bets on the economic structure. Thus he has talked of the need for
>> capital to go through a crash to restore profitability.  But that will have
>> to be set within the political.
> 
> Roberts doesn’t write much explicitly about political engagement, but I don’t 
> think this is at all accurate as a reading of his orientation. I don’t have 
> the reference handy, but in at least one of his video lectures he makes very 
> clear that when he speaks of the kind of correction that capital(ism) 
> requires in order to re-establish profitability, he isn’t for a moment 
> advocating that as an ideal solution for workers - rather that it is simply, 
> unavoidably, what capitalism as a system requires in order to perpetuate 
> itself, and Keynesian solutions don’t resolve the underlying tendency towards 
> crisis. He ends the talk by saying something to the effect, “… and that’s 
> what capitalism will have to do in order to restore profitability again next 
> time, unless the working class puts a stop to it and builds a different 
> system.” (Very rough paraphrase from memory.) It’s easy to wish that he would 
> provide more political recommendations, but I think that simply isn’t how he 
> sees his role or his strengths.
> 
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/shalva.eliava%40outlook.com

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] on economics & Michael Roberts

[John Edmundson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Shalva wrote:

"I can't say that I've read much of Michael Roberts' non-blog work (or that
of the other new prophets of "the tendency" like Carchedi and Kliman), but
I have to agree with the old RPE critique (explicated best in Howard
Sherman's work) of their intellectual forefathers that "the tendency" is a
technologically determinant view of capitalism that leaves little to no
room for the political."

Marx's entire life's work is premised on the fact that workers have the
capacity to organise to replace capitalism. Given that reality, that some
Marxists feel the need to claim that the LTRPF "leaves little to no room
for the political" is slightly odd. If it were an inflexible "technologically
determinant view of capitalism", it would have either been objectively
disproved or we would be on an inexorable and rapid path toward the
overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of communism. Instead, the
'LTRPF' is quite clearly described as just that, a *tendency*, and subject
to many countervailing forces, which makes for a fluid and unpredictable
world. It is precisely within that fluidity and unpredictability that the "room
for the political" exists.

Certainly there have been Marxists in the past, and I am sure there are
some today, who see these things in mechanistic and inevitable, rather than
dynamic and dialectical ways. That such people and views exist does not
disprove the LTRPF.
Cheers,
John
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] on economics & Michael Roberts

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I have never hidden my inability to understand economics especially in its
mathematical guise. I sucked at maths at school and now have no time or
inclination to fix all that up. But I have a fairly rudimentary
understanding of the vaguest of outlines of the Tendency of the Rate of
Profit to Fall  (TRPF) school of thought that Michael Roberts belongs to.

I read his blogs faithfully and puzzle over the stats and the graphs that
Lou seems to love so much. His latest post on "crawl to crash?" predicts
Armageddon within the next 3 years. For all I know he is probably correct.
But what I sort of do not get is that he dismisses the alternative of a
Keynesian solution out of hand.  Of course Keynesianism is tied to
increasing demand and that I suppose has no impact upon the  TRPF.

It seems to me that Roberts tends to dismiss the political and place  all
his bets on the economic structure. Thus he has talked of the need for
capital to go through a crash to restore profitability.  But that will have
to be set within the political.  There is already a struggle being slowly
mounted against austerity, which is the political prelude to the crash (is
it not?). I recall reading somewhere that Hayek's preferred option during
the Great Depression was to do nothing and let it rip. I cannot see that
option being advanced now without a true fight. Perhaps it is the residue
of Maoist thought in me (and I would always sworn I was immune) but if
politics is not in command, at least it is never absent.

Meanwhile, Corbyn has placed his bets squarely on Keynesianism and is
rolling out Stiglitz and Piketty. Australia's own Bill Mitchell has
criticized Corbyn for talking about the deficit and for committing himself
to "fixing" it.  But, alas, the finer details of Mitchell's New Monetary
Theory remain outside my range of understanding. What I think I understand
though is that Keynesianism will be insufficient and that only a thorough
turn to a planned socialist economy can avert disaster.

My interpretation is that Corbyn seems to be promising a return to the
so-called "mixed economy" of the 40s to early 70s. Good luck on that one.

Back in Oz though, I look at Corbyn's rise with the sharpest of envy.  Even
the slightest talk of Keynes is beyond us, so committed are all the parties
to neoclassical economics and austerity. The truth is that so battered are
we and so stifling is the grip of neoliberal thought that I would welcome a
break to Keynes, or at least a widening of the debate..

comradely

Gary
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] on economics & Michael Roberts

[MM via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

> On 29 Sep 2015, at 2:51 AM, Gary MacLennan via Marxism 
>  wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that Roberts tends to dismiss the political and place  all
> his bets on the economic structure. Thus he has talked of the need for
> capital to go through a crash to restore profitability.  But that will have
> to be set within the political.

Roberts doesn’t write much explicitly about political engagement, but I don’t 
think this is at all accurate as a reading of his orientation. I don’t have the 
reference handy, but in at least one of his video lectures he makes very clear 
that when he speaks of the kind of correction that capital(ism) requires in 
order to re-establish profitability, he isn’t for a moment advocating that as 
an ideal solution for workers - rather that it is simply, unavoidably, what 
capitalism as a system requires in order to perpetuate itself, and Keynesian 
solutions don’t resolve the underlying tendency towards crisis. He ends the 
talk by saying something to the effect, “… and that’s what capitalism will have 
to do in order to restore profitability again next time, unless the working 
class puts a stop to it and builds a different system.” (Very rough paraphrase 
from memory.) It’s easy to wish that he would provide more political 
recommendations, but I think that simply isn’t how he sees his role or his 
strengths.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com