[Marxism-Thaxis] 10-point platform
THE ORGANIZER NEWSPAPER P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140. Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415) 626-1217. email: theorgani...@earthlink.net> PLEASE EXCUSE DUPLICATE POSTINGS Dear Sisters and Brothers: Greetings. On Monday, January 18, we are sending out publicly the 10-point platform of the Workers' Emergency Recovery Campaign (WERC) to the media; to all our email lists; to a compiled list of top labor, Black, Latino, community and church organizations, and to the Obama transition team, Moveon.org and others. We would very much want to have your name on the list of the endorsers of this platform and campaign. Over the past week, we have received dozens of new endorsements in support of the 10-Point WERC platform. They include Nancy Wohlforth* (Co-Chair, Pride at Work), Cynthia McKinney (former Member of Congress and 2008 presidential candidate of the Green Party), Cindy Sheehan (Gold Star antiwar mom and 2008 independent candidate for U.S. Congress), Gene Bruskin (labor and antiwar activist), Donna Dewitt* (president, South Carolina AFL-CIO), Dennis Serrette* (CWA Political Director), Bruce Dixon and Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report, Pat Gowens (Welfare Warriors), Nativo Lopez (Hermandad Mexicana), Mark Dudzic* (national organizer, Labor Party), Al Rojas (Frente de Mexicanos en el Exterior), Jerry Gordon (veteran antiwar activist), Clarence Thomas* (Exec. Bd., ILWU Local 10), Kali Akuno (Gulf Coast Reconstruction activist), Colia Clark (veteran of the Civil Rights Movement), Larry Pinkney (Black Activist Writers Guild and The Black Commentator) -- and the list goes on and on. (* organizations and titles listed for id. only) There is one more important endorsement that I would like to highlight -- that of the national Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) -- as it shows the gigantic potential of this campaign. All 10 points of this platform have widespread support among millions of people who voted for Barack Obama because they want real change. But winning these demands will require building an independent national campaign and an independent movement in the streets to impose them on the powers-that-be. We aim to build united front committees of endorsers, organize forums, and work to promote marches and actions around these demands. With these endorsements, we hope to get many union local endorsements, and, hopefully, some union and organizational funding to host a national conference to further advance this effort. At this writing we are getting close to the 500 signatories we projected at the outset of this petition-gathering campaign. [See first list of 100 endorsers below; the remaining names are still being compiled from petition boards and email endorsements.] Can we add your name to the list of endorsers? Please let us know by Sunday, January 17, so that your name can be included in our mass mailing and posting. If yes, please fill out the coupon below so that we know how you would like to be identified. Also, please list if your organization and title should be listed for id. purposes only. Thanks, in advance, for your support. In Solidarity, Alan Benjamin Editor, The Organizer Newspaper *** JOIN US IN ENDORSING & PROMOTING THE WORKERS' EMERGENCY RECOVERY CAMPAIGN (WERC) In recent months we have witnessed billions of dollars pumped into the financial institutions WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Reckless behavior and greed have been graced with the most extravagant rewards, allowing the rich to get even richer. After receiving their bailout, A.I.G. executives resumed their plans for a retreat at a lavish resort. Meanwhile, foreclosures have risen, unemployment has soared, and misery has spread with virtually nothing being done for the millions of workers suffering from these afflictions. We cannot sit back and simply hope that things will get better. The financial executives have organized themselves and lobbied for bailouts. We must now do the same. We must organize ourselves and mount a campaign, insisting that government programs benefit the majority of the population first and foremost, not the super wealthy small minority. At this historic crossroads, as we face the prospects of another Great Depression, we, the undersigned dedicate ourselves to forging the broadest unity in action among those in the labor movement, Black and Latino organizations, immigrant rights groups, and antiwar and other social justice protest movements to secure the emergency measures listed below. We endorse these demands as necessary steps to address the pressing needs of working people and the oppressed in general so that we can all enjoy a secure and comfortable life and find relief from an economic crisis we had no part in creating. We are committed to reaching out to more workers and encouraging them to endorse our demands an
[Marxism-Thaxis] Toward a Left
Whether or not there are or are not, should be or should not be, mass demonstrations currently is not relevant to my original post. It is the absence of a _coherent_ left, visible as (more or less) a UNITY by those not presently part of it that I note. My point about the '60s was not that, gee, people were demonstrating but rather, Really -- it might look incoherent to people engaged in it it, but actually all the main 'streams' of activity were fairly cohetrent. That it was no senseless at the time to speak of "The Left" and mean (equally) the SWP, the CP, local units of the NAACP,SDS, CORE, countless unknown local groups, SNCC, et cetera and rightly so: they constituted a rough and ready unity or coherence, as much as some of them hated each other. ^^^ CB: The term at the time was "the movement" for what is being referred to as the left in this passage. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
The Internationale From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the 1990 folk album, see The Internationale (album). The Internationale L'Internationale in the original French. International Anthem of International Socialist Movement International Anarchist Movement International Communist Movement International Democratic Movement Also known as L'Internationale (French) Lyrics Eugène Pottier, 1871 Music Pierre De Geyter, 1888 Adopted 1890s Music sample Russian version of The Internationale Problems listening to this file? See media help. The Internationale (L'Internationale in French) is a famous socialist, communist, social-democratic and anarchist anthem and one of the most widely recognized songs in the world. The Internationale became the anthem of international socialism. Its original French refrain is C'est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L'Internationale/ Sera le genre humain. (Freely translated: "This is the struggle final/ Let us group together and tomorrow/ The Internationale/ Will be the race human.") The Internationale has been translated into many of the world's languages. It is sung traditionally with the hand raised in a clenched fist salute. The Internationale is sung not only by communists but also (in many countries) by socialists or social democrats, as well as anarchists. Contents [hide] 1 Original French lyrics and copyright controversy 2 Translations into other languages 2.1 Russian lyrics 2.2 English lyrics 3 Instrumental recordings 4 See also 4.1 Other language versions 5 References 6 External links [edit] Original French lyrics and copyright controversy The original French words were written in June 1871 by Eugène Pottier (1816–1887, previously a member of the Paris Commune)[1] and were originally intended to be sung to the tune of La Marseillaise.[2] Pierre De Geyter (1848–1932) set the poem to music in 1888.[3] His melody was first publicly performed in July 1888[4] and became widely used soon after. In an unsuccessful attempt to save Pierre De Geyter's job as a woodcarver, the 6,000 leaflets printed by Lille printer Bolboduc only mentioned the French version of his family name (Degeyter). In 1904, Pierre's brother Adolphe was induced by the Lille mayor Gustave Delory to claim copyright, so that the income of the song would continue to go to Delory's French Socialist Party. Pierre De Geyter lost the first copyright case in 1914, but after his brother committed suicide and left a note explaining the fraud, Pierre was declared the copyright owner by a court of appeal in 1922.[5] Pierre De Geyter died in 1932. His music of the Internationale may be copyrighted in France until October 2017. The duration of copyright in France is 70 years following the end of the year when the author died, plus 6 years and 152 days to compensate for World War I, and 8 years and 120 days to compensate for World War II respectively.[6] However, the applicability of the wartime copyright extensions is a matter of current litigation.[7] In 2005, Le Chant du Monde, the corporation administering the authors' rights, asked Pierre Merejkowsky, the film director and an actor of Insurrection / résurrection, to pay €1,000 for whistling the song for seven seconds.[8] However, as the Internationale music was published before 1 July 1909 outside the United States of America, it is in the public domain in the USA.[9] Pierre De Geyter's music is also in the public domain in countries and areas whose copyright durations are authors' lifetime plus 75 years or less. As Eugène Pottier died in 1887, his original French lyrics are in the public domain. Gustave Delory once acquired the copyright of his lyrics through the songwriter G B Clement having bought it from Pottier's widow.[ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
French lyrics Literal English translation First stanza Debout, les damnés de la terre Debout, les forçats de la faim La raison tonne en son cratère C'est l'éruption de la fin Du passé faisons table rase Foules, esclaves, debout, debout Le monde va changer de base Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| Arise, wretched of the earth Arise, convicts of hunger Reason thunders in its volcano This is the eruption of the end Of the past let us wipe the slate clean Masses, slaves, arise, arise The world is about to change its foundation We are nothing, let us be all |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| Second stanza Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes Décrétons le salut commun Pour que le voleur rende gorge Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot Soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge Battons le fer quand il est chaud |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| There are no supreme saviours Neither God, nor Caeser, nor tribune. Producers, let us save ourselves Decree the common welfare That the thief might bear his throat, That the spirit be pulled from its prison Let us fan the forge ourselves Strike the iron while it is hot |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| Third stanza L'état comprime et la loi triche L'impôt saigne le malheureux Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux C'est assez, languir en tutelle L'égalité veut d'autres lois Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| The state represses and the law cheats The tax bleeds the unfortunate No duty is imposed on the rich 'Rights of the poor' is a hollow phrase Enough languishing in custody Equality wants other laws: No rights without obligations, it says, And as well, no obligations without rights |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| Fourth stanza Hideux dans leur apothéose Les rois de la mine et du rail Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose Que dévaliser le travail Dans les coffres-forts de la bande Ce qu'il a créé s'est fondu En décrétant qu'on le lui rende Le peuple ne veut que son dû. |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| Hideous in their self-glorification Kings of the mine and rail Have they ever done anything other Than steal work? Into the coffers of that lot, What work creates has melted In demanding that they give it back The people wants only its due. |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| Fifth stanza Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées Paix entre nous, guerre aux tyrans Appliquons la grève aux armées Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales A faire de nous des héros Ils sauront bientôt que nos balles Sont pour nos propres généraux |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| The kings make us drunk with their fumes, Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants! Let the armies go on strike, Guns in the air, and break ranks If these cannibals insist On making heroes of us, Soon they will know our bullets Are for our own generals |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| Sixth stanza Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes Le grand parti des travailleurs La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes L'oisif ira loger ailleurs Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours Un de ces matins disparaissent Le soleil brillera toujours. |: C'est la lutte finale Groupons-nous, et demain L'Internationale Sera le genre humain :| Labourers, peasants, we are The great party of workers The earth belongs only to men The idle will go reside elsewhere How much of our flesh they feed on, But if the ravens and vultures Disappear one of these days The sun will always shine |: This is the struggle final Let us group together, and tomorrow The Internationale Will be the human race :| This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Defining the working class changingly
M-TH: Defining the working class changingly Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Aug 25 10:38:09 MDT 1998 Previous message: M-TH: end of cooperation with Straight Facts Radio. Next message: M-TH: BP & Amoco Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] >From another list: http://www.wpb.be/icm/icm.htm This article, "The changes in the composition of the working class and the proletariat" by Comrade Jean Pestieau of the Workers' Party of Belgium and presented at the International Communist Seminar in Brussels is very relevant in this day and age when the bourgeoisie is claiming that the proletariat is becoming "insignificant" as the economies of advanced countries shifts from industry to services. In this well researched presentation, Comrade Jean Pestieau refutes this claim of the "insignificance" of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. I must thanks the WPB for this article since it is a question I have been interested in for a long time. Since it contains some graphics, I have provided the link above and the first section of the article. ... Top of article follows:= === International Communist Seminar Brussels, May 2-4, 1998 The changes in the composition of the working class and the proletariat Jean Pestieau Workers' Party of Belgium Summary To say that in the industrialised countries, the working class is disappearing as monopoly capitalism develops, is false. To the contrary, its composition is changing with the development of technologies that incorporate more and more intellectual labour in the production of commodities. The working class is becoming more and more prominent in the services sector. While acknowledging this evolution, the leading role of the industrial proletariat - both in the industrialised countries and in the Third World - must be underscored in terms of its conscientisation, its organisation and its unification of all workers in their fight for socialist revolution. The myth of the end of the working class According to the majority of bourgeois ideologues and to the reformists, today's workers in the industrialised countries are a species on the road to extinction. Capital would no longer need the working class to develop. The Manifesto of the communist party would be a thing of the past, as it claims: "To the extent that the bourgeoisie develops, i.e. capital, also the proletariat develops, the class of modern workers who survive only on the condition that they find employment, and who will find employment only if their labour increases capital." (1) Continue: http://www.wpb.be/icm/icm.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The changes in the composition of the working class and the proletariat
International Communist Seminar Brussels, May 2-4, 1998 The changes in the composition of the working class and the proletariat Jean Pestieau Workers' Party of Belgium Summary To say that in the industrialised countries, the working class is disappearing as monopoly capitalism develops, is false. To the contrary, its composition is changing with the development of technologies that incorporate more and more intellectual labour in the production of commodities. The working class is becoming more and more prominent in the services sector. While acknowledging this evolution, the leading role of the industrial proletariat - both in the industrialised countries and in the Third World - must be underscored in terms of its conscientisation, its organisation and its unification of all workers in their fight for socialist revolution. The myth of the end of the working class According to the majority of bourgeois ideologues and to the reformists, today's workers in the industrialised countries are a species on the road to extinction. Capital would no longer need the working class to develop. The Manifesto of the communist party would be a thing of the past, as it claims: "To the extent that the bourgeoisie develops, i.e. capital, also the proletariat develops, the class of modern workers who survive only on the condition that they find employment, and who will find employment only if their labour increases capital." (1) To support their theses, those ideologues refer to the evolution of the distribution of the active population in the three major traditional sectors of the economy: the primary sector: agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the secondary sector or the industrial sector: manufacturing and extraction, electricity, gas and water, construction, the tertiary sector or the services sector: trade, finance, public administration, communications, education, health care,... From Tables I and II (2) it can be learnt that, in the industrialised countries, there is a net growth of the tertiary sector to the detriment of the secondary sector, in the Third World countries, there is a contrasting growth of the industrial and services sectors sto the detriment of agriculture. This suffices for the bourgeois theoreticians to bid the proletariat goodbye: "By generating more than 60% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and of the employment in the industrialised countries, the tertiary sector is dominating the world economy. (...) The developing countries are still lagging behind, with ony 47% of their GDP and 25% of their employment attributable to the tertiary sector." (3) Before discussing the class content of the tertiary sector, a few preliminary remarks are called for. 1. It is not the tertiary sector that dominates the world economy, but the multinational corporations whose main activity is the production of material goods. Here's an indicative classification (4) comparing the size of some States (GDP) with that of the 10 major multinational corporations* (business volume), in declining order: Indonesia *General Motors Turkey Denmark *Ford South Africa *Toyota *Exxon *Royal Dutch/Shell Norway Poland Portugal *IBM Malaysia Venezuela Pakistan *Unilever *Nestlé *Sony Egypt Nigeria The cumulated size of the two major multinationals is comparable to that of India or the Netherlands; that of the three major MNC's to Russia or Mexico; that of the four major MNC's to Brasil or China; and that of the ten major ones to Great Britain. 2. The advanced capitalist countries concentrate the biggest part of commodity production. In 1993, France and the US had 4 respectively 18.1 million wage earners in the manufacturing industry, on a total active population of 25 respectively 139 million, while Mexico had 850.000 on an active population of 33 million. In the same manufacturing industry, France and the US had 0.2 respectively 1.2 million independent workers as against Mexico's 1.5 million. These three countries are members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), by virtue of which they have unified statistics. (5) These figures show the numerical importance of the wage earners in the manufacturing industry for the two industrialised countries (France and the US), where the tertiary sector is the major sector. The comparison with Mexico, one of the most industrialised Third World countries, is self-evident. 3. The development of the tertiary sector cannot hide the cancer that grows with the capitalist system: the increasing gap between the available work force on the world market, and the real existing jobs. (6) The bourgeois ideologues don't see any solution within the capitalist system to absorb the constantly increasing additional work force. In the industrial sector as well as in the services sector, the ex
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
I like Billy Braggs' version. Do you have it ? Jean-Christophe Helary On samedi 17 janv. 09, at 00:05, Charles Brown wrote: > French lyrics Literal English translation ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Internationale
Through the magic of google (smile) http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billy+bragg/the+internationale_20018240.html Stand up, all victims of oppression For the tyrants fear your might Dont cling so hard to your possessions For you have nothing, if you have no rights Let racist ignorance be ended For respect makes the empires fall Freedom is merely privilege extended Unless enjoyed by one and all Chorus: So come brothers and sisters For the struggle carries on The internationale Unites the world in song So comrades come rally For this is the time and place The international ideal Unites the human race Let no one build walls to divide us Walls of hatred nor walls of stone Come greet the dawn and stand beside us Well live together or well die alone In our world poisoned by exploitation Those who have taken, now they must give And end the vanity of nations Weve but one earth on which to live And so begins the final drama In the streets and in the fields We stand unbowed before their armour We defy their guns and shields When we fight, provoked by their aggression Let us be inspired by like and love For though they offer us concessions Change will not come from above >>> JC Helary 01/16/2009 10:23 AM >>> I like Billy Braggs' version. Do you have it ? Jean-Christophe Helary On samedi 17 janv. 09, at 00:05, Charles Brown wrote: > French lyrics Literal English translation ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Struggle against exploitation as learned and drive
M-TH: Struggle against exploitation as learned and drive Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Sep 8 14:39:51 MDT 1998 Previous message: M-TH: Book Review- "Reds". Next message: M-TH: Internationalism includes national tasks Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] >>> Andrew Wayne Austin writes: Charles Brown wrote: > Some material interests, like hunger do not have to be learned. They are > instinctive to the individual. First, hunger is a drive, not an instinct. An instinct is a complex set of behaviors that do not have to be learned. A spider building a web is an example of an instinct. Unlike spiders, human beings must learn to build their webs, so to speak. __ Charles: OK . Do humans have any instincts at all ,left ? All of our complex sets of behaviors have significant learning ? We have no pure instincts left. ___ But even if we were to consider hunger as an instinct, it is not an analog to class struggle since both workers and capitalists hunger. ___ Charles: The reasoning here would be as follows: If a capitalist were robbed of the fruits of his labor, he would fight to get them too. But, of course, capitalists are not, by definition ,robbed of the fruits of their labor. __ Unlike hunger, however, the interests of the capitalist in exploiting labor-power and the interests of the worker in resisting this exploitation, are mutually exclusive (although they can be rationalized to be mutually beneficial). Charles: See what I say about your first analogy. That is it is not a good analogy. Also, it gets confused because you are. All humans have hunger and capitalists are humans (supposedly), so capitalists have hunger. But it is not true that all classes are exploited. So, no analogy can be set up between hunger and struggle for the fruits of one's labor. __ > What I am saying is that an individual who is exploited, i.e. labors and > then has the fruits of that labor taken does not have to learn to > dislike it. If the circumstances under which people labor are bad enough then I think some people realize this. But I don't think this is properly described as an instinct. I think it is experiential, that is learned from experience, that the given conditions are beneficial to one's oppressor and contrary to one's well-being. On the other hand, I think that a majority of workers today are grateful that there are entrepreneurs who have the good skill to create jobs. I do not believe that more than tiny minority of workers understand that the fruits of their labor is appropriated by the capitalist. I think they believe the wage is fair. __ Charles: Again, all human complex behavior has a significant learning component, i.e. experiential. Some of it is entirely learned or experiential. But different HISTORICAL epochs have different experiences. So, for something under the ancient slave mode to be the same thing- class struggle - as in the capitalist mode there must be something else common besides EXPERIENCE, because by definiton the experiences are different. What is common is the "drive" to own and consume the fruits of one's own labor. As to workers not understanding that they are exploited, that's the "shell game" I was referring too. The exploitation is not open and obvious, so the drive doesn't kick in. Again the class awareness is not instinctive or a drive. That is learned and combines with the individual displeasure at being ripped off. > It's like avoiding being murdered, or better, tortured. Individuals > don't have to learn to dislike being murdered or tortured, but they > would have to learn that they are murdered or tortured because they are > part of a certain social group. This is a good analogy. But I would submit to you that dislike for torture is not an instinctual response but rather is reflexive. I want to be precise in our terms. (we have to note that some people get off on pain.) _ Charles: OK drive , reflex. Of course, there are in born and learned reflexes too. Getting off on pain is learned, in my opinion. It is certainly true that humans are characterized by an enormous capacity to repress or reverse inborn reflexes and instincts. This is our unique characteristic. You know, we can fly and swim under water, beyond our instincts and natural abilities or inclinations. Durkheim wrote on suicide, for example. _- > Would you elaborate what you mean in your last sentence ? My last sentence was a statement against the theory that history and culture reflect some intrinsic aspect of human biology. The range of human variation, within and across populations, is far too narrow to account for the wide range of historical and cultural variability. Therefore class struggle is a social and historical event and state of affairs, not t
[Marxism-Thaxis] Real money vs Credit money
TH: Money, money, money, must be funny... Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se Tue Sep 22 03:08:35 MDT 1998 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-September/011456.html Previous message: M-TH: Re: Swedish Elections -- postscript Next message: M-TH: LBJ tapes released Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] This discussion on whether we have real money or just credit money is going on on the Capital Reading Group list. It might interest subscribers here. Cheers, Hugh ___ Joaquin writes: >Credit-money, or contemporary money, can be called "symbolic money". When >Marx says (DK I ch 2 ph 14) "the fact that money can, in certain functions, >be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken >notion, that it is itself a mere symbol", that is correct for his time, but >not for ours. For example, when he speaks of world money, Marx mentions >approvingly James Steuart assert that world money is only gold and silver >(DK I ch 3). > >The credit system as analyzed by Marx has the metal money at his base. For >Marx "money, the common form in which all the commodities as values are >transformed, the universal commodity, must be itself a particular commodity >between the others, for they must be measured with it not only ideally, but >must be exchanged and barterd for money in the real exchange" (Grundrisse p >82-83 Dietz Verlag edition), that is "(Money) value is determined by the >labour-time required for its production, and is expressed by the quantity of >any other commodity that costs the same amount of labour-time" (DK ch2 >ph15). All this is coherent with metal-money, but today -- contrary to >Marx time, >money is created by convention, but is still a real thing -- >it is real symbolic money >- If the gold in Ford Knox is not at the base of the international dolars >(reserve dolars): Why the rest of the world still makes up their reserves in >dolars and not in gold? This and parallel questions deserve a good, long and >hard theoretical work by marxists, just only initiated (Suzanne de Brunhoff, >Werner Bonefeld and others) This is conceptually impossible. "Real symbolic" money is meaningless. There is no way capitalism today has evaded the contradictions of commodity exchange and circulation including money as a commodity. If it had, our problems would be solved, we wouldn't need socialism, and all we would need would be the sensible and enlightened management of a thoroughly socialized world economic system. The current calls by Soros, Blair and others for transnational regulatory authorities would be the ultimate in economic wisdom, and -- the crisis would never have arisen in the first place! But the crisis is there, always was and always will be until capitalism is replaced by socialism. What credit-money represents is just an ever-more mediated and indirect pointer to the real universal commodity. The insanity of capitalist relations in a society where the forces of production are as socialized as they are today is revealed by the acute embarrassment of bourgeois economics in relation to money and gold. They are still desperately trying to pretend that the value of money is the result of political decree (this is the basis of Joaquin's position and Chris Burford's view of the 30-year US long bond) and not tied to any real commodity such as gold. But the noose is tightening as the crisis develops. The way credit-money operates during periods of relative capitalist expansion (bull markets in the metropolises) gives us an idea of how prices and labour-equivalents could work in a socialist economy that's got beyond the Law of Value (ie achieved world hegemony and surpassed capitalist productivity), but it is completely deceptive when it comes to understanding the nature of money in capitalist society. As we shall see as the crisis develops and deepens. Cheers, Hugh We're still arguing about money. Cheers, Hugh John Ky writes: >Whatever the case, the government plays by certain rules to >ensure stability. You don't see a government in a stable >country making wild decrees about money all the time do you? Sweden is relatively stable. The government put short term interest rates up to 500 per cent a few years ago. How wild do you want?? Some countries fluctuate wildly between stable and unstable. The stability is not in the hands of their governments to decree. Governments make decrees about money all the time, from interest rates to printing orders. The wildness or not can only be gauged after the event by the behaviour of the economic system. John assumes that money is a matter of government control, mainly imperialist US control. He's in for just as big a shock as other believers in this fairy tale. >Joaquin: >>Credit-money, or contemporary money, can be called "symb
[Marxism-Thaxis] Feitshization -things vs relations
Fetishization -- things vs relations Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se Fri Sep 25 01:20:38 MDT 1998 Previous message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes Next message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] BodyS writes: > Fetishizing, it seems to me, is the transformation of the thing >into a social entity. The problem is that Marx's view is the exact opposite. For him, fetishization is the transformation of a social relation of power into a thing -- for instance, the car is assigned the status that comes with the power over others expressed by the owner's ability to dispose over social value, or money is seen as a source of wealth rather than an expression of power over the labour of others embodied in a product of labour. Cheers, Hugh This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] underconsumptionism
M-TH: underconsumptionism Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 1 10:26:53 MDT 1998 Previous message: M-TH: Re: LI-CRG: money imbroglio Next message: M-TH: underconsumptionism Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] James, Once again you cut off part of the quote. The aspect in which Lenin most directly contradicts the point of your argument, compounding my suspicion of your dishonesty. Here is the original exchange again with the fuller quote from Lenin, which you cut short a second time below: ___ James Heartfield wrote the folloiwng in response to my statement: Charles: >Why would the bourgeois >always be seeking new markets and yet >discouraging consumption ? This is not >Marxist logic. James H. 'On the problem of interest to us, that the home market, the main conclusion from Marx's theory of realisation is the following: capitalist production, and consequently, the home market, grow not so much on account of articles of consumption as on account of means of production. In other words, the increase in means of production outstrips the increase in articles of consumption.' Lenin, Development of Capitalism in Russia, p 54 _ Charles : But in the same passage Lenin went on to say: "For capitalism, therefore, the growth of the home market is to a certain extent "independent" of the growth of personal consumption, and takes place mostly on account of productive consumption. BUT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERSTAND THIS "INDEPENDENCE" AS MEANING THAT PRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ENTIRELY DIVORCED FROM PERSONAL CONSUMPTION: THE FORMER CAN AND MUST INCREASE FASTER THAN THE LATTER (AND THERE ITS "INDEPENDENCE" ENDS), BUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, PRDUCTIVE CONSUMPTION IS ALWAYS BOUND UP WITH PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. MARX SAYS IN THIS CONNECTION: "...WE HAVE SEEN (BOOK II, PART III) THAT CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION TAKES PLACE BETWEEN CONSTANT CAPITAL AND CONSTANT CAPITAL..."(MARX HAS IN MIND CONSTANT CAPITAL IN MEANS OF PRODUCTION , WHICH IS REALISED BY EXCHANGE AMONG CAPITALISTS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT). "IT IS AT FIRST INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION BECAUSE IT NEVER ENTERS THE LATTER. BUT THIS CONSUMPTION DEFINITELY LIMITS IT NEVERTHELESS, SINCE CONSTANT CAPITAL IS NEVER PRODUCED FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT SOLELY BECAUSE MORE OF IT IS NEEDED IN SPHERES OF PRODUCTION WHOSE PRODUCTS GO INTO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION " (DAS KAPITAL, III, 1, 289, RUSS. TRANS., P242; OR MOSCOW 1959 P.299-300) emphasis added by Charles. So, when we read the whole passage we see that Lenin and Marx agree with us not James H. in this thread. (end of original exchange) ___ You may be insulted, but you are the one who did something that would raise reasonably suspicions in anybody's mind. Why did you leave out the portion of the quote from Lenin that immediately follows what you quoted and very much contradicts what you were quoting Lenin for ? Either you did it on purpose or it is a big oversight (in a daze). Why did you do it again in your post below ? Cutting off the portion of the quote of Marx by Lenin that cuts against your argument the strongest. As for you being insulted by my posts and not reading them, that would be like a wrongdoer being insulted when their wrong is pointed out. It is a further fraudulence, fraudulent posturing. Perhaps others will read my posts exposing your half-quoting and discount your arguments accordingly. It is not a matter of you being insulted. It is a matter of you cleaning up your act. In the quote from Mattick below first I point out that neither you nor Mattick claim that Marx did not say it. Secondly,you act as if Mattick is somekind of authority who can reverse the plain meaning of Marx's words in the quote:" The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses..." You and Mattick can try to twist that all you want, but it's meaning is clear. "Ultimate reason" means "ultimate cause". So when you try to say Marx didn't make this part of whatever theory of crisis he putforth, you just can't do it. As has already been said about 50 times on this thread, the well known fact that Marx is always analyzing contradictions means that the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is also part of his analysis of the cause. You keep dishonestly portraying what others and I are saying as if we don't include the latter. That is more evidence of your dishonesty. You blatantly half quote your opponents as well as Lenin. Charles Brown >From the market to the Marxit Then Charles quotes > Lenin went on to say: > >"For capitalism, therefore, the growth of the home >market is to a certain extent "independent" of the >growth of personal consumption, and takes place >mostly on account of productive consumption. >BUT IT WOULD B
[Marxism-Thaxis] Fancy and the Ideal
M-TH: Fancy and the Ideal Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Sep 10 14:52:48 MDT 1998 Previous message: M-TH: Forwarding Next message: M-TH: "Labor in white skin shall not be free while Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] >>> Russ writes >Of course, I agree that >"fancy" is a romantic term, >but "romantic" seems >eminently imaginary >to me, so it's good for >the binary contrast (as >only a starting point for >a dialectic !) here. > >Oh yea, my aphorism now is >Being determines consciousnes, but >being determines consciousness discontinuously. >Continuously, being and consciousness are >more reciprocally determining. That is, in the mean >time, in between time (between the revolutions >when being determines consciousness suddenly, >rarely like the roof falling in asserts the law >of gravity) ain't we got fun (fancy). But ther Ideal is not imaginary- trying to find the ref to the book with Illenkov's essay 'The Concept of the Ideal' Anyone help- any Pilling fans out there? Dave B James H? And how about this one? "Ideology is false, partial consciousness to the extent that it does not locate its object within the concrete totality... Ideology, however is more than false consciousness. It is not a mere subjective fantasy but a 'conscious' expression of the objective appearance assumed by capitalist reality. As conscious being, it is therefore an essential and necessary part of this reality. Ideology is the concept which correspeonds to the real existance of the surface, as opposed to the correct, total consciousness which sees beyond the surface to the essential forms of social relations. The reality of bourgeois society is made up not only of material relations but also of ideology." (Jakubowski _Ideology and Superstructure in Historical Materialism_ 1971:103-4) NB Here's the full ref for Benhabib: Benhabib, Seyla. 1986._Critique Norm and Utopia: A Study of the 'Foundations of Critical Theory._New York: Columbia University Press. ___ Charles: I'll think about the above some more. But what about the famous quote from Marx in _Capital_ vol. I. in the chapter on the Labor process, where he says the unique quality of human labor is that it is built in the imagination first, unlike the bee or the spider ? That doesn't contradict what you say and quote above necessarily, but, it seems to be that the imaginary is related to the objective like the ideal you describe, so why wouldn't the ideal be imaginary ? Gotta go myself right now. Charles Brown Detroit This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx - still valid
Marx - still valid By Victor Perlo, in People's Weekly World, 20 April, 1996 The books of MIT economics professor Paul Krugman were called to my attention recently. Krugman dismisses the liberal economist John K. Galbraith as a "media personality," one not taken seriously by academic economists. Although he may not admit it, Krugman has much in common with Galbraith. Both criticize the "supply-side" snake oil of Reaganomics and its economic lap-dogs, without mentioning the anti-working class and imperialist-expansionist essence of its theories and policies. Krugman favors the new technologies and "high-value-added" industries advocated by Lester Thurow and Clinton's Labor Secretary Robert Reich. And, like them, he fails to approve the necessary funding for high-tech education or to explain how -- even if there were funding -- millions of newly- trained "symbolic thinkers" will find jobs in a downsizing capitalist economy. The pendulum may be swinging to the left, as Krugman asserts -- and I agree -- but that is despite the pro-capitalist, anti-working class and racist ideology of economists like Krugman. Neither the accelerating rate of exploitation of labor and intensified racism, nor their resulting crisis- breeding contradictions, are mentioned by Krugman and Co. Nor are the mounting struggles of labor and the oppressed against these developments. Krugman accepts the capitalist myth that declining productivity is the cause of growing poverty -- and that it is a mistake to think the government can do much about it because, he says, "nobody knows how to do either of these things. The roots of inadequate productivity performance are deep and poorly understood, the causes of growing inequality and poverty hardly less so." To polish his reputation as a liberal, Krugman proclaims his adherence to John Maynard Keynes, but opposes the fundamental tenet of Keynesianism -- the expansion of public works to provide jobs during a recession. Keynes' major work, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" was published in 1935 when "workers of the world," inspired by the tremendous accomplishments of socialism in the USSR, were seeking a revolutionary way out of the Great Depression and a significant section of the capitalist class considered it necessary to make substantial concessions to workers and peasants in order to avert socialist revolutions. Keynes wrote: "The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and income." He called for a "somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment" as needed to secure "full employment" -- but to be carried out only as far as needed to establish a new balance in capitalist society. Keynes called for the gradual "euthanasia of the rentier, ... the functionless investor." Today such proposals are anathema to economists and politicians of both the Reagan- Bush-Gingrich variety and the more moderate Clinton-Rubin-Reich school. The books of Krugman and Keynes compel one to study the writings of Karl Marx -- work that is the foundation of working class economics and politics. Much of what is valid in Keynes' analysis of capitalist crises is derived from Marx, all covered up and distorted to serve Keynes' basically pro-capitalist purposes. While never quoting Marx, Keynes limits himself to the remark that the "Great puzzle of effective demand ... could only live on furtively ... in the underworlds of Karl Marx, Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas." One might ask: What underworld?" Marx' Capital may be the most widely read book of all time. Although Marx analyzed the course of the business cycle in all its complexity, he expressed the central feature of every crisis succinctly and accurately: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit," he wrote in Capital, Volume III. Neither Krugman nor Keynes recognized Marx' observation that exploitation of labor and the creation of surplus value are the driving force of the capitalist class, that "the production of surplus-value -- and the reconversion of a portion of it into capital ... is the immediate purpose and compelling motive of capitalist production." Surely a look at the soaring profits of corporations, along with the downsizing of hundreds of thousands of workers, makes it clear that the capitalist class, today more brutal than ever, is intensifying the exploitation of labor, multiplying income inequality and causing declining living standards for the majority of the working class. While Krugman and Keynes look to the economists to convince politicians of what they consider desirable changes, Marx and the Com
[Marxism-Thaxis] The return of the prophet
The return of the prophet http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_return_of_the_prophet_01780.html In Highgate Cemetery, three miles from where I write, Karl Marx's body lies a-mouldering in his grave; and, for so many years, it seemed that his critique of the capitalist system was also safely buried. But suddenly, the ideas which Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels developed a century and a half ago are back; and notably, given that there is no longer a mass movement which draws guidance from Karl Marx's work, commentators and politicians firmly within the capitalist mainstream find the urge to refer to Marx irresistible. The President of France has been improving his understanding of the current crisis by reading Marx's Capital, and Germany's Finance Minister has grudgingly conceded the correctness of "certain elements of Marxist theory". In the USA, where to make such a remark would be political suicide, there has been a counterpart phenomenon; in a CNN interview, it was demanded of the likely next Vice-President of the United States that he admit or deny that the likely next President of the USA is a Marxist- a charge which was taken up with alacrity by supporters of the opposing candidate. On 18th October, the Irish Times published a thoughtful article by its foreign editor, Paul Gillespie, entitled 'Crisis allows us to reconsider left-wing ideas'. Gillespie noted: Marx's work has suddenly become popular again in Germany, as a new generation tries to understand the dynamics of these events and how they should be evaluated historically. There are disturbing memories of the 1929 crash and its awful political consequences, coming after the 1922-1923 financial collapse which destroyed German savings. On the probable consequences of the crisis on the 'real' world economy and the global balance of power, Gillespie took a moderate position: Although this is undoubtedly a grave crisis for finance capitalism, with deep effects on the real international economy, it is not - as yet - a systemic collapse. The extraordinary speed and depth of the events and the $1.8 trillion response to them, especially this week in the European Union, have helped avoid the meltdown heralded at the weekend by Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, British prime minister Gordon Brown, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero are taking the lead to create a "refounded capitalism" more capable of withstanding such cyclical shocks by better global regulation. In an audacious initiative, Sarkozy and EU Commission president José Manuel Barroso are meeting US president George Bush this weekend to seek a G8 summit next month on a new agreement to regulate global finance. Presumably it would include the president-elect. If that is Barack Obama, he will be confronted with a dramatic adjustment of US power to a more multipolar world, for which he is better prepared and which he is more willing to accept than John McCain. In decades past, a crisis on this scale would have presented an immediate opportunity for the 'left'; but the 'left' as it is- defeated, tamed and fragmented- is in no position, as yet, to rise to the occasion. As Paul Gillespie observed: Note that most of these leaders are from the centre right, not the centre left. Centrism is resurrected from the wreckage of radical right-wing deregulation, more than is the left. The argument is about re-regulation rather than redistribution, the public rather than the private interest, transnational against national sovereignty. So far, that is. The traditional left has had little operational purchase on the crisis other than I-told-you-so utterances about their inherently cyclical nature. Confronted with this international convulsion, "the Left" is for the most part as weak and tame as it certainly is in Ireland. Popular anger here and in the US, for example, is far more radical, but not expressed in such vocabularies. This is a real challenge and also an opportunity for the left - just as it was for Marx and Engels 150 years ago. But does the left refer to traditional social democracy, which accepts market capitalism but seeks to equalise it; to the "third way" variety popularised by Blair and Brown; or to the "democratic socialism" of post-Stalinist parties? What of more recent green socialism? How to classify the rump of traditional Stalinist parties in Europe, India and elsewhere? Should Chinese and Vietnamese one-state authoritarian capitalisms led by such communist parties be included? Where do the left of South Africa's ANC and the burgeoning variety of Latin American left-wing movements fit in? Is the US Democratic Party part of that family? How do all of these relate to the growing radical or far-left tendencies and social movements drawing on previous bottom-up revolutionary traditions such as Trotskyism and anarchism? It is despite
[Marxism-Thaxis] Financial crisis: working people forced to pay to save capitalism
Financial crisis: working people forced to pay to save capitalism http://www.dsp.org.au/node/209 By Dick Nichols “Will my superannuation fund be next?” “Are my savings safe?” As working people in the developed economies watch the assets of one financial institution after another vaporise into nothingness, tens of millions are asking these dreadful questions. For more reading on the capitalist crisis see Links Yesterday’s AAA assets are now junk and yesterday’s “risk-free” investments are losing money. No-one, not even the world’s central bankers, who are spending sleepless nights arranging rescue bailouts and emergency injections of trillions of dollars into a financial system frozen with fear and distrust, can answer them with 100% certainty. Last fortnight’s actions by US Treasury secretary Henry Paulsen tell us why: on September 12 he refused to bail out Wall Street investment bank Lehmann Brothers, preferring to let firms that had dealt extensively in financial assets based on worthless subprime mortgages go to the wall or be taken over by others. But on September 17, faced with the collapse of the American International Group, Paulsen and Federal Reserve chairperson Ben Bernanke decided that the risks of letting the world’s largest insurance company sink were too great. AIG was too large — and too enmeshed in global financial markets — to fail. So, in the free-market, Republican-run US, the state is becoming the owner-operator of a collapsing finance system, with the losses funded by the taxpayer. Paulsen, Bernanke and their counterparts in Europe, Japan and Australia too will increasingly face this sort of choice: do they let the next stricken financial monster die or put it on government life support? And how do they decide, when no one knows where the rest of the toxic financial waste is buried, where interbank lending has nearly dried up and where, according to economic historian Harold James, “it is impossible to know what solvency means”? Fictitious capital To understand how the system has arrived at its worst crisis since 1929, it is necessary to consider some basic features of capitalism and how these have operated over the past 30 years. Confronted with the decision as to where to invest its money, any business has to make a basic choice: invest in production or in financial assets (shares, bonds, etc). The decision will be influenced by the expected rate of return on each and its riskiness. The more that individual firms invest in new production, the greater the overall (economy-wide) rate of investment will be, and — on condition that production gets sold profitably — the greater the mass of new value and new profit added. However, when firms invest in purely financial assets they are deciding to invest in claims on new value and profit, which in itself adds nothing to the mass of value added. Conventional economics blurs this distinction, but for socialists Karl Marx and Frederick Engels it was central to understanding the boom-bust cycle of capitalism. They called these claims on future profit fictitious capital. For example, share certificates are simply “marketable claims to a share in future surplus value production” and the share market is “a market for fictitious capital”. Setting up a market for any type of fictitious capital is the equivalent of setting up a casino — a place where people can speculate in these claims on future profit. During boom times, as the expectation of profit growth drives financial markets higher, the total nominal value of fictitious capital in circulation always grows more rapidly than the actual mass of profits. The less this gambling is regulated, the more manic it becomes. However, a point is always reached where more is produced than can be sold profitably. The mass of profits then shrinks and the prices of the claims on profit shrink even more. Over the past 30 years, bursting financial bubbles have become more frequent as we have experienced the biggest ever festival of fictitious capital. In 1980, world financial assets (bank deposits, government and private securities, and shareholdings) amounted to 119% of global production; by 2007 that ratio had risen to 356%. This state of affairs was the result of the wave of financial deregulation that began in the early 1980s under British PM Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan, and then spread out across most of the world. With every act of deregulation, new financial markets and instruments — new casinos — became possible. They opened up opportunities to speculate on the future movement of any financial market, to increase borrowing on the basis of expected rises in asset values, and to bundle various forms of fictititious capital into increasingly complex packages. The economic justification for financial deregulation was that, provided essential standards were maintained, deregulation made it easier to mobilise the world’s savings for investment and consumpti
[Marxism-Thaxis] Financial Tsunami in US
Financial Tsunami in US: Investigating the Root Causes and Broader Implications http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2008/december/article.html Part - II Arindam Sen “The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.” -- Karl Marx, 18731 In our last issue we discussed late capitalism’s strategic response to the stagnation that reappeared in the early 1970s after roughly a quarter century of post-war prosperity. This escape route allowed the system to limp forward in the usual uneven fashion, but the resultant bubbles in the FIRE sectors (finance, insurance and real estate) failed to reinvigorate the real economy. Thus it was only in 1 among 20 years between 1986 and 2006 that private non-residential (i.e., non-business) fixed investment in the US measured as percentage of GDP reached 4.2 per cent -- the average for the nearly 20-year period between 1960 and 1979. According to economist Philip O’Hara, the profit rate of the Fortune 500 corporations went down and down: from 7.15 in 1960-69 to 5.30 in 1980-90 to 2.29 in 1990-99 to 1.32 in 2000-02. Real GDP figures released by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on October 30, 2008 indicated that the US economy was in the midst of a slowdown even before the financial storm hit the world economy in the middle of September. Real GDP in the US contracted at an annual rate of 0.3 percent for the third quarter (i.e., for the months of July, August and September), led by a sharp fall in consumer spending. If this was the pre-crash situation, now with the financial tsunami unequivocally announcing the failure of the grand strategy of liberalisation-globalisation-financialisation, the entire system encompassing the global Wall Street and Main Street is in for a prolonged recession and probably a veritable depression. The US is deep in recession and the Euro-zone’s expected 2009 growth rate has been revised down from 1.9 to 0.1 percent. The latest IMF forecast for world economic growth, released early November, has cut world growth by 0.75 percentage point to 2.2 per cent with output in advanced economies forecast to contract on a full-year basis for the first time since World War II. A number of countries have already seen capital flight and currency depreciation of such severity that they have been forced to turn to the IMF (Iceland, Ukraine, Pakistan) or enter into emergency financial arrangements (Hungary, South Korea). This reciprocal relation between the surface froth of financial turmoil and fundamental problems in the real economy shows that it is necessary (a) to comprehend the financial crisis on its own terms in the historical context of the evolution of the credit system and the increasingly dominant role of finance, (b) to move on from the particular to the general -- i.e., to equip ourselves with the theoretical wherewithal needed for understanding the deeper currents of crisis formation in the overall process of capitalist accumulation, so that (c) we can then return to the current crisis to grasp its broader implications. Having attempted (a) in the first part of this article, we should now try and tackle (b) and conclude our investigation with (c) in the next issue. But before we proceed, we should recall that Karl Marx had to take leave of the international proletariat before he could systematically work up a comprehensive theory of capitalist crisis. Capital Volumes II and III, the Theories of Surplus Value and the Grundrisse were not made ready for publication in his lifetime; nor could he take up his plans for investigating various other facets of capitalist economy and polity. Naturally there is a wide array of differing interpretations of Marx’s theory, with Luxembourg for example differing with Lenin, and Ernest Mandel arguing against Paul Sweezy and others. Available space does not permit us to review the rich and continuing debate among these schools; we can only present here in barest outline the basic Marxian approach towards understanding capitalist crises. The Tendential Fall in the Average Rate of Profit Take a look at the quotation from the Communist Manifesto placed at the head of the article in our last issue. Marx and Engels talk of an “epidemic of overproduction”. This is overproduction of commodities relative to effective demand: more is produced than can be sold. Thanks to inadequate purchasing power of the masses, a big chunk of commodities remain unsaleable and drag their owners (producers/traders) down to ruin. This characteristic feature of capitalism led Ma
[Marxism-Thaxis] A Marxist Political Economy Site
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ A Marxist Political Economy Site [www.massline.org/PolitEcon] Economics pamphlets, essays, articles and reviews from the Marxist perspective This is a site devoted to Marxist political economy. It is still under development and a lot more material will be added later. To begin with, many of the materials have been written by the host of this web site, Scott H. To make suggestions, comments or criticisms, contact: sco...@massline.org or webmas...@massline.org Note: Some of the documents and essays below are fairly long and are much easier to read if you print them out first. That will also give you the margins you’ll need to write down your criticisms! Political Economy - General The Definition of ‘Capitalism’ [S.H.] (March 2003) - A letter to friends. “The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons”, by Ian Angus. (8/24/08) Capitalist Imperialism “Lenin on Imperialism” [S.H.] (2007) [PDF: 237 KB] - A 10-page discussion of Lenin’s views on imperialism in light of the new evidence and changes since his day. The Marxist Theory of Capitalist Economic Crises An Introductory Explanation of Capitalist Economic Crises, by Scott H. (2008) - This pamphlet discusses both the underlying and surface contradictions involved in capitalist crises. [The first 5 chapters are now available. More will be added later.] Introduction Chapter I: The Basic Contradictions Underlying Capitalist Economic Crises Chapter II: The Surface Layer of Contradictions Chapter III: How Are Capitalist Economic Crises Overcome? Chapter IV: Capitalist Economic Crises in the Imperialist Era (8/9/08) Chapter V: The Industrial Cycle Has Split in Two! (8/19/08) “False Lessons from the Great Depression” [S.H.] (7/14/03) - A criticism of two main points in Peter Temin’s book, Lessons from the Great Depression. “Comments on Sison’s ‘Contradictions in the World Capitalist System and the Necessity of Socialist Revolution’” [S.H.] (1/23/02) - Discussion of Jose Maria Sison’s view of the world economic and political situation, as well as a critique of the “General Crisis of Capitalism” thesis. Letter to Bob Avakian on Imperialist War and Capitalist Economic Cycles [S.H.] (12/2/79) “The ‘Capital Shortage’ Myth: A Dangerous Error in Political Economy” [S.H.] (Jan. 1977) Commentary on the Developing Economic Crisis “Is the Current Economic Crisis a Crisis of Overproduction?” [S.H.] (7/11/08) - This letter responds to a question about the nature of the currently developing crisis, and also addresses the issue of the means that imperialist powers use to dump the effects of their own crises onto the backs of people of the countries they exploit. “Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In” (7/14/08), an article from the satirical publication The Onion. “The Onion is More Correct Than They Realize!” [S.H.] (7/24/08) - A serious commentary on the above article which argues that bubbles really are absolutely necessary under capitalism! “Is It Socialism?” (Sept. 25-27, 2008) - An email discussion between Scott H. and his friend Kirby about whether the bailouts and partial nationalization of several banks and financial institutions by the U.S. government should be considered “socialism”. “The Worst is Yet to Come” (11/22/08) - A Reuters article about the top IMF economist predicting the worst of the current financial/economic crisis is yet to come, together with a brief commentary by Scott H. The Labor Theory of Value “Steve Keen on Marxist Economics & a Mini Essay on the Labor Theory of Value” [S.H.] (9/3/03) - A very one-sided review of Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics, focusing on the single chapter on Marxist economics, and the labor theory of value in particular. Puts forward the theory that past labor (in the form of tools and machines) can also contribute to surplus value. Letter to Frank S. about the labor theory of value [S.H.] (12/08/03) - Scott’s friend Frank criticized his theory about machines being able to contribute to surplus value and his comments about Say’s “Law”. This is Scott’s response. “Additional Comments on Say’s ‘Law’-and the Consequences of Failing to Recognize Its Fallaciousness” [S.H.] (1/15/04) - A continuation of the above, after a discussion with Frank. The Monthly Review School “In Remembrance of Paul M. Sweezy”, by Dr. Gupta. This article is taken from People’s March, the revolutionary magazine from India, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 2004. “Working-Class Households and the Burden of Debt”, by the Editors of Monthly Review magazine. This important article appeared in MR in May 2000. It demonstrates quite convincingly, and with a lot of statistical support, that the long U.S. boom of the 1990s is to be explained largely by the tremendous increase in working-class debt over that decade, and not by the repeal of the laws of capitalism or through some “New Economy” magic. Economi
[Marxism-Thaxis] Lenin on Imperialism
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/LeninOnImperialism.pdf http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/LeninOnImperialism.pdf Lenin on Imperialism [These are two chapters from a longer work that I may never get around to finishing. The idea was to first sum up Lenin’s views on imperialism in light of the additional evidence and experience since his day, as a prelude to a discussion of “globalization” and other topics. These two chapters were first written around 2001, and expanded slightly up through 2007. –S.H.] 1. Lenin on Imperialism as a New Stage of Capitalism As all of us (in my intended audience) are painfully aware, this is still the imperialist era. So the first thing we have to be able to do is to correctly conceptualize the basic points about imperialism. This is necessary for many reasons, including so that we can later come to terms with the contemporary notion of “globalization”. The best place to start in discussing imperialism is still Lenin‟s 1916 pamphlet, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”. We should not just assume, however, that whatever Lenin said back then must necessarily be correct; that is not the scientific approach to Marxism. Instead, let‟s look at how Lenin characterized or defined imperialism, and see if we can agree with what he said in light of our nearly a century of additional experience with the monstrous beast. Lenin argued that modern imperialism (or capitalist imperialism) constitutes a new stage in the history of capitalism. The first stage, he said, was the competitive form of capitalism characterized by relatively small-scale enterprises, few of which dominated their market. This is the form of capitalism that mostly existed in Marx‟s day, and which Marx analyzed in close detail. The newer stage of capitalism, however, the imperialist stage, is characterized by huge monopolistic or semi-monopolistic (oligopolistic) corporations. Lenin remarked that “If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.”1 However, the term “monopoly capitalism” can be misleading. The way it is used by Lenin and virtually all Marxists since his day does not require that there be only one giant automobile manufacturer that has a 100% monopoly in its markets, or only one single steel producer, and so forth. In fact, it would have been better if the term „oligopolistic‟ had been available in Lenin‟s day for him to use instead of the term „monopolistic‟ to describe this higher stage of capitalism.2 But however it is expressed, the point is that there are degrees of monopolization, and Lenin wanted to emphasize that at the fundamental economic level what had most changed was that there was now major aspects of monopoly in this new stage of capitalism, whether or not the consolidation of companies had reached the point of there being a single survivor in each industry. That is, even if there still are several huge companies in each industry (along with some remaining inconsequential small ones, perhaps), they tend to collude and jointly control the market to their mutual benefit. This is something extremely important; it changes a lot of things about capitalism. Lenin himself said (as we will discuss later) that some competition necessarily remains even under what he termed “monopoly capitalism”. Since Lenin‟s day other writers (e.g., Paul Baran 2 and Paul Sweezy3) have more fully explored the aspects of genuine competition that still do exist between these oligopolistic corporations, and have pointed out that this competition tends to be restricted to secondary areas such as product styling and advertising, with only very weak competition in price and product quality, which more directly affect profits. While price fixing is officially illegal these days, the common approach is for the largest company in an industry to set the price level, and for the rest of the industry to then “coincidentally” match it. But if this second stage of capitalism is characterized most centrally by the existence of major aspects of monopoly, and if it carries the name of “monopoly capitalism”, then why also give it the name “imperialism”? This is a question that has puzzled lots of people, including me when I was first learning about capitalist imperialism more than 40 years ago. The brief answer is that the characteristic political expression of this second stage of capitalism comes in the form of imperialism, and in fact imperialism characterizes modern capitalism as much as monopoly does. However, many people are still troubled by the fact that traditional forms of imperialism existed during the pre-monopoly stage of capitalism, and even back in ancient times long before capitalism arose, with the Roman Empire for example. Since imperialism has been around so long, they don‟t want to use this term as a name for the second stage of capitalism. Thus, the Marxist-influenced Third World theor
[Marxism-Thaxis] Andy A critiques "standpoint" and "identity" politics
M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 3 08:47:35 MST 1998 Previous message: M-TH: SV: Workers Action & Libel Next message: M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] >>> Andrew Wayne Austin 12/03 3:32 AM >>> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Rob Schaap wrote: >I mean, what's your take on how to get past this catch-22 (if I read your >last sentence correctly)? On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Angela wrote: >how is it possible to assert standpoint theory as a higher form of >objectivity, since the standpoint itself is conditioned. The point, I think, shows that idealism is subordinated to materialism in Marx's scheme, but that idealism is still relevant, particularly in a future state. Charles: Andy, on this aspect, I have often thought that with the discovery of Marxism we have an objective understanding of how history develops. But with that discovery comes the potential to free ourselves as a whole species ( international working class as the human race as a total) from the unconscious control of the movement of human society by those objective forces. In other words, the impact of Marxism on its subject matter is to begin to turn it into its opposite. It is a step toward conscious control of the development of society. Consciousness determining being. This is a version of the general scientific issue of the impact of the scientists' activity on their object of research. ___ One cannot change the contradictions of the social totality by thinking oneself passed them. Such idealism cannot change society, of course. But it is more than this: the character of society itself is a barrier to the perfection of such an idealism. So it is not that a people could never direct the development of society as a democracy, but that it is not possible now, under these conditions. Thus one must act to resolve the contradictions of the real world. Once these barriers have been resolved, cognition can move towards maximal objectivity. It will probably always be with a degree a refraction, since it is doubtful that contradiction can be totally eliminated. ___ Charles: Contradiction is universal. It is the basis of change and everything changes, so there is always contradiction. There will be contradictions in communism. But they will be new contradictions. And perhaps because the general consciousness of the population will be dialectical in communism, we will be more conscious and become aware more quickly of the new contradictions and resolve them quicker. There will be new challenges. Thus I believe it is more useful to speak in terms of maximal, or strong objectivity. This is why Marx lays so much stress on praxis and criticizes those who only speculate: because human action is objective activity, we effect the world only when we act. __ Charles: And the ultimate test of the truth is in practice or action Marxism unites epistemology and ethics ( what we do). How do we know reality or the truth (the question of epistemology) ? By the test of theory in practice, which Engels defines as experimentation and industry. I say practice or action is ethics because it is what we do. Praxis is both ethics and truth test in Marxism. Although we act with intention as individuals, under the present conditions mass consciousness is still emergent from the sociomaterial conditions. Once the barriers are removed, then mass consciousness will direct the development of the sociomaterial conditions. But because Marx's epistemology is at once standpoint and critique, it makes a choice of comrades, fights for a social class, but also, with critique, accomplishes two things that allow the partial (I would argue maximal) transcending of standpoint: (1) critique permits the dismantling of ruling ideas and employs the methods of science to catch a glimpse of the totality and thus achieve a higher order of objectivity; (2) communists operate with a valued endpoint or alternative in mind: communist society. This endpoint, however unelaborated in its specific structure, is one in which, according to the logic of Marx's epistemology, cognition can achieve maximal objectivity because contradictions will have been eliminated or substantially minimized. This communism is a real movement through whose action the future state will be objectified. Charles: Marx says practical-critical , or revolutionary, activity. This activity is at once critical and practical. It criticizes the world in changing it. It proves its knowledge of the truth or reality of the world by its ability to change it. Engels said the proof of our knowledge of a thing is our ability to make it ( i.e. change it). _ I disagree that standpoint, as I understand it, has a necessary parallel in identity politics as I thin
[Marxism-Thaxis] Historical Progress
Historical Progress Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Feb 4 09:51:44 PST 2000 Previous message: LatAm grim: Wolfie Next message: Z magazine on Marc Cooper and Mumia Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort >>> James Farmelant 02/02/00 06:57PM >>That raises as >>> you point out below the issue of what Dawkins calls the evolution of evolvability. And Carling does address the issue in terms of using his version of historical materialism to explain why capitalism emerged in the West rather than the East - a question that has long bedeviled scholars, Marxists and non-Marxists alike (i.e. Max Weber). Carling draws a distinction between Western feudalism and the Asiatic mode of production (shades of Wittfogel) and he sees the former as having been particularly suited for the generation of new variations in the relations of production by virtue of its decentralized nature. China in contrast is seen as having been saddled with a centralized bureacratic control which stifled the appearances of new variations, so the pace of social evolution was necessarily slower than in the West. &&& CB: Anthropology has a neo-Morganian school of evolution which it seems may be similar to this model. Sahlins and Service wrote _Evolution and Culture_ ( circa 1961) which uses analogies to biological evolutionary theory, concepts such as adaptation, et al. In that book, Service discusses the law of evolutionary potential, which is sort of like the Lenin/Trotsky idea of the weakest link in the chain as the explanation for backward Russia being the locus of the first socialist revolution. The law of evolutionary potential is that the least specifically adapted area in the current stage has the greatest potential to be the locus of the next leap in general adaptation to the next stage. So, Asia's "centralized" systems may have made Asia the most stable and well adapted in the previous stage ; and conversely Europe was less stable and less adapted. Thus, Europe had the most evolutionary ( revolutionary) potential to be the locus of the next leap, the leap to capitalism CB This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law in "nature"
-TH: dialectical nature Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 12 08:39:07 MST 1999 Previous message: M-TH: Marx contributed to Anti-Duehring Next message: M-TH: Jim F on heuristic Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Yes, Gerry, This is becoming clearer and clearer. With all these claims to being empirical, Andy especially has the "ability" to look at Marx's words and see the exact opposite of what is right there before him. Take the following from Capital. "The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the maaximum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the middle ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his "Logic"), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes." Andy somehow thinks this is different than what Engels says. Engels' "dialectics of nature" is nothing more than this type of comment. The first page of his notes entitled "Dialectics of Nature" mentions this law and two others. Marx above uses the general category "natural science". Charles >>> 01/12 3:59 AM >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:28:45 -0500 (EST) Gerald Levy writes: >If you are really interested in reading a systematic dialectical >presentation on nature which is developed as part of a unity with an >investigation of the social realm, you should read not Marx or Engels > >but Hegel. > >Jerry > It can be done with nature if one is an idealist. As a diverse range of thinkers like Lukacs, Adorno, Hook, Colletti, Sartre, G.A. Cohen and many others have pointed out diamat smuggles the Hegelian God into its concept of matter. Hence, it scientific pretentions, its claim to offer an alternative to metaphysics is quite unfounded. Diamat is itself a metaphysics, is itself a theology. Jim Farmelant Gerry D: It should be noted that none of the above were practical revolutionaries, none engaged in the class struggle in order to change reality, all regarded Marxism as academic debate which had no relation to the practical necessities of the oppressed. Even Sartre's political activities consisted in joining and resigning but never leading. So unsurprisingly they had an IDEALIST, DUALIST approach to Marxism, not the richness of the MONOIST materialist dialectic, which is as opposed to religion and metaphysics as Jim is to Marxism. Gerry D This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] was Marx an underconsumptionist?
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2000/2000-February/004780.html was Marx an underconsumptionist? Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Feb 28 16:08:09 PST 2000 Previous message: Editorial on AFL and International Working Class Next message: was Marx an underconsumptionist? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author Sort by: Date Rank Author Subject Reverse Sort >>> Rakesh Bhandari 02/28/00 05:41PM >>> Charles, you and I are agreed that Marx is here arguing that the social capacity for consumption is not simply people's capacity to consume but this capacity as governed and necessarily limited by the requirements of surplus value production. But if Charles included the whole passage, as well as interpreting it in the context of the argument as a whole in Capital 3, then I think it's clear the specific limit to consumption Marx holds to be explanatorily fundamental to a crisis of general overproduction (the very possibility of which was denied by classical economics) is located in surplus value production itself. This does not mean that underconsumption is any less real than overproduction (indeed they are flip sides of each other); it is to say that the contradiction in production is explanatorily fundamental. CB: My interpretation of Marx's use of the term the phrase "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses .." in an argument in volume three that is, as you say on the role of the FROP, is that he is describing a contradiction, and he pulls us all of the way back to the other aspect with "the ultimate reason". Also, underconsumption is rooted in PRODUCTION. Why ? It is the fact that workers in PRODUCTION are not paid the full value of what they produce that there is not effective demand for all that is produced. So, underconsumption is directly rooted in production. *** Since the appropriated surplus value to allow for expanded reproduction is short--that is, the greatest quantity of surplus value that can possibly be extorted from the diminished working class is no longer sufficient to augment the value of the accumulated capital-- workers won't be hired and the already produced commodity output won't be fully realized. No doubt at all this will be due to the poverty and the restricted consumption of the workers and especially the unemployed, but it is the general crisis due to an underproduction of surplus value that expresses itself as a problem of the realization of surplus value and insufficient buying power of the working population. This then helps to understand that crises are actually overcome with the social capacity for consumption actually declining relative to the accumulated capital! CB: Yes, but it is just as legitimate to call the workers' inability to buy everything as a fundamental explanation , because it is based upon Marx's most fundamental analysis of commodity production in Vol. l. The inability of the workers to buy all the commodities they produce follows directly from exploitation, i.e. workers only being paid for a fraction of the values they produce. So, I think underconsumption is a fundamental explanation based in Vol. 1 where the actual theory of surplus value is laid out. In other words, underconsumption follows directly from the nature of surplus value. *** Moreover, this is not to say that in the real world due to disproportionalities and partial overproductions recurrent realization problems cannot spill over (especially in a highly leveraged economy) to a general crisis, though such crises should be solvable through a redistribution of capital. For this reason Marx consciously and explicitly abstracts from all difficulties with realization in order to demonstrate a limit capital meets in surplus value production itself. As Mattick noted (and I have been draw here from his Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory) "If the accumulation process can be depicted in abstraction from the circulation process, the process of reproduction can also be traced without considering hte realizatin problems it encounters in reality in order to explain the meaning of the circuit of capital. One can find this mode of procedure reasonable or not; at any rate, Marx believed that although his absract model of the capitalist process of circulation did not correspond to reality in some ways, it could nevertheless contribute to a better understanding of reality." p.94 ** CB: See my statement above for an alternative as to what "Marx believed" CB This message has been scanned for malware by SurfContr
[Marxism-Thaxis] Another version of the Internationale
Arise, Ye children of starvation Arise, Ye wretched of the earth For justice thunders condemnation The earth shall rise on new foundations There's a better world in birth Of the past let us wipe the slate clean Masses, slaves, arise, arise The world is about to change its foundation We were naught , we shall be all |: T'is the final conflict Let each stand in her place The Internationale Will be the human race :| This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Feitshization -things vs relations
I differ here with both BodyS and Hugh Rodwell. I think Marx applied the term fetishism to denote the singularity that in capitalist societies the commodity form of our mutual objects converts them to fetishes that provide the recognition of social relations in the imaginary form through concealing the reality whenever we exchange our products we equate the different kind of labor expended in production. As a result, the real relations of production is disavowed and at the same time accepted but through fetishism in an illusory fashion. Mehmet Çagatay http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/ --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Charles Brown wrote: > From: Charles Brown > Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Feitshization -things vs relations > To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 8:19 PM > Fetishization -- things vs relations > Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se > Fri Sep 25 01:20:38 MDT 1998 > > Previous message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes > Next message: M-TH: Money for Old Tropes > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ > author ] > > > > BodyS writes: > > > Fetishizing, it seems to me, is the transformation of > the thing > >into a social entity. > > The problem is that Marx's view is the exact opposite. > For him, > fetishization is the transformation of a social relation of > power into a > thing -- for instance, the car is assigned the status that > comes with the > power over others expressed by the owner's ability to > dispose over social > value, or money is seen as a source of wealth rather than > an expression of > power over the labour of others embodied in a product of > labour. > > Cheers, > > Hugh > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl > plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
