Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Super Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary Imper...
In a message dated 1/6/2009 2:21:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: An industrial capital formation as a historically distinct sector of capital no longer exist. I am not aware of one single economist of note that speaks of an industrial sector of capital. Not one. The existence of Chrysler, Ford or GM does not mean a sector of capital called industrial capital exists. Industrial capital without industrial capitalists cannot exists. Whoah, wait a minute. Are you trying to argue against Lenin or Marx here? I think Lenin does contribute to Marxism in many ways (pay me and I'll write a book about it), and I think much of what Lenin wrote about has relevance to understanding the historic formations that reach into this post-modern episteme. I'm not sure what a serious economist is nowadays and think for the most part I couldn't give a shit. CJ Comment The issue was never Lenin's contribution to the treasure house of Marx. Economic forms and their corresponding political form was being discussed. Marx describes the details of the genesis of the industrial capitalist. The industrial capitalist is called industrial because he personifies a stage of development of the productive forces. Manufacturing capital correspond with a period of man - hand, production as a primary mode. Usury capital conjures a vision of non-connection with production, money lending. Merchant capital conjures a vision of capital from the purchase and sell of things. Merchant. Marx tended to wed a historically specific form of capital to a stage or phase of development of the productive forces, but this is not unique to Marx. People once named themselves after instruments of production like Smith. Is not the governor of California last name translated as Arnold Blacksmith? Speculative as in speculative capital conjures a vision. For a solid decade economist and non-economist alike have discussed the new financial products and all of them without exception, agree that these products are intangibles and complex math formulas. Today these math formulas are tied to debt one way or another. Capital as an imaginary - notional, value is impossible but there it is. Capital without value. Capital without value means no labor component because capital is a social relations of production. Production of commodities. We have finally hit the historical wall. The thing fundamental to understanding real world finance capital today is to identify what sector is writing the political agenda as an expression of their domination over the total capital. In respects of President elect Obama, he will gyrate in his policies between productive capital and speculative capital and not an industrial capital and finance capital. Today, financing infrastructure development or auto production for that matter - putting people to work, is not an act and expression of industrial capital, but the productive capital of the financier. The industrial as a class died for Christ sake. Produced the data to confirm the existence of an industrial sector of capital in 2009. (Not you!) Where are the industrialists in America today? Out of a population of 300 million, surely one must still exists, having survived in the cracks - giant cracks, of finance. One cannot be said to be inconsistent with Marx by identifying and naming a sector of capital by its connection or non-connection to a state of development of the productive forces and how it strives to realize an expanded value. Hence, speculative capital and its domination over the total capital. Finance capital has a non-productive sector. The industrial capital formation was eaten up Pac-man style by finance capital. Dude, its all finance capital. Lenin most certainly contributed to the treasure house of Marxism and his contribution won the honor of an ism, Leninism. Leninism is a political doctrine of combat. On the other hand Marx name is associated with an economic doctrine as well as a political doctrine. Leninism is not an economic doctrine because Lenin did not pioneer a new way of looking at economy. Nor did Lenin pioneer a new method of approach to the study of society. Lenin was a Marxist. The ideas that nothing has changed since Lenin is just intellectual laziness and a refusal to admit that things change at best and dogmatism at worse. GMAC not GM is the master of GM. GMAC is GM. . Dude, its all finance capital. Waistline **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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 Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism (6)
Comrade Case puts forth several points as immediate and partial solution to the 2008 crisis. These points begin with: 1). Economic infrastructures, including much of the financial system must be further socialized. This is necessary to begin the large institutional restructuring process without which recovery is impossible. Institutions whose failure creates systemic risk must be nationalized in whole or in part. (end quote). The infrastructure is the physical components - applied technology, upon which sits the organization of a company or society. For instance the military infrastructure or society infrastructure of roads, communications, transportation, and so on. The infrastructure of the financial sector is the buildings, desks, computers, communications system, hardware and software; underlying technology and tools giving systems shape; and how people are organized to use them. The computer and software is at the very heart of the new non-banking financial infrastructure and made it possible for the speculative sector of capital to consolidate itself as a dominating class. The speculators and speculative capital serves no socially useful purpose owing to its detachment from production. Speculative capital dominating and writing the agenda for capital, by definition causes systemic risk because it’s tendency is to converts productive capital into speculative capital. Beginning in the 1980s this meant asset stripping and fire sales of companies. Here is another danger to Chrysler Motors being owned by Cerberus, with the company also owning 51% of General Motors. Also, the auto producers suffer from overcapacity, with roughly 30% of their capacity permanently not utilized. Perhaps abolition of non-productive capital is in order? 2). At the same time well-functioning markets must not disappear, but in fact improve. A big government, more socialist, regime can correct many instabilities, can improve the distribution of wealth to moderate inequality, and it can train and pay intellectuals and scientists to invent new ideas, but it is notably less successful at deploying the benefits of new technology throughout an economy, at least insofar as the myriad of unimportant transactions between producers and consumers of goods and services are concerned. (end quote). The size of government is depended on the underlying technology and division of labor that defines the infrastructure upon which it sits and operates, in the last instance. However, government can be inflated by political means or the payroll padded as it is called. If technology is rendering labor superfluous in one sector of the economy after the other, government must also be affected. Government can be looked at in the same five period context that defined eras of the industrial system and capital. The major task of government is to create the structural programs and policies that allow the economy to function. For example, when the government was the instrument of the farmers, that government did the things necessary to protect and expand the farm. The Indians were annihilated and cleared from the fertile lands, slavery was protected and extended, shipping lanes for export were cleared and frontiers expanded. As the farm gave way to industry, the government transformed itself into a committee to take care of the new needs of industry. At that point, government began to grow. Industry needed literate workers, so the school system expanded under a Secretary of Education. The army needed healthy young men to fight the wars brought on by industrial expansion, so a school lunch program was started. As industry got big, a Department of Housing and Urban Development provided order to the chaotic, burgeoning cities it created. Government became big government in order to serve the needs of industry as it became big industry. The workers were kept relatively healthy and the unemployed were warehoused in such a manner as to keep them available for work with every industrial expansion. Why would we need a big government today? Government does not have to be enlarged to put people to work. Other than giving the mandate and serving as watch dogs, government does not have to be involved at all. In virtually every single city in America there already exist non-governmental labor agencies in the form of temporary help businesses and non-governmental training and hiring agencies. It is these agencies that need to be contained in their pursuit for profits. Many layers of government only function to service capital interests, and would be abolished immediately with a communist government. A host of non-governmental agencies can be created whose purpose is the economic, social and cultural development of the proletarian masses. 3). The reuniting of finance capital with production capital to fully
[Marxism-Thaxis] Systemic Threat?
Re: [PEN-L] Systemic Threat? Eubulides Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:34:29 -0800 On 11/10/05, raghu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Carrol, For financial economists, systemic threat means a situation where the regular functioning of the financial markets (i.e. the equity, forex and the futures markets) is disrupted, e.g. by a liquidity crisis caused by say the insolvency of a major institution. More than any systematic, organized opposition, the major threats to capitalism today are its own internal contradictions. I disagree that crises come and crises go. The last time there was a major capitalist crisis was arguably during the Great Depression, which did lead to earth-shaking events. Capital emerged intact perhaps stronger from WW2, but there is no guarantee that will happen again. A capitalist crisis e.g. from a derivatives collapse could be a Progressive Opportunity. --raghu. - Capitalist crisis certainly reflects the contradiction between exchange value and use value on which commodity production systems rest, since it exhibits a simultaneous increase of unfulfilled need and of unused capacity to meet need. Crises are inherent in a system where the proximate motive for production is surplus value, and the meeting of need is achieved as a contingent byproducts of the pursuit of profit. This analysis cannot, however, support the conclusion that the capitalist mode of production is contradictory in the sense of posing logically inconsistent requirements for its own reproduction, of being, in fact impossible. Crisis must be seen as part of the normal pattern of successful reproduction of capitalism. Finance appears to be a critical mediating channel between changes in underlying parameters of accumulation like the markupp and the ebbing of aggregate demand associated with the realization phases of crises. The disruption of the financial system is itself one of the most dramatic manifestations of such crises. But the circuit of capital analysis tends to confirm the view that financial problems have their origin in systematic effects of capital accumulation. Crises are not primarily financial, and no reform of the financial system alone can eliminate the tendency to crisis. [...] Furthermore, if the persistence and severity of crises depend on the persistence of financial imbalances, there are presumably strong state measures available to avoid systemic catastrophe. The financial system is a system of promises, and a financial crisis is a situation where a large number of such promises cannot be met consistently. If the state can achieve an orderly dissolution of enough financial promises, it can create a situation where accumulation can proceed, as long as there is a surplus value potentially available in the unpaid labor of productive workers. This last remark calls into serious question the idea of a final or ultimate crisis of capitalist production arising from purely from the predictable effects of accumulation. Economic crises may become more severe in their social impact as larger parts of the population depend on capitalist production to meet an ever larger part of their need. But if social labor is capable of producing a surplus, it is hard to see why a society that agreed on capitalist principles could not arrange to have that potential surplus take the form of a surplus value. [Duncan Foley Money, Accumulation and Crisis 1986]. If you don't hit it it won't fall. 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 Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism (2)
Exactly. Though I would recommend the whole of Part IV of _Capital_ Vol. I to get the whole swoop on the Industrial Revolution. Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry Marx defines the last technological revolution in this Part. My thesis on what is revolutionary in the current situation of fundamental change in the technological regime starts with Marx's definition of industry in Part IV. The essential two aspects are Co-operation and Machinery. Currently, the development of machinery ( computers and robots are parts of machines) has negated the cooperative aspect. The culmination of the revolution in communication and transportation has allowed the capitalists to _reverse_ the trend, noted by Marx in Part IV, of bigger and bigger factories, more and more local concentration of workers. This constitutes a qualitative change _in the terms that Marx defined. So , it defines a _Marxist_ revolution in science and technology fundamentally transforming the industrial system that _Marx_ defined in Part IV of _Capital_ I. ^ In one swoop Marx describes the concrete dialectic in the development of the industrial process, as it emerges from manufacture. Here, then, we see in Manufacture the immediate technical foundation of Modern Industry. Manufacture produced the machinery, by means of which Modern Industry abolished the handicraft and manufacturing systems in those spheres of production that it first seized upon. The factory system was therefore raised, in the natural course of things, on an inadequate foundation. When the system attained to a certain degree of development, it had to root up this ready-made foundation, which in the meantime had been elaborated on the old lines, and to build up for itself a basis that should correspond to its methods of production. Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Modern Industry _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm) Industrial society as the primary mode of production is the sublating of the manufacturing process and basis of agrarian society. In a few words, the domination of machinery as the primary means by which society reproduces itself. ^^^ CB: Machinery plus Co-operation ( Co-operation is Marx's term http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation Capitalist production only then really begins, as we have already seen, when each individual capital employs simultaneously a comparatively large number of labourers; when consequently the labour-process is carried on on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large quantities of products. A greater number of labourers working together, at the same time, in one place (or, if you will, in the same field of labour), in order to produce the same sort of commodity under the mastership of one capitalist, constitutes, both historically and logically, the starting-point of capitalist production. With regard to the mode of production itself, manufacture, in its strict meaning, is hardly to be distinguished, in its earliest stages, from the handicraft trades of the guilds, otherwise than by the greater number of workmen simultaneously employed by one and the same individual capital. The workshop of the medieval master handicraftsman is simply enlarged. At first, therefore, the difference is purely quantitative. We have shown that the surplus-value produced by a given capital is equal to the surplus-value produced by each workman multiplied by the number of workmen simultaneously employed. The number of workmen in itself does nor affect, either the rate of surplus-value, or the degree of exploitation of labour-power. If a working-day of 12 hours be embodied in six shillings, 1,200 such days will be embodied in 1,200 times 6 shillings. In one case 12 × 1,200 working-hours, and in the other 12 such hours are incorporated in the product. In the production of value a number of workmen rank merely as so many individual workmen; and it therefore makes no difference in the value produced whether the 1,200 men work separately, or united under the control of one capitalist. ^^^ This does not mean that primitive modes of producing no longer exist. ^ CB: Agree With the emergence of machine society, what constitutes a qualitative change in the mode of production is a revolution that reconfigures the underlying principles by which the sum total of all machines operates. CB: Yes ! Plus Co-operation. The factories brought larger numbers of workers together in one place than Manufacture , too. In this sense we are speaking of the laws of mechanical motion. This message has been scanned
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Crash of 2008 and Historical Materialism (4)
Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during the era of Lenin. Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the basis of financial institutions more than less detached from production of commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital rises to domination on the basis of revolution in the productive forces. ^ CB: The speculation that Lenin discusses is essentially the same as all the other speculation down through the centuries. It's moneylending. 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] Does industrial capital exist ?
WL: I am not aware of one single economist of note that speaks of an industrial sector of capital. Web Results 1 - 10 of about 5,210,000 for Industrial sector of capital. (0.23 seconds) Search ResultsIndustrial Sector Outlook - Capital Spending Trends (2 of 2 ...Full Study Keywords: Market Size, Market Share, Market Leaders, Demand Forecast, Sales, Company Profiles, Market Research, Industry Trends and Companies ... www.freedoniagroup.com/(S(y1bchd55bd11f445edywy4i5))/FractionalDetails.aspx?DocumentId=386248 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Policy Areas - Enterprise and Industry - European CommissionINDUSTRY SECTORS · POLICY AREAS · Public Consultations ... Equity Capital, Business Angels, Basel II, Guarantees, Microcredit, Round tables of bankers and ... ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policy_en.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Peru - Labor and Capital in the Industrial SectorLabor and Capital in the Industrial Sector. In line with its basic conception of social order, the military government also created a complex system of ... www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-10286.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages Peru Labor and Capital in the Industrial Sector - Flags, Maps ...Peru Labor and Capital in the Industrial Sector - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, ... www.photius.com/countries/peru/economy/peru_economy_labor_and_capital_in~790.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages Industry Sector - Whole Banking and Capital Markets - Ernst YoungErnst Young’s dedicated Wholesale Banking and Capital Markets sector team ... and capital markets industry to help our clients perform and execute better. ... www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/UK/_Banking_and_Capital_Markets - 48k - Cached - Similar pages Siemens AG Capital Market Day `Industry` Sector Transcript ...Dec 18, 2008 ... Credit Investment Research, Thomson StreetEvents: Siemens AG Capital Market Day `Industry` Sector Transcript - Transcript - 2008/12/18 ... www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/ccbn/T2055234 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages IPCC Technical Paper I: Industrial SectorTechnologies for Reducing GHG Emissions in the Industrial Sector to achieve GHG reductions within the industrial sector by providing investment capital ... www.gcrio.org/ipcc/techrepI/industrial.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages TM Capital Corp. - Industrial SectorTM Capital is a leader in the industrial sector. ... TM Capital has extensive industrial sector expertise gained through completing the many transactions ... www.tmcapital.com/industry_industrial.html - 77k - Cached - Similar pages Capital investment in insurance is evidence of sector’s long-term ...Dec 29, 2008 ... The capital it’s said would help industry operators accommodate bigger risks particularly in the oil and gas sectors; compete in the global ... www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=2090:-capital-investment...sectors... - 60k - Cached - Similar pages Legal, IPO, sector, industry, capital market, equity and ...Since INVgr's launch in December 1998, a vast amount of equity research, quantitative research, IPO, sector, industry, capital market, flash, strategy and ... www.invgr.com/reports.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages 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] Lenin philosophy blog
And see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm Also important to note that Piaget, in attempting to work out a description of the 'sciences of man', integrates Marxism into his system. CJ CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ? 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] Super Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
On Jan 6, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Brown wrote: CeJ jannuzi Poor CB,he can't even tell when I agree with him. Dude, if you would stop soaking your ass in places like A-hole list, Marxmal and Liberal Bored Observer, maybe we could communicate occasionally. CJ ^ CB: As a linguist , you know it takes two to communicate (smile) What a dazzling use of language from our linguist! Missed it first time around, because CeJ goes straight to /dev/null. ___ 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] Industrial organization of production
CB: Sure. The goal is a class_less_ society. The working class is an exploited/oppressed class. The aim in no exploiting or exploited classes. But in the transitional stage, the working class is the ruling class. That's before the total abolition of classes. ^^ and that the essence of capitalism is NOT private property plus the market, ^^^ CB: Capitalism's essence is that commodity production and exchange ( the market) dominates the whole economy , and the vast majority oflabor is becomes a commodity ( wage-labor). Feudalism and slavery had private property, but commodity production ( production for exchange, not use) was in only a small section of the whole economy. Labor power as a commodity was in only a small segment too. and that it cannot be transcended by merely abolishing private proprty and the market but that the industrial organization of production must be eliminated. I don't know what industrial organization of production means. ^^^ CB: See Part IV of _Capital_ Vol. I. Marx gives the Marxist essentials of The Industrial Revolution - Cooperation and Machines. Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value Ch. 12: The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value Ch. 13: Co-operation Ch. 14: Division of Labour and Manufacture Ch. 15: Machinery and Modern Industry http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.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] Blacks versus the New Deal
Charles, I don't know whether the KKK lynched anybody in 1916, but not only wasn't that the question, but an accurate answer to it doesn't enter into what we were discussing...which was Harry Truman's 1922 membership in the KKK. In that context, the point of your eagerness to begin using the KKK generically is lost on me. ML ^^ Mark, I looked over the thread before I posted last, and there was no one question. There were several questions , and I am free to introduce new questions, as you know. The thread is Blacks and the New Deal. So , obviously, the topic is not just whether Harry Truman was in the KKK in 1922. As to generic use of KKK , think about it for about a nano-second , and you'll get it I'm sure. However, I appreciate your specialized historical knowledge of the KKK , and your teaching me that there was a two phased history to the KKK. I do think that the Dixicrats who left the DP in 1948 likely represented the Jim Crow views of the KKK , official and knockoff. As to Harry Truman, by 1948 he was a major player in doing unKlanly stuff, like writing an Executive Order integrating the armed forces. Tell us when your new book is finished. Charles 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] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have the
The ideas that nothing has changed since Lenin is just intellectual laziness and a refusal to admit that things change at best and dogmatism at worse. GMAC not GM is the master of GM. GMAC is GM. . Dude, its all finance capital. I'm not sure I'm following your arguments. One, who here has said that nothing has changed since Lenin? Two, who here has said we should ignore 'finance capitalism' and speculation? Three, the categories you are talking about are analytic ones, not ontological ones. I'm not even sure they get to the psychological motive of most capitalists. They simply describe the way capital functions in the transformative social process. Often investors have only one motive (they have been all but guaranteed a 12-20% annual return on their investment, even more if the window given is 3-5 years). Their money goes towards industrial and financial ends. In times of a bubble, since everyone wants that 12-20% return they put their money into whatever they think will get them that higher return. If manufacturing cars in Detroit would get that--or at least convince them it could get that--they would put their money there. Consider the Madoff scandal. Two years ago he was one of the go-to guys who could get investors that high rate of return. Now he is an alleged Ponzi scheme broker. What is the difference between now and two years ago? No one believes in his scheme anymore. I'm not sure if such speculative craziness goes all the way back to the Tulip Bubble, but it has been in world capitalism for quite some time. It's main attraction? The higher rate of return promised. Why do people become convinced? Because they saw so-and-so and so-and-so-and-so get 20% last year. Whether it is individual investors or CALPERS or Harvard, the thinking is the same and is exploited the same. So could you re-state what you are trying to argue here? I just don't get it. CJ ___ 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] Super Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
What a dazzling use of language from our linguist! Missed it first time around, because CeJ goes straight to /dev/null. Hey since irony is out this year (leftists have a world to save), I'll take that as a compliment, even from someone like Duff Henwood. Thanks Duff, and Happy New Year to you. BTW, please don't post links to porn sites to this list--keep them on your Liberal Bored Observer outlet only. Thanks. CJ ___ 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] Super Capitalism, Super Imperialism and Monetary Imperialism
CB: As a linguist , you know it takes two to communicate (smile) Extended quotes aren't communication if no one reads them, and they seem to bring in a third party, don't they? CJ ___ 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] Lenin philosophy blog
CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ? That's a good question. I'll get back to you on that. I have a work on the philosophy of 'human' sciences by Piaget (he was commissioned to write it a few years before Lyotard was commissioned to tell us about the post-modern episteme) but in paper only. My Piaget resources online are mostly non-existent. I do know Piaget admired the work of Vygotsky once he found out about it and that they had useful exchanges (if I remember my reading from twenty years ago, when I thought philosophy of science for the social sciences was an interesting topic). Again, going from memory here, I think Piaget uses the term 'means of production' in an expanded sense that I like to think Marx would have loved. CJ ___ 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] Piaget and Marx (Stems from Re: Lenin philosophy blog)
CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ? First, a correction. I must have imagined any Piaget-Vygotsky correspondence. Piaget only found out about Vygotsky's work after his death, through contact with people who studied under Vygotsky. Second, we have discussed this before (or at least Piaget as a philosopher of social science of the 20th century, a status the Anglo-analytic traditions ignore), but since that time I have found more online, including a straightforward Marxist critiques of Piaget (Lektorsky, Durak): http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm#piaget-jean http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/piaget2.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/lektorsky/subject-object/ch01.htm#s2 http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/piaget.htm http://tomweston.net/PiagetDurak.pdf --- I will follow up on that use of the term 'means of production' as that fascinates me more than the 'dialectic' one, which we already discussed anyway. I think Durak's charge (after a quick scan read, so don't hold me responsible for not understanding Durak just yet) against Piaget of 'idealism' holds, then it makes all structuralists and Frege idealists as well. CJ ___ 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] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have...
Seems to me you do in fact get the distinction between productive capital and speculative capital. A good Ponzi scheme is not back until it collapses. Profits to be made from that side of the business constituting productive capital has never been bad business. On the other hand this category called industrial capital sector or a crack between industrial capital and finance (finance!!) is well . . . Industry = industrial capital. How amusing. The industrial capitalists can be found in your local museum, standing to the left of the merchant capitalist. Wait a minute. Because GE also sells commodities and some one must sell these commodities to the consumer, its capital is really a form of merchant capital because someone brought the product from GE, and sold it to someone else. Buy such a thinking man a beer. I did follow some of the links CB provided and it seem to me he had not read them. Waistline In a message dated 1/7/2009 1:12:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes: Speculation as speculative capital, denotes something different than speculation - risk taking, on the part of finance capital during the era of Lenin. Speculative capital as a concept means investment and risk taking on the basis of financial institutions more than less detached from production of commodities. Speculative capital as a form and sector of capital rises to domination on the basis of revolution in the productive forces. The irony is--I would bet my money!--that so much money pours into speculative finance because the motive behind moving the money is thinking like this: this is a surer and higher return on my money than anything else, including direct investment into something producing a good or service. Take GE, it makes most of its money (or at least up until recently) as a straightforward finance capital firm through its financial arms. It also makes money manufacturing for military, governments or for markets where it almost enjoys a monopoly. And one of the best ways to make money manufacturing for the US military is simply to win the big contract and then squeeze profits out of all the sub-contractors who actually do all the work. CJ **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ 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
