Kilman's rejection of Underconsumptist theories of the Crisis.

[revol68]

Anyone got a take on Kilman? I've been reading him argue that workers wages in the west actually haven't declined in real or relative terms in the past 40 years. Now the likes of Harvey and most other marxist commentators hold precisely the opposite view and see this decline being bridged by personal credit, in terms of both homes and goods.

Anyway his argument is that because of workers living longer in retirement etc they infact have got an increased cut of national income rather than a declining one.

I haven't read enough to seriously assess this claim but reading the opening paragraphs on this blog, I am immediately hit with this piece of false dichotomy

Kilman wrote:
The issues I’ll discuss below have to do with the underlying long-run causes of the crisis. Is the crisis ultimately rooted in contradictions of the capitalist system of production, or is it ultimately rooted–as the underconsumptionist camp claims–in falling pay for workers and/or a fall in their share of national income?

Seems like straight up objectivist crap whereby things like workers pay are somehow external to the capitalist system of production? I mean without even getting into the correctness or otherwise of underconsumptionist theories the obvious point is that crises of underconsumption are in fact rooted in the contradictions of capitalist production.

Regardless of whether Kilman is actually correct, this isn't the first time I've seen him present things in such dishonest ways, seems to be a motif of his.

So yeah like I say anyone got any thoughts on this, personally he comes across as a cranky twat accusing everyone in sight of being a secret Keynesian except for him who is the saviour of Marxist orthodoxy, am I being unfair, is he worth taking seriously?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Who he?

Edited to add: found him.

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiativ...-lies-and-underconsumptionist-statistics.html

Sorry that is the same as the link in the OP which for me didn't work at first.

 

[revol68]

Come on Butcher's get off your holiday and get back to the coalface, no wonder we can't compete with China!

Love Detective, where you at?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Butchers is on the JK Rowling thread.

 

[revol68]

Also I don't know why I keep calling him Kilman instead of Kliman, some sort of selective dyslexia.

 

[N_igma]

Also I don't know why I keep calling him Kilman instead of Kliman, some sort of selective dyslexia.

Freudian slip, it's when you accidentally say something that's on your penis..I mean mind.

 

[love detective]

Kliman seems to get a bad press from trendy lefties/academics, but I think he's pretty good

I think the way he phrased the bit you quote gives a too crude an analysis of what he's trying to do

The crux of what he's doing is to make sure the core & kernel of a marxian analysis which uncovers the multi faceted layers of contradictions within Capital as a wider process are not outweighed by the very simplistic and populist underconsumptionist argument that if wages increased then all the problems with capitalism would be dealt with. And yes underconsumptionist stuff is part of the wider set of contradictions within capital, but it's not the only one so an underconsumptionist approach that focuses purely on this as the core problem, is one that ignores all the other layers & levels of contradiction inherent within capital

I think the empirical work that he's done for his latest book is pretty useful at keeping the focus on the deeper contradictions within capital and not letting everything be dwarved by a lazy reformist, social democrat type keynism thinking.

Got to admit I was surprised by the crudeness of the part that you quoted, and if i'd read that without knowing his work i'd probably come to the same conclusions as you, but there is a lot more to him than what that quoted part suggests

He's an anti-academic academic who carries out his anti-academicsm in a very academic way - but he's still a breath of fresh air compared to most of the current crop of dreary academic marxists who hang about at the historical materialism type events. He's a nice guy in real life, and one of the few academics you can talk to (as a non-academic) who doesn't create this air of superiority around him and his work. He hates the way that academia has internalised marxian analysis and made it into some kind of closed off cultural artefact, the sole purpose of which is to study it and come up with better interpretations of it. In hating and fighting that though he has to an extent just been subsumed within that bubble. If I was an academic I would be exactly the same as him (not saying that this is a good thing though, but I can see how you could end up like that fairly easily, even though you know it's a dead end)

His earlier book Reclaiming Marx's Capital is well worth a read - it will sharpen your understanding & grasp of Capital and it probably should have been positioned as a book whose stated aim was to do that, rather than what he done which was to situate it in the dreary cul de sac context of academic arguments about whether Capital (the book) was internally consistent or not

There was a thread about him recently here

edit: I always type Kilman as well - like it's an entry on a to do list

 

[Random]

He's an anti-academic academic who carries out his anti-academicsm in a very academic way - but he's still a breath of fresh air compared to most of the current crop of dreary academic marxists who hang about at the historical materialism type events. He's a nice guy in real life, and one of the few academics you can talk to (as a non-academic) who doesn't create this air of superiority around him and his work. He hates the way that academia has internalised marxian analysis and made it into some kind of closed off cultural artefact, the sole purpose of which is to study it and come up with better interpretations of it. In hating and fighting that though he has to an extent just been subsumed within that bubble. If I was an academic I would be exactly the same as him (not saying that this is a good thing though, but I can see how you could end up like that fairly easily, even though you know it's a dead end)

So he didn't make you sit on a little stool, then?

 

[revol68]

Kliman seems to get a bad press from trendy lefties/academics, but I think he's pretty good

I think the way he phrased the bit you quote gives a too crude an analysis of what he's trying to do

The crux of what he's doing is to make sure the core & kernel of a marxian analysis which uncovers the multi faceted layers of contradictions within Capital as a wider process are not outweighed by the very simplistic and populist underconsumptionist argument that if wages increased then all the problems with capitalism would be dealt with. And yes underconsumptionist stuff is part of the wider set of contradictions within capital, but it's not the only one so an underconsumptionist approach that focuses purely on this as the core problem, is one that ignores all the other layers & levels of contradiction inherent within capital

I think the empirical work that he's done for his latest book is pretty useful at keeping the focus on the deeper contradictions within capital and not letting everything be dwarved by a lazy reformist, social democrat type keynism thinking.

Got to admit I was surprised by the crudeness of the part that you quoted, and if i'd read that without knowing his work i'd probably come to the same conclusions as you, but there is a lot more to him than what that quoted part suggests

He's an anti-academic academic who carries out his anti-academicsm in a very academic way - but he's still a breath of fresh air compared to most of the current crop of dreary academic marxists who hang about at the historical materialism type events. He's a nice guy in real life, and one of the few academics you can talk to (as a non-academic) who doesn't create this air of superiority around him and his work. He hates the way that academia has internalised marxian analysis and made it into some kind of closed off cultural artefact, the sole purpose of which is to study it and come up with better interpretations of it. In hating and fighting that though he has to an extent just been subsumed within that bubble. If I was an academic I would be exactly the same as him (not saying that this is a good thing though, but I can see how you could end up like that fairly easily, even though you know it's a dead end)

His earlier book Reclaiming Marx's Capital is well worth a read - it will sharpen your understanding & grasp of Capital and it probably should have been positioned as a book whose stated aim was to do that, rather than what he done which was to situate it in the dreary cul de sac context of academic arguments about whether Capital (the book) was internally consistent or not

There was a thread about him recently here

edit: I always type Kilman as well - like it's an entry on a to do list

Cheers.

I was interested in reading him for a while but was abit put off by this and before that a rather odd "critique" of David Graeber were he inserted his own critical comments into a rather light weight interview about direct action. Apart from the bonkers format, most of his criticisms were your standard trot distortions of what direct action is and how anarchists relate to struggle (Graeber wasn't helping with his bullshit "direct action is to act as you are already free" ).

Has he accused Harvey of being a Keynesian, or is that just his followers because I think that is massively unfair on Harvey who goes out of his way to reject some final underconsumptionist crisis but simply understands underconsumption as one of many crises that can manifest itself as capital struggles with it's own contradictions?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is he actually saying 'Harvey is a Keynsian' or is it more like 'That Harvey is a bit too close the Monthly Review for my taste' i.e. that he's making similar claims to Sweezy and those guys ...

 

[revol68]

Is he actually saying 'Harvey is a Keynsian' or is it more like 'That Harvey is a bit too close the Monthly Review for my taste' i.e. that he's making similar claims to Sweezy and those guys ...

I couldn't tell you for sure but the tone of the blog suggests he thinks those who argue that workers incomes have been dropping for the past 30 odd years(in real and relative terms), as Harvey does are falling into Keynesianism.

 

[love detective]

Cheers.

I was interested in reading him for a while but was abit put off by this and before that a rather odd "critique" of David Graeber were he inserted his own critical comments into a rather light weight interview about direct action. Apart from the bonkers format, most of his criticisms were your standard trot distortions of what direct action is and how anarchists relate to struggle (Graeber wasn't helping with his bullshit "direct action is to act as you are already free" ).

well if you took that view with everyone you'd never read Harvey or anyone else for that matter!

I mean name me one decent well known writer/thinker on Marx at the moment who has any kind of decent view on or about practical politics? Even Marx had pretty shit politics.

Has he accused Harvey of being a Keynesian, or is that just his followers because I think that is massively unfair on Harvey who goes out of his way to reject some final underconsumptionist crisis but simply understands underconsumption as one of many crises that can manifest itself as capital struggles with it's own contradictions?

Not really followed any of that so no idea whose accused who of what - but Harvey does have a bit of a underconsumptionist streak in the tradition of the monthly review types that Bernie mentioned, uses their research as gospel in this books etc and also (i think) has been supportive in uncritical terms of bog standard keynesian type reactions to the crisis (in the sense that the only problem with capitalism is a problem of effective demand) - no idea what the context of that support was so possibly taken out of context, but overall I think Kliman is someone who is worth paying attention to and seeing past the sometimes dubious form or way things are presented by him, as the substance is on the whole pretty good in the wider scheme of things.

 

[revol68]

well if you took that view with everyone you'd never read Harvey or anyone else for that matter!

I mean name me one decent well known writer/thinker on Marx at the moment who has any kind of decent view on or about practical politics?



Not really followed any of that so no idea whose accused who of what - but Harvey does have a bit of a underconsumptionist streak in the tradition of the monthly review types that Bernie mentioned, uses their research as gospel in this books etc and also (i think) has been supportive in uncritical terms of bog standard keynesian type reactions to the crisis - no idea what the context of that support was so possibly taken out of context, but overall I think Kliman is someone who is worth paying attention to and seeing past the sometimes dubious form or way things are presented by him, as the substance is on the whole pretty good in the wider scheme of things

The standard trot nonsense I can deal with, sure Harvey comes across as a social democrat a lot of the time, it was more the really odd format he used to critique Graeber, it was very crankish.

Regarding Harvey's uncritical response to keynesian reactions to the crisis, well from reading him I took it as him seeing such responses as doing little more than kicking the can a bit further down the road, infact on a lecture on Theory and History (it's on his website) he talks about the problems it has already thrown up in China.

So what Kliman book do you recommend?

Also he seems to really hate the whole financialisation theme, you any thoughts on that, any good books on it's significance?

 

[love detective]

plus he livened up a dreary as fuck and pointless 'panel discussion' on real abstraction at last years historical materialism conference by getting up from his chair in the audience to try and open a window and falling completely over the chair in front of him and ended up doing an awkward head over heels type manoeuvre, plus he sweats like someone whose been grilled to fuck on dragon's den - never seen Harvey do anything like that

 

[revol68]

Just googled him, his grumpy contractor look is endearing.

 

[love detective]

The standard trot nonsense I can deal with, sure Harvey comes across as a social democrat a lot of the time, it was more the really odd format he used to critique Graeber, it was very crankish.

yeah, that's what i meant about looking through/past the form though - we all get cranky at times no

Regarding Harvey's uncritical response to keynesian reactions to the crisis, well from reading him I took it as him seeing such responses as doing little more than kicking the can a bit further down the road, infact on a lecture on Theory and History (it's on his website) he talks about the problems it has already thrown up in China.

As i said, not sure what the context of the criticisms were - he's not absolutely wrong about Harvey though, perhaps not 100% correct either. I think I was at that Theory & History lecture, was it the deutscher memorial lecture thing- the one where somehow brown leather jacket managed to get a seat beside him for some reason

So what Kliman book do you recommend?

Still the one that I recommended in my first post!

Also he seems to really hate the whole financialisation theme, you any thoughts on that, any good books on it's significance?

I think it's refreshing in a way, as he doesn't see the source of all the problems lying essentially within finance in and off itself, more that these things we see in financialisation are a symptom and manifestation of a deeper crisis of capitalism, in a crisis of value etc.. So it's a refreshing retort to the occupy, hang the banker, currency crank, money first, positive money type analysis that has picked up a lot of intertia in the last few years - so that kind of comes back to his criticism of narrow underconsumptionist arguments which say if only wages were a bit higher then we'd all be ok and capital wouldn't have any problems

 

[love detective]

Just googled him, his grumpy contractor look is endearing.

he looks like he's come to fix your printer

 

[phildwyer]

I mean name me one decent well known writer/thinker on Marx at the moment who has any kind of decent view on or about practical politics? Even Marx had pretty shit politics.

Marxism isn´t a recipe for practical politics, it is a critique of capital.

That is one of your fundamental errors, btw.

 

[love detective]

You don't just critique capital for the sake of critiquing capital

This may well be the default position in academia, an analysis & critique of capital purely for the sake of an analysis & critique of capital - but it certainly wasn't Marx's

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has squarely struck this ingenuous soil of the people, the emancipation of the Germans into men will be accomplished.

 

[phildwyer]

You don't just critique capital for the sake of critiquing capital

This may well be the default position in academia, an analysis & critique of capital purely for the sake of an analysis & critique of capital - but it certainly wasn't Marx's

Marx did not have the same evidence of history available to him as we do.

The result of overthrowing capitalism by ¨material force¨can only be disaster. Capital can only be challenged and fought where it exists. And it only exists in the human mind.

 

[love detective]

well there's not much space for it in your tiny mind

 

[revol68]

As i said, not sure what the context of the criticisms were - he's not absolutely wrong about Harvey though, perhaps not 100% correct either. I think I was at that Theory & History lecture, was it the deutscher memorial lecture thing- the one where somehow brown leather jacket managed to get a seat beside him for some reason

The very same one, is brown leather jack old Alexander Theodore Callinicos?

I think it's refreshing in a way, as he doesn't see the source of all the problems lying essentially within finance in and off itself, more that these things we see in financialisation are a symptom and manifestation of a deeper crisis of capitalism, in a crisis of value etc.. So it's a refreshing retort to the occupy, hang the banker, currency crank, money first, positive money type analysis that has picked up a lot of intertia in the last few years - so that kind of comes back to his criticism of narrow underconsumptionist arguments which say if only wages were a bit higher then we'd all be ok and capital wouldn't have any problems

That's grand but is there not writers on financialisation who deal with it's development and it's effects on capitalism and more importantly class dynamics, yet understand it as arising from deeper crises and contradictions in capitalism per se? Basically writers who are at once addressing the reality of financialisation and what it means without falling into "hang the bankers" populist crap? A kind of half way house between "OMGZ you structural anti semite!" and "Blame the Banksters"?

oh sorry I must have forgot you recommended me that Kliman book.

Is it better than Mattick Jr's "Business as Usual"?

 

[love detective]

The very same one, is brown leather jack old Alexander Theodore Callinicos?

yep that's him - was that the same talk where he was defending academic marxism because up until recently that's the only way it could have 'survived', but now its turned into something less than useless, so time to break out beyond conservative inwards academia, he also made good points about the need to go 'beyond marx', look at what marx didn't do etc.. -

That's grand but is there not writers on financialisation who deal with it's development and it's effects on capitalism and more importantly class dynamics, yet understand it as arising from deeper crises and contradictions in capitalism per se? Basically writers who are at once addressing the reality of financialisation and what it means without falling into "hang the bankers" populist crap? A kind of half way house between "OMGZ you structural anti semite!" and "Blame the Banksters"?

Costas Lapavitsas is pretty good on that kind of thing, also the Research on Money & Finance network he's involved in. He did a book ages ago with Makoto Itoh called the political economy of money and finance - blurb below

Pronounced instability has characterised the capitalist world economy since the early 1970s, much of it originating in the mechanisms of money and finance. Several different government policies have failed to restore harmony, often appearing to exacerbate economic instability. This volume argues that monetary and financial instability has its roots in capitalist production and trade themselves, as well as in the defects of the mechanisms of money and finance. Thus, no mix of policies can fully establish monetary and financial harmony, though different policies can significantly amerliorate or worsen instability. To sustain its central claim, the book re-examines the historical and logical origin of money, the creation of interest-bearing capital, the spontaneous emergence of a capitalist credit system, the mechanism of capitalist crises, and the nature and functions of central banks. Further support is provided by the systematic examination of the monetary and financial analysis of all of the important schools of thought, including Classical political economy, Marxism, Keynesianism, Post-keynesianism and monetarism. The authors' ability to present important insights from Japanese political economy, not previously discussed in Anglo-Saxon economies, makes this a highly significant work in radical political economy, offering a systematic and up-to-date Marxist analysis

Pt. I. Classical Foundations.
1. Classical Political Economy of Money and Credit.
2. Value and Money in Marx's Political Economy.
3. Interest-Bearing Capital: The Distinctive Marxist Approach

Pt. II. Principles of Credit and Finance.
4. The Credit System.
5. Joint-Stock Capital and the Capital Market.
6. Monetary and Financial Aspects of the Business Cycle.
7. Central Banking

Pt. III. Postwar Realities and Theories.
8. Loss of Control over Money and Finance.
9. The Rise and Fall of Keynesianism.
10. Post-Keynesian Monetary Theory.
11. Money and Credit in a Socialist Economy.

oh sorry I must have forgot you recommended me that Kliman book.

Is it better than Mattick Jr's "Business as Usual"?

Totally different type of book to that, it's a book on interpreting/understanding Capital and refuting the various myths that Capital is internally inconsistent - the equivalent of that Mattick's book would be his most recent one The Failure of Capitalist Production, which looks at the causes of the crisis as one grounded in traditional/orthodox falling rate of profit type stuff

 

[Firky]

I don't even understand the title of the thread.

 

[revol68]

Cheers LD, aye I'm looking for a more historical book at the moment, kind of burnt out on the whole correct reading of Capital thing at the moment.

Probably get the Mattick one for the time being, cos he's a good council communist and all that or you think that would be a mistake?

 

[love detective]

I don't even understand the title of the thread.

i bet you've never rejected an underconsumptionist

 

[revol68]

i bet you've never rejected an underconsumptionist

he loves a chubby goth!

 

[love detective]

they have a great organic composition

 

[Firky]

I know what underconsumption is I just don't understand it. Bit like dogs, I know what a dog is but what the fuck are they all about?

I'd rather have an emotionally vulnerable indie chick than a chubby world of warcraft fan

 

[love detective]

also i hear your both pedophiles