World economy fundamentally unsound?

[urbanrevolt]

You don't need to be a Marxsky-ite-Trotskeeismist to deduce that the world economy is fundamentally unsound.

The pollution alone tells us something's not good. The effects of climate change are already affecting the world economy and things don't look like easing up soon. The symptoms of climate change tells us the world economy is fundamentally unsound.

Depends what you mean by fundamentally unsound of course.

The world economy IS fundamentally unsound in at least three senses in my opinion-

1) The capitalist system based on ruthless and relentless pursuit of profits produces inequality, massive wealth for a few, misery for many- e.g. the billions living on less than £1 a day, 30 000 children dying every day from easily preventable diseases-

Environmental degradation and destruction is part of this as well.

2) Partly as a function of 1 capitlaism is tremndously wasteful of human talent and vast resources are wasted- a truly democratic socialist econmoic system would liberate the vast potential of billions of human beings to transform our world. Hundreds of millions of children are without education; billions with an inadequate education and training; many millions still live without electricity etc etc This not only brutal (that was point 1) but ineeficient as a mode of production and indeed dehaumanising and degrading- socialism after all isn't just about more efficiency but about freedom and realising our potential, collectively and individually

3) Capitalist production is crisis ridden and unsustainable in the long term because of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline

However, none of this should be confused with what many on the left- inlcuding the SP in the article linked to- mean. They mean capitalism is in crisis now for the capiltalists or if not in crisis right now it's just about to be.

This false and wishful thinking does nothing to liberate humanity but does mislead many and by being harbingers of a false new dawn of socialist struggle it paradoxically impedes activists from realising the true nature of the tasks ahead. To change the world at the very least as a first step it is useful to understand it.

Capitalism is not in crisis now on a world wide scale though it creates catastrophic conditions for many people- at the moement rates of profit are high, luxury goods consumption high and the capitalists are having a ball while the masses die.

It is not sustainable for all sorts of reasons- environmental destruction may eventaully fuck up the planet badly enough to eat into capitlaist profits as well but we can't wait for that to happen but be proactive now without false hope or selfdeception.

 

[mk12]

What?!!! Apart from all those texts on money of course. The section on finance and credit in Capital V3, the opening sections of Capital V1, a massive section on money in the grundrisse (as long as most books) and a year long series of articles on the just this in the mid-1850s, plus various other texts throughout his life.

You might want to read the book by Suzanne de Brunhoff Marx on Money or the brilliant and influential Sergio Bologna article Money and Crisis: Marx as Correspondent of the New York Daily Tribune, 1856-57 or The Political Economy of Money and Finance by to fill in the gaps.

I actually agree that looking at the economy in the way that PR and other orthodox marxists do, as some autonomous machine operating to its own objective immanent laws is useless - there are other approaches that take a far wider views and have made the connection between w/c action and 'economic' crisis or developments, that the w/c and it's actions are actually the driving force of the economy, not the other way around. I'm not sure where the things you reccomed fit into that though.

Good post. I don't oppose the idea of talking economics, but when the w/c is left out of the discussion as the most important actor in the world economy, I do tend to steer clear of the discussion. It's a very one-sided view of the world, which focuses purely on what 'capital' is up to - the rest of us are merely victims.

 

[JoePolitix]

Good post. I don't oppose the idea of talking economics, but when the w/c is left out of the discussion as the most important actor in the world economy, I do tend to steer clear of the discussion. It's a very one-sided view of the world, which focuses purely on what 'capital' is up to - the rest of us are merely victims.

And this perhaps touches on what Marx really didn't get round to - a book on wage-labour. Michael Lebowitz, a Venezuelan based Marxist has argued that Capital, taken alone, is one sided. He's attempted to fill the void with his book "Beyond Capital". He has a little chat about it here:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/608/lebovitz.htm

 

[mk12]

I agree with you Joe. I read a book on my holiday which argued exactly the same point (quoting Lebowitz, about Marx's potential book on wage labour). I think it's to their credit that some people have tried to go beyond Marx in their economic analyses, realising that he was just one man who did not complete all the work he wanted to.

Good quote from Lebowitz in your article you linked to: "some of the people I have the strongest problems with are the academic Marxists. They simply seem to believe that ‘Capital is truth’, it is the first and last word and anything that is not in Capital doesn’t really count. They make themselves into ‘the guardians of the book’ rather than open, critical thinkers."

 

[urbanrevolt]

Well of course Marx was just one man etc. what did you expect?

But I don't really accept what butchers paron is saying and mk12 is agreeing with when he says,
"I actually agree that looking at the economy in the way that PR and other orthodox marxists do, as some autonomous machine operating to its own objective immanent laws is useless"

Where are we or marxists saying it is an autonomous machine- we stand for the organisation of the working class to overthrow capitalism, for workers in struggle to discover their own power, make links with other workers in struggle and others coming into struggle.

But there's no point peddling a fantasy make-believe that capitalism is on the verge of collapse- I'm not sure if butchers' apron is arguing this but it is this catastrophist marxism which permanent revolution is arguing against

so actually butchers' apron is completely inverting our position- we are saying you can't just wait around expecting capitalism to collapse imminently, like some sect saying the end is nigh, here is the truth- come to us as your saviours

if that's your version of marxism you can keep it to yourself- because that's exactly where it will end up!

Now I realise this may be shocking to some people but it is not only healthy to think critically and outside the box but absolutely necessary if we are going to get anywhere near reconnecting revolutionary socialism with the masses

 

[fanciful]

Its a bit of a joke to say that Marx didn't have a theory of wage labour. What do you think Capital is, it explains the origin of surplus value through a critique of wage labour?
If your reason for going beyond Capital is that, then heaven help you. This Liebowitz chap just sounds like your standard Stalinist, harping on how great Cuba is and how "Democracy is not a form: democracy is a practice."
I'm surprised that critical thinkers should take up his cause.
As for this;
"I looked at Marx, and his theory concerned the analysis of capitalism and an understanding of the nature of capital. Fine. Then, on the other hand, there was political activity, and in that I had an entirely different perspective."

I mean chuckle or what? As if Marx had no political theory. Utter cobblers.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Good post. I don't oppose the idea of talking economics, but when the w/c is left out of the discussion as the most important actor in the world economy, I do tend to steer clear of the discussion. It's a very one-sided view of the world, which focuses purely on what 'capital' is up to - the rest of us are merely victims.

To be honest I don't get what you or butchersapron mean. You seem to have set boxes that you're putting people in, because I really don't how you can come to the conclusion that that's what this thread or PR are saying. As urbanrevolt has said, if anything it's the opposite. The point about marxist economics (in Capital or otherwise) is that the working class is at the centre of it. Where is anyone saying otherwise?

that the w/c and it's actions are actually the driving force of the economy, not the other way around.

Of course the working class are the driving force of the economy, but isn't that stating the obvious a bit? But that said when the organised working class is very weak (as it is now) and when the capitalist economy has been booming (as it has over the last few years) then this will have a significant affect of class struggle both in terms of attacks on the working class and the way that reformist politics such as those of Chavez are able to operate.

 

[mk12]

Urbanrevolt: I can't speak for butchers, but i'm fairly sure he agrees with me in saying that you're criticisms cannot be levelled at us. Capitalism will certainly not destroy itself on its own. I believe in the complete opposite of that in fact. He was merely criticising your method of analysing the economy, not just your answers you have come up with.

fanciful - Obviously Marx had a "theory of wage labour". No one is denying that. And I am not sure about Lebowitz's views on Cuba. I have never read anything by him to be honest. But his comment on 'academic marxists' analysing the economy from a top-down, one sided view is correct I think.

cockneyrebel:

The point about marxist economics (in Capital or otherwise) is that the working class is at the centre of it. Where is anyone saying otherwise?

Where, in the article you linked to in the first post, is this idea put into practice? I think it's fair to say that that article proves the point that a lot of Marxists tend to look at capital's actions alone on these questions (economy) then comes up with a way for the working class to respond to these actions (politics). Another view, which I think butchersapron agrees with, argues that is in fact workers' struggles that provide the dynamic of capitalist development.

Here's a good example:

take the current moves in Europe and North America toward the creation of free trade zones. Traditional orthodox Marxist analyses tend to attempt to understand such moves in terms of the internal laws of capitalist development, as a response to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, or as a response to the exhaustion of a regime of regulation, or as another clever move in intercapitalist competition on a world scale. None of these considerations contains much, if anything, in the way of an analysis of worker power, and therefore little sense of where we are and how we might deal with the situation. An autonomist Marxist analysis, by contrast, which began with an assessment of the current crisis of capitalism in terms of the failure of previous capitalist strategies to contain and instrumentalize workers' power would provide such a point of departure. For example, the increased mobility of fixed capital associated with free trade (e.g. production facilities are moved from country A to country B because the products can now be shipped back to country A) can be seen as a response to the mobility and power of workers (e.g. the autonomous movement of immigrants and the rigidifications and costs imposed by workers in countries of heavy fixed capital investment).

So the method of analysing is different, regardless of the answers.

 

[fanciful]

Can't agree that workers struggles provide the dynamic for capitalist development. Profits do. That is certainly mediated through the course of the class struggle, but capitalists do not invest in the first place because of workers struggles or not, but the need to produce for profits.
As for academic marxists, I agree they are generally awful. In fact I can't think of a good one.

 

[mk12]

Can't agree that workers struggles provide the dynamic for capitalist development. Profits do. That is certainly mediated through the course of the class struggle, but capitalists do not invest in the first place because of workers struggles or not, but the need to produce for profits.
As for academic marxists, I agree they are generally awful. In fact I can't think of a good one.

Although I disagree with that, hopefully this answers the question from cockneyrebel: "To be honest I don't get what you or butchersapron mean" - there are different ways of looking at society. One way is the method I mentioned above, the other is the method you have put forward in that quote.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But mk12 you seem to be looking at things from static definitions where you put people in boxes (as said above). And in your answers about how you look at things differently it all seems very vague.

Where, in the article you linked to in the first post, is this idea put into practice?

What do you mean, where is it put into practice? The article is a criticism of economic catastrophism. As said it's pretty much a statement of the obvious to say that the working class is at the centre of marxist economics.

I think it's fair to say that that article proves the point that a lot of Marxists tend to look at capital's actions alone on these questions (economy) then comes up with a way for the working class to respond to these actions (politics).

But it's not about looking at capital's actions alone, it's about the interaction of capital with the working class. You say this is an example of the differences:

An autonomist Marxist analysis, by contrast, which began with an assessment of the current crisis of capitalism in terms of the failure of previous capitalist strategies to contain and instrumentalize workers' power would provide such a point of departure. For example, the increased mobility of fixed capital associated with free trade (e.g. production facilities are moved from country A to country B because the products can now be shipped back to country A) can be seen as a response to the mobility and power of workers (e.g. the autonomous movement of immigrants and the rigidifications and costs imposed by workers in countries of heavy fixed capital investment).

But in fact it's not. Indeed I'd say the analysis is above is a nonsense, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't take into account the role of the working class in economics. The above seems to suggest that it's the failure of capitalism to contain workers power that is leading to the current situation, which to me is absurd. Actually the smashing of the stalinist states and opening up of markets and the huge defeats of the organised working class have had a huge impact and explain why even in a period of economic growth the ruling class have continued to attack working class gains. Some on the left haven't been able to understand that because they stick to the formulaic thinking that attacks on the working class only take place because the ruling class is in a position of weakness.

But because you have pre-set views on much of the far left you stick PRs analysis into a box that you've already prepared. In fact I agree, and PRs analysis agrees, that the working class and the struggles have a big impact on what is going on now. But firstly I'd argue that the last few years haven't seen a "crisis of capitalism" as your quote suggests or that the model of globalisation/free market capitalism comes from "the failure of previous capitalist strategies to contain and instrumentalize workers' power ", in fact quite the opposite, it comes from the massive defeats that the working classes had throughout the 80s and 90s.

All fancifuls quote is saying is that it is profit that is the underlying driving force for capitalists, I would have thought that was a statement that could pretty much be taken for granted, but of course workers struggles interact and change that dynamic. Unfortunately, despite what the autonomous marxist is saying above, the current phase of capitalism isn't on the back of workers power but workers defeats.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Urbanrevolt: I can't speak for butchers, but i'm fairly sure he agrees with me in saying that you're criticisms cannot be levelled at us. Capitalism will certainly not destroy itself on its own. I believe in the complete opposite of that in fact. He was merely criticising your method of analysing the economy, not just your answers you have come up with.

...
So the method of analysing is different, regardless of the answers.

You are simply assuming as cockney has said that our analysis is the same as your stereotypical view of what 'the left' think.

However, the article referred to is simply arguing that the (false) idea that capitalism is in crisis now does not help us overthrow it and establish a society based on the rule of the working class. Actually, self activity of workers is essential to such a struggle.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

it is not only healthy to think critically and outside the box but absolutely necessary if we are going to get anywhere...

Couldn't agree more.

I'm struggling to see where anyone is actually doing that (with the possible exception of Muckypup and, of course, PhilDwyer).

The 'box' to which I refer is the one delineated by the fundamental nature of 'money', that is, the paradigm within which 'money' is considered a 'neutral medium of exchange', where we concern ourselves with what we do 'with' it, what it does 'to' us, how it's flow is directed (or mis-directed) etc. without making a critical examination of what 'it' actually 'is', it's intrinsic nature.

It's a bit like having, say, a sausage making machine. It makes sausages.

It matters not who 'controls' the machine, which way the levers and dials are adjusted or what the aims and objectives of the operator are - it's going to make sausages.

It matters not what you throw into it - pigs, people or armchairs - it's going to make them into sausages, some of which will be less palatable than others, but minced up tubes of something resembling sausages, nonetheless. That is the machines intrinsic nature. It is what it does.

Now, 'money' is like that machine, except instead of making sausages, through the mechanism of usury, it concentrates wealth in the hands of the wealthy. That's what it does - it can do nothing else.

The mechanics of how it achieves this are easily described in the short cartoon that MP linked to above: 'Money as Debt'.

How this tendency or ability to achieve this can be 'designed out' of 'money' is what I'm attempting to communicate here, in the face of a reluctance to recognise that there even is a need to do so.

As far as I am aware, there is only one 'thinker' who seriously addressed this issue and came up with a workable solution; Silvio Gesell.

Marx didn't. He concerned himself with how the levers of the machine should be operated and by whom, but never really examined the nature of the machine. He never critically examined the intrinsic nature of 'money'.

Here's a few of many examples of where he skirts the issue from 'Capital':

The first distinction we notice between money that is money only, and money that is capital, is nothing more than a difference in their form of circulation.

'Nothing more'?

We have here, therefore, a palpable difference between the circulation of money as capital, and its circulation as mere money.

'Mere'?

for money is but the converted form of commodities

'Is but'?



I think this matters, not only because (as is clearly evident) 'capitalism' is fast approaching a point where it's shortcomings as a system cannot any longer be ignored, even by those who have previously appeared to benefit from it (they like sausages?), but also because as it fails to 'deliver the goods' in terms of putting food in the bellies of it's adherents, we will be looking for a 'replacement' system.

My fear is that if we fail to address the fundamental, intrinsic nature and precepts of the system that has failed us, it's systemic failings, whatever we end up with will embody the same seeds of of it's own destruction, the same systemic faults as have led us to where we find ourselves now - like trading one set of jackboots on the back of our necks with another of a different colour.

And that would be a shame.

 

[phildwyer]

Couldn't agree more.

I'm struggling to see where anyone is actually doing that (with the possible exception of Muckypup and, of course, PhilDwyer).

At last the voice of reason. In my view money can only be understood in theological terms: as an idol. Psalm 115:4 "Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands..."

If we want to destroy this idol, we need to heed the words of the many thousands of iconoclasts who have left us extremely pertinant advice as to how this can be done.

Unfortunately however the modern Left is infected by the materialism which idolatry always produces, and is therefore largely unwilling to take theology seriously.

And thus we are doomed.

 

[fanciful]

Marx absolute did examine the intrinsic nature of money as a commodity. It is the universal equivalent, the one commodity which represents the value of all other commodities in it - under capitalism.
You say "He concerned himself with how the levers of the machine should be operated and by whom"
and you couldn't be more wrong. He knew who operated the levers of the machine long before he wrote capital - the capitalists did. He didn't propose anyone else operate the machine. Rather he proposed it be destroyed.
Funnily enough Marx described it in exactly those terms;

"Along with the extension of circulation, increases the power of money, that absolutely social form of wealth ever ready for use. “Gold is a wonderful thing! Whoever possesses it is lord of all he wants. By means of gold one can even get souls into Paradise.” (Columbus in his letter from Jamaica, 1503.)"

 

[Blagsta]

Backatcha - it might help if you actually read some Marx.

 

[phildwyer]

Backatcha - it might help if you actually read some Marx.

If he's who I think he is, you now look very silly indeed.

 

[mk12]

I'll respond to the other stuff later.

But because you have pre-set views on much of the far left you
stick PRs analysis into a box that you've already prepared.

These criticisms of Marxist economics were developed in the 60s and 70s
if I remember correctly. I am not just 'sticking you in a box' or
anything. It is a criticism levelled at Marxist economists within the
'orthodox' tradition, whether that's from those around the second
international, or the third, or the fourth (and it's followers).

You actually prove my point here: "The above seems to suggest that it's
the failure of capitalism to contain workers power that is leading to
the current situation, which to me is absurd", as does fanciful's
comments above. You disagree with the methods of Harry Cleaver (who was
the author of that quote), because he thnks "workers struggles provide
the dynamic for capitalist development" whereas you do not. Whether we
agree or disagree, you have to admit there is a pretty fundamental
difference between his analysis and yours?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Marx absolute did examine the intrinsic nature of money as a commodity. It is the universal equivalent, the one commodity which represents the value of all other commodities in it - under capitalism.
You say "He concerned himself with how the levers of the machine should be operated and by whom"
and you couldn't be more wrong. He knew who operated the levers of the machine long before he wrote capital - the capitalists did. He didn't propose anyone else operate the machine. Rather he proposed it be destroyed.
Funnily enough Marx described it in exactly those terms;

"Along with the extension of circulation, increases the power of money, that absolutely social form of wealth ever ready for use. “Gold is a wonderful thing! Whoever possesses it is lord of all he wants. By means of gold one can even get souls into Paradise.” (Columbus in his letter from Jamaica, 1503.)"

The basis of my criticism is that Marx fails to examine the fundamental difference between 'Money' and that which it is supposed to represent, i.e. that 'money' can be 'hoarded' without cost (in the form of atrophy - the effects of "Rats, moths and rust") to the hoarder.

OK, lets take a harder look at Part I, Chapter Iii, Sect. 3, A (Hoarding) [since you've quoted from it], where one would expect to find at least some recognition of this fundamental principle.

[note: I dislike the conflation of 'gold' and 'money', since while it may have historical relevance, modern 'money' (since 20/9/31 in the UK) is a fiat currency, not backed by gold]

In order that gold may be held as money, and made to form a hoard, it must be prevented from circulating, or from transforming itself into a means of enjoyment. The hoarder, therefore, makes a sacrifice of the lusts of the flesh to his gold fetish. He acts in earnest up to the Gospel of abstention. On the other hand, he can withdraw from circulation no more than what he has thrown into it in the shape of commodities. The more he produces, the more he is able to sell. Hard work, saving and avarice, are, therefore, his three cardinal virtues, and to sell much and buy little the sum of his political economy.

He continues to explain that the other motivation for 'hoarding' is based upon the aesthetic value of gold - irrelevant for the reason in my note above.

So according to Marx, here, the 'hoarder' is making a 'sacrifice' by withholding his wealth from circulation - yet he makes no mention of the advantages of hoarding, in that the 'money' is resistant to the atrophy to which other commodities are obviously subject.

But please do highlight it if you feel I've missed it.

 

[articul8]

'money' is resistant to the atrophy to which other commodities are obviously subject.

really? in conditions of hyperinflation, for example? Or are you of the view that the supply of money can be utilised to maintain its relative autonomy?

 

[Blagsta]

If he's who I think he is, you now look very silly indeed.

Yes phil.

 

[urbanrevolt]

I'll respond to the other stuff later.



These criticisms of Marxist economics were developed in the 60s and 70s
if I remember correctly. I am not just 'sticking you in a box' or
anything. It is a criticism levelled at Marxist economists within the
'orthodox' tradition, whether that's from those around the second
international, or the third, or the fourth (and it's followers).

You actually prove my point here: "The above seems to suggest that it's
the failure of capitalism to contain workers power that is leading to
the current situation, which to me is absurd", as does fanciful's
comments above. You disagree with the methods of Harry Cleaver (who was
the author of that quote), because he thnks "workers struggles provide
the dynamic for capitalist development" whereas you do not. Whether we
agree or disagree, you have to admit there is a pretty fundamental
difference between his analysis and yours?

Well, it depends. There may be a big difference in the economic analysis- I have not encountered Harry Cleaver's ideas before and will certainly look at them- but that wasn't the point of my and cockney's objections.

You said before that PR like much of the left saw workers as passive victims of capitalism. That was the assumption- which I think is probably based on a steretype- to which we objected. We do not see workers as passive- far from it. There are many examples throughout history of workers organising, both locally and occassionally on a grander scale, of fundamentally threatening the interests of the capitlaist elite.

We are absolutely for the centrality of working class organisation to both resist capitalism's attacks and form the basis of a new communist society run and managed by the workers.

This struggle to make connecdtions between workers in struggle, to articulate the need for a revolutionary organisation to further pose the questions of power in society, for workers to take power for ourselves and break up the capitalist state is not served at all though by false triumphalism- of beleiving that the capitist's progfits are on the verg of recesssion, or of exaggerating the current strenghts of the organised working class globally. In many cases, the workers' movement is in poor shape: the struggle to reassert the centrality of class, of the need for of workers' self-organisation has to proceed from reality not make believe. That was the point of the thread cokney started and the article on Permannet Revolution

It may be that the ideas of Cleaver and the last poster are well worty of consideration- we should certainly encourage open debate, creativity and new ideas. It is not helped by just saying oh you're against the centrality of working class struggle when that quite clearly is not the case. That was certainly the impression I got from mk and one or two others' posts. If I'm wrong then please clarify

 

[mk12]

urbanrevolt - I think you misunderstand the point Cleaver etc are making. They do not assume that the Marxists they criticise think that the w/c does not ever organise, or threaten the capitalist elite, or aim to take power. The First, Second, Third and Fourth INternational's all supported workers' organising and striking (in most cases anyway). Do you seriously believe I don't think that you and cockneyrebel are unaware of the fact that "there are many examples throughout history of workers organising, both locally and occassionally on a grander scale, of fundamentally threatening the interests of the capitlaist elite."?

The main difference in analysis between Marxists in your tradition, and the ideas put forward by the people in Cleaver's tradition (as I understand it), is that the former see workers' purely responding to capital's plans. Capital does this and that, workers respond in various ways. This puts capitalist development first, then workers' resistance second. As fanciful said earlier, he believes that "capitalists do not invest in the first place because of workers struggles or not, but the need to produce for profits".

Opposed to this, people in Cleaver's tradition argue that all of capitalist restructuring throughout history is because the working class has forced it to in various ways. There's a good article i'll link to at the bottom which gives a pretty decent overview of this idea. There's a few examples as to what they're arguing too. For example, it was the "highly skilled factory workers" who "provided the nucleus of Russian Bolshevism and council communism". So, what was capital's response to this?

"capital undertakes a drastic reshaping of production, aimed at deskilling the labour force and cutting it off from vanguard activism. The components of this project are, within the organisation of the labour process, Taylorism; in the structuring of the work-day and the wage, Fordism; in economic policy, Keynesianism; and in government, the advent of what the autonomists
term ‘the Planner State’.

Do you see how the method of analysis has been turned on its head?


http://libcom.org/files/Autonomist Marxism and the Information Society1.pdf

 

[Blagsta]

The main difference in analysis between Marxists in your tradition, and the ideas put forward by the people in Cleaver's tradition (as I understand it), is that the former see workers' purely responding to capital's plans. Capital does this and that, workers respond in various ways. This puts capitalist development first, then workers' resistance second. As fanciful said earlier, he believes that "capitalists do not invest in the first place because of workers struggles or not, but the need to produce for profits".

Opposed to this, people in Cleaver's tradition argue that all of capitalist restructuring throughout history is because the working class has forced it to in various ways.

Yeah, that's my understanding of Reading Capital Politically.

 

[fanciful]

Marx examines the contradiction within the money form you refer to here (amongst other places);

"The function of money as the means of payment implies a contradiction without a terminus medius. In so far as the payments balance one another, money functions only ideally as money of account, as a measure of value. In so far as actual payments have to be made, money does not serve as a circulating medium, as a mere transient agent in the interchange of products, but as the individual incarnation of social labour, as the independent form of existence of exchange value, as the universal commodity....Whenever there is a general and extensive disturbance of this mechanism, no matter what its cause, money becomes suddenly and immediately transformed, from its merely ideal shape of money of account, into hard cash....In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value-form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction. Hence, in such events, the form under which money appears is of no importance. The money famine continues, whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money such as bank notes."

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA3.html

Sorry for the length of the quote but you did ask.

Marx also deals with the displacement of gold by mere paper tokens i.e. bank notes, but you can look that up yourself!

Don't know anything about Harry Cleaver, but if he thinks workers struggles rather than the capitalist struggle for profit provides the motive for the capitalist mode of production, he's pretty obviously wrong. Think about the UK now, capitalist profits are at their highest ever levels, the class struggle is very low.
Unless you want to argue that the absence of workers struggles is a driving force for capitalism, but that's not the same thing is it?

 

[Blagsta]

Don't know anything about Harry Cleaver, but if he thinks workers struggles rather than the capitalist struggle for profit provides the motive for the capitalist mode of production, he's pretty obviously wrong. Think about the UK now, capitalist profits are at their highest ever levels, the class struggle is very low.
Unless you want to argue that the absence of workers struggles is a driving force for capitalism, but that's not the same thing is it?

That's not what he's saying. If I've understood it right, he's saying that capital responds to workers demands in a way that keeps it profitable, capital has to regroup. It's a dialectic, workers aren't purely passive recipients of capital's demands.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

really? in conditions of hyperinflation, for example? Or are you of the view that the supply of money can be utilised to maintain its relative autonomy?

Well, obviously in conditions of hyperinflation that wouldn't hold true - but do we generally experience or are we experiencing such conditions? No.

I didn't mention the effects of 'interest' regarding 'hoarded' wealth (savings) - so a pertinent question might be:

"Does the actual rate of inflation exceed the rate of interest on savings?"

The answer to which would of course again be 'No'.

Good question, though.

To be clear - I am of the view that 'stamp scrip' in the way that Gesell proposes would render currency 'unhoardable', truly a 'neutral medium of exchange', as opposed to a powerful 'political tool' for promoting inequality, or a systemic mechanism which hard-wires such into the 'machine' or system.

The real world, practical examples we have to look back on suggest that this view is not without merit.

I am a champion of 'Systems Thinking', or 'Cybernetics', as I believe it provides us with the most effective and appropriate intellectual tools for finding the 'best' way forward.

The fundamental idea behind such a philosophy entails identifying 'leverage points', or 'critical points of intervention' within a system where we can apply a seemingly small or insignificant change which will have scalar or 'domino' effect, bringing about a huge change.

The ultimate 'lazy bastards' philosophy.

I find that Marx and his ideas as presented, while providing many valid insights regarding the faults in 'economics', are so stodgy, wordy and imprecise as to render them useless. Basically, if an idea takes as many words to articulate as are contained in 'Capital', there's something missing.

For Marxism to yield results, it would require everyone on the planet to internalise the doctrine of co-operation as outlined in 'Capital', fundamentally shifting their worldview and value base accordingly - and what of those that fail to do so? Gulags?

No. The structural adjustment to the fundamental nature of 'money' as proposed by Gesell and others requires no such 'program of education'. The seemingly small systemic change to the nature of what we use as 'money' would have the desired results - it would render it impossible for such evils as are identified by Marx and so many others to dictate the course of our lives.

If we can remove the systemic driver that enables usury, we remove the fundamental need for 'profit' above all considerations, then - and only then - can 'alternative' modes and models of human relations flourish.

 

[fanciful]

"Basically, if an idea takes as many words to articulate as are contained in 'Capital', there's something missing."

Well i suppose that's one excuse for not reading your opponents!

 

[treelover]

Jeremy Seabrook on the 'Economy as a cult'

Wise men and women pore over indicators, signs and portents to anticipate any signs of faltering or sluggishness. Markets, which are its expression in the world, are frail tremulous things, sometimes nervous, shaky, uncertain, but also liable to sudden euphoria and exuberance. Dismal and cheerless at one moment, they are resilient, swift to rally and revive.

The economy now has the status of a cult. This is clear from the financial pages of the press, which are demarcated from "news", and presented in almost scriptural terms, far removed from those in which mundane social affairs are described. The economy must be made safe from contamination by the fallout, as it were, from society.

more

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jeremy_seabrook/2007/09/more_money_more_problems_.html

 

[cockneyrebel]

These criticisms of Marxist economics were developed in the 60s and 70s
if I remember correctly. I am not just 'sticking you in a box' or
anything. It is a criticism levelled at Marxist economists within the
'orthodox' tradition, whether that's from those around the second
international, or the third, or the fourth (and it's followers).

You actually prove my point here: "The above seems to suggest that it's
the failure of capitalism to contain workers power that is leading to
the current situation, which to me is absurd", as does fanciful's
comments above. You disagree with the methods of Harry Cleaver (who was
the author of that quote), because he thnks "workers struggles provide
the dynamic for capitalist development" whereas you do not. Whether we
agree or disagree, you have to admit there is a pretty fundamental
difference between his analysis and yours?

But the post above is sticking PRs analysis in a box. You’re saying that PR is orthodox Marxists and that this has all been dealt with before. The criticisms you are giving are vague as shown above, so it’s hard to know what you’re saying exactly.

For instance because I think that there isn’t a crisis in capitalism at the moment doesn’t mean I don’t think workers struggles are an important part of working out what’s going on. My point is that far from the current situation coming from capitalism being able to contain workers power, it actually comes from a couple of decades of defeats (the opening up of capitalism in the ex Stalinist states and the defeats that neo liberalism has inflicted on the organised working class around the world). That doesn’t mean I don’t think what workers are doing is important, but I’m saying we are coming from the situation of defeats not a situation of workers power, as the quote suggest. I’m not saying it’s absurd that there is an important role in working class struggle in economics (of course there is), but it is absurd to say that capital is doing what is now because of workers power, when in fact there have been two decades of defeats.

In terms of your second post (in response to UR), I still don’t get your point. Of course I don’t think that workers just respond to what capital does, it’s a “dialectical relationship” to use a formal term. What I’m objecting to is saying that the period we’re in now and the attacks of neo-liberalism are based on the strength of the working class, when in facts it’s based on our weakness.

As fanciful said earlier, he believes that "capitalists do not invest in the first place because of workers struggles or not, but the need to produce for profits".

But capital will try invest where it can get maximum profits. That doesn’t in way contradict the point that workers can shape struggle to force capitalists to act in different ways.