Development and Marxism

[Dodo]

Hey lads, newcomer here. Here is the context.

I am a student of development studies, majoring in economic history. My favorite area, and as a Marxist I have pretty much have my methodology of analysis sorted out.
Now development economics, UN, WB and the post-war policies are all, in my Marxist opinion about foremost
*legitimizing capitalism
*making sure it continues by strengthening the relations to new markets, mainly the third world or at least keeping the relations from the colonial times
*dealing with crises and problems for mending them

Obviously, there is a lot of Marxist, neo-Marxist or Marxist analysis influenced people in this area.

Now my dilemma is, I have come to the conclusion(well its taken for granted in Marxist thinking) that the problems within the system are the PRODUCT OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF, hence can not be solved through the system as there needs to be radical change. And yet, hundreds of thousands of well-educated brains are constantly dealing with the theories within capitalism, mostly going between the Keynesian based thought and monetarism/neo-classicals.

My analysis, is almost always based on Marxist perception but I have trouble when it comes to using Marxism as a "guide to revolutionary action" as I am surrounded almost always by bourgeouis theories on solving issues.

So my question is, as a Marxist is that; all we can say regarding solutions is that things can not be solved like this, there need to be a revolutionary change.
And within the context of my studies, when we are mostly dealing with the past half century in Europe, Africa and Asia, what I can say is mostly

*The international trade relations/governance needs to change as most of the post-war policies had been entrenching the position of the developed countries over developing ones through terms of trade, labour laws, multi-national corporations, corrupting of the local hegemon classes, protectionism against product of developing nations....etcetc*

So apart from the classic Marxist arguement that revolve around class struggles within a country, there is stronger emphasis on the world-wide class struggle(has its back in theories of imperialism) where things are even more complicated since nowadays as nation-states wither away and bourgeouis hegemony becomes more international in its nature.

So I keep finding myself thinking about trying to promote development of capitalism in developing world. Which brings me to my second question.


---
My second question is, in regard to stages of economic mode of production.
One of the classical counter-arguements against Marxism was that it was "deterministic" in its explanation of economic outcomes. The more I read, the more I started to think that it is only deterministic in the sense that super-structure is limited by sub-structure. When dialectics is in equation, there can not be a "determinism", since as subtructure shapes the superstructure the latter shapes the prior and we can not talk of absolute identicality. Why did I say this?
Because in the developing world, the relations of production are not clearly disticnt. Yes, in the end they are mostly in capitalist mode of production. But chunks of feudalistic and even slavery based production is not uncommon.
For example, in East Asian countries(S.Korea, Taiwan, Japan), capitalism was For not driven by individual entrepreneurship. The technocratic rulers of these countries, created an environment for there to be transition to capitalism, through land-reforms, creation of wage laborers, turning old feudal class into more capitalist in their nature(and THEN it was driven by capitalists under heavy regulations by the state, promoting export-industries). They also invested heavily in education for high-productivty and allowed low-wages but at the same time promoting a lot of saving.
They had been very succesful in climbing to the top this way. But at the same time, they were allowed in to western markets more than rest of the world in the "cold war" settings. Should I take this as a success story?


So I think to myself, should I be focusing on promoting of a national bourgeouis in the case of developing world? How would that be different from exploitation of international bourgeouis? If there is no difference, then what is wrong with liberalization and trying to pull FDI?
Turkey, where I am from for instance, have grown immensely since neo-liberal take-over. Of course economic growth is a "bourgeouis" understanding of the world, but it does make a difference. Shoud I alienate myself from these bourgeouis terms, completely disregarding them? Or should I be cooperating with things that promote "growth"?

So this brings me to my final question ,the struggle between neo-liberalism and Keynesian thought in bourgeouis thought.
We know about economists like Stiglitz, Amartya Sen,Krugman and a lot others criticizing capitalism almsot the same way Marxists do. But what they suggest in the end is,
*proper regulation, especially of the finance industry
*going back to someting like the gold standard
*Consumption based taxation rather than income
*even EMPLOYEE-owned workplaces(is that not kind of socialist :P)

But a Marxist knows that, no matter how much you reform, you will go in circles and end-up in a crisis due to inherent contradictions again.

How do Marxists view the 1950-70 Keynesian period? Or why should we heavily oppose the post-1980s neo-liberal wave if it promotes growth? If we should oppose that, does that mean we should be more of the Keynesian thought?
Think of this in relation to my first question. Are we to ignore these completely as bourgeouis BS, or is there a point as a Marxist in engaging these.

In terms of bourgeouis economic thinking, I find mylsef sometimes on the side of even neo-liberal ideas. I get confused a lot, HALP!!!!

Also, thank you for reading and trying to understand my complicatedly formulated questions.
I am at a stage in mylife where I dont exaclty know what to do as a student of this. Should I chase a career in places like WB, UN, IMF because I am a pretty ambitios person. Or should I deal with minimalist NGO's that deal with a few people to solve their problems in remote areas of the developing world? Though this part is more off-topic :D

[tuwix]

How do Marxists view the 1950-70 Keynesian period?


It was undoubtly effect of "danger" form the side of Russian revolution. The western elites decided to decrease income inequality in Keynesian style to maintain capitalism.



Or why should we heavily oppose the post-1980s neo-liberal wave if it promotes growth?


It's important who gains from growth. If the majority doesn't, it is obviuos why we oppose to that. Contrary to the Keynesian period, neo-liberal wave give benefits mostly to higher classes.



If we should oppose that, does that mean we should be more of the Keynesian thought?


It's just lesser of two evils. But let's be serious. Time of Keynesianism that was better for working classes has gone in Western world. Only strong alternative as the Soviet Union was could be incentive to restore it. Even China that is developing in very Keynesian way but not so good for working class isn't sufficcient alternative to get back Western world to more friendly for workers' class Keynesianism.

[Sea]

We should not be for Keynesian thought, because Keynesian thought is incorrect. Just because, when implemented, it is a bit less oppressive for workers of the developed countries (the majority of people in the world, who do not live in well-developed / post-industrial countries, see no such benefit anyway) doesn't mean it is correct.

Any politics that supports working within the system instead of breaking out of it is not only demonstrably false (Keynesianism failed for a reason), but is the politics of treachery. We must break out of the vicious circle that is bourgeois ideology. If you want to be more familiar with putting this sort of critical analysis to work, I suggest you check out Lenin's 'What is to be done?' and 'The State and Revolution' as well as some of Lenin's letters criticizing Kautsky. These, like much of Lenin's work, contain a critique of opportunism sprinkled throughout. The second part of Enver Hoxha's 'Imperialism and the Revolution', and 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism' would be of value if you want to follow along with a detailed critique of Maoism and Eurocommunism respectively. You don't have to agree broadly with these authors, but these works provide some very clear and direct examples of using Marxist analyses to fight against opportunism (or social-chauvinism, or revisionism, or whatever you wish to call it), and, aside from some of Hoxha's rhetoric (which isn't part of the analyses anyway) are relatively tendency-neutral.

Marxism is not deterministic. Even in Capital, Marx makes a huge deal of such things as technological development, social norms and customs, historical circumstances, etc. Marxism and economism are not the same. The only relation they have is that some more foolish ideologues who claim to be from the former tradition have ended up espousing the latter. There is no relation between the two in theory or in practice.

I suggest you being familiarizing yourself with Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, and the like if you want to know more about revolutionary strategy and tactics. Marx and Engels are great but there are others who devoted more of their time to that topic specifically. Of course it goes without saying that you must ruthlessly criticize everything you read, no matter who the author is.

[Dodo]

It was undoubtly effect of "danger" form the side of Russian revolution. The western elites decided to decrease income inequality in Keynesian style to maintain capitalism.

It's important who gains from growth. If the majority doesn't, it is obviuos why we oppose to that. Contrary to the Keynesian period, neo-liberal wave give benefits mostly to higher classes.

It's just lesser of two evils. But let's be serious. Time of Keynesianism that was better for working classes has gone in Western world. Only strong alternative as the Soviet Union was could be incentive to restore it. Even China that is developing in very Keynesian way but not so good for working class isn't sufficcient alternative to get back Western world to more friendly for workers' class Keynesianism.

But this does not answer any of my questions, so I assume you stick to the argument that, bourgeouis theories should not bother us at all.


We should not be for Keynesian thought, because Keynesian thought is incorrect. Just because, when implemented, it is a bit less oppressive for workers of the developed countries (the majority of people in the world, who do not live in well-developed / post-industrial countries, see no such benefit anyway) doesn't mean it is correct.

Again, that is not what I asked. What I was trying to say, is that since I study dvelopment and write papers on this stuff, I was wondering what would be a more Marxist stance in terms of "offering" conclusions. The analysis bit has a clear stance on capitalism. The solution is seen as revolutionary change in the way relations of production is organized.
But OTHER THAN THAT, is there anything we offer to bourgeouis theories.


Any politics that supports working within the system instead of breaking out of it is not only demonstrably false (Keynesianism failed for a reason), but is the politics of treachery. We must break out of the vicious circle that is bourgeois ideology. If you want to be more familiar with putting this sort of critical analysis to work, I suggest you check out Lenin's 'What is to be done?' and 'The State and Revolution' as well as some of Lenin's letters criticizing Kautsky. These, like much of Lenin's work, contain a critique of opportunism sprinkled throughout. The second part of Enver Hoxha's 'Imperialism and the Revolution', and 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism' would be of value if you want to follow along with a detailed critique of Maoism and Eurocommunism respectively. You don't have to agree broadly with these authors, but these works provide some very clear and direct examples of using Marxist analyses to fight against opportunism (or social-chauvinism, or revisionism, or whatever you wish to call it), and, aside from some of Hoxha's rhetoric (which isn't part of the analyses anyway) are relatively tendency-neutral.

I have read a lot of this material. Lenin's what is to be done does not really matter today. We are living in the 21st century, that was a 100 years ago.
The way I see it, Marxism is not a set of dogmatic revolutionary things we are supposed to do, but it is a guide withing the context of our "current" conditions. World is not a static place and everything is always changing. So does "what is to be done".

Besides, my question is, how should a Marxist argue WITHIN bourgeouis theories. I know that in the end, Marxists only believe in revolutionary change as system has its inner contradictions which will create trouble regardless of how reformed it is.


Marxism is not deterministic. Even in Capital, Marx makes a huge deal of such things as technological development, social norms and customs, historical circumstances, etc. Marxism and economism are not the same. The only relation they have is that some more foolish ideologues who claim to be from the former tradition have ended up espousing the latter. There is no relation between the two in theory or in practice.
I suggest you being familiarizing yourself with Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, and the like if you want to know more about revolutionary strategy and tactics. Marx and Engels are great but there are others who devoted more of their time to that topic specifically. Of course it goes without saying that you must ruthlessly criticize everything you read, no matter who the author is.

Personally, before I dealt with Marx and Engels and Marxst philosophers themselves, I jumped into the world of Stalinism,Trotskyism,Leninism, Rosa Luxembourg and others. When I got more into dialectical materialism later, I realized that those people matter less although their valuable contributions are undeniable.
At the same time, it would be wrong to take those people directly for the context of today. We are all products of our times, so were they and times have changed.

[ckaihatsu]

So I think to myself, should I be focusing on promoting of a national bourgeouis in the case of developing world?


No.





How would that be different from exploitation of international bourgeouis?


There would be no difference for the workers since exploitation is exploitation.

'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'





If there is no difference, then what is wrong with liberalization and trying to pull FDI?


These are the concerns of the bourgeoisie, not of the workers.





Turkey, where I am from for instance, have grown immensely since neo-liberal take-over. Of course economic growth is a "bourgeouis" understanding of the world, but it does make a difference. Shoud I alienate myself from these bourgeouis terms, completely disregarding them? Or should I be cooperating with things that promote "growth"?


Economic growth does not necessarily improve workers' standard of living. The media invariably trumpets concern over 'the economy', but what's never addressed is how economic growth would (supposedly) benefit the average worker.





How do Marxists view the 1950-70 Keynesian period? Or why should we heavily oppose the post-1980s neo-liberal wave if it promotes growth? If we should oppose that, does that mean we should be more of the Keynesian thought?
Think of this in relation to my first question. Are we to ignore these completely as bourgeouis BS, or is there a point as a Marxist in engaging these.


You're basically asking revolutionaries to take a stand on *bourgeois* economic policies -- by definition that would be asking revolutionaries to become reformists.





I was wondering what would be a more Marxist stance in terms of "offering" conclusions. The analysis bit has a clear stance on capitalism. The solution is seen as revolutionary change in the way relations of production is organized.
But OTHER THAN THAT, is there anything we offer to bourgeouis theories.


You're *reporting* on the revolutionary position accurately enough, but you're not *understanding* that the revolutionary position is *mutually exclusive* from the bourgeois one, or bourgeois interests.

Why should those who are being exploited give advice and tips to the exploiters on how to better exploit, through economic policies -- ?!

[Dodo]

I guess I could not make myself clear.
I study development-economic history. I write papers and stuff. Most of the time, I conclude my papers like "this can not be solved without a radical change in the way things work" or things in line with this.

I know our deal is revolutionary struggle. But does that mean we should isolate ourselves from bourgeouise politics?
Honestly, I do not see how there can be a good case created wihout debating with the bourgeouise policies. I for one would not respect someone who does not know what they are talking about when they go about "we have to make a revolution" all the time. So I have to keep it more "diplomatic".

Simplifiying everything at a theoretical level is not a good argument. I can understand its political implications and creation of slogans, but at higher levels the debate can not be that ignorant. We have to study double hard if you know what I mean...there is no revolution around yet, we can not ignore what we are living in.

[Zukunftsmusik]

We should not be for Keynesian thought, because Keynesian thought is incorrect. Just because, when implemented, it is a bit less oppressive for workers of the developed countries (the majority of people in the world, who do not live in well-developed / post-industrial countries, see no such benefit anyway) doesn't mean it is correct.

Thing is, when "Keynesian thought" was implemented, it didn't mean less oppression. Better standard of living, maybe, but pretty much every sign of any meaningful struggles and strikes and so on, were stopped before they even started.


I know our deal is revolutionary struggle. But does that mean we should isolate ourselves from bourgeouise politics?

In a way yes: We shouldn't participate in bourgeois institutions, especially not executive power. Our task is to build a movement that can constitute their will in spite and outside of these instituitions. In another way, no: we should criticise bourgeois politics for what they are, and for their effects on our class. This doesn't necessarily mean to participate in elections etc (it rather doesn't).


Honestly, I do not see how there can be a good case created wihout debating with the bourgeouise policies. I for one would not respect someone who does not know what they are talking about when they go about "we have to make a revolution" all the time. So I have to keep it more "diplomatic".

As stated, I don't think standing outside these institutions means we are left with only sloganeering. A thorough analysis is needed. This doesn't mean we should play "their" game.

[argeiphontes]

I don't know anything about development, but what about promoting local, democratic structures like cooperative development and worker owned enterprises, that both empower workers and allow them to control the surplus they generate?

http://www.globalcommunities.org/cooperativedevelopment
http://ica.coop/
http://www.rdwolff.com/

I would explore some of these alternative paradigms of economic development, and work to push those. Hope that helps.

[Dodo]

I don't know anything about development, but what about promoting local, democratic structures like cooperative development and worker owned enterprises, that both empower workers and allow them to control the surplus they generate?

I would explore some of these alternative paradigms of economic development, and work to push those. Hope that helps.

Yep, this is actually a good one.
Early theories have all been rather "macro" in their policy-implications. Modernization paradigm believed in stages of development.
This guy tells the approach the best in
The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960).
Then there are the dependency theorists and world-systems theorists who are more in line with Marxist or neo-Marxist thinkers but to a large extend it led to populist-nationalist policies.
Then comes the neo-liberal theories and globalization thinkers. Of course the interaction between these theories are dialectical and they still continue to be influecing minds one way or another.

Recently there is more focus on NGOs and local development models. But they are, to a large extend an extension of neo-liberal thought and privatization of development(rather than it being a state project).

Then there are more radical alternatives where people decide to sort their own shit. S.America has some radical examples of this. Worker-owned enterprises is something I have heard of but didn't know of its scople. I should definetly get more into that.

[Czy]

One of the classical counter-arguements against Marxism was that it was "deterministic" in its explanation of economic outcomes.

Misinterpretations like this are often based on isolated quotations from Marx’s writings taken out of context, such as the passage in the Communist Manifesto that declares, “the victory of the proletariat [is] inevitable.”

When Marx describes what he sees as the laws of motion of capitalism, he describes tendencies, not deterministic laws. So, for example, he argues that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall in capitalist economies, since labor is the ultimate source of value and production tends to become more capital intensive. However, he immediately goes on to make clear that there are many counteracting influences that can keep the rate of profit high, including increasing the intensity of exploitation, pushing down wages below the value of labor power, lowering the value of capital goods, and the effects of foreign trade.

I'd recommend Molyneux's essay: Is Marxism Deterministic?

-Czy

[Dodo]

Misinterpretations like this are often based on isolated quotations from Marx’s writings taken out of context, such as the passage in the Communist Manifesto that declares, “the victory of the proletariat [is] inevitable.”

When Marx describes what he sees as the laws of motion of capitalism, he describes tendencies, not deterministic laws. So, for example, he argues that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall in capitalist economies, since labor is the ultimate source of value and production tends to become more capital intensive. However, he immediately goes on to make clear that there are many counteracting influences that can keep the rate of profit high, including increasing the intensity of exploitation, pushing down wages below the value of labor power, lowering the value of capital goods, and the effects of foreign trade.

I'd recommend Molyneux's essay: Is Marxism Deterministic?

-Czy

Thanks for the explanation. I did not mean Marxism is deterministic, I said it was an "argument" against it. Nothing is deterministic in dialectical relations.

[Czy]

Let me address the rest of your first post:


How do Marxists view the 1950-70 Keynesian period?
This period of ‘golden age’ capitalism ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession. As Marxists, we recognize that capitalism cannot be fixed; it will always come tumbling down due to cyclical fluctuations, usually caused by i) full employment profit squeeze ii) overproduction iii) the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Or why should we heavily oppose the post-1980s neo-liberal wave if it promotes growth?
Whether there’s economic growth or not, capitalists appropriate surplus-value from labour. Justifying a system based on growth is the definition of reactionary balderdash. As we saw in 07-08, the policies of neoliberalism led to a housing bubble, the European debt crisis, etc.

If we should oppose that, does that mean we should be more of the Keynesian thought?
No. Keynesians attempt to curb the cyclical fluctuations of capitalism. We, as Marxists, want to abolish the system based on production for profit and exploitation.

Are we to ignore these completely as bourgeouis BS, or is there a point as a Marxist in engaging these.
Understanding bourgeois economics is useful. It allows us to write an accurate critique, instead of sprouting garbled nonsense, like the bourgeoisie do when criticizing Marxian economics. Remember, Marx knew classical economics and Smith exceptionally well when writing his critiques.

In terms of bourgeouis economic thinking, I find mylsef sometimes on the side of even neo-liberal ideas. I get confused a lot, HALP!!!!
That is very disturbing. Neoliberalism is based on privatization, deregulation and tax cuts. I mean, these policies are traced back to Friedman and Hayek and were lapped up by fucking Pinochet, Thatcher & co.
Simply put, holding any neoliberal beliefs is incompatible with Marxist ones.

I would also like to add a caveat: bourgeois economics should not be dismissed. For example, mainstream New Keynesian macro-analysis can be useful for Marxists – looking at their models assuming imperfect competition and their theories on sticky wages, for example.

-Czy

[ckaihatsu]

I guess I could not make myself clear.
I study development-economic history. I write papers and stuff. Most of the time, I conclude my papers like "this can not be solved without a radical change in the way things work" or things in line with this.

I know our deal is revolutionary struggle. But does that mean we should isolate ourselves from bourgeouise politics?
Honestly, I do not see how there can be a good case created wihout debating with the bourgeouise policies. I for one would not respect someone who does not know what they are talking about when they go about "we have to make a revolution" all the time. So I have to keep it more "diplomatic".

Simplifiying everything at a theoretical level is not a good argument. I can understand its political implications and creation of slogans, but at higher levels the debate can not be that ignorant. We have to study double hard if you know what I mean...there is no revolution around yet, we can not ignore what we are living in.


Okay, I do understand where you're coming from. Sure, we *do* need to know what we're talking about if we're going to refute it -- like the ever-present bourgeois economic dilemma of whether to aim for *increasing* or *decreasing* a currency's value. (In other words, should a person be more of a *monetarist* regarding monetary policy, or should they be more of a *Keynesian*. Either way they are politically committing themselves to bourgeois interests, but these are two different economic factions -- those who benefit from *stronger* currency valuations, and those who benefit from *weaker* currency valuations. These are the rentiers vs. investors, respectively.)

I'd just say that you should know how to "speak their language", but don't get caught up in their machinations -- stick to the point that their system is outdated and crisis-ridden, and that's why the workers should be the ones in control of all mass production.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know anything about development, but what about promoting local, democratic structures like cooperative development and worker owned enterprises, that both empower workers and allow them to control the surplus they generate?

http://www.globalcommunities.org/cooperativedevelopment
http://ica.coop/
http://www.rdwolff.com/

I would explore some of these alternative paradigms of economic development, and work to push those. Hope that helps.


If you like, you may want to pass along what you find to be beneficial features about any of these frameworks -- I prefer my own, of course (at my blog entry), so I'd like to hear what's 'so-great' about any others, before I "buy" into any of them.

[Czy]

I'd just say that you should know how to "speak their language", but don't get caught up in their machinations -- stick to the point that their system is outdated and crisis-ridden, and that's why the workers should be the ones in control of all mass production.

Excellent point and succinctly phrased.

I mean, in principle I agree with Monetarists that the most significant factor influencing inflation or deflation is how fast the money supply grows or shrinks. Does this mean I am a bourgeois economist? No, of course not. It simply means that I can interact with bourgeois economists and engage in a meaningful discussion; on the other hand bourgeois economists do not have a grasp of Marxian analysis.

If I asked someone here to compare and contrast the real bills doctrine with the quantity theory of money, most could not. But understanding how the mind of a bourgeois economist would work in this discussion enables a Marxist to expose the flaws, internally, of the bourgeois's argument.

I mean, New Keynesianism's theories on wage and price stickiness, and their models on market failure, are damn useful. They propose that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) could correct these inefficiencies; but we know all too well that these are the inherent contradictions of capitalism surfacing, and that the only way to stabilize the economy permanently is overthrowing the current system.

-Czy

[ckaihatsu]

Excellent point and succinctly phrased.


Yup, thanks.





I mean, in principle I agree with Monetarists that the most significant factor influencing inflation or deflation is how fast the money supply grows or shrinks.


As *I* understand it, this may be something of a red herring, since we first have to distinguish between the context of the *financial* economy, vs. that of the *real* economy.

Inflation in the *financial* economy is what conservatives howl over, from their monetarist (strong-dollar) position, since an increase of dollars there dilutes the value of their holdings -- this is where the money-supply factor comes in.

But inflation in the *real* economy hurts *workers* the most, since they / we have to pay more for gas or whatever. This aspect is not usually the one that gets economic attention.

Also, inflation in the *financial* economy can be a sign of *workers' gains*, as with higher wages and benefits -- this has *nothing* to do with monetary policy, but will still elicit the same belly-aching from moneyed interests.





Does this mean I am a bourgeois economist? No, of course not. It simply means that I can interact with bourgeois economists and engage in a meaningful discussion; on the other hand bourgeois economists do not have a grasp of Marxian analysis.

If I asked someone here to compare and contrast the real bills doctrine with the quantity theory of money, most could not. But understanding how the mind of a bourgeois economist would work in this discussion enables a Marxist to expose the flaws, internally, of the bourgeois's argument.

I mean, New Keynesianism's theories on wage and price stickiness, and their models on market failure, are damn useful. They propose that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) could correct these inefficiencies; but we know all too well that these are the inherent contradictions of capitalism surfacing, and that the only way to stabilize the economy permanently is overthrowing the current system.

-Czy


Yup.

[Czy]

I kinda misconstrued my own ideas in my initial post about inflation.

Let me rephrase:

Monetarists view the amount of bank deposits as being a key determiner of prices whereas Marx instead looked at the amount of paper currency in circulation as a key determiner of prices.

Now there's a striking correlation between the theories, when actual data is viewed, but correlation does not imply causation (logical fallacy).

When I said 'in principle' above, I meant it in the dictionary definition: as a general idea or plan, although the details are not yet established. It was misleading though, I agree.

Marx was not a Monetarist. Those who promulgate this myth (such as Friedman: “Let me inform you that among my fellow Monetarists were Karl Marx and leaders of Communist China”) have a delusive perception of Marxism.

E.g: Marx’s money theory was an application of his labour theory of value, which the quantity theorists and the Monetarists both reject. Marx did not share the belief of the Monetarists that unemployment and its rise to peak levels in depressions arises out of an inflationary monetary policy and could be avoided by a different policy.

-Czy

[Dodo]

Excellent point and succinctly phrased.

I mean, in principle I agree with Monetarists that the most significant factor influencing inflation or deflation is how fast the money supply grows or shrinks. Does this mean I am a bourgeois economist? No, of course not. It simply means that I can interact with bourgeois economists and engage in a meaningful discussion; on the other hand bourgeois economists do not have a grasp of Marxian analysis.

If I asked someone here to compare and contrast the real bills doctrine with the quantity theory of money, most could not. But understanding how the mind of a bourgeois economist would work in this discussion enables a Marxist to expose the flaws, internally, of the bourgeois's argument.

I mean, New Keynesianism's theories on wage and price stickiness, and their models on market failure, are damn useful. They propose that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) could correct these inefficiencies; but we know all too well that these are the inherent contradictions of capitalism surfacing, and that the only way to stabilize the economy permanently is overthrowing the current system.

-Czy

That is what I meant as well when I said sometimes I find myself pro-neoliberal even.
If we are talking about growth and stuff, sometimes privatizations can be a powerful drive for that, sometimes they might fail miserably.
I study bourgouise economics mostly in the end and learn "their language" but I am a Marxist, for a while now. I not only "criticize" capitalism from a Marxist approach, I see the whole history from a Marxist perspective even life, even my individual character.

When I am in the world of bourgouise theories however, depending on what teacher expects, I sometimes have to defend these.

Of course I know that Marxists do not believe system can be fixed(thats wht development economics is about) and that it should be changed radically from the production relations.
I am thinking of a potential academic career and might go as far as writing thesis to "debunk bourgouise development" and why capitalism can never be fixed. By speaking their langauge of course...

[ckaihatsu]

I am thinking of a potential academic career and might go as far as writing thesis to "debunk bourgouise development" and why capitalism can never be fixed. By speaking their langauge of course...


Probably the best argument is simply that capitalism is "stuck" in a dynamic of primitive accumulation, no-matter-what. So even though great material development has now been accomplished, there's no way to 'feed that back' to the mechanism itself, to "update" it about now-developed objective material conditions.

That dynamic of primitive accumulation was *progressive* at one time, *centuries* ago, for initially globalizing the world, but that "mode" is now woefully outdated since the world is not in any shortage of wealth or capital goods.

At this point the dynamic should be one of *collectivizing* this vast infrastructure and capacity so that it can be leveraged rationally by the greater common interest -- unfortunately all capitalism's mechanism is able to do is to continually extract surplus labor value, despite dramatically changed global conditions.





[P]opes, emperors, princes and lords all required cash to finance their efforts—and this meant that, even while trying to preserve the old order, they helped spread the market forces which would ultimately undermine it.

This was shown most clearly after the conquest of the Americas. Silver from the American mines was key to financing the armies which backed the counter-Reformation. But the flow of that silver was part of a new intercontinental network of market relations. Much of it flowed through intermediaries in north west Europe and out to China, the east Indies and India to buy luxury goods. New international shipping routes—from Manila to Acapulco, from Vera Cruz to Seville, from Amsterdam to Batavia32 and from Batavia to Canton—were beginning to bind people’s lives in one part of the world to those in another.




Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 247