economics

[Vincent]

I'm pretty comfortable with the historical and social aspects of Marxism, but I am still grasping the economic features. I have had a read through of ' Wage Labour and Capital' by Marx because it seemed like the best introductory writing on economics for a Marxist, but it seems to be outdated.

Can anybody recommend to me some modern pieces which can give me an overview of modern day economicsa and Marxist economics.

[NovelGentry]

Marx's economic writing is primarily a critique of capitalism, rather than a solution to it. Although I would argue embedded in the critique is obvious hints if not direct statements on how to resolve such issues.

Dated or not dated, and regardless of his flaws in it's critique, the picture he painted was 100% valid.

A paper I frequently recommend is the following:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/index.htm

For Marx's critique of capitalism (obviously):

Capital (all volumes)
and it's predecessor: Critique of Political-Economy

Of course for the existing alternative and critique of Marx's critiques:

Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises (and surely a host of others)

[Vincent]

But surely over time the economic problems that Marx identified and attempted to resolve have changed, have they not?

Of course we still have the basic capitalist-worker relationship, but even I understand its no longer as simple as people with capital buying textiles factories and buying workers labour at a lower price than its worth.

If this is the case, then what I am in need of is a modern critique of capitalism from a Marxist perspective. A contemporary 'Wage Labour and Capital', if you will.

[NovelGentry]

But surely over time the economic problems that Marx identified and attempted to resolve have changed, have they not?

Well some of the *problems* he identified didn't really exist to begin with. They just appeared to be.

But generally speaking as economics relates to class society and the progression of that class society, I feel he was dead on.

You must understand that Marx was writing about capitalism and class struggle with the attempt to inject it with a historical perspective which gave insight to it's future. He succeeded.


Of course we still have the basic capitalist-worker relationship, but even I understand its no longer as simple as people with capital buying textiles factories and buying workers labour at a lower price than its worth.

In what way is it not as simple as this?


If this is the case, then what I am in need of is a modern critique of capitalism from a Marxist perspective. A contemporary 'Wage Labour and Capital', if you will.

Marx did not fail in the generalities of capitalist critique, only in some of the specifics. If you find no modern critique of capitalism that holds as much water, or none in general it is because one is not needed.

I am unaware of literature which will suit what you seek.

[Vincent]

I do not mean to offend you here, but do not take me as some ignorant teenager that thinks Che is a fashion accessory and communism goes with it. Nor should you think I am criticizing Marx; I am merely questioning the applicability of his economic theories to modern day scenarios.

One aspect I will use an example of things Marx didn't seem to 'predict' is that of the comfort of the modern proletariate. Workers, it seems, are 'happy' with their wages in many cases and do not FEEL exploited (even though they still are exploited, in most cases, more extremely than in the 1800's).

I understand the above is not exactly purely economical in nature, but it is one 'new' thing that has cropped up.

[NovelGentry]

I do not mean to offend you here, but do not take me as some ignorant teenager that thinks Che is a fashion accessory and communism goes with it. Nor should you think I am criticizing Marx; I am merely questioning the applicability of his economic theories to modern day scenarios.

I do not take you for either. I am simply unaware of any work that backs up what you are looking for and furthermore I do not believe it is necessary to do so. I think his points made nearly 200 years ago are still 100% valid today (again, except on a few specifics).

I'm not even saying you have to agree with me. By all means, question me and I will try to answer your questions. But this is what I know (or don't know for that matter) and what I believe.


One aspect I will use an example of things Marx didn't seem to 'predict' is that of the comfort of the modern proletariate. Workers, it seems, are 'happy' with their wages in many cases and do not FEEL exploited (even though they still are exploited, in most cases, more extremely than in the 1800's).

Marx, to my knowledge, never argued that the workers would feel exploited, except on the condition that they gained material and class consciousness. Which in turn is based on the condition that a) material conditions have progressed far enough b) capitalism can no longer uphold it's very nature and "rules" in the face of these conditions. This hasn't happened on a large scale yet, only in some areas of production and distribution -- it is not nearly on a wide enough scale for the majority of workers to actually become conscious of it yet, so why would you expect them to be?

Marx didn't need to predict the comfort of the working class in advanced capitalism. There is nothing in Marxism that directly contradicts this comfort, except what hasn't happened yet. Even a cursory examination of the current political-economy presents where it has NOT happened.


The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. -- The Communist Manifesto



The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor? -- The Communist Manifesto

Marx was very well aware that capitalism itself rapidly advanced society -- thus comfort level WILL rise under capitalism, and it will rise for all. Did you believe these changes would only benefit the bourgeoisie? Marx was also aware that in doing this capitalism would cope with it's growth in multiple ways.


It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. -- The Communist Manifesto

Booms and Recessions, and the probability of multiple depressions. Workers in the booming 20s didn't think they were exploited either, regardless of a previously existing large socialist movement, and in the 20s you saw one of the largest "middle classes" to this day based on inflated credit and "margin" for stock trade.


The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. -- The Communist Manifesto


They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. -- The Communist Manifesto

See bolded portion: Prediction of imperialism -- "normal" and "comfortable" conditions return under any one of these things... but only temporarily. Throughout the 30s US imperialism rose a great deal in Latin America -- Cuba for example, United Food throughout, increased importation and indeed globalization in certain aspects from and for companies which supplied raw materials.

Capitalism is very up and down... Marx saw this quite clearly, and he was even aware that these period would extend over long stretches. I would suggest rereading Marx's work and REALLY thinking about what he is saying and then trying to view the whole picture rather than just focusing in on the words that make it all sound like a barrel of shit.


I understand the above is not exactly purely economical in nature, but it is one 'new' thing that has cropped up.

I'm not so sure it is new, and to my belief it was addressed nearly 200 years ago.

[Vincent]

Marx, to my knowledge, never argued that the workers would feel exploited, except on the condition that they gained material and class consciousness. Which in turn is based on the condition that a) material conditions have progressed far enough b) capitalism can no longer uphold it's very nature and "rules" in the face of these conditions. This hasn't happened on a large scale yet, only in some areas of production and distribution -- it is not nearly on a wide enough scale for the majority of workers to actually become conscious of it yet, so why would you expect them to be?

Are you implying that because the workers do not express discontent, they do not 'know' that they are being exploited? Any idiot knows how the capitalist system works...


Marx was very well aware that capitalism itself rapidly advanced society -- thus comfort level WILL rise under capitalism, and it will rise for all. Did you believe these changes would only benefit the bourgeoisie? Marx was also aware that in doing this capitalism would cope with it's growth in multiple ways.

Thankyou for showing me this point. Would I be correct in saying then, in a country like Australia where the average worker can become a member of the bourgeois if they carefully plan, capitalism is at a 'high' point? (However this situation is showing signs of weakening due to various factors) What I was basically wondering was the proletariate meant to 'embrace' capitalism as it seems to have done, or is this merely a result of the 'high' point?

I am not debating the validity of his critiques and comments, they are, as far as I am aware, very precise in their account of the state of affairs in the mid 19th century. But I want to question their validity in todays context.

However you have brought to my attention the 'specifics' of his writings. Does change in the 'specifics' of the system not warrant any kind of questioning to the overall system, or some kind of amendments?

The relevence of this following question will become clear when you answer it NovelGentry... it seems that many here reject orthodox Marxism, are you one of them and if so, what Marxist path do you follow? (example Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism)

[NovelGentry]

Are you implying that because the workers do not express discontent, they do not 'know' that they are being exploited?

Either do not know, or do not care. In either sense, they are not conscious (materially or in the sense of their class).


Any idiot knows how the capitalist system works...

I think you might be shocked with the answers you got from some workers when you ask them "How does capitalism work?" If they could even offer something aside from "I don't know."

I'm not saying the proletariat or other working class people are stupid, but simply ignorant of the actual situation -- and of course not all of them (or else we wouldn't be here).


Thankyou for showing me this point. Would I be correct in saying then, in a country like Australia where the average worker can become a member of the bourgeois if they carefully plan, capitalism is at a 'high' point?

What is often seen as careful planning is usually unrealistic behavior. For example... I had a friend over the summer who worked two full time and one part time job to afford to go to college. I have little doubt there are people who will perpetuate such lifestyles simply to work their way up. Combine this with intense saving and thriftiness, and before you know it you can buy a business.

These are what I like to call "holes" -- however, it is doubtful they could ever amass enough money to actually succeed as the rest of the full-fledged bourgeoisie does. And for a meaningful part of their existence they would probably be more likely classified as petty-bourgeoisie.

I'm not familiar with the exact social mobility of Austrialia, and thus I cannot comment on that specifically. However, if such social mobility does exist and is feasible for someone starting off as working class, I would argue very simply that the bourgeoisie simply isn't doing a thorough enough job at exploiting their workers -- this could be caused mainly by global expansion or globalization of the corporations there. Afterall, the bourgeoisie are transnational now -- there is nothing that says the businesses you see in one country are not actually handled by the bourgeoisie of another. Marx realized this too, and it is a very big reason why Marxism support global workers movements and never upholding national borders to separate the proletariat of the world. "Workers of the World, Unite!" -- Karl Marx.

In short, I would say that it is likely to have stumbled upon (consciously or not) one of the means in which to cope with their growing productive forces. So I can only assume it is something of a "high point" -- but probably not the type of peak you'd see before significant depression.


(However this situation is showing signs of weakening due to various factors)

If the trend now is that it's getting more difficult, I would say only suspect it to get more difficult, but in doing so it will only cycle again.

I'm no expert on the place, and without some serious numbers I cannot make even moderately accurate predictions (assuming I can anyway -- I'm not an economist).


What I was basically wondering was the proletariate meant to 'embrace' capitalism as it seems to have done, or is this merely a result of the 'high' point?

I don't see why they wouldn't -- they are probably still very reactionary towards the current system. Without any consciousness you can effectively train someone to do whatever you want -- although I would argue it gets a fair bit easier the worse off they are. If you're having a tough time one day, and getting checks back from the government and seeing low interests rates a few years later, you're gonna look back and be ecstatic now.

But you say "embrace" capitalism... is that really what they are doing? Are they going to embrace it the same at the next low point? They are not embracing capitalism, they are embracing the fact that they're not doing so bad -- and who can blame them. To embrace capitalism, I would argue one has to be OK with the good AND the bad.

Visit the Opposing Ideologies section to witness people who actually embrace capitalism. Although much of this seems out of simple fear of socialism/communism.


I am not debating the validity of his critiques and comments, they are, as far as I am aware, very precise in their account of the state of affairs in the mid 19th century. But I want to question their validity in todays context.

Then do so, but like I said, I can only work of specifics. I can't respond to such vagueness with within any reasonable text -- wrapping up capitalism or any system in an apt enough manner to satisfy such questions would be impossible without a LOT of writing. For example, 4 rather large volumes of Capital.


However you have brought to my attention the 'specifics' of his writings. Does change in the 'specifics' of the system not warrant any kind of questioning to the overall system, or some kind of amendments?

It's not so much that the specifics changed from what they were, it's just that he wasn't really accounting them to the right things to begin with. I do not have examples presently available and recalling such specifics from memory would be difficult at best.

What needs to be made clear is that a large amount of writing was focused on how value is derived from the worker. While I do not disagree with the general theory of Surplus Value and thus the Labor Theory of Value, the majority of his specific examples did not account for something that capitalism actually does validate: subjective demand.

These are the types of examples I'm talking about. However, it may be the case that marginal value was purposefully excluded on the basis that he was merely trying to set a base for exploitation. Anything ABOVE that would of course not only support the theory, but make it look like exploitation was even worse than it is (and it would be worse).

Where this becomes a problem is when capitalist-supporters critique Marxist economics. And at first they seem like valid critiques, however, there are certain undeniable things.

If the company did not charge MORE for the value of the labor than it was paying it's workers... it would be impossible to make profit. If the company did not charge signfiicant amounts more... it would be impossible for the company to actually pay the costs of running the company (electricity, leases, taxes) and make profit at the same time.

What would be nice is to see someone take the capitalist arguments into account and still prove it as being mathematically sound -- just for the sake of shutting them up. But how can you really take into account subjective values? You'd have to have some fine grained details on company records -- and even still using specific examples from a single company would face arguments such as "Well that's only one example."

Is there a way to difinitively prove Marxist economics? I'm not sure, but what is difinitively proven for one person is unproven to another. As such I don't think the issue can ever really be settled -- I gues time can be the only difinitive proof -- but so far, I think, so good.

[NovelGentry]

The relevence of this following question will become clear when you answer it NovelGentry... it seems that many here reject orthodox Marxism, are you one of them and if so, what Marxist path do you follow? (example Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism)

Does it seem like I'm one of them? haha. I cosider myself Marxist -- I shy away from a term like Orthadox Marxism, because I think most other "evolutions" of it are actually contradictory to it's points. There's a number of other threads going on right now where this is getting me into some fairly heavy debate.

In one thread I said something along the lines of "If you want to call me an Orthodox Marxist..."

I would never use that specific term to describe myself. Here is what I've been called my other people, however:

Reformist
Reactionary
Leninist
Anarchist
Trot
Asshole

I have never been called a Marxist alone by anyone but myself.

However I have been credited as the founder of the Marxist-Gentist ideology by Zingu.

If you ask me, you can throw every single one of these terms away. I believe my ideas stand on their own, I believe they are not contradictory to Marxism, and follow it quite closely -- maybe even too closely. But above all, I do believe they are right and proper.

This probably didn't answer your question really, but there you have it.

[encephalon]

To facilitate revolution you must first have a revolutionary theory, and Marxism-Gentism is that theory!