Say's Law: relevance to political issues?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So, in a History forum thread, I threw a bone out for potential discussion. It has to do with Gramsci's theory of hegemony and Lenin's theory of consciousness. Both imply that unfavourable circumstances (material conditions and ideology) prevent spontaneous revolution without the need of a "guide" of sorts.

Now, on the economic front, there was a lot of stuff from supply-siders like "Reaganite" Jude Wanniski saying that Marx was a supply-sider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Marx_and_Smith). So, I decided to check out more on supply-side economics and polish up some things I learned in microeconomics:

"A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." (Jean-Baptiste Say)

"Supply creates its own demand." (John Maynard Keynes)

Any connections?

[Hit The North]

Um, are you suggesting that both Lenin and Gramsci argued that revolutionary theory creates revolutionary sentiment, or that the demand for revolution is dependent on the supply of theory?

I think that's probably wrong. But you need to define your hypothesis more clearly before I can tell.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Think of it this way:

The average Joe wants, say, a combined home entertainment system of sorts (this will happen in the near future, with computers integrating TV and stereo features, and perhaps larger computer monitors and longer keyboard and mouse wires), but he is thinking in the abstract. X Company decides to make some sort of home entertainment system, but of a particular model. The average Joe buys said home entertainment system model and magically thinks his model fits with his abstract thought 100% (though we both know that isn't the case).

In short, organized revolutionary theory creates revolutionary sentiment. Without it, the workers want to do something to change their circumstances, but don't know what that something is (hence Lenin's stuff regarding consciousness), much less how to go about that something - all the while toiling and worrying more about survival.

[Hit The North]

In short, organized revolutionary theory creates revolutionary sentiment.

Not sure what you mean by "organized revolutionary theory". All theory is internally organized in a sense. Are you referring to the organization of revolutionaries armed with revolutionary theory? If so, you need to distinguish between theory and organization as they're not the same.

From a materialist point of view I'd probably argue that it's the practical activity of resisting imposed social relations which precedes the theory.

In other words, working class resistance doesn't exist because of a pre-existing set of ideas. It is the ideas which are generated by workers reflecting on their activity.

After this point there is a complex and uneven interaction between theory and action, which is not reducible to a simple causal supply and demand model.


Without it, the workers want to do something to change their circumstances, but don't know what that something is (hence Lenin's stuff regarding consciousness), much less how to go about that something - all the while toiling and worrying more about survival.

This implies that workers sit on their arses waiting for a Lenin to come along. But actually, it is usually the theoreticians of the movement who are surprised by the spontaneous push forward of ordinary workers: the Paris Commune and the Soviets being two dramatic examples.

Finally, it is not the theoretical articulation of the struggle which is the motive force in workers resistance, but the material relations themselves which push workers into activity out of necessity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 19, 2007 07:26 am
This implies that workers sit on their arses waiting for a Lenin to come along. But actually, it is usually the theoreticians of the movement who are surprised by the spontaneous push forward of ordinary workers: the Paris Commune and the Soviets being two dramatic examples.

Finally, it is not the theoretical articulation of the struggle which is the motive force in workers resistance, but the material relations themselves which push workers into activity out of necessity.
Not quite. Like you said, spontaneity cannot be left out of the picture. 1905 was one such spontaneous move (the workers did not "sit on their arses waiting for a [still-not-so-prominent] Lenin to come along"), but guess what? It was NOT revolutionary. It was merely a peaceful strike that got broken up brutally by the czar and his thugs.

The material conditions were already there: instant and immediate defeat at the hands of Japan, and the three-year Crimean war 50 years earlier (historians say that what is known as "WWI" today was in fact a continuation of said war and the Franco-Prussian war). Most of the material conditions for revolution are born out of war ("necessity is the mother of all invention"), not peace (the fact that so many stuff in consumer use today had military origins).

However, it took 12 years of organized revolutionary agitation from socialist revolutionaries to "supply" the motivation to really overthrow the system beyond the point of return.



Let's turn back the page of history further, even before the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Why was there no European shift towards the clearly superior "Asiatic mode of production" (all that stuff about the Chinese and gunpowder indicates sufficient material conditions to do so :D )? The Middle Ages were wasted centuries, all because there weren't enough agitating "defeatists" to agitate for such diagonal (as opposed to vertical in terms of capitalism, and as opposed to horizontal in terms of switching to another non-Asiatic "mode of production") change.

Without said supply, there was no demand for such shift.

[Vargha Poralli]

1905 was one such spontaneous move (the workers did not "sit on their arses waiting for a [still-not-so-prominent] Lenin to come along"), but guess what? It was NOT revolutionary. It was merely a peaceful strike that got broken up brutally by the czar and his thugs.

Aren't you too simplistic in your analysis of 1905 revolution. It was described as a dress rehearsal for the February and October revolutions according to Bolsheviks and Trotsky. Almost every one in Russia learned a lot by analysisng the conditions of the revolution.

And February revolution too was an very good example for Spontaneous action. It almost got everybody by surprise.



Let's turn back the page of history further, even before the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Why was there no European shift towards the clearly superior "Asiatic mode of production" (all that stuff about the Chinese and gunpowder indicates sufficient material conditions to do so :D )? The Middle Ages were wasted centuries, all because there weren't enough agitating "defeatists" to agitate for such diagonal (as opposed to vertical in terms of capitalism, and as opposed to horizontal in terms of switching to another non-Asiatic "mode of production") change.

Well I think the tedious time it took for an information to flow from Europe to Asia played a significant factor. The crusades meant an effective blockade of any contacts between Europe and Asia. The age of navigation which was originally meant to find the sea route to Asia also played a crucial role in early industrial age as it lead to the discovery of Americas which in turn expanded the the market for both Raw Materials and Finished goods for the European powers far superior to Key Asian empires.

[ComradeRed]

I don't quite follow the line of reasoning to apply Say's Law to politics.

Are you saying that events create their own causes? :huh:

Perhaps you could elaborate a little for me?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:37 am

Let's turn back the page of history further, even before the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Why was there no European shift towards the clearly superior "Asiatic mode of production" (all that stuff about the Chinese and gunpowder indicates sufficient material conditions to do so :D )? The Middle Ages were wasted centuries, all because there weren't enough agitating "defeatists" to agitate for such diagonal (as opposed to vertical in terms of capitalism, and as opposed to horizontal in terms of switching to another non-Asiatic "mode of production") change.

Well I think the tedious time it took for an information to flow from Europe to Asia played a significant factor. The crusades meant an effective blockade of any contacts between Europe and Asia. The age of navigation which was originally meant to find the sea route to Asia also played a crucial role in early industrial age as it lead to the discovery of Americas which in turn expanded the the market for both Raw Materials and Finished goods for the European powers far superior to Key Asian empires.
I was browsing through the Internet in recent weeks, and came across a rather liberal article on the true "clash of civilizations" - not between religions, but rather between "democratic" and "authoritarian" capitalism (the latter being exhibited by China, Russia, etc.). Is "authoritarian" capitalism the capitalist equivalent of the old "Asiatic mode of production"?



Anyhow, back on topic: you mentioned the March (just for the sake of Gregorian political correctness ;) ) revolution. That was actually a culmination of every stream of revolutionary agitation and propaganda in the country (not just Bolshevik). Like I said, the material conditions existed long before then, but only by that point was bourgeois-revolutionary conscience embedded in the Russian masses (I use that term because of the bourgeois nature of that revolution).