A Marxian View: Economic Crisis

[Connolly]

Im not sure whether some of you have seen this before, or whether its been posted already.

Very good video so it is. Easy to understand.

Professor Rick Wolff

Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Marxian View

http://vimeo.com/1962208?pg=embed&sec=1962208

[KurtFF8]

It was posted already (in another thread about the crisis, which had other videos) but I would like to see a discussion on the video itself.

2 problems I had with this lecture (although the cause of the problems may be that it was such a short video):



I find it odd that Wolff claims that the US working class had a constant increase in relative wages from the around post-Civil War period (I believe is where he starts) to the 1970s. I don't know how accurate that assessment is, as wages certainly relatively declined during the 30s, and during the labor "troubles" of the late 19th century. I'd like to see a lecture about this topic



He barley goes over what is wrong with "regulated capitalism". His entire criticism of regulated capitalism is that it can be defeated, not that it still holds the contradictions of capitalism within it. I showed this video to someone recently, and they noticed this shortcoming in Wolff's "proscription part" of the lecture. One could easily just say to Wolff: well why go to socialism, why not just make sure regulated capitalism works? Granted I think he is right that regulations will always eventually be defeated, but that isn't the reason to be opposed to them alone. He falls short here, so I would also like to see him go into that and answer this criticism as well.

[Connolly]

find it odd that Wolff claims that the US working class had a constant increase in relative wages from the around post-Civil War period (I believe is where he starts) to the 1970s. I don't know how accurate that assessment is, as wages certainly relatively declined during the 30s, and during the labor "troubles" of the late 19th century. I'd like to see a lecture about this topic


Not just would wages have declined in the 30s, but production would have declined also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1930Industry.svg

In this sense, it dosnt matter so long as the gap between real wages an productivity grows. This gap is what is fundamental to his argument, and it continues to grow.



He barley goes over what is wrong with "regulated capitalism". His entire criticism of regulated capitalism is that it can be defeated, not that it still holds the contradictions of capitalism within it. I showed this video to someone recently, and they noticed this shortcoming in Wolff's "proscription part" of the lecture. One could easily just say to Wolff: well why go to socialism, why not just make sure regulated capitalism works? Granted I think he is right that regulations will always eventually be defeated, but that isn't the reason to be opposed to them alone. He falls short here, so I would also like to see him go into that and answer this criticism as well.


I agree with you. The lecture was weak on this.

But I dont think you can remove the contradictions through regulation, they are inherent and will always remain within capitalism.

I think to avoid repeated boom an bust situations (creating endless suffering) - and of course the effects of the constant quest for growth and profits which destroys both environment and social fabric - we should seek solutions to the economic contradictions by an alternative proposal, 'if we have one'.

I wonder whether Marx is right also, that the severity of the 'bust' will get greater and greater (or more frequent?) as the productive forces grow. If so, thats another reason to propose a system change.

[KurtFF8]

Not just would wages have declined in the 30s, but production would have declined also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1930Industry.svg

In this sense, it dosnt matter so long as the gap between real wages an productivity grows. This gap is what is fundamental to his argument, and it continues to grow.

But the question for his lecture is that did the gap grow in the 30s? And were there many other times where the gap wasn't just a constant? I would imagine that the late 19th century and the Great Depression were examples where the gap did grow, not just an overall fall in productivity.




I agree with you. The lecture was weak on this.

But I dont think you can remove the contradictions through regulation, they are inherent and will always remain within capitalism.

I think to avoid repeated boom an bust situations (creating endless suffering) - and of course the effects of the constant quest for growth and profits which destroys both environment and social fabric - we should seek solutions to the economic contradictions by an alternative proposal, 'if we have one'.

I wonder whether Marx is right also, that the severity of the 'bust' will get greater and greater (or more frequent?) as the productive forces grow. If so, thats another reason to propose a system change.

This was my point: regulation is indeed better than unregulated capitalism, but it still has within it the same contradictions that cause significant problems for the working class.

Marx certailny was right about it, look at the economic patterns of the mid-late 19th century that lasted until the Great Depression. The response to that was indeed regulation, which helped Capitalism become more "stable". It certainly didn't "fix it" though.

[ckaihatsu]

But I dont think you can remove the contradictions through regulation, they are inherent and will always remain within capitalism.


http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/summ-n10.shtml

The official aim of the meeting was to draw up a common European position for the world economic summit that is taking place next weekend in Washington. This gathering of the so-called G-20, comprising the old industrialised countries (the G-8) and newly industrialised countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico, will discuss proposals to confront the international financial crisis.

[...]

However, if one examines the concrete results of the summit, it becomes clear that they do not go further than a series of vague and superficial proposals to better supervise [regulate] the international financial markets.

[...]

The belief that a new and stable economic order will emerge from the present crisis is a pipe dream. All the experiences of the twentieth century argue that the replacement of one great power by another power or group of powers—i.e., the supplanting of US supremacy by a new order placing Europe and the emerging markets on an equal footing, as Die Zeit proposes—cannot proceed peacefully.

[ZeroNowhere]

So why can't they just take lots of money from politicians and capitalists, as well as steal all of the money of members of the 'Libertarian' Party, and then give all of the workers (who are not 'Libertarians') some credit cards with loads of money on them to spend on stuff? Hey, if you're going to complain about people not buying enough...