I read the book you co wrote "Socialism in the 21st Century" (don't think that's exact, the title escapes me..). I find appreciate it, thanks
Good question, i guess the post-war era of Keynesianism, or more precisely the Gold Standard world.
I guess you would be correct when talking about prominence among marxists, but not among the public of america. Re: Neo-Liberalism: Do you mean to say that its aggressive "free market" push is more destructive in regards to its frequent curreny crises and rabid pro-big-capital dominance?
Look, the most prominent american marxist economist agrees that what i have been saying for a while, the risk towards hyper-inflation, is a real possibility. It is in fact a public discussion since the last two weeks that the ECB neo-liberal measures are a inflation danger.
Since i have noticed you advocate markets during socialism as well and i have just read Michael Parenti's "Communism in Wonderland", it raised a question i had not really been so aware of before. Do you advocate [consumer] markets because of incentives towards the production of qualitative goods, efficiency? The reason i thought i advocated consumer markets was because so long workers are paid a wage there needs to be some accountability to the actual invested labor time, value of goods due to scarcity (these two really intertwine don't they...). With this computer model you describe that could calculate commodities' real value within a centrally planned economy, markets would not be needed, would they? I feel i have lost complete understanding about necessary steps, whether to use markets in this lower stage of communism (Socialism) or not, when they are not needed anymore; it is very much abstract.
But the point is that the western ruling class has as its only plan to implement austerity, to attack labor, to increase exploitation. Higher wages within Capitalism as in the high time of Keynesianism, is first politically unrealistic without a Soviet Union, second unprofitable and would only lead to faster de-industrialisation. Neo-Liberalism is an unfeasible economic model and this has to be made clear to working people that this is the only model if we are to stay in Capitalism. It is either Starvation Capitalism or Socialism, this needs to be made clear.
It may be that in some time the ruling would try to implement its own planned economy, but the current western neo-liberal ruling class has, as Jeff Faux documents in his recent book "The Servant economy; where america's elite is sending the middle class", as to widespread agreement the near time goal to implement austerity and to increase exploitation. By this markets will be destroyed and a collapse is inevitable. But the point is that now with a rate of profit of the production process below the financial interest rate, central banks will lower their interests rate into the negative, 16 countries already have. This will lead to over-speculation, unstable banks etc.
In your book 'Towards a new socialism' you mention Marx's falling rate of profit and give empirical evidence. But i do not recall of which economic sector these graphs were representative. The rate of profit of the production process economy is crucial. Since machines constantly replace live labor in the production economy, the portion of live labor is in constant decline., and now near a historical low near 0%. 20 years ago it could have easily been said that Capital will survive a long time because of the new markets won through counter-revolution and computer/internet boom etc., but now China has been capitalising its markets and what markets are there to expand to now? In fact the rate of profit of the production process is further pressed down by an increased focus on productivity while austerity is killing the consumer goods markets. I don't see any way out for western capital.
I have a question, how exactly can an individual commodity's labour value be calculated? Only within a completely socialised, centralised economy where the socially necessary need can be calculated into it, correct?
I have been thinking more about the state-capitalist transition versus labour-voucher economy. One thing that bothers me is that assume that it is correct that we have reached the "Point of no Return", markets not being able to expand and soon reproduce material wealth; if the "transition" (as there inevitably will always be one) fails and cannot provide any kind of progress, how practical will a still-competing economy be to manage and plan? If you have economic sectors in which there are still various competing enterprises, how conjoin them if there is no feasible alternative to labour voucher planned economy? Since effective monopolisation of industries takes quite a dozen months, is there a way to have a not completely centralised planned economy function within a L.V. economy? There seems to be quite divide here as complete socialisation of sectors and economy seems to be a prerequisite to implement a functioning L.V. socialism.
