XPost: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, alt.philosophy.debate, al
.politics.socialism
[Followup-to: alt.politics.socialism]
Haines Brown wrote:
>J.H.Boersema writes:
>> Haines Brown wrote:
>> >J.H.Boersema writes:
>> >> Marx got some things right like how Capitalism destroys society,
>> >> other things he got wrong or didn't solve.
>> >>
>> >> He didn't understand that trade is good.
>> >
>> >I'm curious on what grounds you base this assertion.
>>
>> Probably mostly because communism is (so far) known to be anti-trade,
>> anti-free-trade. They wanted a system without competition between
>> companies (as far as I know).
>
>Josh, you don't address my question.
>
>For one thing, you made a statement about Marx's presumed position on
>trade, but you reply to my question about that in terms of
>"communism". They are not the same thing, right?
I agree, (some?) Communists often specify their position as "Marxist
Leninist", which implies there are other forms. I base my idea that
"Marxist Leninist" Communism is anti-trade on the papers that I read
from "Marxist-Leninist" groups, their slogans etc, which are often
anti-trade. I figure it is common knowledge that Marx was anti-trade,
but I don't have an exact quote ready. There is also material that
suggests that farmers are bad for following market rules. Everywhere
I look I see anti-trade rethoric, free markets are supposedly bad.
But they are not bad, just their problems and imbalances are. There
is too much anti-trade rethoric just to dismiss it as a side issue.
The word `plan economy' says it all, doesn't it ? It is wrong, it only
works in a very small scale. Actually it is perfect on a small scale,
within companies, which is where I want to put it.
>Also, your answer consists of your personal interpretation of
>communism, and is not about what Marx actually said (nor do you even
>appeal to some authority on what Marx said).
My personal interpretation of Marxism, there aren't a lot of people
calling themselves Communist and non-Marxist.
>> >My understanding is that Marx saw capitalism as consisting of two
>> >interdependent sub-systems that he called the "sphere of production"
>> >and the "sphere of exchange". Surplus value arising in the sphere of
>> >production is realized in the sphere of exchange, but exploitation is
>> >the result of the interdependence of these two sub-systems. There is
>> >no exploitation in either sub-system taken in itself.
>>
>> This is a good example of why I think Marxism will not work: it
>> does not say very much, yet it is *extremely* complicated, adding
>> new words that are supposed to be "very enlightening concepts" at
>> the drop of a hat. And then the reader is supposed to follow all
>> these twists and turns, and it isn't easy. Like an infinite labyrinth,
>> it always appears to be interesting, to open new perspective, but it
>> never actually gets to the real issue, it never makes complicated
>> things easy. I feel I'm far better off studying reality (stock markets,
>> who prints money, etc).
>
>I'm sorry, but what I said is really very simple and
>straightforward. The notion of two interdependent subsystems is
>entirely conventional. No one who has participated at all in
>scientific culture after World War II should have any trouble with
>it. I introducted two pieces of conventional jargon, but in a
>straightforward way. I explained how value created in production is
>realized in exchange. That shows rather simply how the two subsystems
>are interdependent. The last sentence might require a little more
>justification, but it obviously is a side comment.
Unfortunately, the wording excludes probably 98% of the workers.
We can't win with 2% of the people understanding it. Secondly I
think the vocabulary makes easy things more difficult, it is a
stumbling block even for the people who do follow it (IMHO). I
remember reading some Engels, and thinking that it was much too
abstract also, maybe that's where Marx got it from. Might have
been popular at the time to be so abstract, maybe it was thought
to appear distinctive.
Why not say instead: "workers make things people like, for instance
you make 10.000 bananas when you only need 100 yourself, the rest
having no value for you directly. But when you swap the other 9.900
bananas for things you need, you make them have a useful value for
you, for instance you can perhaps swap 2.000 bananas for a new bike".
To take it further: "when a business leader controlls all bananas,
the business leader often takes more bananas for himself then is
deserved if we compare the effort of worked hours of workers and
leaders. That is not fair". Or: "the person that owns the soil can
demand bananas while he isn't even working !, not fair". Or "the
person owning mountains of money can put in power anyone he likes
over the soil and banana growing groups, and demand bananas for
that while he isn't actually *doing* anything, that is not fair."
Isn't it that simple, and basically cover it all. Everyone can
understand that ! A child of 6 can get it. Then you can say:
the swapping of the goods is important in order to make them work
for you. I notice that saying it this way seems to underwrite the
importance of swapping, an outgrowth of labor specialization, which
has its own value for the volume and quality of production. This
suggest there are "just" a number of trade imbalances that need
solving.
>I don't know your age
33
> and I don't know whether you have much
>education
VWO, that's what you need to get in a Dutch University. This should not
be relevant, but you're welcome to ask of course, I don't care.
> but I would not expect my statement to be understood by a
>typical high school graduate who has not done much reading or thinking
>about the world.
Then what you say, true or not, will not reach the majority ! You know
that is a problem.
> One always has to make presumptions about the level
>of development of who will hear what you have to say. Given the name
>of the group, should I not presume that participants in disussion have
>read some Marx or at least read about him?
I have read about him, some work of him. It hasn't worked and I don't
agree with (the theoretical parts of) it. Marx is a part of Communism,
Communism is much wider. Marx underwrites the importance of the
scientific method, if he hadn't I wouldn't call myself Communist.
It implies Marx can be disproven where wrong, Marx also never claimed
to solve it all (that I know).
> If the issue that has come up
>is economic theory, should I not presume that participants have read a
>little classical political economy such as Adam Smith?
Not here, because we want global revolution. Isn't there a Usenet group
with Marx' name in it ?
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
