File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-03-31.182, message 11


Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:23:02 +0000
From: Lew <Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: Law of value and labour vouchers


In article <199703270803.IAA21551-AT-gn.apc.org>, Chris Burford
<cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> writes
>I felt in sympathy with Carl Davidson's latest contribution,
>which crossed with mine. In support of his remark about
>how labour vouchers would get used, an old non-political
>friend of mine, remembers as a young lieutenant in the 
>British occupation zone of Germany just after the end of 
>the war, how coffee and American cigarettes had a special
>value as commodities. He recalls purchasing a good quality
>camera with their use. 
>
>But Lew's latest contribution brings us straight up to 
>the question of whether these discussions about models 
>are inherently utopian. Thank you very much for giving the 
>quotes so promptly from Marx. Is it possible, as we all
>have different editions, to give them again, with the 
>chapter and section headings, if possible even the paragraph
>number? The reason why I increasingly think the context of 
>these sort of remarks needs to be made is to be sensitive to
>Marx's method of abstraction which if taken concretely 
>can distort the meaning in a mechanical way.

Capital, Volume One, Part 1, Chapter 111, Section 1: Money, Or The
Circulation of commodities. First footnote.
Capital, Volume Two, Part 2, Chapter XV111, 11: The Role of Money
Capital. Last page.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1, 3.

>Neil's latest post promises to continue the battle which
>could be very instructive, but I would put to him that
>those interested in market socialism do not necessarily 
>worship the market anymore than anyone else, but in 
>appraisal of the balance of class forces think there may be
>a possibility of getting to something like market socialism
>just, and of restricting the market, but abolishing the 
>market is a bridge too far this century. After all don't we 
>all enjoy the market? How do we come to be indulging in this
>correspondence list if we had not been seduced by the market
>and encouraged to choose from a variety of goods and 
>services?
>
You may enjoy the market; I don't. You may have been seduced by the
market into contributing to this newsgroup; I am using it to communicate
with other Marxists. After you have read the above references I suggest
you carry on reading the rest of Capital. You will discover how much
venom Marx directs at the market/money economy, and why it must be
replaced - not as an option but in what the overthrow of capitalism is
all about.

>And I do not want to throw an unfair charge, because I do 
>not think there is a *direct* connection, but I do think there
>was an indirect connection -
>
>Cambodia was one of the few experiments this century at
>abolishing money and
>really I think we have to assume that not all the loss of 
>life in Cambodia was due to the appalling US bombing. Some
>appears to have been associated with commandist, and brutal
>implementation of a radical rural communistic society in 
>which money was abolished. Unless a people are ready to move
>to the high level of voluntary co-operation that left-
>communists might urge, the effort to abolish the market is
>itself utopian and runs the risk of arbitrary and rough
>justice in imposing these social values. 
>
>
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London.
>

This is another version of the "Marx is responsible for Stalin" crap we
get in the yellow press. After all, Stalin did call himself a Marxist so
it must be true, even indirectly! Is it futile to point out Marx's
demand for working class self-emancipation was nowhere in evidence in
Cambodia? And that none of the other pre-conditions for socialism (eg a
sufficiently developed productive forces) were met?

On the pejorative use of the word "utopian". In its original sense -
"nowhere" - of course socialism is utopian: it doesn't exist. But it can
exist, and as Marxists it is our role to agitate, educate and organise
for its establishment. Not as some lofty ideal but as the urgent
solution to the problems of the working class. Of course by "utopian" is
meant (not the Utopian Socialists for whom Marx had critical respect)
impractical or unrealiseable; with the unspoken assumption that there
own position is so much more reasonable. ("Market socialism" - a
capitalism that is made to work in the interests of the working class -
now that's what I call utopian.) I do find this very odd. Here we are in
a discussion group on Marxism, with a section that not only rejects the
central element of Marx's critique of capitalism but also Marx's
communist alternative. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovative
Marxism; but surely there are some limits?
-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005