Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 20:50:07 GMT From: Ron Press <anclondon-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: General comment **B00000000000000 Hi >>From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> The Labor Theory of Value is widely rejected even by Marxist economists<<< This is a bit of an all pervasive statement. What do they substitute?? >>From: boddhisatva <foucault-AT-eden.rutgers.edu> The simple fact is that people are not going to stop wanting to get rich, nor should they. Consumers are not going to stop wanting innovation, nor should they. Our job as Marxists is to unshackle the productive force. Wage exploitation is that shackle. Independent worker enterprise is the key.<< If you add to this a more equtable redistribution of wealth and resources then I reluctantly agree. I still feel there is a limit. How many cars does one need? Is transport the need not the car? >>From: boddhisatva <foucault-AT-eden.rutgers.edu> The relationship of man to earth is essentially moot to Marxism (unlike the relationship of man to woman or white to black) because only human relations are fundamental to Marxism. Environmental panic seems inevitably to give way to a planned economy ideal, precluding the necessity for true worker control of production in its logic. The issue of creating a greener human economy is vastly important, but it is not a Marxist cause.>> See my later comment. >>From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Look, Justin, all this talk about "science" is a little silly. Marxism is not physics. It's a mistake to picture Marxists as men and women in white coats in a laboratory somewhere trying to achieve breakthroughs in the same way that scientists have made breakthroughs in nuclear physics for example. Einstein posited some laws and then researchers in the field were able to split atoms in a laboratory and proved the theory empirically.<< Sorry to say I am un-reformed scientist (Rationalist--Marxist-- What ever label you wish ). There are to my mind inter-relating levels of human endeavour ( or a seeking after God if you like, To my mind saying it is all down to a god of whatever ilk is placing a question mark in place of an answer. God is the largest question mark of all). >Mathematics,> Physics,> Chemistry,> Biology,> Economics,> Psychology,> Politics... Each subsequent level is more complex because in incorporates the previous layer. This makes Politics the most complex and difficult. I do not see any Iron or Bamboo curtain between them. (Islamic fundamentalism is subject to rational analysis. In this analysis one might conclude that to the rationalist it is irrational. But then something is irrational merely because we have not understood it clearly enough. Lightening was irrational until we began to understand it.) Thus I cannot accept that There is no science of society. I believe this science to be called Marxism. ( Again I am not wedded to a name but I am wedded to a scientific method. I believe Marx to be one of the great minds in this sphere. Just as Galileo, Newton, Einstein... are in Physics.) It could be said that Social scientists do not perform experiments and see if their theories work. This is not true. Margaret Thatcher in UK, Vervoed in South Africa, Lenin in the USSR, so many have had theories which they have tried out. Most had limited success. Lenin had perhaps the most lasting success. Such experiments continue to be performed. Uganda under Museveny, South Africa under Mandela.... Because each level incorporates the lower level the practice of politics incorporates the Greens, the Church, Fascists, ..... Thus if we as politicians ( Even the philosopher is taking part in political action) dismiss the Greens, the Trade Unions, the Anti Racists then we suffer a loss of data, of support, of understanding. I agree that to change the present system to a better one we need to seek the weakest link in the chain, ( Or find the butterfly wing). The beauty of life is that there are so many weak links. In certain circumstances the Greens constitute that link, in another a particular strike.... Thus my advice to. >>>From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> I too am worried that Marxist theorists, inside the academy or out, are cut off from a vital labor. much less socialist movement. I don't know what to do about this. I have been asking for ideas: I'll do it again. What should we, who are interested in Marxist theory and in socialist practice, do with our theoretical work here and now? Proyect says: write Monthly Review level articles on particular issues reflecting some more or less orthodox perspective. I say that's fine as far as it goes, but Monthly Review hasn't taken the world by the throat, alas. What else?<<<< is Seek ye the link closest to your environment PS Please advise... >>>From: boddhisatva <foucault-AT-eden.rutgers.edu> My own analysis of capitalist economies hinges on a two market system. There is the market in goods and productive capital, and there is the market in instrunments that extract profit from the other market. Monopolies are good investments for their enhanced ability as profit extractors. Small firms are closer in practice to socialist enterprises (as American right-wingers love to point out) because they have less<<< Is this the beginning of a suggestion that the MARKET can be part of the socialist system. I still have a pair of pliers I bought in Moscow. It has the price stamped into the steel. No market here. No inflation. No Flexability. Result under pressure collapse??? Ron Press ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005