Jerry, thanks for a discussion of my book. I have to go a meetings in a couple of minutes, so I will be brief.
In most of my books, I put Marx at the forefront. Here I wanted to make a simple point that there is so much
screwed up in our economy and society the way it is, that we have a great deal of latitude been experimenting
with non-market methods -- in effect, opening up a dialogue where Marxists could participate.
It was an experiment. I'm not sure that I would judge it a success -- at least so far. I also mentioned Fred
Moseley, I thought.
> Gerald_A_Levy wrote:
>
> Michael P's recent book _Transcending the Economy:
> On the Potential of Passionate Labor and the Wastes
> of The Market_ (NY, St. Martin's Press, 2000; ISBN
> 0-312-22977-1) raises some issues which have not
> been systematically addressed by either mainstream
> (neo-neo-classical) theory or heterodox theories, including
> Marxist theories.
>
> An indication of the later point can be seen in Ch. 5
> ("A Review of the Literature") in which the few sources
> where waste has been discussed in mainstream economic
> theory are reviewed. There is no mention at all of any
> specifically Marxist literature on waste. Perhaps there
> is some Marxist literature on waste, maybe in non-
> English languages, that Michael is unaware of?
>
> This doesn't mean that Marx and Marxist perspectives
> aren't discussed. There is a very brief mention of Fred's
> and Shaikh/Tonak's writings about unproductive labor
> (pp. 9-10), but Michael adds "My concept of waste
> goes considerably further than these calculations of
> unproductive labor". I agree that Michael *does* go
> much further in analyzing waste, but I wonder: why
> weren't the subjects of value and unproductive labor
> more explicitly brought to bear on a discussion of
> wealth? I.e. even if one says that one needs to go
> *beyond* the prior Marxist discussions of value,
> shouldn't those discussions be discussed, evaluated,
> and critiqued? Perhaps the answer is to be found in
> the intended use for the book, i.e. it is intended, it seems,
> to me to be a "popular" book suitable perhaps for
> undergraduate classes (in what I'm not sure).
>
> Marx is discussed briefly, especially in connection with
> Ch. 5 ("Conflict in the Production Process"), but his
> analysis is not examined systematically as it relates
> to other subjects in the book, imo. Why this is the
> case, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is grounded in the belief
> that there isn't all that much in Marx on the subject of
> waste and we need to deepen our analysis beyond what he wrote? To some degree, I agree. Yet, it seems to me,
> that the connections of Marx to the subject of waste
> can be more deeply explored. Indeed -- perhaps we can
> have that discussion here on OPE-L?
>
> Let's see if we can identify a broad framework (outline
> if you will) in which we can discuss waste, value, &
> wealth (and something Michael calls "passionate labor").
> Here are some ideas for broad subjects for discussion:
>
> I) Waste of Value
>
> a) waste of labor-power
>
> To begin with, we have to look at waste from a *class
> perspective* it seems to me. E.g. *from the standpoint
> of capital* the decline of child labor might be seen
> as wasted potential. Not so from the *perspective of
> the working class*. Similarly, if absolute surplus
> value is decreased by a shortening of the working
> day or the workweek, this might be seen as wasted
> potential from the perspective of the capitalist class.
> Not so from the perspective of the working class.
> Also, a decrease in the intensity of labor might be seen
> as wasted potential from the standpoint of capital yet
> it would be seen otherwise by the working class.
>
> Another area in which this differing perspective can
> be seen (and this gets us a little closer to the concept
> of "passionate labor") are differing concepts of *leisure*.
> From a capitalist perspective, and from the standpoint
> of the Protestant work ethic, leisure is waste (especially
> if its leisure by the working class!). Yet, increased
> leisure time is something that the working class
> struggles for. Also, while a vacation (e.g. sailing by
> a working-class family) might be seen as wasted
> potential by capital, it is seen as *pleasure* by the
> working class. Indeed, it is *for pleasure* (and passion),
> in addition to merely subsistence, that workers work
> for, right?
>
> At the other end of life in capitalist society there is also
> waste of potential labor power. Thus, especially in
> advanced capitalist economies, workers are forced
> into early retirement (or are discriminated against
> in the market for labor power based on their age).
> Yet, here there are differences in perspective among
> workers: many workers can't wait until retirement
> (when they think that they can *finally* experience
> pleasure -- in this context, I mean liberation from work)
> whereas other workers can't imagine life without earning
> a wage (and who knows how many thousands, perhaps
> millions?, have died shortly after retirement when they
> seemed to have lost the will and zest to live? Thus,
> sad to say, for all too many workers the freedom from
> work ushers in the freedom from life).
>
> One might also argue that the *capitalist* division of
> labor promotes waste. E.g. occupations which are
> only useful to the realization or transfer of value
> rather than the creation of new value might be viewed
> as wasted potential labor power. Here we can find
> some connections between the subject of unproductive
> labor and waste.
>
> Then, of course, there is the army of the unemployed.
> From one perspective, this might be seen as wasted
> potential (indeed, this is implied by the marginalist
> "production possibilities curve" graph). Yet, from the
> standpoint of capital the IRA is not waste *alone* -- rather
> it serves an important function *for capital*: i.e. to
> help drive down wages, intensify labor, and increase
> the bargaining power of capitalists. The working class,
> of course, views the matter differently.
>
> Paradoxically, while the working class struggles for
> greater leisure time it also struggles against an
> expansion of the IRA. This is because when workers
> join the IRA they have a lot more "free time" for
> leisure, but not enough money to enjoy that leisure!
> Thus, the old story for the working class under capitalism
> is that they either have no time for leisure but earn a
> wage or they have nothing but time for leisure but don't
> have the money that they view as necessary to enjoy that
> time. Either way, they lose.
>
> b) waste of constant capital
>
> On the waste of circulating constant capital, I will
> write more in the next section. But, here, I will simply
> note that there are important ecological consequences.
>
> What about the "forcible destruction of capital values"
> that occur in a crisis? This could be viewed as *wasted
> value*, couldn't it? Indeed, isn't the whole subject
> of "moral depreciation" related to the subject of waste?
> Yet, an exploration of wasted value (often caused
> by wasted use-value) must be linked to the subject
> of the transformation of value and use-value caused
> by technical change. Thus, on one level there *is*
> waste when there are advances in computer
> technology (as the use-values of the older technologies
> are rendered prematurely obsolete), yet in this case
> waste might be seen as promoting the accumulation
> of capital.
>
> [While on the topic of accumulation of capital, we
> should note that this *is* the capitalist passion:
> "Accumulate! Accumulate ...." Similarly,
> we might say that many capitalists view labor
> employed in pursuit of war and plunder as a
> *passion*. (And, of course, the military views
> war as the ultimate passionate activity). The
> working class, however, has very different passions
> -- although some segments of the working class
> influenced by "education", the media, government
> propaganda, etc. can come to embrace the idea
> of war as passion. This, however, leads us to
> another subject -- the state (since an understanding
> of nationalism assumes an understanding of the state
> in capitalist society).
>
> c) transfer of value
>
> There is a transfer of value by capitalists to the
> state. Does this represent, on some level, a
> waste of value? I would say: not necessarily.
> It depends on what we mean here by the expression
> "waste". And it depends on *who* (i.e. what class)
> it is a waste (or a benefit) to? Thus, war -- from the
> standpoint of the international working class --
> represents a waste of working class lives. Not so
> from the perspective of capital and capitalist nations.
> included as well).
>
> The above might be explored, in part (but _only_ part)
> by a consideration of the acquisition of what become
> elements of constant circulating capital.
>
> Capitalists seek to accumulate capital. But, doesn't
> the working-class often seek to accumulate
> commodities that are used for individual consumption?
> Of course, working class *passions* for a lot of
> commodities are created often by "consumerism"
> promoted by various social institutions, especially
> *advertising* by capitalists. What is the effect of
> this working-class (and other class) demand for
> consumer goods on the environment? How will their
> passions be changed?
>
> III. The Way Forward
>
> I guess we could agree with the desire for passionate
> labor as a true expression of human potential.
>
> Yet, how do we get from here to there?
>
> Michael's book is self-consciously in the tradition of the
> Utopian Socialists, especially Fourier. Indeed, he
> concludes near the end of his book that what is required
> is a transformation of society but that "whether it
> proceeds along the rather modest course I am
> suggesting here or the revolutionary path that Marx
> foresaw -- society has no choice but to begin the
> process as soon as possible" (p. 160). Yet this
> begs the question -- can we eliminate waste and
> have "passionate labor" with a "modest course"
> or is a revolutionary transformation required?
>
> Does anyone else want to talk about waste and value
> and passionate labor?
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT