Hi Claus,
Thanks for your post.
----- Original message -----
Sent: 2008/11/12 14:01:27
Subject: Re:[Fwd: Re:Re: [OPE] Why Markets Fail]
--------------------------- Mensagem Original ----------------------------
Assu
into: Re:Re: [OPE] Why Markets Fail
De: cmgermer@ufpr.br
Data: Qua, Novembro 12, 2008 12:00 pm
Para: "Michael Williams"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claus writes
your questions are not easy to answer, but I’ll give it a try:
Great - I'm not sure that an ex ante answer can be very specific
> Hello Claus,
>
> "markets are in themselves socially negative, because they
> are based on the exploitation of the workers' labor and so on"
>
> All markets? Or just the markets for labour-power?
>
I mean *the* market, ie, the existence of the market as such, understood
as the process of transfer of the private property of commodities in a
society like capitalism, based as it is on the exploitation of labor. If
one defines socialism as the abolition of private property, as I do, the
abolition of the market is a logical consequence.
Abolition of private 'property' in labour-power, and private property in productive resources, yes. But is there any reason for abolition of private property in consumption goods?
> How long must the oppressed of the world wait until we at least reduce
> exploitation whilst awaiting the 2nd coming of communist heaven?
>
First of all, I’m not talking of a *communist heaven*, I’m talking of a
new mode of production based on the collective property of the means of
production, with its own contradictions and so on; second, I don’t
understand what you mean with *2nd coming*. Has there been a *1st
communist heaven*? Are communists after a heaven on earth? Is communism or
socialism a religion? I don’t think so. It is a struggle between classes
to overcome the contradictions of the capitalist society. The struggle for
the new society and the latter itself have their own contradictions, which
may not be easy to overcome, they are not heaven.
I don't disagree. My comments were ironical. I am ironical because life seems absurd; and because its funny!.
But the struggle and the
new society are objective realities, which we cannot abolish. We don't
determine them, they determine us.
I strongly disagree that any 'new society' is already an objective reality. We, even we Marxists, do not know what is coming; what will be the outcome of our struggles. We can only optimisitcally hope to teak the time path as we live it.
The oppressed of the world, who are at least around two thirds of the
world population, will have to wait until they understand that
exploitation cannot be reduced in capitalism, that they are the vast
majority of the population and are able to defeat capitalism, that they
don’t need capitalism, and it is the aim of the socialists, imo, to
contribute to the growing of this understanding and the political action
that follows from it. Unfortunately the socialists cannot determine the
conditions to bring the political understanding of the workers to the
needed level, but this doesn’t mean that they should give up thinking and
acting in order to contribute to it.
I don't disagree. But, like Dave Z, I cannot accept the inhumanity of ignoring the short term plight of the oppressed in order to motivate them to revolt; nor do I think it has shown any sign of working. Those with a full belly can spare time to think through the contradictions of their environment.
> What argument have you got to persuade me that state regulation cannot
> alleviate industrial and financial crises in 'mixed economies'?
>
First of all, because the theory of capitalism has proven that competition
and its outcomes cannot be regulated; and secondly, because the history of
the ‘mixed economies’ has proven it in practice. What is left of the
‘mixed eonomies’?
They are still mixed, and on most objective measures the 'mix' has not changed much for better or for worse.
> What is a reasonable number of workers that have to have their lives
> destroyed by neglecting the alleviation of their condition in the here
> and now in order to make them revolutionary subjects - given that the
> outcomes of violent revolution are unpredictable?
>
I think a reasonable number of workers that can hardly expect the
alleviation of their condition except by a social revolution is roughly
around two thirds of the world population. Their condition has not become
better, but worst, along decades of attempts to alleviate their condition.
The very poorest have gotten poorer and the very richest have gotten richer. Capitalism is a bitch. But nevertheless many in between have improved their lot. Of course the struggle continues to get enacted reforms that alleviate the lot of the down-trodden much more and at the same time open pathways to further progress.
I think the opposite question is in order: What is a reasonable number of
workers that have to have their lives destroyed by neglecting the fact
that they can become revolutionary subjects right now and free them and
their descendants from exploitation?
In what sense 'can', are they likely, to become revolutionaries? What evidence do we have that immiseration breeds revolutionary activism rather than down-trodden desparation and passivity?
Is the violence of a revolution worse than the violence of the present
exploitation? Have we the power to reduce the violence of the present
exploitation? Have we the power to dictate the way the social revolution
takes? Do the exploited people prefer exploitation than the fight to free
themselves?
Actual war, even revolutionary war is unutterably hellish. How can we dare to try to stimulate people to embrace it in the absence of any confidence that the outcome will alleviate their condition significantly?
> My own reason for being a revolutionary socialist is to struggle with the
> difficult dialectic of reform and eventual revolution. This reality is
> evaded by the (imo, utopian) call for all or nothing now. A socialist
> party would struggle for socialism, by mitigating the horrors of
> capitalism for the working class in ways designed to open up rather than
> close down opportunites for further progressive transformation. Not as
> exciting as taking to the hills with our trusty muskets, but more
> practical and less self-indulgent.
>
No one can be against mitigating the suffering of the workers and all the
poor people. But just mitigating the horrors of capitalism will not
increase the struggle against capitalism, on the contrary, it increases
the hope of the poor of being able to be better off in capitalism. A
socialist party must be at the side of the workers and all the oppressed
in their struggle to improve their conditions of living and working, but
it must do so by showing them, at the same time, that there is no
permanent improvement possible, because exploitation will not end in
capitalism, that an improvement obtained in a favorable moment of the
class struggle will be abolished in a next unfavorable one and so on. In
other words, such a party must contribute to the development of a
revolutionary struggle for improvements, not to a reformist and illusory
struggle within the limits set by the capitalist class and its state.
In the first part of this passage you concede my main point about the dialectic of reform and revolution. Reformist struggle is real; certainty that the outcome of revolution will be communism is illusory and utopian
comradely greetings
michael
> Hello Claus,
>
> "markets are in themselves socially negative, because they
> are based on the exploitation of the workers' labor and so on"
>
> All markets? Or just the markets for labour-power?
>
> How long must the oppressed of the world wait until we at least reduce
> exploitation whilst awaiting the 2nd coming of communist heaven?
>
> What argument have you got to persuade me that state regulation cannot
> alleviate industrial and financial crises in 'mixed economies'?
>
> What is a reasonable number of workers that have to have their lives
> destroyed by neglecting the alleviation of their condition in the here
> and now in order to make them revolutionary subjects - given that the
> outcomes of violent revolution are unpredictable?
>
> My own reason for being a revolutionary socialist is to struggle with the
> difficult dialectic of reform and eventual revolution. This reality is
> evaded by the (imo, utopian) call for all or nothing now. A socialist
> party would struggle for socialism, by mitigating the horrors of
> capitalism for the working class in ways designed to open up rather than
> close down opportunites for further progressive transformation. Not as
> exciting as taking to the hills with our trusty muskets, but more
> practical and less self-indulgent.
>
> The question of what role the market may play in transitional, socialist
> and even communist society requires careful and detailed examination.
> Personally I am dubious about the possibility in an advanced economy of
> regulating the allocation of scarce resources to meet demands in
> accordance with 'from each according to their capabilites, to each
> according their needs', without recourse to regulated markets.
>
> comradely greetingds
>
> michael W
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> Sent: 2008/11/12 02:26:55
> Subject: Re:Re: [OPE] Why Markets Fail
>
> Hi Anders and all,
>
> >
> > If one is giving a speech these days one have to stress:
> >
> > a) Markets are unstable and cannot be left alone. Without
> > *democratic* regulation, i.e. social, political, normative - markets
> > create negative social consequences and are obviously inferior to a
> > "reasonable" way of doing things.
>
> I understand what you mean, but what you say implies that regulation can
> prevent markets from creating negative social consequences. What has to
> be
> said imo is that markets are in themselves socially negative, because
> they
> are based on the exploitation of the workers' labor and so on. For the
> same reason there is no *democratic regulation* of the markets possible,
> unless one maintains that *less* exploitation of one part of the
> *demo" by
> the other part of it can be *demo*cratic. And more: one has to say that
> no
> regulation will ever prevent industrial and financial crises from
> occurring.
> Although it may look radical, what one must say is that only the
> abolition
> of the market and of private property, i.e., socialism, can solve the
> social problems, the problems of the people and of the workers. If
> Marxists don't say it, who will say it? And how will people know?
> Finally, only the crises, economic and political, make visible the
> contradictions of the society and thus open the eyes of the common
> people,
> in particular of the workers, to the need for a radical change. The
> transition to socialism will only be possible after a crisis so deep of
> the capitalist economy and society, that an institutional revolution will
> look inevitable. Thus, it doesn't seem reasonable to contribute to the
> prevention or to the mitigation of the crises, because this only
> contributes to the maintenance of the political passivity of the workers
> and consequently to the maintenance of the power of the market. For two
> thirds of the world population, including a part of the population of the
> advanced capitalist countries, there is hardly any difference between a
> regulated and an unregulated market.
>
> >
> > d) Strong unions is one of the best ways of keeping business
> > "decent". That is the "Darwinian" hand that weeds
> out obscene
> > bonuses, fraud, cheating on product quality etc. etc. Strong unions
> > in keeping pressure on a social democratic party in power is the best
> > variety of capitalism, and only varieties of capitalism are on the
> > real political agenda - regrettably.
> >
>
> I think one must say that there is no good variety of capitalism. Strong
> unions that don't fight for socialism are not good unions, they
> contribute
> to maintain the exploitation of the workers, even if a *smaller*
> exploitation. I believe that there are only varieties of capitalism on
> the
> agenda because, among other reasons, there are few socialists left. But
> this will not last forever. The ones that are still there have to keep
> speaking for socialism, that is the only reason for them to exist. If
> not,
> what is the reason to be a socialist?
> What is a social democratic party that sustains capitalism? It is a party
> of the capitalist class. A party of the working class would not sustain
> capitalism, but fight for socialism. A social democratic party aims at
> hiding the class contradictions, preventing them from being seen,
> maintaining the political passivity of the working class, sustaining the
> *democratic* exploitation of the workers and repressing the *leftist
> radicals*.
>
> comradely
> Claus Germer.
>
>
> > e) International regulation of capital is necessary, tax exchanges on
> > the stock markets (London has a small tax - increase it tenfold!)
> > Only one trading day on the stock exchange per month! Continuos
> > trading has nothing to do with changes in underlying long-term
> > productive realities! No tax heavens - send the marines to topple the
> > "financial" terrorist regimes.
> >
> > f) Market failure is a ridiculous concept! One can talk about systems
> > failure, the dire consequences of *not* properly regulating
> > fundamentally *unstable* markets etc. but not market failure!
> >
> > ... and so on ;-)
> >
> >
> > Shooting from the hip...
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 18:43 11.11.2008, you wrote:
> >>Markets fail for many reasons. With all the attention to the current
> >>financial crisis, the time has come to look at another part of
> >>market failure -- the reluctance to invest in long-lived plant and
> >>equipment. I'm not merely thinking about the deindustrialization of
> >>the US economy, but a more general reluctance.
> >>
> >>The commitment of funds for fixed capital entails taking a risk. In
> >>the words of John Hicks, one of the earliest economists to win a
> >>so-called Nobel Prize, pointed to the obvious problem: "an
> >>entrepreneur by investing in fixed capital gives hostages to the
> >>future" (Hicks 1932, p. 183). Unfortunately, neither Hicks nor
> >>virtually any other economist has explored this fear of investment.
> >>
> >>The most popular response to this reluctance to invest came from a
> >>very conservative Austrian economist, who once served as a socialist
> >>minister of finance, before landing at Harvard. Joseph Schumpeter
> >>was indeed one of the giants of 20th century economics. Here his
> >>reputation to his personal brilliance, as well as a willingness to
> >>learn from Karl Marx.
> >>
> >>I have attached the rest of the piece as a pdf at
> >>
> >>http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-markets-fail/
> >>
> >>It was written to help me focus my thoughts for my talk in San
> >>Francisco tomorrow. Any comments will be appreciated.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Michael Perelman
> >>Economics Department
> >>California State University
> >>michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> >>Chico, CA 95929
> >>530-898-5321
> >>fax 530-898-5901
> >>www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>ope mailing list
> >>ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> >>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ope mailing list
> > ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Nov 12 14:20:31 2008