Capitalism, Marxism and Related Matters

[vimothy]

Possible members of a winning coalition. The electorate in democracies, the heads of the army & security services in military juntas like North Korea. Those people with at least a nominal say. The point about rigged elections (and why they are the institution of choice for Lenin et al) is that in principle the winning coalition could include anyone. If the winning coalition is small relative to the selectorate, it means 1, that defection is discouraged because there are lots of people to replace you with, and 2, that the cost of private goods is cheaper (less cronies relative to workers to exploit), which further reinforces the loyalty to the incumbent described in point 1.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

which is really a question to do with the problem of why states behave as they do. Which is a pretty complicated question, when it comes down to it, and not one which can easily be answered empirically.

Interestingly, this question is deeply related to the question of the (economic) value of things. Both are intimately related to questions of future contingents: what would happen if I buy this good? what would happen if I make this political decision? Maybe this, but maybe that! Both are a form of speculation. In both cases uncertain future events are assigned probabilities which are the basis of decisions in the present.

In both cases the probabilities are socially constructed.

 

[vimothy]

But it's important (IMO) to view states as not being unitary & discrete entities, that the actions of states are generated by the various pushes and pulls that come from within states. Who decides is closely bound up with how they decide.

 

[comelately]

Would you mind rephrasing this so the majority of readers here who are not familiar with the language of the "Phenomenology of Spirit" and its successors can understand your position and join the discussion?

Dunno about a position, but I'll throw out some talking points.

1. It's pretty clear that the Labor Theory of Value is pretty meaningless from a 20th Century western philosophical perspective.

2. Karl Popper's critique of historicism is intellectually pretty tight. The idea that you can intellectually predict the progress of mankind with that kind of certainty is pretty laughable imho.

3. Even if you disagree, it seems to me that Marx predicted wrong. Marx underestimated the ability of consumerism to temper alienation. And even though I think middle-class salaries will be pushed down over time in the UK and the gap between the rich and poor will get wider - the relative notion of poverty can only take you so far, even the "underclass" still has, for the most part, access to an abundance of bread and circuses. I'm not saying noone ever goes hungry in the UK, but there are no starving masses and barely a recognisable working class.

4. The dialectic is just intellectualised prophecy. The progress/journey of humankind is a pretty common thread in religion, be it the Road to Armageddon or the more individual Road to Liberation or 2012~! or whatever.

5. Amongst the new-age crowd, you have guys like David R. Hawkins who also believes in the progress of the consciousness of humankind - and believes it shot up bigstyle once the commies were thrown out, mostly because of a lack of integrity. He believes this rise will continue to accelerate.

6. As do a lot of the 2012-ers. If the period up to "2012" was about the lower three chakras (feeding and clothing ourselves, educating ourselves, abundance issues), the next period will be about mankind truly beginning to open their hearts. When we as a species live with unconditional love, then surely then there will be to each according to their need and from each according to their ability? And what need would we have of owning things? But you cannot reverse-engineer unconditional love.

7. Don't You Know It's Gonna Be...Alright?

 

[josef k.]

But it's important (IMO) to view states as not being unitary & discrete entities, that the actions of states are generated by the various pushes and pulls that come from within states. Who decides is closely bound up with how they decide.

This is exactly right, I think - and perhaps one of the abiding values of Marxism is that it does open the way into a consideration of this question. Even if the (conspiratorial) answer that Marxism itself supplies - that it is always at base a ruling class cabal which is driving things - is ultimately too simple. Capital, clearly, does not speak with one voice; its clear to see in our own era that the interests of, say, defence capital and tech capital do not converge.

 

[josef k.]

Dunno about a position, but I'll throw out some talking points.

1. It's pretty clear that the Labor Theory of Value is pretty meaningless from a 20th Century western philosophical perspective.

A further question arises from this - what is Marxism apart from the labour theory of value which anchors it.

If you throw that out, what is left? I've been reading Fred Jameson's book "The Political Unconscious" recently. I'm on about page 50, so I can't speak with authority here. But Jameson does seem to have a slightly different conception of what Marxism is all about - he talks about it in the context of being able to provide an over-arching narrative through which History (he capitalizes it) can be considered as a totality. For Jameson, Marxism - and more particularly, Structuralist Marxism - provides the only real means available for understanding history as a whole, and not just as more-or-less local phenomenon. As part of his effort to prove this, he redefines the concept of the mode of production as referring, not just to economics, but to the structure of society as such. Jameson, at base, insists that only Marxism provides the means for being able to think historical change.

I read this paragraph back to myself, and seems somewhat garbled. I'm posting it anyway, though, since maybe others will be able to make something more coherent from it.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

A further question arises from this - what is Marxism apart from the labour theory of value which anchors it.

To quote myself from earlier in this thread: "I disagree, one can disentangle various features of Marx analysis: a theory of monetary value, a theory of history, an account of the dependency of economic on scientific progress, a theory of politics, ideology, revolution, preproduction of inequality, epistemology ... " None of these contributions are anchored in the LTV.

But Jameson does seem to have a slightly different conception of what Marxism is all about - he talks about it in the context of being able to provide an over-arching narrative through which History (he capitalizes it) can be considered as a totality.

It is true, that has been a use of Marxism, but it's hardly the only such totalising narrative. There are competitors, be they religious, evolutionary, they might write the history of the world as one of technical progress, or of functional differentiation.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

But it's important (IMO) to view states as not being unitary & discrete entities, that the actions of states are generated by the various pushes and pulls that come from within states.

That sentence is ambiguous. Do you mean that the actions of states are should or should not be seen as being generated by the various pushes and pulls that come from within states? I guess you mean the former, in which case my question would be why to assume that forces from within a state are more important than those from without?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

I think that the phenomenon of rigged elections is also interesting. Why, if the outcome is rigged, would you bother holding elections?

To increase one's national and international credibility, and to create the illusion of mass support, which is the root of power.

I see institutions as prime -- the creators of an incentive structure that provide the range choices that political entities choose from.

Of course creating such desirable institutions is a hard problem. Much easier to organise an election. Countries that have such institutions are probably never poor. Interestingly, the other way round doesn't work, corrupt states can treat their citizens well.

On a related (but perhaps controversial) note: the Cold War was pretty good, no? If you take (and I presume that everyone does) stability to be more important than justice, the Cold War balance of power and strategy of nuclear deterrence / MAD was nothing if not successful. Thoughts?

I would say that the need for MAD/a cold war itself shows that humanity was not successful. That said, MAD has been preventing a lot of bloodshed if you ask me, although during the cuban missile crisis we came awfully close to a nuclear exchange. This leads to a terrible conundrum: should we see nuclear proliferation as a good thing then, or should nuclear weapons be rolled back, or should we stay with the status quo?

 

[vimothy]

To quote myself from earlier in this thread: "I disagree, one can disentangle various features of Marx analysis: a theory of monetary value, a theory of history, an account of the dependency of economic on scientific progress, a theory of politics, ideology, revolution, preproduction of inequality, epistemology ... " None of these contributions are anchored in the LTV.

Isn't it the theory of exploitation (that arises from the LTV) which is the base on which all (or most) of these things lie, though?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Isn't it the theory of exploitation (that arises from the LTV) which is the base on which all (or most) of these things lie, though?

I dont' see why/how for example Marx ideas about the political process or the function of masses and revolutions depend on the LTV.

 

[vimothy]

I dont' see why/how for example Marx ideas about the political process or the function of masses and revolutions depend on the LTV.

I mean the theory of exploitation, really, not the LTV. Where is Marxism without exploitation?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

I mean the theory of exploitation, really, not the LTV. Where is Marxism without exploitation?

Yes, that's true. Marx develops the LTV in part to explain exploitation under industrialised capitalism. But the fact of exploitation came first, and the LTV is an explanation of this fact.

I do think that exploitation is a fact, and that the political ramifications can be salvaged w/o subscribing to the LTV. Moreover, value does have a labour component, clearly.

 

[vimothy]

Yes, that's true. Marx develops the LTV in part to explain exploitation under industrialised capitalism. But the fact of exploitation came first, and the LTV is an explanation of this fact.

Scientific proof!

I do think exploitation as a fact, and it's political ramifications can be salvaged w/o subscribing to the LTV.

Yes, but the issue of exploitation is more complicated than Marx and the Marxists' theory.

Moreover, value does have a labour component, clearly.

To the producer(s), definitely. Less sure about the consumer, though.

 

[josef k.]

Yes, that's true. Marx develops the LTV in part to explain exploitation under industrialised capitalism. But the fact of exploitation came first, and the LTV is an explanation of this fact.

I do think exploitation as a fact, and it's political ramifications can be salvaged w/o subscribing to the LTV. Moreover, value does have a labour component, clearly.

As I understand it, Marxism depends on the idea that labour (under capitalism) is exploitation, no more and no less. The LTV theorizes this, by explaining how surplus value is extracted, Matrix-like, from the bodies of the workers ("living labour") and added thereby to the "dead labour" of capital. On this fundamental "fact", the entire political and historical Marxist edifice is constructed - the reason why the proletariat is the subject of history and the instigators of the future great communist revolution, is not just because they are less well-off then the bourgeois, but because all labour in the universe is fundamentally their labour... Take away the LTV, and this idea disappears: exploitation remains, but the idea that Exploitation is the essential human condition in the capitalist situation ceases to hold.

But Jameson doesn't really talk about either exploitation or the LTV, or the proleteriat much at all. He's more interested in theories of reading, and narrative - and he calls his own theory Marxist for reasons that perhaps deserve to be configured into bearing the status of real enigma.

 

[vimothy]

To the producer(s), definitely. Less sure about the consumer, though.

3 Body No Problem:

What do you think of this? Do you think that the amount of labour hours used in the production of any given object affects your valuation of it? What if we compare the value of two identical goods (Good A and Good B), where Good B requires (for whatever reason -- produced in a country with lower total factor productivity, e.g.) twice the amount of labour time in its production. Is the value (to consumer or producer) different? Is labour value some sort of ordinal measure, or is it more concrete?

 

[IdleRich]

"What if we compare the value of two identical goods (Good A and Good B), where Good B requires (for whatever reason -- produced in a country with lower total factor productivity, e.g.) twice the amount of labour time in its production. Is the value (to consumer or producer) different?"

Well, people are generally willing to pay more for something that is hand-made than an equivalent that was factory-produced so there is some kind of increase of value there. I suspect that that is a luxury that might get sacrificed if times were hard however.

 

[vimothy]

Well, people are generally willing to pay more for something that is hand-made than an equivalent that was factory-produced so there is some kind of increase of value there. I suspect that that is a luxury that might get sacrificed if times were hard however.

But I mean goods identical in every way save for the amount of labour time that went into producing them.

For instance, two identical ball point pens: Pen A takes half as many labour hours to produce as Pen B; does it therefore have half the value? Less value generally?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

As I understand it, Marxism depends on the idea that labour (under capitalism) is exploitation, no more and no less. The LTV theorizes this, by explaining how surplus value is extracted, Matrix-like, from the bodies of the workers ("living labour") and added thereby to the "dead labour" of capital. On this fundamental "fact", the entire political and historical Marxist edifice is constructed - the reason why the proletariat is the subject of history and the instigators of the future great communist revolution, is not just because they are less well-off then the bourgeois, but because all labour in the universe is fundamentally their labour... Take away the LTV, and this idea disappears: exploitation remains, but the idea that Exploitation is the essential human condition in the capitalist situation ceases to hold.

Why? As long as labour input has some bearing on prices, one can speak of exploitation in the Marxian sense. The problem with the LTV is that it is only based on labour input, with other factors like risk being ignored. If one were to account for these factors in a novel theory of value, labour input would still matter. The connection between prices and exploitation is less immediate than Marx though. The importance of labour content might also be different in different kinds of products and societies. Agrarian societies of unskilled labour make variants of LTVs more plausible than industrial societies with a high degree of labour and skill differentiation (which makes labour input hard to compare).

Moreover, one can base a critique of a form of organising the economy on things other than exploitation. After all, Marx slogan "From each according to ..." describes a society where some people (the strong, the able-bodied) put in more than others (the sick, the weak), i.e. the latter 'exploit' the former. The very concept of exploitation is tied to a notion of fairness, justice which is relevant only in societies of scarcity. The Marxian utopia of plentiful communism though scarcity would wither away.

PS: Please bear in mind that Marx didn't claim that his version of the LTV does explain all price fluctuations one sees in markets: The relevant Wikipedia article explains it quite well: According to Marx's theory, actual prices will virtually always diverge from 'values' defined as units of labor-time. In Marx's thinking, after 1860, the relationship between 'value' and observed market prices is somewhat analogous to the relationship between 'mass' and 'heaviness', or between 'heat' and everyday awareness of temperature. Marx's 'value' is purportedly necessary to explain price, but it does not correspond to price or equilibrium price (often not even roughly) and therefore obvious disparities between value and price are not seen by Marx as refutations of his theory, though they are seen as contradicting the simple models employed in the early stages of expounding his theory in Volumes I and II of "Capital".

 

[IdleRich]

"But I mean goods identical in every way save for the amount of labour time that went into producing them.
For instance, two identical ball point pens: Pen A takes half as many labour hours to produce as Pen B; does it therefore have half the value? Less value generally?"

I think that some people probably would pay more for Pen A in some circumstances (for example if it was hand made rather than just built by a slower machine) but I agree that it is some kind of reflection of the value it represents to the producer rather than an actual increase in value for the consumer.