tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post3767606601495959824..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Marx on the BoxPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47968874403076675282012-10-09T15:51:22.861+01:002012-10-09T15:51:22.861+01:00I'm not at all arguing in favour of markets ot...I'm not at all arguing in favour of markets other than in the sense that Marx and other Marxists including Lenin and Trotsky did i.e. we can't simply abolish them.<br /><br />The counter argument would be every attempt so far at repalcing them be it rationing in WWII, or for things like Wimbledon tickets, or be it that attempted in Eastern Europe resulted in not just even greater economic disarray, but also considerable other negative political and social consequences.<br /><br />By contrast, every firm of any reasonable size engages in some form of planning, and building planning from the ground up, based on real human relations integrating the individual plans of worker owned firms seems a far more likely way of both gradually superseding the market, and of meeting the needs of consumers.<br /><br />But, it has to be said that most of the mess we have today is not due to the market today, but is due to capitalist ownership rather than workers ownership, and the consequences of that in the way Capital is allocated.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-16721465322523329282012-10-09T14:00:10.002+01:002012-10-09T14:00:10.002+01:00As you might expect, I believe leaving things to t...As you might expect, I believe leaving things to the anarchy of the market has led us to the mess we're in today. But full on debates over markets vs other forms of economic organisation is probably too much for a humble comments box ...Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-20814096130545599802012-10-09T09:44:30.305+01:002012-10-09T09:44:30.305+01:00Phil,
Good to see you blogging again. It wasn...Phil,<br /><br />Good to see you blogging again. It wasn't just Bernstein. Check out Engels Critique of the Erfurt Programme denouncing the demand for National Insurance, and the idea that worekrs could in any way palce their faith in the Capitalist State for such provision.<br /><br />I don't believe that Welfarism prefigures Socialism at all. The need for it assumes that workers need a social safety net, which in fact is only a requirement under Capitalism! In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx assumes that everyone who wants to work will be able to, and states the basic Socialist principle "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."<br /><br />Marx assumes that when workers themselves own the means of production, the current inequalities in wealth and income essentially disappear, so that people are all able to buy what goods and services they require equally, and that includes things like healthcare, and education.<br /><br />How workers choose to spend their money or labour time vouchers he believes is up to them, and not up to some higher authority to dictate to them. That doesn't mean that they can't set up some kind of national insurance scheme of their own, but his model for it is not the State, but the Workers Friendly Socieites, which is why the First International in its Programme called for the State to keep its hands off them.<br /><br />Moreover, Marxist Economists working in the NHS in the 1980's theorised the way in which health is provided as a commodity. A Socialist Health service would in fact concentrate on eradicating as far as possible the need to "consume" health, by dealing with the causes of ill-health to begin with, many of which reside within the nature of Capitalism.<br /><br />As for defending the NHS and other forms of welfare that comes down to the same thing as defending wages against reductions. It comes down to defending Capitalism, defending the continued exploitation of workers by various means, and confining yoursefl to being happy to be only exploited a little less. Marxists, as Marx pointed out in relation to wages "Want to abolish the system of wages".<br /><br />I'm opposed to a reactionary step of privatising things like the NHS, but only because I want to abolish the NHS in favour of a worker owned and controlled provision of health care.<br /><br />Its certainly true that larger organisations and planning presage a future society, but there is nothing socialist or leading to a socialist consciousness in them. They are just as compatible with fascism, and the kind of state control and planning that Hitler introduced. In fact, precisely ebcause they are designed in the interests of Capital and its State, more so.<br /><br />The basic assumption of Marx far more than these large organisations and planning is the starting point of worker ownership and control. After all, how can you have State ownership and provision when you beleive the State should whither away? Lenin recognised that too, too late. Read his 1924 article on the Co-operatives, where he argues that they had made a mistake in not promoting Co-operatives as the necessary socialist form, even alongside all of the market aspects of NEP.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-56191975086289659342012-10-08T21:29:05.366+01:002012-10-08T21:29:05.366+01:00Thanks for your reply, Boffy. It's good to hea...Thanks for your reply, Boffy. It's good to hear from you.<br /><br />I defer to you on the detail of the specificities of Marx, but I think my point about socialism being anticipated in certain structures in capitalist societies still stands.<br /><br />I agree, a socialist society is a conscious project and I take the point on the anti-statism of Marx and Engels (interestingly, the bogeyman Bernstein had little time for state provision of welfare too - probably because the relief systems of the German labour movement were so good and delivered on the basis of working class activity). Nevertheless, I think it is difficult not to argue that welfare, the NHS, economic planning (whether by the state or large businesses and cartels) do anticipate, negatively, features of the society to come. They are "unconscious", but run side-by-side the development of the labour movement's political consciousness and can be levers used by the labour movement to bend society more to its will, as well as rallying points for when they come under attack.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71066171947492054302012-10-08T17:40:06.708+01:002012-10-08T17:40:06.708+01:00Say what you like about him, but he could certainl...Say what you like about him, but he could certainly write. My favourite passage is the one that begins:<br /><br />"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations" (and presumably doesn't need to be quoted to readers of this blog).<br /><br />This is one that I think religious conservatives, nationalists, and what-have-you should consider. But the obvious retort is that people chose and still choose to work in factories because living a feudal life on the land is so utterly shite that just about anything is preferable.<br /><br />That's why, even though there were a few good things about the Middle Ages, as a liberal I consider that the few advantages were so intimately bound up with misery that the abolition of the old ways is for the best, and now this is also happening in other parts of the world I for one am glad to be witnessing millions lifted out of the absolute poverty that was all their forefathers knew.<br /><br />Marx, as Stephanie Flanders observed, admired capitalism. But it was only touched upon that profits and self-interest can, almost in spite of the profiting and self-interested, end up being forces for good.<br /><br />Of course, to my mind, the liberal order with relatively few restrictions (more than a hardline libertarian would want, fewer than a social democrat) is in fact the best way of raising the hitherto impoverished from the state of poverty which 500 years ago was natural, accepted and the will of God. Most likely John Micklethwaite's views are the closest to my own. But I'd agree that the programe is worth viewing by all concerned.asquithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246701347539264295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-32793652375515691242012-10-08T11:35:35.804+01:002012-10-08T11:35:35.804+01:00Phil,
The programme did not present Marx's vi...Phil,<br /><br />The programme did not present Marx's view. The basic premise of immiseration it puts forward has nothing to do with Marx. Immiseration, "The iron law of Wages" was developed by Lassalle, and opposed by Marx, who argued that Capital not only could, but needed to raise workers real living standards, and that was compatible, because of Relative Surplus Value, with increasing profits.<br /><br />From the immiseration premise flows the Keynesian not Marxist theory of crisis based on underconsumption. I set this out in my posts on the programme - <a href="http://boffyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/master-of-money-marx-part-1.html" rel="nofollow">Masters of Money - Marx</a>.<br /><br />I had intended to write another part of that series dealing with the issue of Marx not providing an alternative to Capitalism. Of course, he did in the sense you set out. In Capital III, for example, he says that both Co-operatives and Joint Stock Companies represent the transitional form between Capitalist and Socialist Society, and talks about the way credit could be used to spread Co-operative production on a national basis.<br /><br />Where obviously I disagree with your comment is in regard to State production and distribution of commodities. Marx and Engels DID NOT, see this as a transitional form or ultimate form of what was to replace Capitalism. Apart from the comments in their youth in the Manifesto, when they were still breaking away from Liberalism, nearly all of their writing is highly antagonistic to an increasing role for the State. Marx is most emphatic in that in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. But, similarly, Engels towards the end of his life was equally opposed to the German SPD calling for the introduction of State run welfare systems and National Insurance, because he said such State Socialism was inimical to the ideas of marxism, for it to be based on real workers ownership built from the bottom up.<br /><br />Both Marx and Engels, and Kautsky and others emphasised that State production and provision does not represent any change from existing Capitalist production. If anything it facilitates even greater exploitation of workers, and is designed for the benefit of Capital.<br /><br />Both Marx and Engels emphasise that State production is still the continuation of commodity production, even if the payment for those commodities as with the NHS takes the form of taxes (state insurance premiums) rather than individual payments by consumers of those services.<br /><br />The Welfare State Capitalist countries has been created by and for the interests of Capital not workers. Socialism is being built behind the back of "men" in society, but it is being built in myriad ways by workers themselves in their collective actions and organisations, not by the State.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.com