[Marxism] "Sales"?

Leonardo Kosloff holmoff10 at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 5 19:08:34 MDT 2011


Tom wrote:
“That's what I'm talking about. Are you the only person who responded
to this topic? I wasn't even talking to you, but actually was
directing my generalized comments via another individual, whom I've
been acquainted with for decades and who has the maturity to interpret
my comments about the tone socialists should adopt in the manner it
was intended: not as a personal attack on anyone. Then again, as
former party cadres and trade unionists we were both socialized
against copping a "petty bourgois attitude" towards people.”
So let me see if I get this, first you referred to me, though not by name, as the one who scoffed at your views and a sophomoric high priest, I engage the discussion with a post trying to elaborate (given my not ideal attitude last time), then your later posts complain about how priests (I had to assume I’m included) are little more than dogmatic Marx quote-mongers, without addressing anything I said, and now you’re twisting my words; for example, I never said that union actions are “Friedmanite”, what I said was that the notion that prices are determined by class actions without further clarification leaves us at the most abstract level of what the necessity of class struggle, or prices –according to you subjectively determined, *this* is what is Friedmanite- are. Neither did I say that you’re bourgeois, petty or otherwise, what I said is that the “straightforward” argument a la Lenin’s Imperialism, written a 100 years ago, distorted or not, served and serve to explain the situation we’re at, concerning the evils of finance, for the smaller capitals who are not competitive to survive in the course of accumulation, to worsen conditions for workers constantly. In Argentina, for example, this is the typical slogan of the petty bourgeoisie to justify inflation and the flexibilization of labor. 
So, how do you want me to reply? 
You’ve been doing union work for decades, I think that’s laudable, but how am I supposed to know, and even then, there’s nothing in what I said that addresses you personally, only your arguments. You as yet haven’t addressed them, comrade, other than complaining that I quote Marx too much apparently, as if I had written nothing else. You think it’s unclear, then please comrade, bring it up and I’ll see if I can elaborate. I tried to open the discussion with some friendliness but it’s a little frustrating when you ask a question and all you have to say about it is that I’m a Marxist priest. 
As for my age comrade, I think it’s irrelevant and rude to bring that up as the typical ad hominem, nothing in what I wrote is directed at you personally.
So, indeed, let me quote comrade Perelman for you:
The section ‘A child’s guide to price theory’, hope you can see it,
http://books.google.com/books?id=rzEq9FmqLVUC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=michael+perelman+economics+supply+and+demand&source=bl&ots=8WfiH1fUSn&sig=lZ0-NqFNBOziAib9bYroRC2zwWc&hl=en&ei=-JwTTqOeCuTt0gH46PiADg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
This is, basically, what I said, even though, I went further in claiming that the ideology of economics, even with the initial positive steps taken by classical political economy –never mind the childish obscenities of neoclassical economics which you seem to be espousing, and which “overwhelming evidence” you’ve yet to show- fulfills the historical necessity of reproducing the alienated consciousness of the commodity producers who naturalize the attributes of their private freedom determined by capital as eternal, and so when it comes to recognizing this alienation in order to advance further in their freedom, toward the control over the social character of labor (the socialization of labor being the historical reason for being of capital), they instead backtrack to the idealized assumptions and models of empty concepts, viz. “subjective prices”, “supply and demand”, etc., which includes of course, the Marxists, who with a wave of the hand, dismiss Marx as outdated without engaging one word of what he said. Particularly in this regard, this concerns the logical constructions which invert the real determinations by naturalizing concepts taken uncritically, that is, without clarifying their content, only as empty forms.
These are not old mystified terms which Marx concocted which I’m just mimicking. This is what I think, and how I think they’re expressed relatively accurately. If you have a better suggestion, I’m all ears.
Now Tom, you claim there’s overwhelming evidence for the determination of market prices by subjective factors. What is the content of these factors then?, are they a natural attribute of humans, as von Mises claimed, are they our innate Freudian impulses (whose real existence are grounded on the very real *concepts* come out of Freud’s mind), are they our self-loving Smithian ideas which regulation only happen to conform to an invisible hand? In short, is the subjectivity you allude to, more than a concept fell from the sky?
And once you answer that, the next question would be, what are these market prices which overwhelming evidence you’ve amassed? What do you mean they are *determined* subjectively?
The last thing I want to do is make it look personal, so let me repeat, I’m just trying to be clear, let’s not take offense for nothing and derail the issue, because it is indeed crucial to demystify capital, and yet, I think what you’re saying does the opposite, and I’ve argued why, within certain limits, I ask you to please comradely address them Tom.
Saludos, 
LK 		 	   		  


More information about the Marxism mailing list