[Marxism] Another review of Heinrich
marinercarpentry at gmail.com
Tue May 28 14:41:11 MDT 2013
Louis put: "I remain skeptical about any connection between having a
"correct" line on the FROP or LTV and knowing what to do politically."
I agree actually, I do think Heinrich's correct and I think many of
the communisation theorists have the correct reading of Marx, as
opposed to a lot of distortions that came primarily from Engels (I
know many on here disagree, I'm not trying to rehash that debate).
BUT, I think Louis is right - the communisation theorists particularly
are ending up reproducing the sort of theoretical purity they so
disparage the Leninists for.
In the mean time, food banks keep sprouting up whilst the rich get richer.
I don't think this should lead to being anti-theoretical though - it's
important that it was a distorted reading of Capital was used to
legitimise the affirmation, rather than abolition of labour in many of
the Soviet states.
Ps - On the review, I know Mattihjs, and discussed the review on
facebook with him, and I kinda got him to admit the parts about the
transformation problem and realisation are simply wrong.
On 28 May 2013 21:07, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> On 5/28/13 3:46 PM, Robert Schardein wrote:
>> Thought I would throw Matthijs Krul to the value-form wolves:
> I remain skeptical about any connection between having a "correct" line on
> the FROP or LTV and knowing what to do politically. Here's Matthijs from a
> North Star interview:
> "One major consequence of Kliman’s consistent application of Marxist
> economics is the emphasis on opposing purely distributional responses — all
> these Marxo-Keynesian attempts to ‘stimulate’ by redistributing wealth, or
> restoring the welfare state, or calling for nationalizations and public
> investment works. Instead, as Kliman shows, the contradiction of capital
> means you have to choose between one of two evils: either ameliorate the
> crisis now by emergency measures of that kind, and suffer a worse one soon,
> or ride out the storm, with all the attendant unemployment, immiseration,
> and unfreedom we have seen in the Great Depression and the Victorian age.
> Neither option is desirable: that’s exactly why capitalism itself is the
> problem, and must be overthrown."
> Maybe Matthijs should be on Social Security like me before he decides that
> Marxists should oppose "purely distributional responses". Or maybe take a
> look at Leon Trotsky's Transitional Program:
> "The struggle against unemployment is not to be considered without the
> calling for a broad and bold organization of public works. But public works
> can have a continuous and progressive significance for society, as for the
> unemployed themselves, only when they are made part of a general plan worked
> out to cover a considerable number of years. Within the framework of this
> plan, the workers would demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in
> private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers’ control in
> such case: would be replaced by direct workers’ management."
> Despite my allergy to mathematics (I was a whiz in algebra back in 1960 but
> that was in another country and besides the wench is dead), I will plunge
> into these matters tomorrow while my lovely wife is attending her conference
> in lovely San Jose, Costa Rica.
> We got into the hotel last night where the conference was to be held and
> discovered that it was overbooked. To assuage us and other conference guests
> that also discovered that their registration was for naught, the hotel put
> us in 5-star hotel at the same rate. I feel like Leonard DiCaprio.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
More information about the Marxism