Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Karl Marx is Back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Karl Marx is Back

    This website is for sale! humaniteinenglish.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, humaniteinenglish.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!


    Karl Marx and the Lessons of "Capital" Are Back

    Translated mardi 13 janvier 2009, par Isabelle Metral

    Whether as a philosopher, economist, and anthropologist, the author of “Capital” and the persistent relevance of his analyses are justified by the major crisis which now defies the premises of global capitalism.

    « If Marx imposes himself as one of the “unsurpassable” thinkers of our time, the reason is also, and mostly, that he was the first to detect the dynamics intrinsic to capitalism. ». These are not the words of some obscure, antediluvian follower of Marx, but the pronouncement of Alain Minc, the businessman, essayist and counsellor who has the ear of the French President, in an interview recently published in Le Magazine Littéraire [1]. The review, which made so bold as to devote thirty pages to Marx’s works, wonders about what it calls « the reasons for a rebirth ».

    As the British historian Eric Hobsbawn himself humorously observes, « It is the capitalists, more than the others, who are re-discovering Marx »”– like George Soros, another financier and pro-market politician who recently confided to him : « I am reading Marx just now ; there are quite a few interesting things in what he said ! »

    That Marx, who has long been dead and buried, is now back in favour may seem paradoxical. But is it so very strange ? « It is not surprising that intelligent capitalists, especially in the field of global finance, should have been impressed by Marx, », Hobsbawn observes, « since they have necessarily been more keenly aware than the others of the nature and instability of the capitalist economy in which they operated. » [2]. Naturally, these capitalists should not be expected to give up the system that crowned them and that gives them a hold on the whole of society : they are not going to become converts to socialism any time soon. That is not in their interest – far from it – they most certainly (George Soros among them) still entertain the notion that they may turn the present crisis to to their own advantage and increase their profits, since the crisis whets their appetite for speculation even as it increases the risks…

    That’s the law of the system, the domination of the bourgeoisie that Marx and Engel depicted in The Communist Manifesto in 1848, long before his main work Capital (1867), as a period marked off from all previous periods by « a continuous upheaval of production », « a social system in a complete state of permanent commotion », « restlessness » and « perpetual insecurity ».

    Can Marx help us see our way through the crisis ?

    As economist Jean-Marie Harribey observes, the fact is « that one might draw up an impressive list of publications at the service of capitalistic interests that draw upon Marx’s critique of capitalism to try and find their way through the erratic movements of their own system ». Thus, Harribey further notes, from The Financial Times to The Wall Street Journal through The Economist and the London Daily Telegraph which declared that « October 13, 2008 shall remain in history as the day when the British capitalist system admitted to having failed », commentators are forced to concede that the sacrosanct « law of the market has proved incapable of guaranteeing a sound equilibrium, stability, prosperity or equity » and that, all in all, Marx had been fairly perspicacious.

    « It is urgent to re-discover his thought, which is too often reduced to a few famous quotations », insists journalist Patrice Bolton, who coordinated the Marx dossier for Le Magazine Littéraire. It is once more a recourse for decrypting a globalization « that multiplies job losses and sends inequalities between countries rocketing, as well as inequalities between social classes within each country. » Not forgetting the succession of speculative bubbles that result in the impoverishment of a growing portion of the population.

    In such a context, beyond the historical differences that make it illusory to transpose the situation directly from one century to the next, Karl Marx is enjoying a second youth. But « which Marx », the review asks, is it « the economist, the sociologist, the philosopher, or the political activist » ? But must we really choose ? What if it was precisely the diversity of those « hats », their superimposition and connections that made for the high topicality of his perspicacious, unclassifiable works today ?

    Marx indeed attempted to decrypt the movement of history, the economy, production, value, capital, labour force, money, commodity, consumption, credit, social relations, class struggle, but also the exploitation, alienation, individualization, the possibility of emancipation and of transcending dominations as so many moments in a global movement, in a series of constantly evolving contradictions that make it possible to characterize precisely the singularity, the specificity of a mode of production at any particular time in human history. This approach to contradictions makes it possible to understand why global finance capital is now pushing the logic of profitability to a paroxysm, and why capitalism, as communist economist Paul Boccara [3] shows, is « exponential capitalism », a system that sets money above everything else in order to make more money to the detriment of people’s lives – an irreversible system, which cannot be expected to go back to « old time capitalism ».

    In an article published by le Monde diplomatique [4], the philosopher Lucien Sève himself notes that « if the crisis broke out in the credit sphere, its devastating power had been building up in the sphere of production owing to the increasingly unequal distribution of surplus value between capital and labour ». And he goes on to remind us of Mark’s illuminating insight (in Capital, Book I) that : « All the means that are aimed at developing production are conversely as many means of domination and exploitation of the producer », or again (…) that « the accumulation of riches at one pole » has a reverse side which is « the proportional accumulation of destitution » at the other pole, from which, Sève further observes, « the premises of violent trading and banking crises will originate ».

    The crisis being systemic, it can only repeat itself and get worse. That is why putting the origin of the crisis down to the excessive volatility of sophisticated financial products is of little avail. To « moralize » capitalism, to restore it to « greater transparency », as proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy, are slogans that are all just for show if the very logic of the system is left untouched, namely the dictatorship of finance, the search for maximum profit. « Faced with a system whose blatant incapacity to regulate itself has such an inordinate cost for us, our aim right now must be to transcend capitalism, and set out on the long march towards a new social organization where human beings, through novel forms of association, will all together control their own social power which has gone berserk », Lucien Sève insists. There lies yet another timely lesson still to be learned from Karl Marx, albeit out of the depths of philosophical oblivion... __________________________________________________ ____

    Footnotes

    [1] N° 479, October 2008.

    [2] The interview was published by the Centre helvétique d’études marxistes(Swiss centre for Marxist studies) on Occtober 17, 2008.

    [3] l’Humanité, October 16.

    [4] December 2008.
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

  • #2
    This website is for sale! humaniteinenglish.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, humaniteinenglish.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!


    Karl Marx and the Lessons of "Capital" Are Back

    Translated mardi 13 janvier 2009, par Isabelle Metral

    Whether as a philosopher, economist, and anthropologist, the author of “Capital” and the persistent relevance of his analyses are justified by the major crisis which now defies the premises of global capitalism.

    « If Marx imposes himself as one of the “unsurpassable” thinkers of our time, the reason is also, and mostly, that he was the first to detect the dynamics intrinsic to capitalism. ». These are not the words of some obscure, antediluvian follower of Marx, but the pronouncement of Alain Minc, the businessman, essayist and counsellor who has the ear of the French President, in an interview recently published in Le Magazine Littéraire [1]. The review, which made so bold as to devote thirty pages to Marx’s works, wonders about what it calls « the reasons for a rebirth ».

    As the British historian Eric Hobsbawn himself humorously observes, « It is the capitalists, more than the others, who are re-discovering Marx »”– like George Soros, another financier and pro-market politician who recently confided to him : « I am reading Marx just now ; there are quite a few interesting things in what he said ! »

    That Marx, who has long been dead and buried, is now back in favour may seem paradoxical. But is it so very strange ? « It is not surprising that intelligent capitalists, especially in the field of global finance, should have been impressed by Marx, », Hobsbawn observes, « since they have necessarily been more keenly aware than the others of the nature and instability of the capitalist economy in which they operated. » [2]. Naturally, these capitalists should not be expected to give up the system that crowned them and that gives them a hold on the whole of society : they are not going to become converts to socialism any time soon. That is not in their interest – far from it – they most certainly (George Soros among them) still entertain the notion that they may turn the present crisis to to their own advantage and increase their profits, since the crisis whets their appetite for speculation even as it increases the risks…

    That’s the law of the system, the domination of the bourgeoisie that Marx and Engel depicted in The Communist Manifesto in 1848, long before his main work Capital (1867), as a period marked off from all previous periods by « a continuous upheaval of production », « a social system in a complete state of permanent commotion », « restlessness » and « perpetual insecurity ».

    Can Marx help us see our way through the crisis ?

    As economist Jean-Marie Harribey observes, the fact is « that one might draw up an impressive list of publications at the service of capitalistic interests that draw upon Marx’s critique of capitalism to try and find their way through the erratic movements of their own system ». Thus, Harribey further notes, from The Financial Times to The Wall Street Journal through The Economist and the London Daily Telegraph which declared that « October 13, 2008 shall remain in history as the day when the British capitalist system admitted to having failed », commentators are forced to concede that the sacrosanct « law of the market has proved incapable of guaranteeing a sound equilibrium, stability, prosperity or equity » and that, all in all, Marx had been fairly perspicacious.

    « It is urgent to re-discover his thought, which is too often reduced to a few famous quotations », insists journalist Patrice Bolton, who coordinated the Marx dossier for Le Magazine Littéraire. It is once more a recourse for decrypting a globalization « that multiplies job losses and sends inequalities between countries rocketing, as well as inequalities between social classes within each country. » Not forgetting the succession of speculative bubbles that result in the impoverishment of a growing portion of the population.

    In such a context, beyond the historical differences that make it illusory to transpose the situation directly from one century to the next, Karl Marx is enjoying a second youth. But « which Marx », the review asks, is it « the economist, the sociologist, the philosopher, or the political activist » ? But must we really choose ? What if it was precisely the diversity of those « hats », their superimposition and connections that made for the high topicality of his perspicacious, unclassifiable works today ?

    Marx indeed attempted to decrypt the movement of history, the economy, production, value, capital, labour force, money, commodity, consumption, credit, social relations, class struggle, but also the exploitation, alienation, individualization, the possibility of emancipation and of transcending dominations as so many moments in a global movement, in a series of constantly evolving contradictions that make it possible to characterize precisely the singularity, the specificity of a mode of production at any particular time in human history. This approach to contradictions makes it possible to understand why global finance capital is now pushing the logic of profitability to a paroxysm, and why capitalism, as communist economist Paul Boccara [3] shows, is « exponential capitalism », a system that sets money above everything else in order to make more money to the detriment of people’s lives – an irreversible system, which cannot be expected to go back to « old time capitalism ».

    In an article published by le Monde diplomatique [4], the philosopher Lucien Sève himself notes that « if the crisis broke out in the credit sphere, its devastating power had been building up in the sphere of production owing to the increasingly unequal distribution of surplus value between capital and labour ». And he goes on to remind us of Mark’s illuminating insight (in Capital, Book I) that : « All the means that are aimed at developing production are conversely as many means of domination and exploitation of the producer », or again (…) that « the accumulation of riches at one pole » has a reverse side which is « the proportional accumulation of destitution » at the other pole, from which, Sève further observes, « the premises of violent trading and banking crises will originate ».

    The crisis being systemic, it can only repeat itself and get worse. That is why putting the origin of the crisis down to the excessive volatility of sophisticated financial products is of little avail. To « moralize » capitalism, to restore it to « greater transparency », as proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy, are slogans that are all just for show if the very logic of the system is left untouched, namely the dictatorship of finance, the search for maximum profit. « Faced with a system whose blatant incapacity to regulate itself has such an inordinate cost for us, our aim right now must be to transcend capitalism, and set out on the long march towards a new social organization where human beings, through novel forms of association, will all together control their own social power which has gone berserk », Lucien Sève insists. There lies yet another timely lesson still to be learned from Karl Marx, albeit out of the depths of philosophical oblivion... __________________________________________________ ____

    Footnotes

    [1] N° 479, October 2008.

    [2] The interview was published by the Centre helvétique d’études marxistes(Swiss centre for Marxist studies) on Occtober 17, 2008.

    [3] l’Humanité, October 16.

    [4] December 2008.

    Suivre la vie du site RSS 2.0 | Plan du site | Translato
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Comment


    • #3



      Far more believable.

      ACK!
      Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

      Comment


      • #4
        No lie.
        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

        Comment


        • #5
          Big meh. The thing with Marx is not if he should be read or not, but how you deal with him. For some he's oh teh evil, others seem to idealize him into some allknowingneverbeenwrongguy and treat his stuff as a bible replacement.

          A serious approach would concede that he offers some valuable insight into capitalism of his time. Maybe beyond, but - like with any other thinker - much of his stuff is veeery debatable, and far from being teh only truth as some orthodox communists would like to have it, because it provides them with a rather simple scheme to explain everything and re-affirms their own povs.
          Blah

          Comment


          • #6
            The Groucho joke was quite funny the first time I heard it 30 years ago. Over the course of the 500 times I've heard it since it has become tediously dull and predictable.

            Another predictable thing is the regular, recurring crisis of capitalism that Marx quite correctly observed. It's odd how many 'classical' economists happily ignore this until a really big and scary crisis punches them in the face and raises the spectre of an economy so seriously broken that prospects for recovery seem faint and remote.

            However, as The Man said - Philosophers seek to understand the world. The point is to change it. Where should that change come from? Certainly not above, for when the ruling elite act to control capitalism in serious crisis the outcome can tend towards fascism rather than social democracy. Marx's solution saw the agency of the wealth-creators (workers, not capitalists) as the driving force. Few such organisations exist today, because of the failures of stalinism and the western labour movements of the past.

            I'm also wary of 'plastic communists' - nihilistic, petty-bourgeois youth who think that an anti-capitalism of throwing objects through the windows of starbucks is the way forward, rather than a coherent, rational advancement of productive forces.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cort Haus View Post
              The Groucho joke was quite funny the first time I heard it 30 years ago. Over the course of the 500 times I've heard it since it has become tediously dull and predictable.
              It wasn't a joke.

              ACK!
              Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

              Comment


              • #8
                tldr. Marx was wrong, the power is in distribution and marketing rather than production ownership.
                (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't know. It's hard to distribute something not produced. That doesn't make Karl Marx correct, it's just an observation.
                  Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                  "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                  He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                    It's hard to distribute something not produced.
                    QFT.

                    The exception, perhaps, is the selling of money that doesn't exist - and we've seen where that road can go to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What is fun is that Fukuyama did more or less what Marx did with his view on how history would develop, just that Marx arrives at communism, and Fukuyama at liberal democracy as the end point of history. Not a big suprise given that both base much of their stuff on Hegel.

                      And of course, in both cases it's rather a question of belief if you want to follow either M or F.
                      Blah

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cort Haus View Post
                        Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                        It's hard to distribute something not produced.
                        QFT.

                        The exception, perhaps, is the selling of money that doesn't exist - and we've seen where that road can go to.
                        On the other hand, it's equally hard to profitably produce something neither distributed nor marketed, unless the producer vertically integrates those links of the chain, which is theoretically possible (e.g. a record company also owning record stores, trucks to supply them, and publishers & broadcasters to advertise for them) but rarely feasible because the cost of such acquisitions will typically exceed the transaction costs of simply contracting with people who already fully specialize in distribution and marketing.

                        The real question is whether distribution and marketing ought to be simply folded into the definition of "means of production," regardless of whether Marx did so.
                        Last edited by Darius871; January 18, 2009, 14:31.
                        Unbelievable!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Straybow View Post
                          tldr. Marx was wrong, the power is in distribution and marketing rather than production ownership.
                          a) what Sloww and Cort said
                          b) marketing space and distribution potential is productive capital (it's just that Marx didn't foresee the service economy)
                          In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Darius871 View Post
                            The real question is whether distribution and marketing ought to be simply folded into the definition of "means of production," regardless of whether Marx did so.
                            He didn't really, and that's one of his major mistakes.

                            He thought that as the efficiency of factories would increase, so would the size of a disenfranchised unemployed proletariat. He just didn't realize that most people would end up selling services, and that their living conditions could be decent.
                            In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If he foresaw so little, why should we give so much weight to any of his predictions?

                              I'd rather see more theorists build on his work to adequately assess 21st-century circumstances than have Marx be "back."
                              Unbelievable!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X