Return-Path: Delivered-To: andy@mira.net From: JulioHuato Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:01:08 EST To: miballar@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU Subject: Re: economic theory Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Mike: "the 2nd International ... Maybe the they just rejected the analysis of the commodity." Julio: Right. Without some understanding of dialectics, the 1st chapter (and, hence, the rest of Marx's economic work) is inintelligible. Bernstein (at least) believed the labor theory of value to be superfluos. Many (of the few) Marxian economists now-a-days think, as far as I know, that the whole "purpose" of the labor theory of value is to justify a theory of exploitation, which they understand in political or moral terms. John E. Romer, a prominent mathematical economist, author of Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory (1981, Cambridge U Press) and who believes that dialectics is "mental gymnastics," wrote recently a book to show that exploitation didn't need any labor theory of value to sustain itself. In my opinion, everyone who wants to understand capitalism, the transition, and even communism (insofar as communism is what capitalism is not) must take very seriously Marx's assertion that the "twofold nature of the labor contained in commodities ... is crucial to an understanding of political economy." On top of this discovery, the whole theory of capital as a social relation and of capitalism as a historically-bounded system is built. Mike makes very interesting points about the application of technology to planning and direct distribution and about the need for enlightened workers to counterpose the ways they would potentially use technology as opposed to the way capitalists use it. I remember I read several years ago an issue of the UNESCO Courier about how science, scientists, and "strategic" resources were being used vis-a-vis crucial world problems such as underdevelopment, etc. It makes a strong impression to reflect on the things that could be done with available technology and science were a good deal of the humankind ready to leave the profit motive behind. Mike: "Exchange-value, commodity production, wage-slavery all have been part of the sytems calling themselves socialist. To be sure, planning has existed as well; but planning for whom and for what and by whom? Mike too: "Surely, Marx's notion of planning "communal production" contradicts the experiences of attempting to plan commodity production." Julio: Indeed, planning itself is a technique. It can be used in different social contexts and to advance interests that are not necessarily those of the workers or of the society in general (insofar as such term makes any sense). In general, the answer to "planning by whom" will determine the answers to "for whom and for what" and even to "planning what" (oil- or solar-powered transportation, etc.). In his article on Workers Control, Andy makes the point that the content of planning depends on the social character of the state. This is a very important point. The problems of Soviet planning, for instance, were the problems of the political regime in charge, not the problems of planning itself. But, besides the nonsocialist character of "real socialism," it seems to me that Marx's Grundrisse quote in a pure fashion applies only to communism (including socialism proper as a stage in which distribution is not dominantly direct distribution, but wages are still used). I believe that during the transition, that kind of planning and commodity production will have to mix and coexist -- ie, compete. I don't think that commodity production (and even capitalist production) could and should be abolished during the transition. I think they would have to exhaust their necessity. In this sense, during the transition, the overall plan will have to contain a chapter on direct distribution and another one on commodity production. Of course, commodity production itself (including capitalist production) will not be directly guided by the planners, but the planners will need some sort of projection, etc., include it in the plan, and resort to different tools to influence it -- eg, taxation, credit system, and trade (the socialist sector will buy and sell to the private sector, and therefore will have clout over it). We must discuss this further. Regards, Julio