tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post3359536098800511565..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: SO WHY AREN'T WE HAVING FUN?Robert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-60860152198826724612019-04-24T16:52:58.166-04:002019-04-24T16:52:58.166-04:00Given that our gods have clay feet (they can be ta...Given that our gods have clay feet (they can be taken in by their models), better tools would help. Leibnizian naivete on my part perhaps. But haven't you noticed the extraordinary discipline it takes to get the fundamental structural facts right? Even I missed your point, and that should have been easy. The unaided mind is at a disadvantage. My interjection was intended to point out some recent developments though.Nice Nihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44906189153507931452019-04-23T18:55:31.986-04:002019-04-23T18:55:31.986-04:00Sure, but the point is that this brilliant man was...Sure, but the point is that this brilliant man was tone deaf to the most fundamental structural fact of capitalism.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-40701647458518910192019-04-23T18:04:09.936-04:002019-04-23T18:04:09.936-04:00"Indeed, comfortably compensated and securely..."Indeed, comfortably compensated and securely tenured economists like Paul Samuelson, bemused by the reversibility of their equations, have taken to saying that it makes little effective difference to the economy whether capital hires labor or labor hires capital."<br /><br />Reversibility a defect of the mathematical models used. More recently developed mathematics can handle directional causal relations. The equations in these models aren't reversible (except in degenerate cases).<br />Nice Nihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39886249559495343712019-04-19T13:47:31.081-04:002019-04-19T13:47:31.081-04:00My remarks above probably fell flat for at least t...My remarks above probably fell flat for at least this reason: whether corporations decide to adopt alternative voting methods (such as approval voting) and democratic procedures to resolve suboptimal outcomes in difficult games (which would arise in the modern corporation), the question whether the condition of the working class (among others) would improve was left open. Executives might get around to reading "<a href="https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12751/1/MPRA_paper_12751.pdf" rel="nofollow">How democracy resolves conflict in difficult games</a>" by Steven J. Brams and D. Marc Kilgour--to name one paper in an area undergoing vigorous development--and decide to pay only themselves more for adopting more refined methods. <br /><br />Here's one for the free-market ideologues: Prof Wolff notes that "... the sort of market based determination of economic decisions which von Mises argued would always be superior to socialist planning are now impossible, and have long been replaced by decision making that has an unavoidable quasi-political structure." Given that corporations are politically (I hesitate to say "rationally") planned command economies (at least internally), the question for free-market opponents of command economies, who insist that such economies must lead ineluctably to the Gulag, is why the unconscionable evils of command economies should not also afflict the corporate employee.Nice Nihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-54581406925844748552019-04-18T14:40:10.514-04:002019-04-18T14:40:10.514-04:00Prof. Wolff,
How refreshing it is to read clear e...Prof. Wolff,<br /><br />How refreshing it is to read clear exposition and analysis amid the dross that passes for commentary these days. Thank you for taking the time to present this material in such an organized and stimulating manner. It resonates with me all the more because nearly thirty years ago my colleague and I published an article with essentially the same argument, although our piece was a more formal analysis of Marx’s theory of history in the context of G.A. Cohen’ work. (G.E. Panichas and M.E. Hobart, “Marx’s Theory of Revolutionary Change,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XX, No. 3, 1990, pp. 383-402.) <br /><br />As I see it, you have demonstrated the two main features of Marx’s materialist conception of history: (a) how the “existing relations of production” in corporate capitalism serve to advance the “material productive forces” by replacing market mechanisms with rational planning under private ownership; (b) why tensions (or “contradictions”) in the productive relations of corporate capitalism cannot forecast or lead to the next historical stage, because of the absence of labor solidarity, coherent political consciousness, and will. In short, Marx’s theory of history succeeds as an explanation of the advance of production within a historical epoch; it fails as a theory of revolutionary change from one epoch to its successor, including the claim that socialism with supersede capitalism.<br /><br />There is much more of interest in your articles that calls for historical commentary—the political and biased nature of rational planning; ruling class strategies for ensuring labor impotency; the supplanting of class politics by identity politics; and what we might term the ‘commitments of consciousness’ (religious, ethnic, gender, etc.) that contribute to the absence of labor solidarity (preventing the “class in itself” from becoming the “class for itself”). One quick point on the last of these. In the late 19th century fundamentalist Christians provided the backbone of populism throughout the mid-west and south. They knew their enemies, “Government and Big Business,” strolled arm in arm in pursuit of mammon and in complete disregard of the Christian understanding of justice and equality. Now, of course, the rank and file of the Christian right generally supports those very corporate interests that behave contrarily to their own. (Gramsci dealt with much the same issue in the case of Italian peasants who largely supported the Catholic Church and its ties to the state and Mussolini – completely antithetical to their own material interests.)<br /><br />This grows too long; thanks again.<br /><br /><br />MICHAEL HOBARTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-72042746012835362392019-04-17T12:25:33.483-04:002019-04-17T12:25:33.483-04:00Such a brilliant essay, and so ahead of its time. ...Such a brilliant essay, and so ahead of its time. I say that because there's a recent book that develops the planning argument you anticipated: Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski, <i>The People’s Republic of Walmart. How the World’s Biggest Corporations are Laying the Foundation for Socialism</i> (London, Verso, 2019). And there is also Herbert Simon's old observation that in any large corporation only a tiny part of the workforce is market-facing; most employees cooperate in a planned system. But I can't remember where he says that. Enzo Rossihttp://enzorossi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-37015102334801304032019-04-17T12:00:09.996-04:002019-04-17T12:00:09.996-04:00David Palmeter,
It's important that there are...David Palmeter,<br /><br />It's important that there are people like Professor Wolff who speak in the name of an ideal, in this case of socialism, which may or may not come to pass one day, I know not.<br /><br />Ideals are important, they guide us in his life, they keep us from falling into the worst kind of pragmatism, they make life more beautiful. <br /><br />In the case of Professor Wolff the ideal does not prevent him from being politically very realistic and even pragmatic and thus working actively to elect candidates who are electable. <br /><br />s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-33733456756204136322019-04-17T11:45:46.727-04:002019-04-17T11:45:46.727-04:00S. Wallerstein,
But if socialism won't come a...S. Wallerstein,<br /><br />But if socialism won't come about, what's the point? And where does individual responsibility come in? Is your mind filled with junk? Do you eat junk? Given human nature, what reason is their to believe that a socialist government--intent on keeping their jobs--won't try to feed us junk, mental junk as well as material junk?David Palmeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895092366685079046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-31665866036091543932019-04-17T10:48:18.799-04:002019-04-17T10:48:18.799-04:00Maybe instead of being so creative in selling us j...Maybe instead of being so creative in selling us junk, filling our minds with junk, feeding us junk, poisoning the environment with junk and leaving everyone in debt as capitalism does, socialism might be creative in dealing with climate change, in assuring decent healthcare for everyone, in making the masses less resentful and hence, less violent, etc.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-28600034599805712712019-04-17T10:18:42.130-04:002019-04-17T10:18:42.130-04:00David Palmeter remarked in a previous comment that...David Palmeter remarked in a previous comment that the ambiguity of accounting methods and other factors that lead ineluctably to quasi-political decision in the boardroom would affect corporations under socialism as well as capitalism. This is correct as Prof Wolff notes (I of course agree). Here's a suggestion (with references to be provided later). Political scientists and game theorists have been working on alternative voting methods (such as approval voting) and on the use of democratic procedures to resolve suboptimal outcomes in difficult games. Such suboptimal outcomes are non-cooperation in prisoners' dilemma and free riding in commons games. Researchers on improved voting methods have had little success persuading politicians to adopt them. However, it is possible that some corporations would adopt the procedures proposed by Brams and others, if it could be shown that these improve on the "wild ass guess" and dictatorial methods customarily adopted to decide among incompatible managerial ambitions. It's possible that government would follow suit (or follow the suits, as they have in the past, when insurance was adopted by the public sector, after it was developed in the private sector, for example).Nice Nihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89364236854179293192019-04-17T09:40:10.890-04:002019-04-17T09:40:10.890-04:00So, if true socialism--collective ownership of the...So, if true socialism--collective ownership of the means of production--is a utopian idea that can never be realized, why waste time and effort yearning for it? Why not work instead to tame the capitalist beast as much as possible (e.g. with Pikettyan tax policies) while continuing to enjoy the benefits in creativity and efficiency that it provides? David Palmeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895092366685079046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-289964971710364632019-04-16T23:39:09.654-04:002019-04-16T23:39:09.654-04:00You say the racism of the white working class was ...You say the racism of the white working class was the doom of a successful working class movement. Actually you are pretty harsh about placing the blame on the white working class and 'their' racism in your essay. And that is not all that consistent with the labor history that I have learned. That labor history teaches that the employers almost always try to divide the workforce by whatever means possible- and that meant in many cases intentionally 'importing' workers from a different ethnicity or race into town when they were trying to break a strike. The hostility that is the expected result of such actions is not due to prior ethnic or racist views of the workers on strike- but they certainly could add to them. I think you should place the blame a little more realistically.Jerry Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-82964504384739396332019-04-16T22:58:05.668-04:002019-04-16T22:58:05.668-04:00I will be lecturing on Marx in a couple weeks for ...I will be lecturing on Marx in a couple weeks for our Philosophy, Politics and Economics 'keystone' course. I will tell them to read this post. It's excellent. Charles Pigdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01131765562671298571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22570704572686209782019-04-16T15:03:00.085-04:002019-04-16T15:03:00.085-04:00Dear Professor Wolf, Thank you very nmuch for your...Dear Professor Wolf, Thank you very nmuch for your Marx' elucidating comments and for posting this paper on the Future of Socialism. Pleasse accept my very best regards and wishes for the forthcoming holidays. Yours sincerely, Tomasz J. Popielicki, Warsaw, PolandTomasz J,. Popielicki, Warsaw, Polandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03246844943672812365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61015030851118035222019-04-16T14:56:02.859-04:002019-04-16T14:56:02.859-04:00Thank you for such a great exposition of the possi...Thank you for such a great exposition of the possibilities of socialism..<br /><br />Isn't a 4th thing that Marx missed the mass and social media and their control over people's mentality? s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.com