I fear LFC was being rather gentle in saying that my efforts to communicate the substance of my paper were “not entirely successful.” I think this entire enterprise has not been entirely successful. Indeed, it has been something of a mess and I shall stop doing it now. I have a great deal more that I want to say about Marx, particularly about his applicability to capitalism as it now exists, but I shall have to find a better way to say it.
With regard to the particular matter he raises concerning
the “human capital” that some workers succeed in acquiring, that is a very
important part of what I was intending to talk about. 40 years or more ago, Sam
Bowles and Herb Gintes wrote a nice paper on the relative exploitation that
exists in the contemporary capitalist world. Their point was that while
capitalists exploit workers, those workers who required educational credentials
relatively exploit those workers who have not so that there is a structure of
relative exploitation, one of the consequences of which is that it is much more
difficult for workers as a whole to achieve class consciousness and to work as
a class against capital.
This is part of a much larger series of things I wanted to
say about the way in which capitalism has developed. Some of that can be found
in my paper, “The Future of Socialism,” and if anybody is interested, you will
find it archive with the rest of my materials.
Meanwhile, I am so depressed by world events that I find it
very difficult to concentrate on theoretical questions.
That's too bad that you don't plan to continue.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a good idea to make important decisions when one is depressed. It would be better to wait until your mood becomes less depressed before deciding to continue or not.
I don't have the vaguest idea of linear algebra myself and math turns me off, but you're not writing for me, but for those nerds who share your mathematical outlook and they do exist.
"Meanwhile, I am so depressed by world events that I find it very difficult to concentrate on theoretical questions."
ReplyDeleteWhat this world needs is for one of two good Anti-Christs to lead us the heck off planet to some sort of paradise with no domestic worries. But where? As Melissa McCarthy would say, 'Anywhere! as long as there is childcare.' I myself am in favor of a place with tons of robot servants. Once a civilization reaches a point in its evolution where it has robot slaves to take care of its citizens then I believe mankind has reached its most natural state. To defend such a charter all men need to do is wipe the dust off Aristotle's Politics from their bookshelf and copy down some arguments of his to defend their position.
The fact that I have not taken the time to learn the rudiments of linear algebra and to print out and study Prof. Wolff's 1981 article is on me, to use a slang expression, not on him, obviously.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to do that, some questions I've been mulling might be answered. To say that "capitalism rests on the exploitation of the working class [or of workers, if you prefer that terminology]" is to say, it seems to me, that there is something inherent in capitalism, of whatever variety and in whatever circumstances, that structurally or systematically disadvantages workers, no matter what the labor market at a given time is like, no matter what other economic conditions are like, no matter what welfare provision is like, no matter what stratification in the society is like, no matter what the distribution of wealth and income is like. It is an assertion or claim or belief that there is something inherent in the system of wage labor and private ownership of the means of production that is exploitative, not in the colloquial sense of "rigged" or "unfair" but in a more technical sense.
For Marx, that "something," at least according to the first vol. of Capital, is the peculiar, distinctive character of what workers sell -- namely, the commodity labor-power. Prof. Wolff, for reasons he has explained, rejects that view. But he does believe that capitalism rests on the exploitation of workers. That means there must be something else, something other than the nature of the commodity labor-power, that is inherent in capitalism -- of whatever variety and in whatever time period -- that makes it exploitative in a "technical," non-colloquial sense. I gather that the 1981 article proposes an answer to "what is that inherent something that makes capitalism exploitative?," but I'm not sure I could succinctly and accurately summarize what the proposed answer to that question is, although I do have some rough notion. Which means, I guess, that I need to read the article!
Michael Llenos, you cannot run from the fundamental problem. Even if there were enough robots of such sophistication that no human being would ever really need to perform manual labor again, most people would still live lives of precarity, unable or barely able to make ends meet month to month. Because the capitalists never see having labor-saving machines as a valid justification for letting workers get time off. They see the devices as freeing up their workers from doing one bit of drudgery so that they can focus on yet another (and if there isn't another bit of drudgery to be done, then the machines become an excuse for laying off workers). And they see the machines as being, in the case of home appliances and cars and the like, more objects of longing that their workers will further indebt themselves in order to possess. In the capitalist mind, heavily indebted workers who can't make ends meet are compliant workers.
ReplyDeleteIf you want robots to be a worker-substitute so that human workers can enjoy a four-day work week and 60 days of paid vacation a year, you're going to have to do something about capitalism first.
"If you want robots to be a worker-substitute so that human workers can enjoy a four-day work week and 60 days of paid vacation a year, you're going to have to do something about capitalism first."
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, this is what the progressives have been aiming for all of these years: a perfect synthesis (or byproduct) of both capitalism and socialism. Some socialists may think some grand socialist victory ain't gonna happen unless some great mind finally cracks the perfect constitutional code needed to make a perfect government. I think, instead, it is just a technological issue. If you can make energy so cheap that you can light up a big town for one night for less than a penny, or transport 200+ people on a jumbo jet across America for less than a penny, you then have the capability of creating the perfect government. Or am I wrong?
E.g. the Russian communists were doing fine until they lost their hold on Afghanistan. Then they became economically broke. Why? A tank cost too much to replace. So are jet aircraft a money pit if they get shot down. Why? The energy needed to produce such things costs way too much to justify their production.
ReplyDeleteSomeone on Crooked Timber mentioned this piece on Substack by Adam Tooze. Appears to be an economic history of Gaza. I haven't read it but here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttps://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-245-gaza-beyond-de-development
Even if you feel (or at least are currently feeling) that this effort is not entirely successful, I found it to be successful in the only criterion that really matters to me: I found it interesting and enjoyed reading it. Here's hoping your inner Tigger reappears in a few days.
ReplyDeleteThe Biden administration on Monday voted to defeat a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The US Ambassador to the UN said the US could not support the resolution because it failed to condemn Hamas.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142427
To those who are feeling helpless, that they cannot do anything about the crisis in Palestine, Rep Rashida Tlaib says:
ReplyDeleteMany colleagues have told me that they haven't heard from any of their residents who support a ceasefire.... Let your voices be heard to help save as many lives as possible.
I'm planning to email my Representative today saying I support a ceasefire to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Biden's remarks today on the subject of humanitarian aid delivery were not crystal clear, but I need to read the full text of the speech.
ReplyDeleteA 48 hour ceasefire (at minimum) might be the most realistic option, coupled w opening of the Rafah border crossing to allow for delivery of humanitarian aid.
ReplyDelete