[Marxism] Thoughts on 8 Theses

[D OC <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A chairde,

 

I have been reading much of this discussion. 

 

It seems to me that neo-classical conceptions have crept into marxist analysis. 
Specifically, while the eight theses are a very useful explanation of the 
apparent unfolding of the recent economic crisis, it is an analysis which 
appears to lack materialist depth.

 

What does financial investment constitute in real economic terms? Of course 
some element represents nothing more than the fiction of price over value but 
it is more than simply that.

 

Financial investment is integral to globalised production in the imperialist 
mode. As such, the dominance of 'financial' capital over productive capital is 
reflective of the dominance of imperialist over domestic production. 

 

The crisis would appear to be at least highly conditioned by (and I would tend 
to believe caused by) the imbalance of trade that lies underneath the trends 
which have been analysed by the (unduly insular) eight theses. These underlying 
trends are conditioned by the global imbalance in the metabolism of production. 
Just as agriculture is imbalanced between countryside and town, so too now 
production and consumption on a global scale. The eight theses make a critical 
point in terms of how financial instruments have been developed to enable 
globalisation of investment but fails to develop this argument from that point 
- it seems to me at least. 

 

Credit has allowed that situation to extend beyond the ordinary limits of 
balance. The gains of social reformism (which were always underpinned by 
imperialist super-profits) were largely rolled back but the relative position 
of privilege in imperialist centres remained and even extended relative to the 
peoples of the third world. The imbalance of consumption over production is 
reflected in some way in the aggregate price differential known as the 'trade 
deficit'; however, I would argue that this is a significant underestimation of 
the imbalance of trade due to prices not reflecting value. In marxist terms, 
much of the GDP per capita in imperialist centres has no intrinsic value 
whereas the value of production in the third world is very close to the price 
of its export. The bulk of value generated by most imperialist economies is 
surplus value obtained from foreign production/exploitation. The price of this 
surplus value is extenuated by mark up between the productive and consumptive 
markets. The dependence of the British economy on financial services and the 
parallel deindustrialisation and unprecedented contraction in agricultural 
production in the same country is a case-in-point. Britain's society is built 
on the profits of super-exploitation just as is Iceland's and to a lesser 
extent that of the USA. Consumption on that basis could only be facilitated by 
the extension of (inflated) credit and a graduated build up of national debt to 
'net producer' economies. 

 

Credit overextended to its very limits has now has collapsed - aka the 
financial deleveraging - and this will not be simply reversed in the short to 
medium term. Such leveraging was only sustainable with an inflation in global 
prices and profits underpinned by a growth in the net real global capital base. 
As a result, there are two crises - a crisis of the financial institutions 
which have facilitated the overextension of credit - and a crisis of 
consumption in the imperialist core. This will naturally spread outwards to a 
crisis of the productive centres - which is what we're seeing in drops in 
economic output across the world.

 

It would appear that the only way to steady the boat on the long-term is to 
rebalance the productive economy. There are two relatively obvious ways to do 
that - first is to lower consumption in the imperialist centres (a lowering of 
the standard of living) - which is already happening - and second to address 
the imbalance of trade. Hence the talk of keynesian stimulus and the 
possibility of protectionism. The alternative for the west is to control a 
critical raw material for production i.e. oil or something similar, but I don't 
see that as viable at this time.

 

Necessarily, this is a generalised presentation but it stands in fairly stark 
contrast to the analysis of the eight thesis which I fear seeks to explain the 
crisis in terms which are *fundamentally* national and loses the connection 
which marxist economics need to retain to materialist analysis. 

 

Thoughts, anyone?

 

Le meas,

DoC.

_________________________________________________________________
Get 30 Free Emoticons for your Windows Live Messenger
http://www.livemessenger-emoticons.com/funfamily/en-ie/
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu