rev and reform

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  CB: So, the funny thing is your list position may end up closer to the
>Staliinist-Leninist economist analysis than you thought , ha ha.

Rakesh:Have you read Richard Day's book on Soviet economic debates. I have.
Varga prevailed, and it should be obvious to you that I reject his
underconsumptionist theory.

^^^^^^
CB: No. I have read some Soviet economics books though.

^^^^^^


Moreover, I reject the whole Bolshevik
(Lenin-Trotsky-Bukharin)deformation of the idea of the dictatorship
of the proletariat. I think Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Mattick, Hal Draper
and Paul Thomas (my former teacher) are correct.

^^^^^^^^


CB: You do accept that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is Marx's formulation though, right ?  So, what is the Luxemburg, Mattick , Draper, Thomas formulation of the dicatatorship of the proletariat ?

^^^^^^^^




I think we were moved further away from Marx by the Bolsheviks. That
is the source of our present acrimony. You said that we all were
reading Marx because of the Bolsheviks; you do not speak for me. By
now, you should know that you do not speak for me. So why ignite
matters with sloganeering?


^^^^^^^^

CB: You can't dismiss an argument by mislabelling it sloganeering.

Put it this way, if not for the _fact_ of the Russian Revolution, regardless of the interpretation of Marx by the Bolsheviks,  Marx would be as obscure as Compte or some other academic figure, and it is not as likely that your teachers would introduce you to him.  Look how obscure Hegel is.  It really is not a very controversial idea that Marx is famous because of the revolutions that were carried out in his name more than his writing by itself.



>  I don't think you are focused in on what the orthodox Marxist
>position is in writing.

what is the orthodox Marxist position.

^^^^^^^^^^

CB: I thought you referred to the orthodox position, and criticized it. I don't call it "orthodox" . I was just using your word.


^^^^^^^^


>Rakesh: How does Perlo explain the turning points in the business cycle in
>which you had earlier informed us Marxists have little interest?
>
>"Economic Crises and The Business Cycle" is chapter 15 (out of 18 )
>in Perlo's book. Similarly to Marx's leaving his direct discussion
>of crisis to Vol. III.   The placement of the subject tells you
>something of the importance of it already.

I don't think such conclusions can be drawn from placement. Marx's
crisis theory comes together in the third volume.


^^^^^^^^^^

CB: It doesn't "come together" , according to Rudy Fictenbaum. It remains scattered. This is another, second, reason by which I infer that it was high priority.

But the most direct reason I gave you on this, to which I have not noticed a reply from you, is that Marx doesn't think that the business cycle can be remedied under capitalism. Do you agree with that ? From that it follows that explaining the business cycle is of secondary importance to the Marxist project.  The Marxist project is revolutionary: ending the business cycle by ending capitalism. What is your reply to that logic ?

^^^^^^^^


>
>But back to the direct point on this, don't you agree that the
>Marxist ( Marx's ) position is that there is no taming the business
>cycle under capitalist relations of production ?

No, the business cycle can indeed be tamed; contradictions deferred
for some time. I already wrote this.

^^^^^^^^

CB: Oh I missed that. Where was it ? So,  you are a reformist ?  Are you saying that Marx's program was taming the business cycle, deferring it contradictions for some time ?

^^^^^^^


>  And that therefore, even if you have the perfect explanation of it,
>nonetheless that explanation cannot be implemented to stop crises ?

One kind of explanation (underconsumption) may imply that certain
reforms could tame them even if the analyst herself rejects that
conclusion. The reasoning matters.


>   So , business cycle theory has to be a secondary concern for Marxists ?

no. What if the theory is one of widening and deepening business cycles?

^^^^^^^^

CB: Is that the crises getting better or worse ?  I still don't think Marxism is a mainly a theory of business cycles.


>Marxists are against capitalism even during the boom phase of the
>business cycle. Business cycle moderation is a reform struggle, not
>that Marxists ignore reforms. And what is your reform program again
>? I know you said it but one more time.

No not one more time. Find the posts and respond to them.


^^^^^^^^^^

CB: So your reform is aimed at raising the rate of profit ?

^^^^^



>
>And on reforms, it is common sense that an "underconsumption" claim
>is solved by giving the working masses something more to consume
>with, i.e. money. Isn't it obvious that Marxists' short term or
>reform solutions must be some version of raising the incomes of
>workers, not figuring out how to raise the rate of profit of those
>who profit.

I don't know what you are responding to.

^^^^^^^^^

CB: I'm responding to your criticism of underconsumptionist explanations of crises.