[PEN-L:27381] Re: LTV and income disparity

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 29/06/02 06:32 +0530, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
> Chris Burford :
>
> > Of course. But I would expect to set that in a more general framework of
> an
> > understanding about different classes and strata, their alliances and
> their
> > differences, and their contadictory relationship with the main forces in
> > the world.
>
> I agree, but I thought we could take such generalities for granted.


Forgive me, but it is often hard to know much about another contributor and
what context they come from as well as their frame of reference. I know
little about Ulhas beyond that he has a valuably wide perspective on world
developments and alongside articles from a wide range of publications will
forward articles from the Far Eastern Economic Review, The Times of India,
and the Hindu.

No I do not think such generalities (see above) can be taken for granted.
There is a wealth of empirical data available but how to make sense of it
in general terms, is another matter.

I am beginning to think Ulhas is cautious about theory or perhaps just
cautious about marxist theory. Perhaps he could share his own theory. But
IMO it is important when I scan an article with information about India to
consider whether I am reading about peasants turning small capitalists,
whether I am reading about a national bourgeoisie. Whether the big
bourgeoisie have any identity separate from international finance capital.
When I hear Bill Clinton say expansively that in India there are 200
million people who are middle class I wonder are they a much expanded layer
of a new global intelligentsia whose sons, perhaps rather than their
daughters, will move just as easily into executive posts of a subsidiary of
an international bank as run a tea company that might take over a British
tea company. Or what.

Generations of Trotskyist groups have splintered, and generations of
Stalinist hacks have mouldered, on the compromises made with various
temporarily anti-imperialist permutations of these different class forces,
while true marxists of course have believed only in one revolutionary
struggle, that of socialism, preferably violent to be authentic, and
preferably quickly, whether the peasantry understands  it or not.

But I have no way of guessing if Ulhas just asks questions, what
generalities can be taken for granted in his mind, when he reads and share
with the list one article after another. His frame of general reference for
interpretating empirical data may be quite different. Or  may have little
frame of reference at all. Could he illustrate what generalities he takes
for granted and how he uses them in analysis?


> > If no one thinks there is a problem that the third world is getting
> > progressively poorer in relative terms, then no theory will help at all.
> > Indeed any theory will be quite superfluous and misleading. But I >think
> the evidence is that the disparities are intensifying and I can see a >broad
> general reason related to Marx's law of value.
>
> I am not against theory, but sweeping generalisations need to be avoided.
> Can Chris Burford provide any empirical support to suggest that LDCs are
> becoming poorer in relative terms? Or is this simply an inferrence from the
> Law of Value?


"Sweeping generalisations need to be avoided" sounds to me suspiciously
like a generalisation.

There is a role for theory at all levels. For whatever motive, if we do not
make generalisations about a world economy of massive income disparity,
involving six billion people, because "sweeping generalisations need to be
avoided" we unwittingly support the oppressive and exploitative status quo.

Ulhas now asks me for empirical data. It is scarce because world debate
does not even focus on the question of why such disparities exist except in
fragmented terms. Some on this list may know more obscure articles that
compare indicators for income in different countries over decades and
preferably centuries, which is what we really want.

But there is data on the progressively worsening terms of trade for primary
producers. Is Ulhas not aware of these? If not, could someone post some
details.

More broadly let me refer to the sweeping generalisation that the disparity
in wages for a worker across the world is now of the order of 30.

While societies have had great disparities of wealth within them, between
societies it was surely different. I find it impossible to believe that a
working class Chinese man getting off a boat in Liverpool in 1850 would
have got 30 times the wages he would get in Shanghai.

Thirdly to take a current topic of debate around the G8 does Ulhas believe
that Africa should be able to make do with the small package that has been
agreed or does it need a package of the order of 10 times this amount?
Stuff has been published to support both propositions. It is not without
empirical evidence to think Africa needs 10 times as much.

If so, what are the general reasons for this? No one is compelled to be a
card carrying marxist and turn only to the LTV, but if there are serious
empirical arguments for a package 10 times this figure, can we please also
have a non-marxist theoretical argument from Ulhas to say why.

Some marxists certainly give Marx a bad name by applying his ideas
dogmatically, but the debate is a bit unrealistic if any statement of a
marxist hypothesis is thought to have to be fully empirically validated for
it to be seriously considered and not suspected of dogmatism

Does Ulhas accept that there is great income disparity in the world. If so
what is his sweeping or non-sweeping generalisation to explain it?


> Ulhas


Regards

Chris

PS accumulating Re's deleted in title line