Talk:MSTU5606 10

From Studyplace

---

Contents 1 Initial Thoughts and Questions

Initial Thoughts and Questions

 I was struck by Luxemburg's notion of reproduction. Although it is taken at a different angle than Dewey's notion of cultural reproduction in Democracy and Education, I couldn't help but wonder how (or even if) one could compare the notion of the reproduction of capital and the reproduction of social forms and culture. Luxemburg talks about the way men's social relationship with each other is perverted by exchange. Perhaps perverted isn't the best word since she claims "the only social link between these [private] producers is the act of exchange" (34). In this Marxist point of view it seems like the capitalist system actively devalues other social links, especially since workers fall under a type of capital for the producers bent on increasing surplus value. In that respect, Luxemburg's reliance on the notions of "constant capital," "variable capital," and "surplus" were interesting. I was struck by the idea that in order to create surplus value "ad infinitum" capitalism relies on an endless path of expanding reproduction (a process that is admittedly not unique to capitalism, according to Luxemberg). I was also interested in the way she articulated the 4-step process of expanding reproduction:

1. Production creates surplus value
2. Surplus value is converted into money
3. The surplus value assumes its productive form of labor and inanimate means of production
   
4. If enlarged reproduction of commodities has taken place, the additional commodities have to be reconverted into money

At first this cycle might not seem problematic, but it is this cycle that helps to provide the expansionist impetus for imperialism, which is characterized by Luxemberg as "the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment." My guess is that there is no wonder as to what Luxemberg may have thought of current globalization trends and the current (arguably) imperial wars America is fighting. She makes a point to highlight "...the realm of capital's blustering violence which is regarded as more or less incidental to foreign policy and quite independent of the economic sphere of capital..." and she continues, "In reality, political power is nothing but a vehicle for the economic process." 

It would seem that the world of capitalism outlined by Luxemberg is harshly antagonistic to the values of mutual understanding and community as outlined by Dewey. I am interested to take this perspective into the upcoming Schumpeter reading, which might lead towards some kind of common ground. 

Dzula 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Luxemburg’s writing illuminating and painfully prescient of today. Just a few passages threaded together: Concerning Globalism, Luxemburg writes, “Imperialism is the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment” (446). And also, “From the very beginning, the forms and laws of capitalist production aim to comprise the entire globe as a store of productive forces. Capital, impelled to appropriate productive forces for purposes of exploitation, ransacks the whole world, it procures its means of production from all corners of the earth, seizing the, if necessary by force, from all levels of civilization and from all forms of society” (358). And finally, “Capital needs other races to exploit territories where the white man cannot work” (362).

This need for continuous expansion and hence eventual globalization stems from, “Capitalist production is not production for the purpose of consumption, it is production for the purpose of creating value. … reproduction ruled by value relationships… it is pre-eminently the production of surplus value. Expanding reproduction, from a capitalist point of view, is expanding production of surplus value…” (42). Thus, “profit becomes an end in itself” (34) and unlike Natural economy (402), “in a capitalist system of production, it is not consideration of social needs which actuates the individual private producer who alone matters in this connection. … Appropriation of surplus value is his real incentive …. the real motive… [which also becomes] a rule of necessity” (39). She writes, “For capital, the standstill of accumulation means that the development of the productive forces is arrested, and the collapse of capitalism follows inevitably, as an objective historical necessity” (417). To avoid this, capitalism must seek out other sources, and hence “imperialism”, more pleasantly labeled globalization today.

Luxemburg discusses the disintegration of lifestyles under capitalism (362) in great depth. What at first seem like benign perhaps even positive changes brought about by mass production (396) in effect forever disrupt the self-sufficient life on the farm, of people who made their own tools. “Gone were the times when the small or medium farmer required hardly any money, when he could thresh and turn into cash his wheat reserves as the need arose. Now he was chronically in need of money, a lot of money, to pay his taxes” (400). And the result is, “The ruin of independent craftsmanship by capitalist competition…” (416). She writes, “Constantly fluctuating, they are indeed wage-slaves of capital; they work very hard to create wealth for capital, getting nothing in return but a miserable and precarious existence” (411). She claims, “farming as a business is profitless” (406) and talks of farmers prospering by other jobs they do in addition to their farming. (408). This makes me think of my farming neighbors growing up in rural Michigan. They had (and still have) their own farm, held in the family over generations. The men of the family keep it going by themselves for the most part. In addition to exhausting, perpetual labor, they also worked – often at machine shops, the sorts of places where the skills they needed to fix their own machines were handy, or they learned things to bring back. So after milking and feeding chores, they put in an 8 hour shift in the shop, and then came home to till, reap. Their subsisting, but at a difficult and tenuous existence. The parallels to Luxemburg’s account of India under capitalist colonization are strong: “Since the primitive associations of the natives are the strongest protection for their social organizations and for their material bases of existence, capital must begin by planning for the systematic destruction and annihilation of all the non-capitalist social units which obstruct its development” (370). She states, “The British were the first conquerors of India who showed gross indifference to public utilities” (375). Without means of self-sufficiency, the people were now free to starve – and did (376).

Appreciate the illumination Luxemburg provides, and overwhelmed by the what to do, what to do?... – Nick Nsousanis 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"What to do?" I agree, especially in the face of the systematic legal treachery and outright violence perpetrated in the name of capitalist enterprise. The way she describes it makes it seem like the people looking to expand accumulation of capital would do so at any human cost, all under the banner of fair play. I wonder how Luxemberg's ideas may relate to the current economic situation concerning Americans' credit/debt woes, and the recent government bailouts. Dzula 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)