Banner Advertiser

Saturday, October 26, 2013

[mukto-mona] ফোনালাপ





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete



1. Marx's Surplus Value Theory is relevant for capitalist mode of productions. That Marx contributed to bring an end to feudalism is not the compete truth. Historical and dialectical materialism has been, as a matter of fact, has been used to interpret the evolution of productions relations at various phases of the evolution of human society beginning from primitive communism. (Mr. Ray, please correct me). This is a good discussion. 

2. Dr. Roy is probably referring to either international trade or globalization as globalization of trades seems to be a misleading term. 

3. Dr. Roy's proposition that Malthusian Theory is related to demise of communism is not yet clear to me. 

4. In an earlier discussion I cited from two eminent economists (Amartya Sen is one of them) to support a view that theoretically there is no problem in achieving efficient production. Equitable distribution, they have opined, is an added advantage offered by communism. 

5. 'Demise', 'killed', etc. seem to be too strong words to describe what has happened to communism. This is still in force in several countries in varied forms. Marx has influenced the world views in most of the vital areas. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

"I have seen - when people disagree – they attach a reading list, without explaining why they disagree. I hate it. This is a discussion forum; this is not a classroom; you need to make your points on this spot."

Good point! References are always good for the reinforcement of a  point but the members should be able to put their own logical thoughts/words before referring x, y and z as references.   

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:18 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

The use of 'in' was deliberate, Dr. Das; it was not an error. I thought people will understand my thoughts based on the context of the discussion. I was wrong. I did not envision that - after reading the rest of my comments –  some people still could make the assumption that I was saying Karl Marx contributed to the Feudalism.

Anyway, I want to go beyond that.
 
You asked me, in another post, how Malthusian Theory caused the demise of communism.

Actually, communism got killed because the theory does not satisfy Malthusian principle, which is a defect in the theory, in my view. Let me explain this point further.
 
Communism will survive only until available wealth and resources can meet the demand. But, if we just balance these two factors, system will survive barely, without making any progress, meaning system will become stagnant. A stagnant system will die ultimately.
 
As you know – natural demand grows much faster rate than production. So, to make continued progress in the society, we need two things – 1) production needs to be increased at a much faster rate than the rate of growth in demand, and 2) we need a proper wealth redistribution mechanism to make progress in the society.
 
Communism provides some wealth redistribution mechanism, but lacks completely the mechanism for continued increase in production. As a result, over the long run, production and demand relationship break down, and the system fails to bring progress.
 
Capitalism, on the other hand, provides mechanism for necessary growth in production, but lacks in the efficient wealth redistribution mechanism. The so called trickle-down redistribution system works to some extent, but – not efficient enough.
 
So, you see – none of these two systems are perfect. But, capitalism has much better chance for survival. What we need - is a balance between these two extreme systems. That's why I said, in my previous post, we need a hodgepodge system out of these two.  
 
If you disagree – tell me why? I am ready to learn.
 
I have seen - when people disagree – they attach a reading list, without explaining why they disagree. I hate it. This is a discussion forum; this is not a classroom; you need to make your points on this spot. After that – you can supplement your points with the reading list. The way I see it - they must have exhausted their list, so they should be able to articulate a few arguments in favor of their disagreement. Otherwise, I will assume - they don't know why they disagree.
 
Thanks.

  



On Friday, October 25, 2013 9:48 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Your choice of 'in' was erroneous.  You have the right to defend it, but few would agree with your interpretation that 'in' can be taken as 'against'.  However, gun powder and grenade contributed more to the demise of feudalism than theories.  Technology remains the greatest liberator.


On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dr. Das: "....He did not contribute to feudalism, as you wrote, he contributed against it."

You read it wrong, please check my statement again. I wrote - ... contributions 'in' our feudalistic society, not contribution 'to' our feudalistic society, as you wrote; it's not the same thing.

The implied meaning of my statement was about his contribution against feudal society, which should be obvious when you read the rest of the discussions in the post. Also, we have been discussing communism in the thread, which was a revolution to end feudalism. How could someone think that I was referring to Marx's contribution to Feudalism is beyond me? It is like - after reading 7 volumes of Ramayana, I still don't know the relation between Sita and Ram.
 
I don't want to idolize anybody, be that Karl Marx or anybody. You can do that, I have no problem. I said Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. experimented with various derivatives of Marxism. So, I gave due respect to the Guru, and I did not lump them all in the same breath at all.
 
You mentioned the article about the new found appeal for Marxism around the world due to the globalization of trades. Yes, I am aware of the article, but - I did not read it yet. I see it every day in the USA. A few openly declared communists were in the Obama administration; they are no more with the administration for some reasons. Realistically, it's too late for Marxism anywhere in the world. The train has left the station. Modern societies are much too complex; full-fledged Marxism cannot survive anywhere; society might adopt some parts of it though.
 
I think, globalization is spreading the wealth around the world, which a good thing. Due to the lack of proper mechanism for decentralization of wealth locally, the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. That's obvious, but - I cannot blame globalization of trades for that. The blame goes to the local governing body.

If we keep on barking at the wrong tree, we will get tired of barking after a while, and achieving nothing. That's what is going on with the whole opposition saga of global trades. Most people either do not understand the process or do not have capacity to think anymore; they usually rent ideas from the media. It's happening everywhere, even in the USA.
 
Jiten Roy


On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:30 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dr. Roy

One should not take all the names of the great leaders of socialism, from Marx to Mao, in one breath, though a book was written on that title decades ago.  Marx was a product of industrial revolution in the land formerly known as Great Britain.  He did not contribute to feudalism, as you wrote, he contributed against it.  Without October Revolution, there would be no Adult Franchise.  Lenin and Mao were the products of two world wars.  Without Stalin, the allied powers could not win in World War II.  And the imminent victory of socialism in China contributed greatly to decolonization of India and Africa.  Human history has not witnessed such great changes before Marx.  A white collar serf may occasionally lose identity and feel like his master, but truth is always on the other side.  Both the consumer and the creator of commodities are proletariat.  Capitalists are nothing but rarely essential parasites.

Anyway, plenty has been written on Marx, though most has forgotten his mentor friend Frederick Engels.  Even in Muktomona, Mr. Syed Aslam has posted "Marx in the Mirror of Globalization".  I hope it did not escape your notice.

Kamal Das


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dr. Das,
 
How can I dare to throw stones at Karl Marx? We should be grateful to Marxism for its contributions in our feudalistic society.  All I said is – Marxism is an idealistic model, which could not be implemented as is in practice, and that was the reason for sprouting out various derivatives of it during the golden era of communism.

That does not mean, Marxism was all wrong. Being a scientist,  you know when a model has too many variables, it may not work as expected in practice. That's exactly the problem with any socio-economic model (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.); just too many unpredictable social variables, some of which may not even be thought about in the model.
 
Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. started socio-economical experimentations around the world using various derivatives; they all failed. That's the reality we all can accept without hesitation. I wish - at least one of those socio-economical experimentation worked, but – it did not.  You are right – we got the democratic system out of those socio-economical experimentation, and the credit goes to the Guru of communism, the Karl Marx.  
 
My point is not that; my point was – people still dream of a 'utopian Marxist society' in this day and age. I don't believe - it is feasible any longer. Time came and gone. It's too late for that dream. That's why I said – the dream of a utopian society is as real as the dream of heaven.
 
Now, how did I come up with such an arrogant statement?
 
 
I have two doubts – 1) the viability of the economic model of the Marxist utopian system and 2) complete loss of personal liberty under the utopian system. None of these factors is realistically accomplishable in this day and age. That does not mean we have to throw out Marxism altogether. 
 
The bottom line is - no theoretical socio-economic model is going to be perfect for all societies around the world. We have to come up with the regional hodgepodge model, out of the available theoretical models, that will work. Hope this will clarify my position on the topic.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:50 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dr. Roy

Please keep in mind that without Govt. intervention no system can work, be it capitalist or socialist.  Marx may not be correct in many aspects.  But other theoreticians are at best a footnote to him.  Without Marx and ensuing assorted social revolutions the present version of democracy & freedom(!) would be a far cry.  So don't throw stones at the Guru without comprehending him.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Mr. Ray,
 
Thank you for the reply. If you don't mind, please write a few sentences explaining how a utopian society, envisioned in the Marxism, could satisfy production Vs. demand relationship over the long-haul for millions of enlightened and free people? I am asking you this question because, I think, you are much more knowledgeable in this topic than me.
 
Also, I am curious to know – why people still believe in the validity of a utopian Marxist society in a modern free world. I have no explanation for it, except to think that - Marxism is a faith to them, much like religion. To me, the dream of a utopian Marxist society in the modern world is as good as a dream of heaven in the afterworld.
 
I know many people think that - Marxism would have worked if it was implemented as is. My question to them is - why Marxism was never tried in any country during the golden era of communism? I think – it is too idealistic to be implemented as is in a complex non-ideal society. That's why derivatives of it have been tried, but all failed.
 
Jiten Roy



On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:04 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Profesor Roy:
I respect your disagreement with Marxism, but your statement, "Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere.", is not at all true. Marxian principles or call them, Marxism, was distorted much more than applied and for that Lenin was responsible. Marxism was not applied anywhere excepting in Paris Commune and
I would request you to read Paresh Chattopadhyay's 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' Or at least, his' Two Approaches to Socialism: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky-
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/3/6/6736569/chattopadhyay_marx_vs_lenin_countdown.doc.

Regards,
Sankar Ray

Sankar Ray
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:23:28
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete
 

I understand how a Capitalist system satisfies Malthusian principle, but - do not know or understand how an ultra-liberal proletarian system can satisfy that principle. I believe Marxism ignores Malthusian principle, and that's the death-nail of the Communism.
 
If I am wrong, please correct me. I will be extremely delighted if someone can provide me a convincing short contrary explanation to my understanding of Marxism.
 
As you know, Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere. Therefore, implementation fault is not the cause for the failure of the Marxism around the world.
 
This situation is exactly similar to that of religion, where believers always blame implementation fault, not religion.
 
As you know, religion is here to establish peace on earth, but it failed miserably to accomplish the goal. It has been introduced various ways around the world also, but failed everywhere. Yet, diehard proponents of religion always blame the implementation fault for the failure of the religion. 
 
Jiten Roy


On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:01 PM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 

Marx for Christmas
 
Scholars around the world shall have a unique Christmas gift – The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (OHC). The book, enriched with 35 papers, has been edited by Steve Smith, professor of history at the European University Institute in Florence and currently senior research fellow at the All Souls College, University of Oxford.

In the preface, 'Towards a Global History of Communism', Smith says ingenuously that, "Communism was the twentieth century's most idealistic political experiment, yet major Communist regimes evolved into some of that century's most bloody tyrannies. At the peak of its influence in the 1970s, states purporting to espouse Communist principles (Leave aside the question of whether they were in any genuine sense 'Communist') governed about a third of the world's landmass. Throughout the colonial, post-colonial and underdeveloped worlds millions viewed such states with sympathy for having apparently broken with the injustices and inequalities of capitalism and big-power politics."

But Smith thinks "the Communist experiment was finished" in contrast to what a doyen among India's political theorists, Dr Randhir Singh, thinks: that the collapse of the once-mighty Soviet Union didn't mean the defeat of Marxism but the fall of 'official Marxism'. Small wonder then that Bloomberg News carried an opinion piece by George Magnus, captioned 'Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy'.

According to Magnus, "The spirit of Marx has risen from the grave amid the financial crisis and subsequent economic slump. ...Today's global economy bears some uncanny resemblances to the conditions he foresaw".

The most theoretically significant paper is written by Prof Paresh Chattopadhyay, an outstanding Marx scholar, 'Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on Communism'. Belonging to the Subcontinent and part of the teaching staff of the Department of Political Economy at Quebec University, Chattopadhyay is a member of the workshop (werkstatt) of the ongoing project of a 15-volume Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism under the sponsorship of Institut Fur Kritische Theorie, InkriT, Berlin.

Prof Chattopadhyay has the advantage of being comfortable with the French, Russian, German, Russian and Italian languages, something that helped him study the texts. After reading the first draft, Smith wrote candidly "Your erudition – across the range of Marx's writing and in various languages – is staggering and I learned a great deal that I didn't know before".

Among others who contributed to the invaluable treatise in the theoretical section on ideology – Marx and Engels in German Ideology warned the proletariat against ideologies and ideologues, arguing that "in all ideology, men and their circumstances appear upside down as in a camera obscura" – are Lars T Lih ('Lenin and Bolshevism'), Kevin McDermott ('Stalin and Stalinism') and Timothy Cheek 'Mao and Maoism').

Chattopadhyay takes up cudgels for the validity of Marx and his works, "The proletariat is the 'bad side' of the present society, and 'history moves by the bad side'", as Marx reminded Proudhon in 1847. Marx and Engels, he reminds, enunciated that the 'consciousness of the necessity of a profound revolution, the communist revolution, arises from this class itself'. Communism indeed is "the beginning, and not the end of human history".

But the top brass of Indian communist parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, and various Maoist groups of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and other so-called Marxist parties such as the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India have been lukewarm to the idea of this Oxford publication. The reasons are not difficult to guess.

Chattopadhyay is ranked among top Marxist scholars such as Maximilien Rubel, David Borisovich Riazanov (who discovered shelved texts like the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Holy Family, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Grundrisse), Anton Pannekoek, formulator of Council Communism, and Charles Bettelheim author of the four-volume Class Struggles in the USSR. Chattopadhyay has to his credit seminal works such as The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience and papers like 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' and 'Two Approaches to Socialist Revolution: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky'.

Agonising as it may seem to those generations that gravitated to Marx through Lenin's works, Lenin's distortions of Marx did considerable damage to the possibilities of a proletarian revolution. For instance, Marx never stated that socialism is the lower stage of communism, but conceived socialism, communism, republic of labour, cooperative society, society of free and associated producers as interchangeable and synonymous. Lenin's formulations – namely, 'socialist state' or 'commune state' are brazen deviations from the fundamentals of Marx and Engels.

"The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery", Marx categorically stated in theCritical Notes on the Article: The King of Prussia and Social Reform. Lenin himself stated in his The State and Revolution that state and freedom are mutually exclusive. Not only Chattopadhyay, but Cyril Smith, Marcello Musto and other Marxist scholars who studied Marx and Engels in the original have stated unhesitatingly that all the so-called socialist states were actually capitalist states.

The attraction of the upcoming book for scholars – particularly Marxist scholars not adhering to the Leninist tradition – is irresistible. The first task before them and prosperity is to present Marx in the Marxist way.

The writer is a Kolkata-basedcontributor. Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com


Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >



Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >















__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda



"you said Krishna had 1600 wives" - Lord Krishna would abhor such a blasphemy.  He had ten times as many according to religious literature.  Though these consorts were really stars, Raja Krishna Chandra of Vijayanagar was found to have 20,000 young women in his possession when he fell to the Mughal aggression. Taken one lady a day, he would need about 55 years of active sex life.  He survived ten years less.  Now, here is an ancient FAQ from the feudal society.

Q:- Where could one find a virgin?
A:- Most likely in possession of the Kings.


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

QR: "I am amused to see that some members "Assumes" one must criticize Islam (Even when it is not called for) to be considered/treated as a normal human being. I feel this is a irrational idea that should be pointed out. There are a lot of people in Bangladesh who criticize America without knowing much about it. There are many Americans who criticize America because they know where it functions well and where it failed. I'll always support people with knowledge. Any idiot can curse and criticize but there is a qualitative difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who scream without any clue."

In general, when a topic is up for discussion, members can say pretty much anything against or for it; conversations may not be always factual. If there is a factual error in any statement, others should point out. That's how we learn and grow. Nobody needs to be an expert to criticize any topic; they just need to back their points with some sound logic. This is called free-minded discussion.

Remember, Mr. Q. Rahman, you said Krishna had 1600 wives; I pointed out - they were not wives; they were girl-friends (Shakhis). Did I call you anti-Sonaton Dharma? No. I exactly understood why you had such misunderstanding about the topic.

Unfortunately, when you bring up Islam in most of your conversations, and when we criticize, with whatever knowledge we have about Islam, you call us as anti-Islam.

I know why you do that. You can't tolerate criticism of your religion; you want everybody to accept your explanations. When someone counters your points, your head starts spinning. Let me give you an advice – you will do a better job if you point out the misunderstanding, instead of name-calling. 

Mr. Q. Rahman, your knowledge of Islam is as good as a preacher, where everyone only listen, but cannot counter. So, your knowledge  is not enough in this forum, where devotees have opportunity to present their counter points.

I may be talking to a dead tree here.

Jiten Roy





On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:29 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
I don't think Mr. Q. Rahman knows much about Islam either. He however looks at Islam as a staunch believer and hence he has always a positive attitude towards it

>>>>>>>> The point of Member Roy was about a pillar of Islam. Anyone with elementary knowledge of Islam knows "Five pillars of Islam". It was interesting that member Roy not only did not know about it (Which is understandable) but had the arrogance to tells others WRONG information about Islam (There are obligatory parts of Islam. MUST do). So I only shared right information on the topic.

I am amused to see that some members "Assumes" one must criticize Islam (Even when it is not called for) to be considered/treated as a normal human being. I feel this is a irrational idea that should be pointed out. There are a lot of people in Bangladesh who criticize America without knowing much about it. There are many Americans who criticize America because they know where it functions well and where it failed. I'll always support people with knowledge. Any idiot can curse and criticize but there is a qualitative difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who scream without any clue.  

Staunch and irrational belief coupled with fear factor and the aspiration for this life and after life rewards makes our judgement a valueless exercise.

>>>>>> lot of ignorant people criticize religion just to get accepted in certain groups. They are so afraid of what will other people think of them that they talk without any idea of what they are talking about. You may pity them but no need to accept such irrational blind attitude.

Any way, Dr. Roy has some good questions about pilgrimages

Who was more pious: my wife or another person who traveled in a third class railway compartment and stayed in a cheap hotel?


>>>>>>>>> Every journey is different and those who reach out to the our Maker with pure heart are more pious. Money, status and journey is irrelevant.


Shalom!


>>>>>>> And answers were given in detail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 25, 2013 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda

 
I don't think Mr. Q. Rahman knows much about Islam either. He however looks at Islam as a staunch believer and hence he has always a positive attitude towards it. Staunch and irrational belief coupled with fear factor and the aspiration for this life and after life rewards makes our judgement a valueless exercise. 

Any way, Dr. Roy has some good questions about pilgrimages. As a tourist I have visited many holy places in India. I was always in comfort zone thanks to American dollars. Who was more pious: my wife or another person who traveled in a third class railway compartment and stayed in a cheap hotel? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
"KINDLY stop talking about stuff you do not know."

Mr. Q. Rahman,

I know you are here to correct me; that's why I dared to write about Islam.

Anyway, I said Hajj is recommended for those who can afford.

It is hard for me to conceive that Hajj could be mandatory for all who can afford. How does someone know if he/she can afford to go for Hajj?

Just because you may have some extra savings one year, that should not mandate you to go for Hajj that year. How do you know what emergency may arise in future; you may lose your job or become injured. Don't you need some rainy day funds in the bank for such emergency, instead of spending it all for Hajj, and then suffer rest of the life? How much is enough savings for future? I don't know. Mandatory Hajj does not make sense to me, Mr. Rahman.

Can you help me understand who must go for Hajj?

Jiten Roy






__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Marxism sans Marx



The failure of Marxist society was first predicted by James Proudhon. He was prophetic in his prediction, "Over sized bureaucracy would bring about the doom of an egalitarian society administered by the proletariat".  George Orwell portrayed the aftermath of proletarian revolution  more succinctly in his well known novel "The Animal Firm". In it pigs take over the command and ultimately transform into two footed animals no different from human beings.

In the contemporary world, economic crises grow out of problems in management.  No society can let super rich grow even richer without consequences.


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 

I am agonised when even some well-meaning academics draw conclusions about Marx or Marxism without the patience to go through original texts ( I mean at least those that are in English). Marx scholars today (at least after the collapse of Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China) - both who are in favour of Marx and the ones that are for emphasis on critical study of Marx - believe that Marx and Engels should be studied without dogma but critically. There lies the significance of Marx's statement that he was not a Marxist.

Pasted below is a review article of two very important books. To me, it reflects what I have meant.
Sankar Ray


BOOK REVIEW: Marxism without Marx: Recent Interpretations of the Economic Crisis

By Guy Roth  June 12 (http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/06/book-review-marxism-without-marx-recent-interpretations-of-the-economic-crisis/)

Paul Mattick, Business As Usual: The Economic Crisis and the Failure of Capitalism. London: Reaktion Books, 2011.

David McNally, Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance. Oakland: PM Press, 2011.

Not long after Karl Marx completed the first volume of Capital, he boasted to his friend, Louis Kugelmann: "even if there were no chapter on 'value' in my book, the analysis of the real relationships which I give would contain the proof and demonstration of the real value relation."[1] Marx did not carry through on this suggestion, never completing the work that centered on the concept of value (the unfinished volumes 2 and 3), let alone attempting something more ambitious still. But he seemed to suggest that it was fully possible to comprehend societal reality in all its essential complexity without resort to the simplifying conventions of theory. His intriguing remarks thus serve as a vantage point from which to judge recent marxian interpretations of the economic crisis, especially ones that aim at a popular audience for whom a background in theory—marxian, economic, or otherwise—is not necessary.

Paul Mattick's, Business As Usual, and David McNally's, Global Slump, follow through to varying degrees on Marx's suggestion. Each author focuses on a single, primary aspect of Marx's theory as a means to explain the current crisis. For Mattick, the point of entry into the economy is money; for McNally, it is competition. This propels them in very different directions, largely a function of how close to Marx they remain. Mattick's book takes the form of an extended essay that warrants close reading. McNally's lengthier treatment is both breezier and polemical.

If Mattick only occasionally describes ideas and events by means of marxian value theory, he nonetheless takes full advantage of the ability to think abstractly about the economy. This is implicit in his use of money as a jumping off point. Money is the most mystifying, if not outrightly befogging, arena of all. Money is where the intertwining of economic categories and economic reality is so extreme that few commentators avoid slipping repeatedly from one conceptual domain to the other without a real awareness of the transgressions they have committed. In Mattick's hands, money becomes an easily-understood substitute for what Marx, at various moments, labeled "value" or "labor-time," albeit at an even greater level of abstraction.

Mattick is particularly interested in economists who, like Marx, form a minority current within the wider profession of economic analysis because they focus on economic crises rather than economic prosperity, attribute crises to the peculiar mode of functioning unique to capitalism alone, and who single out profit as the sine qua non of business operations. He calls our attention to economists such as Wesley Claire Mitchell and Hyman Minsky who used profits (or the lack thereof) as a means to explain the Great Depression of the 1930s and the cyclical nature of capitalist enterprising. Prior to Marx, it was J.C.L. de Sismondi, writing in the early 1800s, who identified the destabilization of the economy in the inability of the working population to consume all that was produced. Marx might not have agreed with Sismondi's explanation (without a gap between production and consumption, profits would not be possible), but he appreciated the attempt to explain crises by looking internally at how capitalism operated as an economic system.

Mattick mentions that there have been other voices along these lines. Nonetheless, he highlights Marx, who more than anyone else focused attention on the relationship between crises and profit. The economics profession has tended towards an unending, and ultimately unsatisfying, search for factors exogenous to the industrial system to explain what goes wrong. If at one point natural disasters and agricultural productivity were resorted to as explanations for the periodic downturns and stagnation that have plagued the world's economy, it has been the emotional habits of investors, consumers, and financiers alike that has focused economists' attention ever since. In modern-day economics, as Mattick aptly points out, profit simply becomes one income stream among others, leading to a profound inability to see capitalism for what it is—a profit-making system that creates its own difficulties.

If Mattick leads readers to reconceptualize their understanding of economic reality, McNally approaches matters quite concretely with easily understood descriptions of the competitive process. He has us assume, as is the custom within the field of microeconomics, that the actions of a single competitive firm are indicative of business behavior everywhere. "Overaccumulation," he tells us, "emerges at a point where, relative to demand backed by money, there are simply too many factories and too much equipment producing the same good." Unable to sell all that has been produced and unable to cover expenses, "this is the point at which overaccumulated capital finds itself in a crisis situation" (Global Slump, p. 77). McNally echoes Sismondi, except that insufficient consumption is now generalized throughout the economy rather than attributed to the underconsumption of a particular class. For McNally, even businesses are consumers.

But where Mattick uses abstract thinking (theory) to selectively explain pertinent aspects of economic reality, McNally has no such luxury. By beginning in the concrete, he quickly becomes mired in it. McNally's treatment of competition—the centerpiece of his analysis—is far from adequate. For one, much has been written by marxists (from Hilferding to Sweezy) and mainstream economists alike during the last century on the effects of monopolies and oligopolistic competition on price-setting, output restrictions, the predatory nature of advertising, and the manipulation of effective demand. Not competition, but the progressive disappearance of competition over time, has animated discussion. Yet, McNally's descriptions of the overproduction of commodities fail to mention this trend.

Secondly, competition for Marx takes place on multiple levels—within specific spheres of business (of the sort described by McNally), but also between and among the different spheres of production. Each firm, no matter how monopolistic in its own arena, must still seek ways to secure a portion of the total profits that are generated in the economy at large. There need not be direct competition between producers for them to nonetheless experience the competitive effects of capitalism's internal mechanisms. Steel makers, oil companies, and home healthcare providers all compete against one another even though none of this takes place directly. Monopolistic prices in one area of the economy, say oil production, mean that there is less left over society-wide for everyone else.

Insofar as McNally embraces what is specific to Marx (the theory of the falling rate of profit), he does so as part of a two-track explanation: "whenever both of these trends—over-accumulation and declining profitability are at work—capitalism is heading for a crisis" (Global Slump, p. 79). This is an odd way to pose the matter. For Marx, the two trends posited by McNally were actually one, since declining profitability manifests itself in overaccumulation. But the reverse is not true. Overaccumulation can be accompanied by either a falling or a rising rate of profit (and often varies, depending on the particular phase of the crisis). For Marx, it isn't the rate of profit per se that provokes a crisis, but the insufficiency of profit, of which the rate of profit is—in theoretical terms—a shorthand means of explaining this phenomena.

Mattick, in Business As Usual, keeps these various relationships clear: the lack of profits vis-à-vis the profit needs of existing capital stands behind capitalism's tendency towards crises. Mattick has largely accomplished what Marx indicated could be done, avoiding the terminological use of the marxian value theory without abandoning the accompanying discursive explanations.

McNally, on the other hand, doesn't succeed because of gaps in his presentation regarding the competitive process and also in his comprehension of the marxian theorem. Theory is collapsed into reality as if they are the same entity. In McNally's understanding, competition functions in this dual capacity, but so does the empirical rate of profit (as experienced by businesses) which is treated as if identical to the theoretical rate of profit (as posited by Marx).

Sometimes McNally gets downright psychological. The crisis cycle, he claims at one point, results from a repetition compulsion by the 1 percenters: "just as denial is unhealthy for individuals, so it is for groups and societies. To deny or repress a traumatic experience means, as Freud taught us, to invariably repeat it. And this is what global elites are in the process of doing" (Global Slump, p. 16).

For the most part, though, politics for Mattick as for McNally flows naturally from the starting points of their respective analyses. For McNally, this means the elimination of crises by restricting and counteracting the negative effects of the competitive process and the market economy. In Global Slump, McNally endorses a wide range of social movements, including regime change in Ireland, one-day demonstration strikes in France, broad-based electoral movements in Bolivia, and the formation of small trotskyist parties. In other publications, McNally offers additional recommendations—corporate bailouts, conversion programs, and even Keynesian-like stimulus packages (albeit with qualifications).[2]

Mattick puts such solutions into question. When both inflationary and deflationary policies threaten to deepen the crisis, as evidenced in the fierce disagreements among the world's bourgeoisie over which policies to follow, governmental action of any sort—interventionist or isolationist, expansive or repressive, stimulus-oriented or deficit-reducing, or entirely inactive—becomes a hindrance to the expansion of the for-profit market economy. What's the point, then, of intermediary measures if the world's economy, and its attendant social systems, is already stuck in a dead-end?

It is worth reading Mattick's account of the previous 60 years in some detail because of how he reconstructs this ongoing dilemma. The post-WWII boom, unprecedented in terms of the prosperity it brought forth, nonetheless required massive amounts of government-managed deficit spending. During the 1970s, however, government debt itself became one of the obstacles to a further expansion of the world's economy. A never-ending process, of lurching from one economic crisis to another, came to characterize the modern era.

Piece by piece, society has been transformed—without much of any overall coordination—in order to help counteract the failing economy. Because of his focus on the reshaping of the global system currently under way, Mattick is able to inter-relate a huge number of seemingly disparate phenomena and trends. These include the quest for low-wage labor, the privatization of publically-owned assets, erratic investment behavior, and the torturous discussions everywhere as to whether it is best to enlarge or shrink government, with economists often saying the opposite of what they had said just months before.

Neither Mattick nor McNally refer to Marx's theory of exploitation, by which employers extract a surplus over and above what is needed to recreate the material and human resources to continue the production process. That such a discussion is missing from McNally's account is understandable since it is commodities, and not the employed, that are the focus of his economic analysis. Given the general lack of rigor in his argumentation, it's probably unfair to even point out all that is absent in his interpretations.

Mattick, however, is more rigorous in his investigation, and it's precisely because he raises expectations by explaining reasons, and not just effects, that one can ask more from him. For Mattick, the system has failed, and can't be fixed, which explains why the world must change. Exploitation, though, is not among the desiderata.

Might we then conclude that the disappearance of any discussion of exploitation is one of the costs of following Marx's suggestion of a value-free value theory? Perhaps it's no accident that Marx never followed up on his own suggestion. If this is the case, we owe it to Mattick for showing us all that can be done in such terms.

  1. [1] Karl Marx to Louis Kugelmann, July 11, 1868.
  2. [2] See the interview with McNally, "The Global Economic Meltdown" in Sasha Lilley, Capital and Its Discontents: Conversations with Radical Thinkers in a Time of Tumult. Oakland: PM Press, 2011, pp. 102–03. Lilley seems not to notice that McNally embraces some of the very solutions she criticizes.

 



Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Reminder to all Members!



If the moderators feel that opinions are not to be left to judgement of all those who care to go through them, they might as well close the forum and forget it.


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 

I think it's a judicious decision.




From: Ajoy Roy <roya_k2003@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:57:09
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Reminder to all Members!
 

It is a good decision. Thanks a lot

ajoy roy
Dhaka



On Saturday, 26 October 2013, 7:27, "mukto-mona-owner@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
I have been watching meaningless political deliberations in the forum, which are nothing but waste of time. I would like to limit such deliberations. Political deliberations will only be published, when it is judged to be useful to promote healthy debate.

If you have personal communication with any member, use the listed personal e-mail address of the member directly, instead of replying to the forum e-mail address.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Moderator



Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda



QR: "I am amused to see that some members "Assumes" one must criticize Islam (Even when it is not called for) to be considered/treated as a normal human being. I feel this is a irrational idea that should be pointed out. There are a lot of people in Bangladesh who criticize America without knowing much about it. There are many Americans who criticize America because they know where it functions well and where it failed. I'll always support people with knowledge. Any idiot can curse and criticize but there is a qualitative difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who scream without any clue."

In general, when a topic is up for discussion, members can say pretty much anything against or for it; conversations may not be always factual. If there is a factual error in any statement, others should point out. That's how we learn and grow. Nobody needs to be an expert to criticize any topic; they just need to back their points with some sound logic. This is called free-minded discussion.

Remember, Mr. Q. Rahman, you said Krishna had 1600 wives; I pointed out - they were not wives; they were girl-friends (Shakhis). Did I call you anti-Sonaton Dharma? No. I exactly understood why you had such misunderstanding about the topic.

Unfortunately, when you bring up Islam in most of your conversations, and when we criticize, with whatever knowledge we have about Islam, you call us as anti-Islam.

I know why you do that. You can't tolerate criticism of your religion; you want everybody to accept your explanations. When someone counters your points, your head starts spinning. Let me give you an advice – you will do a better job if you point out the misunderstanding, instead of name-calling. 

Mr. Q. Rahman, your knowledge of Islam is as good as a preacher, where everyone only listen, but cannot counter. So, your knowledge  is not enough in this forum, where devotees have opportunity to present their counter points.

I may be talking to a dead tree here.

Jiten Roy





On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:29 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
I don't think Mr. Q. Rahman knows much about Islam either. He however looks at Islam as a staunch believer and hence he has always a positive attitude towards it

>>>>>>>> The point of Member Roy was about a pillar of Islam. Anyone with elementary knowledge of Islam knows "Five pillars of Islam". It was interesting that member Roy not only did not know about it (Which is understandable) but had the arrogance to tells others WRONG information about Islam (There are obligatory parts of Islam. MUST do). So I only shared right information on the topic.

I am amused to see that some members "Assumes" one must criticize Islam (Even when it is not called for) to be considered/treated as a normal human being. I feel this is a irrational idea that should be pointed out. There are a lot of people in Bangladesh who criticize America without knowing much about it. There are many Americans who criticize America because they know where it functions well and where it failed. I'll always support people with knowledge. Any idiot can curse and criticize but there is a qualitative difference between those who know what they are talking about and those who scream without any clue.  

Staunch and irrational belief coupled with fear factor and the aspiration for this life and after life rewards makes our judgement a valueless exercise.

>>>>>> lot of ignorant people criticize religion just to get accepted in certain groups. They are so afraid of what will other people think of them that they talk without any idea of what they are talking about. You may pity them but no need to accept such irrational blind attitude.

Any way, Dr. Roy has some good questions about pilgrimages

Who was more pious: my wife or another person who traveled in a third class railway compartment and stayed in a cheap hotel?


>>>>>>>>> Every journey is different and those who reach out to the our Maker with pure heart are more pious. Money, status and journey is irrelevant.


Shalom!


>>>>>>> And answers were given in detail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 25, 2013 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda

 
I don't think Mr. Q. Rahman knows much about Islam either. He however looks at Islam as a staunch believer and hence he has always a positive attitude towards it. Staunch and irrational belief coupled with fear factor and the aspiration for this life and after life rewards makes our judgement a valueless exercise. 

Any way, Dr. Roy has some good questions about pilgrimages. As a tourist I have visited many holy places in India. I was always in comfort zone thanks to American dollars. Who was more pious: my wife or another person who traveled in a third class railway compartment and stayed in a cheap hotel? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
"KINDLY stop talking about stuff you do not know."

Mr. Q. Rahman,

I know you are here to correct me; that's why I dared to write about Islam.

Anyway, I said Hajj is recommended for those who can afford.

It is hard for me to conceive that Hajj could be mandatory for all who can afford. How does someone know if he/she can afford to go for Hajj?

Just because you may have some extra savings one year, that should not mandate you to go for Hajj that year. How do you know what emergency may arise in future; you may lose your job or become injured. Don't you need some rainy day funds in the bank for such emergency, instead of spending it all for Hajj, and then suffer rest of the life? How much is enough savings for future? I don't know. Mandatory Hajj does not make sense to me, Mr. Rahman.

Can you help me understand who must go for Hajj?

Jiten Roy





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___