Rakesh comments {was: Cuba's Destiny}

[James Devine]

Rakesh wrote: >... Anti bolshevik communism is the theoretical expression
of the practical activity of the Soviets and German Councils, destroyed in
the German and Boslehvik  counter revolutions in the late 1910s, to develop
bottom up organizations arising from the workplace  and by way of these
organizations to come up with new ways of coordinating production and
distributing the ouput on the basis of labor hour for labor hour, without
regard to skill or hierarchy. It is a creative attempt to mediate our
social relationships without money or the  state or the boss or experts and
technicians.  In a general strike workers demonstrate that in the absence
of the state and bosses, they feel confident that they could  develop
production at a higher and more rational level. Worker councils have
developed in Iran and Eastern Europe as well;...<

... along with Chile & Spain

I don't think Louis' reply is very useful. While I don't think workers'
councils were _enough_ (as I think the council communists did), I also
don't think the revolutionary party was _enough_. A _mass_ socialist
political party helps a lot. 

In fact, I think the Russian social democratic party of Lenin should have
centered their alternative to capitalism on the councils -- soviets --
because they (along with the peasants and rebellious soldiers) were the
social basis for the revolution. When the soviets faded, partly due to
Bolshevik efforts (perhaps well-intended), the locus of power shifted to
middle-class managers and party apparatchiks. Unfortunately, the situation
was really bad -- what with White Armies and imperialist invasion -- so
it's hard to imagine the soviets dominating. 


>> Charles: Again, what are the essential
>> elements of this formidable inetellectual challenge ?
>> What is the political program of Gailbraith,
>> Darity and Palley , Pasinetti. ?

<snip>
Rakesh writes: >2. It challenges the 'fairness' of income distribution by
way of neoclassical appeal to the marginal productivities of factors
(capital,labor and land); that is, it argues that factors are not
compensated in accordance with what they produce in a market economy. It
rivals Marx's theory of fetishism. <

Marx's theory is much deeper than challenging the theory of wage = marginal
product. In fact, it's possible for Marx's theory of exploitation to work
in a perfectly competitive economy (i.e., without monopoly). The theory of
fetishism is about how even perfect markets hide the class nature of
capitalist society from the view of participants in the system. 

<snip> 
> 4. It focuses on monetary policy where Marx can be accused of having
ignored it. <

Marx didn't do so. He talks a lot about the Bank of England, and in fact
argues at one point that monetary policy actually can make the economy
worse. He did not analyze monetary policy as much as modern macroeconomists
do, but he wasn't as shallow as this implies. 

happy Sunday, everyone, except for those on the other side of the
international date line.

Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html