Resisting the EduFactory: Education for liberation

Some reflections on Resisting the EduFactory: Education for liberation.

I think the key argument is:

Student activists fight austerity and restructuring not because they feel entitled to study, but because society benefits from spaces for free thought. The university can and should be a place that drives social knowledge and development, not just train cogs for the economy. Everyone should benefit from every new vaccine that is researched, every groundbreaking novel, or revolutionary idea that helps lead to a new more sustainable and democratic society.

Despite what vice-chancellors or advertising executives might say, the university is not a brand. The university is the space for society’s critical consciousness.

It is all about developing human beings. We cannot develop ourselves if are slaving at dreary jobs and are burden with unpaid labour such as childcare, housework, and caring for others.

Each human being deserves the right to be able to better themselves. We must have an economic and political system that allows this.

Read more!

Karl Marx (5)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that automation has changed the way Capitalism works.

Since before Capitalism emerged from Feudalism, machines were part of the landscape. The machines automated simple tasks like hammering or weaving. These machines could be crafted by a tradesman.

As machines grew more complex with the addition of steam power, the Capitalist came into their own by supplying capital that was beyond the means of a single tradesman.

The expense of machines gave rise to the factory system to defray the cost.

Automation is a natural outcome of this trajectory of economic development. It is nothing new. It is not radical.

What is radical is the disappearnce of labourers from Department II.

Read more!

Karl Marx (4)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that there is no longer any distinction between workers and owners.

This is the political philosophy of the ownership society. The idea was to get all people to become supporters of the Capitalism system through:

• Home ownership
• Share ownership

This is the basis of the claim that there is no longer any distinction between workers and owners. The argument is that everyone can become an owner by participating in the share and housing market.

This political philosophy started with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This was to garner political support for:

• Breaking up the uniosn
• Lowering taxes
• Reducing welfare

Unfortunately, this political philosophy fell afoul of the concentrating tendencies of Capitalism. Wealth accumulates into fewer and fewer hands. This is one of the laws of motion of Capitalism.

This was demonstrated time after time with the share market crashes of 1987, 2000, and 2008. There was the Savings and Loans crisis (and the building society crisis) of the 1980's, and the Great Financial crisis of 2008.

Capitalism cannot, by itself, extend the ownership class. More and more people must be reduced from owners to workers.

The politcal nature of Capitalism means that the ruling elite must become smaller and smaller as Capitalism becomes more and more successful.

The owners are becoming workers, not the other way around.

Read more!

Karl Marx (3)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that Capitalism will not fail because it has not failed yet.

Nassim Taleb would call this the “Turkey Problem”. It is the problem of predicting the future based on past behaviour. Tha turkey knows that the farmer has treated it well for the past few years. Based on that experience, the turkey can confidently predict that the farmer will continue to do so. This works until the farmer kills the turkey in order to sell to the meat processor.

Read more!

Karl Marx (2)

Following on from my post on Karl Marx, I want to argue against the idea that Capitalism is the only system that allows individuals to develop themselves.

In Capitalism, the only people who can develop their full potential are the Capitalists. They have the independent means to own the means of production. This gives them the freedom to develop themselves.

The workers, on the other hand, have their individuality crushed so as to be better integrated into the production process. What the boss says, goes.

Thus for everyone to be able to develop themselves, everyone has to own the means of production. This is the basis of Communism.

However, the productive forces has to be developed to such an extent that the people involved no longer have to be crushed to fit into the system.

Read more!

Karl Marx

Just watched a TV program about Karl Marx which is part of the Masters of Money TV series.

My problems with the program are:

• Capitalism is the only system that allows individuals to develop themselves
• Communism is all about enforced collectivism
• Capitalism will not fail because it has not failed yet
• Communism oppressed the workers
• There is no longer any distinction between workers and owners
• Automation has changed the way Capitalism works

Read more!

Friedrich Hayek (4)

Continuing my thoughts about Friedrich Hayek directly from my previous post here.

My third objection to the central thesis of Hayek is that the lack of understanding does not preclude intervention.

I think Hayek believes markets to be a natural phenomenon. I disagree with this idea of markets being natural. Markets are an artificial construction. Humans have constructed markets. They obey rules perculiar to humans.

Yet, the essence of Hayek's objection to government intervention in the workings of markets is that noone understands how markets work, and therefore any intervention is likely to be incorrect.

This seems to be an argument that academic knowledge is superior to practical knowledge and therefore must precede it. Nassim Talebi in his book, "Antifragility", argues strongly against this superiority of academic knowledge. He woild argue that practical knowledge is superior and precedes the emergence of acadamic knowledge.

Talebi seems to argue that intervention must be justified in that benefits must exceed the cost of doing nothing. Talebi's argument against intervention is based on cost-benefit analysis rather than ignorance in Hayek's argument. Talebi would argue that intervention would work under conditions of ignorance.

Read more!

Capitalism is so broken it can’t be fixed

Yves Smith points to Capitalism is so broken it can’t be fixed.

The amazing thing is this an article in the Wall Street Journal! Are Capitalists doubting Capitalism?

The question raised is:

This obsessive short-term thinking is capitalism’s biggest problem, and a huge one for America. But nobody wants to ask the hardest question of all: If capitalism is America’s core problem, why save capitalism?

But what is this Capitalism the article rails against? It would be that the idea of Capitalism is self-evident to the readers.

The author does not delve into what Capitalism is. Not like what Karl Marx did. In order to understand what Capitalism is, one must define it in its essentials. Marx said that the essence of Capitalism is the cycle of converting Money (M) into Commodities (C) which are converted to Money (M'). Hopefully, the quantity of Money (M) starting out is less than the quantity (M') ended up with. That is, a profit was realised as a result of the investment in the production of the commodity (C).

Once one has a definition of Capitalism, one can see that what people sees as problems in Capitalism is the result of what Capitalism. These problems are not caused by the improper implementation or having the wrong people involved.

The problems with Capitalism arise from the realisation of profit. A capitalist who makes a profit has more money and is therefore able to make greater profits in the next investment cycle. So, the wealth accrues to smaller and smaller fractions of the population. Inequality results from the natural functioning of Capitalism.

This rising inequality results in underconsumption by the rest of the population. They lack the means to purchase the commodities produced, so profits cannot be realised as readily. Thus, a bust follows. Hence the business cycle.

Read more!

Friedrich Hayek (3)

Continuing my thoughts about Friedrich Hayek directly from my previous post here.

There I asserted that markets are not optimal determiners of prices or demand.

Say that there a market of 100 people each with $1. And 90% want product A and the remainder want product B. So, the efficient allocation of investment would be 90% for production of A and 10% for production of B. In reality, nearly all investment would be for the production of A leading to an oversupply of A and a shortage of B.

Now assume that ten (10) people have $10 each, and the rest nothing. Of the ten (10), nine (9) want product B and one (1) wants product B. Of the rest, 81 wants A and nine (9) wants B. This is the same proportion of people who prefer product A or B as in the previous example. Now, the efficient allocation of investment is 90% for production of B, and 10% for A—a reversal of the previous example. In reality, we would get an oversupply of B and a shortage of A. This is contrary to the wishes of the population.

The disparity of wealth in the market leads to distortions in investment allocation.

Even if the market starts with equal distribution of wealth, disparities in wealth develop over time as the people who make more profitable investment decisions accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

Read more!

Fredrich Hayek (2)

Continuing my thoughts about Friedrich Hayek directly from my previous post here.

Five years ago, I made a more extensive comment at "Who’s Afraid of Friedrich Hayek?".

Yesterday, I asserted that governments serves the interests of the ruling class.

Hayek seemed to be saying that governments are a foreign element in the market economy. He says that it is the intervention of governments that inhibit the efficient working of markets. The origin of this inefficiency is the inability for anyone to completely understands how markets work.

Under Capitalism, the mythology is that the government sits in a Bonapartist position of mediating between competing interests. These interests are assumed to be between business, unions, and the public. In fact, the government mediates between factions of the Capitalist class. The relative strength of these factions determines the direction of government policy.

Any policies that seem to benefit persons outside of the Capitalist class are bribes to keep the non-Capitalists quiet.

Read more!

Friedrich Hayek

Some comments about Friedrich Hayek.

I have watched a TV program about Hayek. The gist of his ideas presented in that program is that the government should let the markets be free of all interference because the economy is too complicated to be understood fully.

Some of my objections to Hayek's central ideas are:

• Governments serves the interests of the ruling class.
• Markets are not optimal determiners of prices or demand.
• Lack of understanding does not preclude intervention.

Read more!

Is mathbabe a terrorist or a lazy hippy? (#OWS)

Cathy O'Neil asks if Is mathbabe a terrorist or a lazy hippy? (#OWS).

O'Neil contends that the Occupy Movement is “scary” because;

It’s our ideas that threaten, not our violence. We ignore the rules, when they oppress and when they make no sense and when they serve to entrench an already entrenched elite. And ignoring rules is sometimes more threatening than breaking them.

This setting aside of rules was part the ethos of the Occupy Movement which O'Neil says were:

• that we must overcome or even ignore structured and rigid rules to help one another at a human level,
• that we must connect directly with suffering and organically respond to it as we each know how to, depending on circumstances, and
• that moral and ethical responsibilities are just plain more important than rules.

It is interesting that the State had to respond with violence against the Occupy Movement. The system had run out of ideas to counter the movement. And, yet, this is not the first time the State has done this:

• The Civil Rights Movement (see Deacons for Defense).
• The Anti-War Movement of the 1960's and 1970's
• Rachel Corrie

In 2005, I had posted a table about four (4) non-violent protests with their outcomes in Trucker Blockades - One Day On. The interesting one for me has always been the Rosenstrasse protests which succeeded against the Nazi regime. But that protest was not a clash of ideas. The regime could live with the outcome.

The ideas raised by the Occupy Movement threaten the Capitalist system. Other ideas in the past did the same when the social conservatives sought to maintain the status quo. The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism reflected on the tension between the political and economic forces within the Capitalist elite. In many times in the past, Capitalism has successfully absorbed these new progressive forces after trying to violently supress them.

Read more!

Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit

Barry Ritholtz points via his 10 Friday AM Reads to the case “Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit” by David Graeber in The Baffler.

Graeber wonders:

Where, in short, are the flying cars? Where are the force fields, tractor beams, teleportation pods, antigravity sleds, tricorders, immortality drugs, colonies on Mars, and all the other technological wonders any child growing up in the mid-to-late twentieth century assumed would exist by now? Even those inventions that seemed ready to emerge—like cloning or cryogenics—ended up betraying their lofty promises. What happened to them?

In contrast to The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism, Graeber argues that the social conservative nature of Capitalism is holding back break=through innovations such as listed above. Instead, the Capitalists are providing incremental improvements as an illusion that Capitalism is a progressive force.

Defenders of capitalism make three broad historical claims: first, that it has fostered rapid scientific and technological growth; second, that however much it may throw enormous wealth to a small minority, it does so in such a way as to increase overall prosperity; third, that in doing so, it creates a more secure and democratic world for everyone. It is clear that capitalism is not doing any of these things any longer. In fact, many of its defenders are retreating from claiming that it is a good system and instead falling back on the claim that it is the only possible system—or, at least, the only possible system for a complex, technologically sophisticated society such as our own.

In other words, Capitalism is running out of ideas that keep the current social order while maintaining the impetus of historical changes that Capitalism has unleashed. The concentration of wealth means that the spread of ideas among the elite is restricted by the small numbers involved and their defensive attitude towards wealth retention. They do not want to rock the boat, yet they must fight off anyone who tries to climb aboard.

Read more!

Government & Big Banks Join Forces to Violently Crush Peaceful Protests

Barry Ritholz reposts an argument that Government & Big Banks Join Forces to Violently Crush Peaceful Protests is the manifestation of Fascism in the USA:

The definition of fascism used by Mussolini is the “merger of state and corporate power“. Government and the big banks are in a malignant, symbiotic relationship. And our economy now exhibits a merger of state and bank power.

This is a different definition from that given by Trotsky (see Fascism: What it is and how to fight it):

At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium -- the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

The article reposted by Ritholtz indicates that the instruments of State oppression are still functioning to hold dissent in place by successfully crushing the Occupy movement.

Yet, as I argued in Proto-Fascism in the USA, Fascism could still arise if the Capitalist system fails the petite-bourgeoisie.

What is being described in this post is not Fascism, but merely the naked expression of state power in support of the Capitalist system. Fascism could still develop out of the Tea Party.

Read more!

The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism

Barry Ritholtz's 10 New Year’s Eve Reads points to The Unhappy Marriage of Capitalism and Conservatism by Nancy Folbre who writes that:

The economic interests of capitalists (defined as those who earn most of their income from capital) are beginning to diverge significantly from the interests of social conservatives (defined as those who prefer traditional gender relations and oppose government efforts to promote racial and ethnic equality).

As recounted by Folbre, this has always been the case during the history of Capitalism. The social conservatives have always sought to defend their existing privileges gained through an earlier stage of Capitalism against those who have gained from economic changes. The political struggle has always been about the alignment of political power with economic reality.

Folbre lists three (3) areas where the conflict between conservatism and Capitalism has occurred:

1. One of the most beneficial consequences of a pattern of capitalist development shaped by political democracy was a growing demand for human capital that helped members of previously disempowered groups compete effectively for economic success and political leadership.
2. …the polarization of income itself reflects the evolution of a partly denationalized form of capitalism in which our largest companies create more jobs in other countries than at home and minimize their tax payments in overseas tax shelters.
3. …the role that the powerful banking sector played in the recession highlighted growing divisions within the business community.

I think Folbre misses the point that Capitalism is a dynamic system as opposed to slavery or Feudalism. By its very nature, Capitalism is always seeking new ways to make profits. Any Capitalist who becomes a conservative dooms themself.

It is this dynamic of Capitalism that has confounded Communists who followed the dictum that revolutions tend to occur when the political superstructure does not match the economic reality. The Communists had expected the revolutions to overthrow Capitalism, not sustain it as in the following crises:

• The growth in political power of the union movement through the rise of the Labour Parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries;
• The extension of suffrage, in stages, to:
• All white men
• All white women
• All adults
• The creation of the welfare state as seen in 'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'
• The Civil Right's Movement
• The Land Right's Movement
• The Women's Movement

All of these covulsions have been absorbed into the Capitalist system. The danger for the Capitalist system is when it is no longer willing to absorb these changes. Such changes that need to be absorbed are:

• Gay Marriage
• Refugee Rights
• Climate Change
• Third World Debt

Read more!

Why Next to No Political Reaction to the Second Gilded Age?

Mark Thoma comments on Why Next to No Political Reaction to the Second Gilded Age?, by Brad DeLong.

DeLong asks:

But the political economy of Gilded Ages? Why the first Gilded age produces a Populist and a Progressive reaction and the second, so far, does not? There I throw up my hands and say that my economic historian training betrays me. I have no clue as to what is going on here.

Thoma's response is:

I think it matters a lot whether we think of inequality as arising from a problem in the system as a whole, or as the result of individual failures. When people think it's the system as a whole — the rich and powerful are scheming to hold everyone else down (e.g. robber barons) — mass movements are more likely than when it is viewed as simply the failings of individuals.

I think both DeLong and Thoma miss several important points:

• The populist movements of the early 20th Century arose as a reaction to several trends:
• The great depression of the 1890's
• The rapid industrialisation of the USA from 1890 to 1930 as agriculture gave way to industry as the main employer
• Rise of Socialist thought (among which was Marxism and the various strands of Anarchism)
• The rapid growth and radicalisation of the union movement in response to these trends
• In the past 30 years, the union movement has been defeated again and again. The main defensive weapon of the workers is now in a much weaker state now than a century ago.
• In the 1930's, there was a serious alternative to the Capitalist system in the form of the USSR. Ideologically and economically, Communism was seen as superior to Capitalism especially during the Great Depression.
• The fall of the USSR has removed that alternative from the public consciousness.
• There have been several significant mass movements over the past 15 years:
• The Anti-Globalisation movements starting in Seattle in 1999.
• The Anti-War movements of 2003. (See 15 February 2003)
• The various Occupy movements starting in 2011.
• The Arab Spring starting in 2012

I think the populist movements alluded to be DeLong and Thoma were the last real chance of the Capitalist system to bribe the workers away from Communism. The advent of neo-liberalism has destroyed that project once and for all.

There is a political reaction to the second Gilded Age, but it is muted as the traditional expressions of popular will have been emasculated.

Read more!

The 12 Step Program for Recovery From Stupid Capitalism

Ted Rall offers his The 12 Step Program for Recovery From Stupid Capitalism.

Among his steps are:

6. Understand that radical change is usually impossible without revolutionary overthrow of the state and the destruction of the ruling class and the stupid capitalist system that sustains it.

7. Accept that revolutionary movements require a combination of nonviolent and violent tactics in order to have a chance of succeeding.

8. Make common cause with anyone and everyone opposed to the existing order, no matter how repugnant, because nothing else matters until we have emancipated ourselves.

Point #8 is problematic because, during a revolution, the situation is very fluid. Having the wrong ideas can lead one into a dead end which may be impossible to get out of.

Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution re-iterates time and again that the revolutionary party must have the confidence of the revolutionary masses. The party can only gain that confidence by having:

1. Correct assessment of the situation;
2. Correct actions for the situation

The second depends on the first. The second is very difficult to achieve, and mistakes will be made. The important thing, however, is recover quickly from those mistakes.

In the Russian Revolutions of 1917, the Bolshevik Party initially failed in both cases. It had failed to assess the situation of the February Revolution correctly and thereby take the correct actions.

It was not until Lenin returned, and started agitation for a realignment that the Bolshevik Party started to make a correct assessment. This was not enough to gain the confidence of the revolutionary masses because the Party had failed to act correctly during the February Revolution.

This came to a head during the defeat of the July Days. The Party had finally gained the correct assessment, and came with a programme of action which was rejected by the revolutionary masses.

But, it was this defeat that started the long process of building confidence of the revolutionary masses in the Bolshevik Party and in itself. This process made the October Revolution possible.

I would have to reject Rall's point #8 in general, but we can use a weaker version called the United Front in which aims are shared, and general principles are agreed. It is not possible to for a Bolshevik type party to join forces with another party that espouses racist policies and actions. Although the aims may be similar, the versions of society we are trying to build are anathema to each other.

Read more!

Workers burn boss to death

Workers burn boss to death in India. The police say that the workers are quite open about admitting what they did.

The proximate reasons for these murders (of the boss and his wife) are given as:

• Police have reported the situation escalated when management asked some workers to leave their accommodation
• The bosses had allegedly taken church land
• The bosses were also accused of being rude, especially to the women
• One female worker said that They deserved to be killed as the planter has exploited us for a long time and tortured us for petty things.

Once again, the women lead the way in fighting back against oppression that is sexual and economic. This was also the case in the French and Russian Revolutions. Even the birth of the Roman Republic was said to originate in the backlash by the Roman populace against the sexual abuse by the Etuscan rulers.

What amazes me is how unafraid the workers are of the police. The workers were freely admitting what they had done. The instruments of state oppression are clearly not working to protect the scum of the Capitalist class.

Read more!

'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'

Mark Thoma comments on A Conservative Case for the Welfare State, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, NY Times at 'A Conservative Case for the Welfare State'.

Thoma comments that:

If conservatives want to support the welfare state out of the desire to defend capitalism from "socialists and communists" -- to defend it against the instability that high degrees of inequality cause -- no problem, though it's interesting that they would acknowledge that the system itself can lead to societal inequities that are so dangerous the government needs to intervene to fix them.

Emphasis Mine

Thoma is pointing to the contradiction in the conservative's position. This is the realisation that there is a flaw in the capitalist model through its instability and inequality. Yet, Marx said that this is the fundamental law of Capitalism: Wealth concentrates naturally under Capitalism.

However, Bartlett contends that American conservatives are blind to this. They are fervent believers in the functioning of the market to solve all of societal ills despite having no empirical evidence that it does.

Yet, Bartlett does not examine the primacy source of wealth that underpins the welfare state of Western Europe — third world debt. This debt funnels wealth from the Third World in order to bribe the proletariat into accepting the current state of affairs. This is also the reason that debt forgiveness is never going to be achieved under Capitalism. The stability of the system is too dependent on the harsh exploitation of the rest of the world.

Thoma's own opinion on why government intervention is required is that:

I prefer the efficiency argument (which is not to say that the other argument has no merit, it does).

Here, Thoma sidesteps the political meaning of Government intervention by appealing to efiiciency. This is a neutral term to cover the brutal reality of the welfare state.

Read more!

Deacons for Defense

Dan Little reflects on the tension between self-defense and non-violence in Deacons for Defense.

Most of the story we remember of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s centers around the philosophy of non-violence espoused by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the major civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the SCLC. A few historians give emphasis to a very different part of the movement in the South, however — a movement that was based on armed self-defense by local people.

Little notes that the history of the Civil Rights movement in the USA is silent about self-defense of communities against the violence of white people. He speculates that:

But there is no discussion of the self-defense movement in Mississippi and the ideas that underlay the philosophy of self-defense that were the core of the Deacons for Defense. One possible reason for this has to do with how the narrative was framed at the time. The mainstream civil rights movement itself did not approve of the self-defense movement, and its leaders shaped the narrative towards moral protest and the philosophy of non-violence.

Another possible reason for neglect of the self-defense organizations that emerged in the South early 1960s is the idea that these organizations were harmful to the progress of the struggle for political and civil rights, and that violent conflicts between police, national guard, klansmen, and deacons were likely to lead to a bloodbath throughout the black population. … The idea here is that the balance of power so greatly favored the forces of white supremacy that armed self-defense was likely to produce horrible retaliation.

Emphasis Mine

Little concludes that:

There is a clear logic to the idea that the non-violent movement needed support from men and women who were willing to face armed attackers with their own guns, and Hill offers a number of strong examples of incidents where klan and police thugs were forced to back off.

The question of non-violence centres about the moral superiority of non-violence overcomes the actual violence of the oppression.

Read more!