Monday, June 30, 2014
CAPITALISM DOES HAVE A “TOP”…!
RELIGION HAS FAILED ALSO…! It is merely a Social imaginary beliefs activity…!
Carl MARX…! CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM.
Immanuel Kant…! CRITIQUE OF REASON . Morals rise from reason not religion.
Wages, prices, real estate, cannot go on forever increasing prices…!
General Motors is in trouble again, nooo!, the dealers….! As I PREDICTED…! THERE ARE NO SALES…!
GM Canada dealers sue company as sales plummet Add to …
The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 29 2014, 5:36 PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Jun. 30 2014, 5:38 AM EDT
A group of prominent General Motors of Canada Ltd. dealers is suing the company and its parent General Motors Co., saying the auto maker has ignored their repeated pleas for financial help to address a dramatic drop in sales and market share.
GM Canada’s market share in the Greater Toronto Area plunged more than 50 per cent between 2008 and 2013, hitting just 5.6 per cent last year, according to the suit by 17 Toronto-area dealers. The list of dealers includes operators of some of the biggest GM dealerships in the country and some whose relationship with the company goes back to the 1920s.
Marx’s Critique of Capitalism
First, Marx does not offer a theory of price (as is the case with mainstream neoclassical
theory (micro-economics). Instead, his interest is in seeing what are the
mechanisms of capitalist reproduction. That is, what are the processes of capitalist
production, what must happen, what must agents believe, what are the problems that need
to be solved if the system is to keep going. Capital is subtitled, “A critique of Political
Economy” in just this sense.
Second, Marx would not deny that there are huge differences between concrete
capitalistic societies, e.g., the capitalism which he studied, American capitalism in the
1990s, Japanese or Philippine capitalism. He proceeded by abstraction and found what he
thought were the essential or defining features of any capitalist society however different
capitalist societies are, e.g., in their actual class arrangements, culture or politics. There
was, for him, an ideal configuration. E.g., liberalism and capitalism work well together
(for reasons which are not hard to find); but no society has to fit exactly this ideal
configuration of elements.
While all societies produce what they need (and usually also a social surplus), the
form which products take when production is organized for generalized exchange is the
commodity, goods and services which are sold. If there is to be exchange, products must
have a use value in the plain sense that they are wanted for the properties they have. But
their exchange ratios (why something costs twice as much as something else) cannot be
explained in terms of the properties which give them use-value. The fundamental insight of
the so-called “labor theory of value” is that commodities share in but one thing: they are all
products of human labor. But not only are there all sorts of commodities, but there are all
sorts of labor. How can products produced by different kinds of labor be commensurated?
(On what dimension can they be compared and put into ratios?) Marx answers that when
we exchange, we reduce ‘heterogeneous” labor to “abstract” labor. As he writes:
“whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act,
we also equate, as human labor, the different kinds of labor expended upon them” (Capital,
What is produced may or may not represent what Marx calls “socially necessary
labor-time,” roughly, the optimal use and allocation of labor, given existing technical
conditions (I: 39). (The tendency of markets to move in this direction is what Marx calls
“the law of value.” It compares to Smith’s “natural price.” For Marx, “value” (exchange
value) equals price if and only if socially necessary labor-time was employed in
production.) The “money-form” conceals both the “absurdity” of the reduction of
heterogeneous labor to abstract labor-time and the fact that this allocation may or may not
be “rational” (in the appropriate sense).
This is the point of the comparison to Robinson Crusoe and to a community of
people rationally allocating their labor-time. Robinson knows how much time he can put
into his various projects if he is to maintain himself and he decides what to do when. A
“communist” community, having established its goals and resources, would do likewise.
Feudalism (and similar pre-capitalist forms) provides a good intermediate case.
The 2 peasants plant and harvest according to the seasons. Everyone is kept in his place by the
ruling lord who holds power and decides what he will take from the serfs. In feudalism,
Marx says, “there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form
different from their reality (I: 77). Payments are in kind and “the social relations between
individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their mutual personal
relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of
Commodity Fetishism and Alienation
It is just this “disguise” which Marx calls “commodity fetishism,” a form of
alienation in which “a definite social relation between men,…assumes, in their eyes, the
fantastic form of a relation between things” (I: 72). Our labor and our products are
“priced.” This defines us as commodities and defines our relations to one another. “The
value of a man,” as Hobbes had already noted, “is his worth, or what would be given for
the use of his powers.” Similarly, when we look for job, we say that “the market”
determines what jobs there are and what they pay. When we shop or look for housing, the
“market” determines what is available and what we have to pay. We “relate” to one other
impersonally as mutually interdependent commodities engaged in generalized exchange.
Marx concludes that “political economy [from Adam Smith to Ricardo and with
antecedents in Hobbes and Locke, ] has indeed analyzed, however incompletely, value and
its magnitude…. But it has never asked the question why labour is represented by the value
of its product and labour-time by the magnitude of that value. These formulae, which bear it
stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which
the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him,
such formulae appear… to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as
productive labour itself” (I: 81).
In nearly all known societies there is a social surplus. Surplus labor is the labortime
not used to maintain the worker. What counts as “maintenance” is conventional and
varies historically. Thus, it may include not merely a dwelling, but a dwelling of certain
sort. There must be surplus labor if cathedrals, e.g., are to be built and lords to be fed and
clothed. In capitalism, however, surplus labor takes the form of surplus value: value
created by the worker which is not necessary for his “maintenance.” Surplus value is the
source of capitalist profit.
Consider the series C-M-C1 where C represents commodities and M represents
money. In this series, if buyers and sellers are “rational,” the money the seller of C got
could only buy C1 if its value equaled C. Unless somebody cheats (or is not “rational”) no
profit is possible. Consider then M-C- M1 . If M1 is greater than M, then there is only one
commodity that can be purchased, labor-power, since it alone can create value. This is
fairly obvious: no capitalist hires somebody to work for him unless that worker gets paid
less than the value of what he produces. Of course, machines increase the efficiency of
workers, but not only do machines need workers but they also represent “concealed labor
power:” they were also made by humans. Parenthetically, this fact is critical for Marx’s
argument that there will be tendency for a falling rate of profit. Capitalists, necessarily
3 interested in cost-reduction, will try to cheapen labor costs, either by increasing the
efficiency of workers or by finding workers who will work at lower wages. But this also
reduces the value of the product and hence, the source of profit.)
In slavery and serfdom, exploitation is obvious. Everyone knows who has power
and that coercion is available to enforce who gets what. In capitalism, as social relations
are “disguised” and relations are literally, “impersonal,” being relations between things,
so is exploitation. Marx agrees with conventional economists who insist that in capitalism,
workers get “what they worth,” since as before, equals exchange for equals. So workers
are not cheated by employers and no coercion is used against them. They accept their
wages “voluntarily” and thus think of themselves as “free.” But “wage slavery” is still
slavery since workers must sell their labor-power to those who own the means of life—the
defining feature of capitalism and the fundamental division of class in capitalism. But since
only labor can create value and profit has its source in surplus value, exploitation in
capitalism is systemic (structural) even while it is “disguised.”
Capitalism, Law and Government
The foregoing all depends upon a juridical system which defines private property,
contract and the rights of men. (See especially I: 76). Capitalist reproduction can minimize
coercion if people accept liberal ideology including, critically, a “republican” form of
regime in which they are “sovereign people” even if, on the one hand, as Rousseau, had
noted, they have alienated all their power to “governments” and even if, accordingly, their
governments act only to reproduce capitalism.
Contradictions in Capitalism
The fundamental contradiction is between private appropriation and social
production. This is easily seen by expanding our M-C-M circuit. Money buys labor which
creates another commodity, e.g., cars, which then must be sold if surplus is “realized.”
This explains, of course, the huge efforts at marketing. But as it clear, if the workers are not
paid enough to buy the cars, we will have a depression: Cars will sit in lots, workers will
then get laid off making the problem even worse—in a increasing downward spiral.
There are a number of ways to address this problem (which for Marx, cannot in the
long run be solved). One way is to open new markets: Globalization. Another way is to get
the state to be a buyer: the defense industry, WW II, or for the state to subsidize, directly
and indirectly, capitalists and consumption, e.g., through tax breaks, bailouts. (Keynes
thought that this could be managed by manipulating taxes and the interest rate, which thus,
influence “aggregrate demand.”) So far, of course, Marx has been proven wrong: the
contradictions have not created the conditions predicted by the Manifesto.
…generally they have to start the game of money the kids play called MONOPOLY, all over again, with RE-EVALUATION OF MONEY AND PRICES…!
THAT IS: FOR EXAMPLE, 100$ turns into 10$, 0.10$ BECOMES 0.001$, ETC, your house turns from 100,000$ into 10,000$-50,000$, etc… Prices of 30-50 years ago…!
TO RE-START THE ONE ROUTE CAPITALISM GAME ALL OVER AGAIN…!
WHY ? BECAUSE WAGES HAVE COME TO A TOP…! YOU CANNOT INCREASE WAGES, IN ACCORDANCE TO OTHER THINGS, MUCH ANY MORE…! YOU RUN OUT OF CURRENCY CAPACITY PRINTING AND COUNTRY PRODUCTION AND GDP…!
WHY ? BECAUSE THE WHITE COLLAR THIEF’S AND RICH TOOK IT ALL, and caused the Government to bail out BANKS, and the Government does not want to BAIL OUT AGAIN…!
WHY ? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT AFFORD MORE FORECLOSURES, and Employment Insurance, and more peasants, ENDLESSLY, AS THE STATISTICS WOULD SHOW SOON THEIR SYSTEM DOES NOT REALLY WORK…!
why ? because strange source money, cannot run the World economy either, they also have a usage limit…!