news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
Value and circulation. MMT is not completely wrong, it's just incomplete. And it's weird to see incomplete alternative economic theories pop up again and again who's main selling point is avoiding the term Marxism. Keynesianism is another example. And there was this weird phase in US anarchism, where a whole lot of anarcho-capitalists finally started becoming anti-capitalist (which is good of course) and they wrote a whole book about it like they just personally came up with the idea capitalism is bad for the first time ever. And it's weird every time because, like, Marx is right over there, way, way in the back of the economics departments library. Ready to be read whenever you decide to become a serious scientist.
Even David Harvey started out like this. He just started calling himself a Marxist after people had repeatedly pointed out to him that he had become one. And his response was something like like:"Oh, I guess I am a Marxist then. I didn't set out to become one, I was just looking for theory that makes sense for a change."
Of course, most economists would do everything to avoid being called a Marxist in order to keep their funding. And that's where things like MMT come in.
Thanks for the comment! It's very frustrating when people call themselves "Marxist economists" and then throw out the most fundamental concepts. You have the "no bullshit" Marxists who try to erase dialectics. You have Keynesians or MMTers who stumble upon Marx's ideas and try to reinvent the wheel. In the most egregious cases you have people trying to reinvent the logic of Marxism with neoclassical concepts.
David Harvey is an interesting academic in that, from what I can gather, he seems to have imperialism flipped on its head - saying that its Global North workers who are actually exploited by the global South. WTF
And of course all of these so called "Marxists" wouldn't touch revolutionary practice with a ten foot pole.
Really? I didn't hear him saying that. But he does seem to have a rare speech impediment, that prevents him from saying the word imperialism: here is his friend and comrad Vijay Prashad rightly and brilliantly chewing him out for that.
Thanks for the video link! Watching it now.
And here are some articles from John Smith (author of Capitalism in the 21st Century) where he critiques Harvey's claim that imperialism is no longer a useful term (an "old category" as he claims) and that China and the developing nations are actually exploiting the developed nations.
David Harvey Denies Imperialism
Imperialist Realities vs the Myths of David Harvey
I don't even agree fully with Smith's views on China, he's more critical than I am, but even Smith lambasts Harvey's views that imperialism has been reversed and now the poor Westerners suffer at the hands of China.
Harvey's States the following in his commentary on Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik’s A Theory of Imperialism:
Without showing any data, Harvey throws up his hands, says that "its complicated" and then assures us that it's actually the developing world that is exploiting us!
And Harvey's 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism doesn't list imperialism as one of the contradictions. That alone may not be much of an argument against Harvey, thoigh you can be damned sure that I would have listed it as the principal contradiction, of our times. Harvey only mentions imperialism is eight times by name scattered about the text, but he makes his point known when he states
The data doesn't support Harvey's claim. Research by Hexbear's beloved Jason Hickle (no, not Jackson Hinkle) shows:
I've noticed an attempt by academics to reconceptualize imperialism as having roots in The State and not in Capitalism itself (as if the State can be separated from class in the first place)
In addition to Harvey's abysmal takes on Imperialism, shade has been thrown at him for claiming that Marx didn't actually have a theory of value. So just throw all that value nonsense out the window according to him.
A criticism by Michael Roberts
And one by Cockshott. Warning that this dude sucks. Big transphobe and thinks there is a CIA plot to push Big Gay. I list him, though, as his blog piece lists multiple sources for empirical evidence of the law of value.
I totally feel and understand your frustration. Vijay Prashad is great though, isn't he? The thing about Marxists is, that they are always pretty harsh with each other, always polemic, but still comrades in the end. So I won't take sides against any of the people you mentioned in general but still disagree with them on certain points. I've read biting polemics critiquing Michael Roberts too. And Harvey's Answer to Smith isn't pulling punches either. I guess some stuff might have been taken out of context and he definitely spend decades teaching thousands of students Marx's labor theory of value. I'm still thankful to Harvey for getting so many people to read Marx, even if I've grown beyond lots of stuff and always looked to other teachers for insight on imperialism.
In the end, it's not purity of theory that counts, but the impact on organizing movements. People who read theory on that level to inform their on the ground organizing efforts can definitely think for themselves anyway and will only take what is useful for their place and time and leave the rest.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Can you give more details on these people and this book? I always found ancaps very ideologically incoherent, wondering how they got around to reinventing Marxism using their own theory
This was some years ago. I tried, but couldn't find it again. Crimethinc is a bit like this though. They were never anarcho-capitalist, but they changed from vaguely apolitical lifestyle individualism in the 90s to actual anti-capitalism around the time they wrote this book called "Work" in 2012.
Gotcha, seems like a similar trajectory to many comrades who were more liberal - when they figure out the end result of "free" market competition it's almost a straight line towards Marx