Left Forum discussion-5 of 5

Left Forum '09
Panel: Marx's 'Kapital' and the Economic Crisis
speakers:
Brendan Cooney
Andrew Kliman
Alan Freeman
Chair:Rahdika Desai

Category:

Education

Tags:

• marx
• capital
• falling
• rate
• of
• profit
• crisis
• class
• value
• andrew
• kliman
• alan
• freeman
• brendan
• cooney
• tssi
• temporal

[tatamtatam1]

Thanks a lot for recording and uploading this.

What's the name of the guy between you and Alan Freeman?

[brendanmcooney]

There was a 4th panelist who asked not to have his talk or his name posted online.

[RedJacobin]

Thanks for posting this Cooney.

[tatamtatam1]

oh, OK. thanks for uploading, anyway.

PS.: I've ordered and am going to read Andrew Kliman's book in a few days time when it arrives! very exciting...

[brendanmcooney]

No i don't assume a universal will. i assume democratic decision making. This doesn't imply some sort of empowered arbiter that is able to influence the democratic process unequally.

Secondly- anyone can see that a social order implies some sort of consent to the status quo and some sort of rule of law. So what? Are you saying this is no different qualitatively than "social control" in its bourgeois form? Such an argument deprives us of the class content of social organization.

[hume12345]

you assume there won't be any disagree between collective members. in any dispute someone has to arbiter the outcome. let's call this arbiter, management. to have a leader is hierarchical. how else would you define it? hierarchy and collectivism require a general acceptance from the people, just as both ideologies require some level of control over their members in order to maintain the status quo. no anarchist is willing to address this point. force is inherent in everything we do, how is this

[brendanmcooney]

Why does collective ownership require non-collective "management"? I am deeply suspicious of any argument that says "This is just the way it is." Social structures have very few eternal characteristics. This leads me to question some of your assumptions: is delegating some decision-making to a leader automatically hierarchical? Why do you assume a collective generates conformity more than a hierarchical workplace? How has hierarchy been "preferred" thru history and not imposed?

[hume12345]

whose defining exploitation? theres nothing coercive about collective ownership, viewed from the owner's perspective, but for the person(s) who manage the property there will be. all anthropological (and to some degree the wider animal kingdom) social structures are hierarchial. whether from need or some perceived efficiency it has been (barring a few aberrations) the preferred choice of governance. collectives have their own problems. who wants to be part of a non genetic hive mentality.

[brendanmcooney]

I would agree that any system of social relations implies some limits to individual action, but I'm not sure this is always coercive, or if it is, we may be defining coercion in a way that takes all usefulness from the term. If productive property were owned collectively how would this be coercive?

Why do you say exploitation always follows from coercion? In a school teachers exercise coercive authority over students but students aren't exploited. If anything, the teacher is exploited.

[hume12345]

@brendan, sorry i didn't mean any offence. it wasn't my intention and i can see my wording leaves alot to be desired, though the premise stands. I'm not argueing in favour in capitalism, i understand it's flaws and believe we can do better. the problem lies in solutions capitalism solves and which other systems of commerce don't. to answer your initial response, coercion is a necessary tool in society. where there's coercion, exploitation will follow.