Shadowing Practice: Marxism vs libertarianism: The economic calculation problem - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
532 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
Yes, so as the chair has alluded to, this term ECP, the economic calculation problem,
2
is one that you won't necessarily come across unless you go online a lot, particularly if you visit socialist YouTube channels like our own.
3
And there you'll find under the video in the comments section lots of right-wing trolls saying ECP, ECP.
4
And in fact, I don't think we're being live stream, but when this video goes up, I imagine underneath that video will be lots of right-wing trolls saying ECP, ECP.
5
They probably Googled the term and accidentally stumbled across a Marxist perspective on the question.
6
And now it's seen by libertarian zealots
7
and defenders of capitalism as one of the key arguments against socialism and in favor of capitalism and the free market.
8
In short, it's the assertion
9
that planning of the economy is impossible due to the immense complexity of the modern economy
10
and that instead we should put our faith in the invisible hand of the market
11
and the so-called dynamism and rigors of competition.
12
Now in reply to these right-wing trolls we might suggest
13
that they simply open up a copy of the newspaper today
14
or in fact if they They can pull themselves away from the keyboard, head down to the shops
15
and the petrol stations where they'll find a very fine demonstration of the wonders and efficiency of the so-called free market.
16
What we see is that it's not Hugo Chavez's Venezuela,
17
but Boris Johnson's Britain, where we have basic necessities like food and fuel in shortage and scarcity,
18
where we have 100,000 pigs, I think it is, that are going to be slaughtered and thrown to waste
19
simply because of the cold logic of profit and the anarchy of the market, where we have hundreds of thousands of empty homes used as vehicles for speculation,
20
meanwhile, a huge housing crisis, where we have the choice this winter between heating and eating, or in the energy sector, between blackouts and bailouts.
21
And on a global scale, you see, of course, the massive breakdown of supply chains.
22
You see the huge amount of labor shortages across the economy alongside the threat of mass unemployment.
23
These are the kind of contradictions that we see under the free market.
24
And last by no means least, of course, is the existential question of the climate catastrophe, whereby capitalism and the free market are literally killing the planet.
25
Now, all of this really highlights the bankruptcy of capitalism, a system of production for profit rather than need.
26
It shows the limits of the market
27
and it shows why we need to be able to argue for a socialist alternative based on economic planning, public ownership and workers control.
28
Now, all of these examples I've just highlighted, they certainly led the frenzied free marketeers to go a little bit more quiet online and on the streets in recent years.
29
Now, when we're selling the socialist appeal, you don't get quite so many people coming up to you telling you
30
that communism and socialism don't work because it's their system that isn't working.
31
Nevertheless, the fundamental position that they defend, the idea of the efficiency of the market,
32
is the one you will find put forward in economic departments of universities across the world
33
and of course in the textbooks that the bourgeois promote as well, where they say that the economy is basically a set of graphs,
34
a set of equations, of mathematical models, and it's some sort of idealized system in their heads
35
which would be in perfect kind of equilibrium and harmony
36
if only it weren't for pesky trade unionists demanding higher wages
37
or central bankers printing too much money or in fact politicians erecting barriers to free trade.
38
Now it's vital therefore
39
that we arm ourselves with the arguments as I said to
40
make the case for socialist planning instead of this chaos of capitalism
41
but most importantly we need to arm ourselves with an understanding of how capitalism works
42
and how it doesn't and that understanding can only be provided by the ideas of Marxism.
43
Now this so-called economic calculation debate has been going on for roughly a hundred years
44
and really you'll see it's a theoretical battle that's waged on
45
one side by the libertarians with the support of big business and right-wing politicians, of course.
46
And on the other side, you've got socialists of various stripes who've defended socialist planning.
47
Now, it's worth, first of all, going back really and looking at the origins of libertarianism,
48
which can trace its theoretical lineage back to something called the Austrian school.
49
And the most famous, infamous, if you like, representatives of the Austrian school were people like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.
50
And they in turn saw themselves really as the inheritors, the true inheritors of the liberal classical economists,
51
the bourgeois economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
52
Now, economics as a field of study really emerged with the rise of capitalism.
53
And it was a field known as political economy.
54
And what it saw was thinkers who tried to understand capitalism scientifically.
55
They tried to understand and examine this system of capitalism with its laws and its dynamics.
56
They didn't see it as simply a set of mathematical models and abstract series of equations.
57
And really the high point of this came, as I said, with figures like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the British economists,
58
who were these kind of liberal enlightenment types who themselves reflected the rise of the bourgeoisie
59
and the rise of British capitalism in particular, which was seeking to break open the world market in its own interest.
60
And therefore, the idea of free trade in the free market
61
that Adam Smith promoted was really the interest of the bourgeoisie in Britain that dominated world capitalism at the time.
62
Now, Marx really left off where,
63
or really continued rather, where Ricardo left off in terms of trying to theoretically and scientifically understand the capitalist system.
64
But unlike Ricciardo, Marx was trying to put himself at the service, not of the bourgeoisie, but of the rising working class movement and the labor movement.
65
He started actually from the same assumptions as David Ricciardo and the classical economists, but developed their ideas further,
66
showing that capitalism was riddled with contradictions, that it was inherently prone to crises because of its own laws and dynamics.
67
The bourgeois economists who followed David Ricardo, therefore, actually had to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
68
They actually had to throw away the scientific materialist method that had been developed by Ricardo and his predecessors.
69
And for that reason, Marx called these people the vulgar economists, because he said now that their job was no longer to try and examine and explain capitalism,
70
but they became mere apologists for capitalism, Marx said.
71
Now, historical developments also played an important role in this,
72
most notably, obviously, the rise of the organized working class and the international socialist movement.
73
Towards the end of the 19th and early 20th century, you saw the development of huge trade unions, mass trade unions, mass socialist parties,
74
and also the foundation of the Second International, the Socialist International, all of which on paper at least,
75
ascribed to Marxism, to scientific socialism to revolution.
76
And these social democratic parties by the early 20th century
77
were winning large percentages of the vote in places like Germany and Austria.
78
20 or 30 percent these workers parties were winning in elections.
79
The ruling class therefore could very much see
80
and sense the threat of this rising workers movement and they therefore began an all-out ideological and political offensive.
81
And the center of this ideological offensive really happened to be in Austria, particularly the University of Vienna,
82
became the epicenter really of these kind of intellectual attacks.
83
Around the turn of the 20th century, you had the development of kind of positive, positivist philosophy.
84
A man called Ernst Mack, who is a professor at University of Vienna,
85
who came up with a very subjective idealist philosophy known as imperial criticism, which started to become quite popular.
86
And Lenin actually felt it so necessary to respond to this philosophy that he wrote the book, Materialism and Imperial Criticism, putting forward a defense of the materialist philosophy.
87
And I don't have time to go into that.
88
I'm sure it's covered and has been covered in other talks this weekend.
89
But Mack and the University of Vienna were then very influential on later philosophical developments like logical positivism, and also particularly people like Karl Popper,
90
another Austrian who also tried to wage an ideological attack against Marxism and in particular the idea of historical materialism.
91
But the economic attack coming out of Vienna was waged by figures and I'm gonna mispronounce this name,
92
I'm sorry in advance to any of the Austrian or Germanic comrades in the room.
93
It was waged by figures like Jochen von Baum Bauack, Anyone?
94
All right, good.
95
And a man called Karl Menger.
96
And that's the last time we're going to try and say their names today.
97
They waged the opening shots against Marxism, against scientific socialism, as it was known.
98
Their opening shots were fired at what's called the labor theory of value, which is really the foundations of Marxist economics.
99
It explains the law of value, which in in turn underpins all of the dynamics really of the capitalist system.
100
And in place of the labor theory of value, they had their own theory called marginal utility theory, which again was a very subjectivist,
101
very idealist perspective based on individual consumer preferences.
102
And this subjectivist theory hadn't just developed out of Vienna, it actually emerged out of other vulgar economists,
103
people like William Stanley Jevons in Britain and Leon Volrus in Switzerland.
104
But it was starting to become popular amongst these bourgeois academics as an alternative to the labor theory of value.
105
Now, it's worth pausing here and asking exactly what is the labor theory of value?
106
Now, it's really a theory that can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, if you want to go far enough.
107
I'm not going to do that today.
108
But it's the idea fundamentally that it's the application of labor in the process of production that makes things valuable.
109
Nature gives us a certain amount of wealth for free, if you like, but it's the application of labor that creates new value within society.
110
And this was a theory that was actually developed by the classical economists, by people like Smith and Ricardo, as a centerpiece of their ideas.
111
And it was then also the foundations, as I said, for Marxist economic ideas also.
112
But the classical view of the labor theory of value Marx showed was very incomplete.
113
It was
114
it was really imbued with all of the kind of individualism
115
that you get because of the liberal traditions and the liberal perspective, the bourgeois perspective that Adam Smith and David Ricardo were coming from.
116
For them, the economy was little more than an addition of lots of individuals.
117
You know, you look at one man working on an island.
118
You look at the writings about Robinson Crusoe slaving away on his island.
119
And, you know, the value for them was to say, okay, well, you know, Robinson Crusoe is stranded on his desert island.
120
He makes a raft out of some trees.
121
He gets some coconuts down from some other trees.
122
It takes half a day to make the raft.
123
It might take half a day to get 10 coconuts.
124
So 10 coconuts are worth one raft.
125
That was effectively the kind of very individualistic viewpoint of the
126
labor theory of value in terms of the amount of labor time going into these different processes,
127
these different commodities, that was really how the classical economists saw the question.
128
And the economy was just scaled up.
129
And, you know, these individuals on a desert island might meet someone else and trade with them.
130
And that would be the basis for the trading is how much individual labor time had gone into these processes, into these commodities.
131
But obviously, that's not what capitalism actually looks like.
132
None of us are trading directly with each other in barter.
133
We go and earn a wage, and we use that wage, that money to go and buy other commodities.
134
And we don't then approach other individual sellers.
135
We go onto Amazon probably or other online stores.
136
And we're confronted not with someone's subjective preferences, but with an objective market price that confronts us.
137
And in that sense, Marx said, the labor theory value had to be developed.
138
Nevertheless, he took the basic premise of the labor theory value, which is that labor is the source of all new value, and he developed it on this basis.
139
He explained that it's not individual labor time that makes commodities valuable.
140
Commodities being products for exchange, I should have mentioned earlier, as opposed to things that we produce and consume ourselves, those aren't commodities.
141
Capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production and exchange, Marx says.
142
Everything is produced for sale, for exchange.
143
And the question is, how much do you exchange of one thing for another?
144
That's really what the question of value is all about.
145
He said it's not individual labor time that determines how much things are exchanged for each other, but socially necessary labor time.
146
That's what makes commodities valuable.
147
In other words, it's the average labor time that goes into a commodity given certain technological or historical conditions.
148
And this idea of Marx of socially necessary labor time, the labor theory of value, was then what underpinned all his other developments, he writes in Capital and his other economic writings.
149
In particular, the theory of exploitation, i.e. the fact that profits come from surplus value
150
and surplus value is in effect the unpaid labor of the
151
working class is a profit is produced in the course of the working day
152
or week because the capitalist pays the worker back less than the value of what that worker produces.
153
The wages that the worker gets for their labor power, this commodity that they sell, are less than the value that they are producing in the course of the day.
154
And that difference is surplus value that is then divided up amongst the capitalists in terms of profit, rent, and interest.
155
Now this law of value in turn explains all the other dynamics.
156
As I said, it explains why there's a drive to intensify labor, to squeeze more work out of the working class,
157
extending the hours of the working day, why the capitalist will raise productivity by investing in machinery and technology, again, to try and out-compete the competitors,
158
to lower the value of their own commodities, to invest and to accumulate and to expand and to grow.
159
All of these come from the labor theory value.
160
And most importantly, it also explains why you see crises of capitalism,
161
crises of overproduction, because the working class cannot afford to buy all of the goods that capitalism is producing.
162
Therefore, there's always production outstripping the limits of the market.
163
Now, the Austrians sought to attack Marxism at what they perceived to be its weak spot, in particular, as I said, the labor theory of value.
164
They believed that if they could undermine this foundation, they thought the whole of the rest of Marxist theory would just come crumbling down and with it the whole socialist movement,
165
which is a bit of an idealistic idea in itself.
166
They thought as these kind of academic bourgeois types, if you could disprove the theory, then suddenly the whole workers' movement would just give up and go home,
167
which obviously shows their view of history being one of great men
168
and great ideas being what drive society rather than people's struggle over their class interests.
169
Now, they make various critiques of the labor theory value and of Marxism.
170
Most of these can be really put down to a misunderstanding or purposeful confusion, if you like, of the difference between labor and labor power, which I won't touch on that much,
171
but the difference there is labor is what the working class produces.
172
Labor power is their ability to work.
173
It's what the capitalist buys, their time in a day, a week, a month.
174
And they then try and squeeze as much labor out of the labor power that they bought as possible.
175
That was one of the misunderstandings.
176
The other was, and the primary one, was over the difference between value and price.
177
Now, Marx didn't deny the idea of prices, didn't deny that there is a market out there with supply and demand that pushes prices around.
178
But the thing is, Marx pointed out that these prices were like some sort of kind of fuzzy noise, if you like.
179
You know, that's what we see, the noise.
180
But underneath that noise, there was some sort of signal that these prices were oscillating around.
181
In other words, behind this kind of seeming randomness and chaos and accidental movement of prices, there is something lawful.
182
There is an order.
183
There is a necessity, if you like, behind these accidents.
184
Marx uses the analogy with gravity, the law of gravity, which governs the celestial motion of the planets.
185
You know, we see the motion of the planets, but we know that behind that motion lies laws of motion,
186
that gravity and motion that we can understand and develop into laws and theories to explain further motion,
187
to explain further phenomena in nature.
188
And it's the same with prices and value.
189
We see the market prices.
190
That's what we're confronted with.
191
But below that appearance, there is something more fundamental that is causing the motion of these prices on the market.
192
And that is the idea of value that is determined, as I said, by socially necessary labor time.
193
The socially necessary labor time congealed within a commodity which can be broken down into the dead labor, that is the labor embodied within raw materials,
194
means of production and tools and so forth that go into production and pass on their value to the new commodity, or there's also the living labor,
195
the new labor that's added in the process of production, which is what creates new value.
196
And what supply and demand do is to push prices above and below this value.
197
And that's really the case most of the time.
198
In reality, you never really see prices equal exactly to their values.
199
There's always distortions, there's always monopolies.
200
You know, the real world is not the perfect idealized models of the capitalists and the academics.
201
On average, though, you can say over time you see some sort of prices that can be smoothed out, if you like.
202
And also, over time, you see prices and values tending to go down
203
because of technological developments reducing the amount of social necessary labor time that needs to go into them.
204
And therefore, on average when supply and demand match
205
if you like something else has to explain why certain things are more valuable than others why is it
206
that on average a pen will be worth less than a
207
car unless it's a really old banger although secondhand cars are
208
actually weirdly more expensive than new cars these days not going to go into
209
that but anyway we can discuss that later if people really want
210
but the point is most of the time unless you've got a really expensive pen or a really shitty car,
211
your pen is going to be less valuable than the car.
212
Now, for these reasons, therefore, we've got to understand the idea of value underpinning prices.
213
The marginal utility theorists, on the other hand, they only see the appearance, they only see the superficial, which is the prices.
214
One might say they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
215
Now, they also really just focus on consumption.
216
They don't really look at production at all.
217
For them, everything value is just something subjective.
218
It's a purely subjective quantity or quality, really, based on the utility of a commodity.
219
So, the usefulness to the consumer compared to other commodities.
220
They talk about the margin, i.e. the idea of how useful is a commodity compared to
221
the next other commodity you could get to perform the same sort of function.
222
Now, again, Marx didn't deny the idea that things have to have a usefulness and a utility.
223
He said, you know, unless there is some sort of use to society, then something will not be sold and therefore it cannot be taken to the market.
224
It will therefore have no price and no exchange value.
225
So use value is a precondition to exchange value.
226
But the point is that this exchange value, how much we exchange of one thing for another, has to be something relative and it has to be something quantifiable and objective.
227
Because, as I said, we're presented not with people's subjective needs.
228
I don't know on Amazon how much the other person really wanted to have that thing themselves.
229
All I know is that there's a price that is through competition averaged out for any given commodity.
230
It's something objective that you're confronted with.
231
The problem with utility is it's completely arbitrary.
232
It's something completely subjective and it's also something qualitative.
233
Certain things have different uses.
234
How do you compare the use of one thing to a use of something
235
that might be useful for different task or you know that might be useful for one person but not for another.
236
It's completely arbitrary and completely subjective.
237
The only thing Mark said that all commodities
238
or rather the primary thing he said they all have in common
239
that makes it possible for them to be compared is the fact
240
that they are products of labor and in particular social labor.
241
So in the end really you see the marginal utility theorists tying themselves in knots.
242
They created a theory that in reality could explain nothing
243
because all genuine theory and science has to be based on the discovery of objective laws and dynamics, not analyzing subjective whims.
244
That's not economics.
245
That's not science.
246
That is psychology or anthropology, which can be sciences in different fields,
247
but not when it comes to the question of this question of exchange of commodities and how capitalism works.
248
The result with marginal utility is a theory, inverted commas, if you can call it that, very ahistorical, very abstract, very idealistic.
249
And it basically reduces economics to a certain amount of eternal truths, if you like, laws that are based on so-called human nature.
250
And again, like with Smith and Ricardo, they inherit this worst aspect of talking about really abstract examples of a man by a waterfall
251
or someone looking for diamonds or, you know, a man on an island trading.
252
It's all completely divorced from the realities of capitalism.
253
Most of us are not out hunting for diamonds day in, day out.
254
We're trying to put food on the table.
255
Now, all of that really reflected Bukharin, a good analysis of this called the economic theory of the leisure class.
256
He said it reflected the rise of this romptier economy where you've just got these stockbrokers who are completely divorced from production.
257
And they just see, as I said, the superficial, the consumer side of things.
258
Now, on this subjectivist basis, the ruling class couldn't really challenge Marxism.
259
As I said, it wasn't an explanation for capitalism.
260
It was a mere apology for it.
261
And above all, they couldn't stop the rise of the socialist movement.
262
They were particularly scared, obviously, by the wave of revolutions that broke out in the wake of the First World War, the Russian Revolution, the German Revolution and others.
263
And also, they were scared by the tendency in this same period towards state planning
264
and towards monopolization and away from private ownership and competition.
265
Even layers of the bourgeois, because of the experiences of the First World War,
266
were coming round to the idea that a certain amount of state planning would be required and necessary and indeed preferable.
267
And hence you had a new wave of attacks led by an even more frenzied generation of the Austrian school,
268
particularly led by figures like von Mises.
269
In the 1920s onwards started to again bring up this question of the economic calculation debate
270
and that's what i'll move on to now what von Mises tried to say is
271
that socialism wasn't something that was right in theory
272
but wrong in practice but in his words it was wrong in theory
273
and in practice that was what he was trying to assert again as i said earlier
274
because socialist planning was impossible because of the sheer complexity of the economy
275
so many things to produce and distribute and allocate that only the information provided by price signals through the market
276
could efficiently allocate resources and labor.
277
He said the amount of calculation required was too much for any centralized bureaucracy, any computer, and that in fact any state involvement or regulation,
278
he said, would only distort prices and impede the power of the market.
279
Therefore, his conclusion was only the competitive free market, completely free and competitive market would work.
280
There needed to be no state involvement, no regulation at all.
281
Now, where am I?
282
Yes, okay.
283
Now, what you had, of course, was that very, you know, around the same time that von Mises is talking about this,
284
you have the very concrete examples of on the one side the Soviet Union and its huge leaps forward economically, on the other side the Great Depression
285
and both of these were huge blows to the extremely abstract and idealistic argument of von Mises.
286
As Leon Trotsky explained in his masterpiece The Revolution Betrayed, which I really recommend, if anyone wants to get anything to help them understand this question more,
287
I recommend buying the revolution betrayed from the book still downstairs
288
a little plug um he explained in his masterpiece the revolution betrayed he talked about the huge economic progress
289
that had been made under the socialist uh planned economy
290
or the soviet planned economy rather he said socialism has demonstrated
291
its right to victory not on the pages of das capital
292
but in the industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the
293
earth's surface it has proven itself not in the language of dialectics but in the language of steel, cement, and electricity.
294
Now, meanwhile, on the other side, as I said, you had the Great Depression, the Wall Street crash, the deepest crisis in the history of capitalism,
295
which the Austrians had no explanation for, no genuine explanation for, and more importantly, no solution to get out of that crisis.
296
Enter Hayek, who then moves the goalposts in terms of this debate in a series of essays.
297
And he says instead of being impossible, he says socialist planning was technically difficult,
298
less economically efficient and morally and politically undesirable.
299
Now to prove his point, he mainly attacked this straw man of this caricature of socialism in the form of Stalinism
300
and the top-down bureaucratically planned economy that you had in Soviet Union at the time.
301
This is late 20s, early 30s that he's writing by this point.
302
And in turn, he also mainly attacked people who fell into two camps.
303
He boasts most of his his argument on attacking people like on the one side, Stalinist apologists like Maurice Dobbs,
304
who is an English communist and economist.
305
And on the other side, these kind of reformist academics like Oscar Lang and Fred Taylor,
306
who are people who succumb to bourgeois pressure and were advocating a kind of utopian mixed economy, some sort of market socialism, which was a weird, permanent,
307
confused blend of centralized planning, common ownership, but capitalist market prices and signals.
308
And the only person really in this all of this confusion
309
who could offer a real defense of socialist planning at the same time as offering explanation
310
and a criticism of the Soviet bureaucracy was Leon Trotsky in, as I said earlier, The Revolution Betrayed, and also in an excellent article,
311
which I recommend comrades reading not so long, called The Soviet Economy in Danger, which was written in October 1932.
312
And in these, Trotsky explains the origins of the bureaucracy.
313
He explains in Revolutionary Trade, the bureaucracy was not an inevitable part of socialism, but it was inevitable, if you like,
314
within conditions of economic isolation and backwardness, which is what you saw in the Soviet Union.
315
In other words, because you had scarcity and not superabundance,
316
you had a state bureaucracy that was basically trying to distribute scarcity and allocate resources first and foremost to themselves.
317
And it was kind of a policeman of a bread queue that didn't have enough bread, was the analogy that Trotsky used.
318
And he was critical of the bureaucracy.
319
He said it wasn't a positive development, but actually something that strangled the socialist planned economy.
320
Socialist planned economy needs the oxygen of workers' democracy, he said.
321
And the bureaucracy was stifling that, leading to all sorts of mad kind of schemes and results that had very destructive effects.
322
That's what he writes in The Soviet Economy in Danger.
323
Now, Hayek, actually, the only time he referred to Trotsky was to take these quotes against the bureaucracy, rip them out of context, and use them to say,
324
look, there you go, even Trotsky, the leader of the Russian revolution, doesn't support socialism and the Soviet Union, which is not true.
325
So Trotsky started from the very clear position of saying he defended the gains of the Soviet economy, but was against the bureaucracy and wanted a genuine workers' democracy.
326
Trotsky says, for example, in one of these essays, there is no universal mind that exists
327
that could register simultaneously all the processes of nature and society in order to draw up a faultless and exhaustive economic plan.
328
He was criticizing the idea of top-down, centralized, bureaucratic planning, but Hayek ripped that kind of quote out of context and used it to try and justify his argument.
329
So what did Trotsky really have to say on this question?
330
Well, actually, as early as 1922, in his speeches to the Comintern, Trotsky had outlined the problems facing the young Soviet economy.
331
You had the introduction of what was called the NEP,
332
the New Economic Policy, in which the Soviets were trying to use prices to stimulate growth in certain sectors.
333
And Trotsky actually pointed out that in general, actually, in the transition from socialism to communism,
334
that is from in the transition after the revolution from scarcity to superabundance,
335
yes, you would need to use market prices and signals in certain places to ascertain where the scarcity was,
336
but to use those signals under the democratic planned controlled economy to then actually invest in those areas
337
and get rid of that scarcity and bring them in harmony with the rest of the economy.
338
And these points he reiterated actually a decade later or more in Revolution Betrayed and the other article I just mentioned.
339
But Trotsky emphasized that the precondition for using market prices as a signal was that the revolution had, first of all, abolished capitalism,
340
seized the means of production and put them in the hands of a worker's state.
341
In other words, that you had not bureaucratic planning from the top down, but a genuinely rational socialist democratically planned economy based on a system of workers' democracy,
342
control and management.
343
And the information then of the workers' democracy would gradually replace the price signals
344
and would be used to indicate then in a democratic way with the involvement of the working class themselves, they would then decide what needs to be produced.
345
They would have the best knowledge of what could be produced, what needs to be produced, where investment needs to go, how resources and so forth need to be distributed and allocated.
346
All the while, Trotsky emphasizes, using the most advanced technology, logistics, data and planning bequeathed by modern capitalist technique.
347
But the important point that Trotsky really emphasized in all of this is that the problem, so to speak, is not an economic calculation one.
348
You can't simply calculate your way to communism.
349
You can't have just a bigger and better computer that is going to solve the socialist algorithm them.
350
The economy is not a set of simultaneous equations to be solved.
351
It's not a computer model that can be programmed from above, nor is it the abstract,
352
isolated, individualistic model of the economy portrayed by the bourgeois in the textbooks with people,
353
you know, abstract people trading on a desert island.
354
The economy is a living, breathing, dynamic thing composed of flesh and blood.
355
It is us, it's ordinary people, workers, ordinary people trying to put food on the table, a shelter over their head, trying to make ends meet.
356
In that sense, the important point is it's class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited, between the capitalists who are trying to squeeze out more profits
357
and the working class that is seeking to defend their lives and their livelihoods.
358
The real point Trotsky was emphasizing, therefore, is it's not an economic calculation problem, but a political one.
359
It's a class question, a question of power.
360
It's a question of which class owns and runs the means of production and according to what laws on what basis.
361
Is it production for profit or production for need?
362
Now, the fact is that we see immense levels of planning already in the economy today under capitalism, but it's not socialist planning.
363
It's planning within huge multinationals and monopolies that span the globe.
364
And what you see is actually the most vocal libertarian defenders of the market,
365
the capitalist bosses, they do not leave this sacred market of theirs to decide how they produce within their firm.
366
They don't leave it to the market to decide how production operates within their own companies.
367
No, they plan everything from the farms and the factories through to the shops and the supermarkets.
368
They buy up their suppliers and their distributors to try
369
and extend the amount of planning and control they have over the over production.
370
And as an aside, whilst they talk about liberty and freedom,
371
they are the most brutal dictators inside these factories and firms because they give workers no choice, no freedom, no individuality.
372
Now, the problem is that whilst there's this incredible level of planning within firms, there is still complete anarchy and chaos between them under capitalism.
373
Each of these firms is blindly producing for an unknown market
374
and that arises from the fact of private ownership and the fact that this is production for individual profit, not under a common plan based on society's needs.
375
Now you see the enormous potential for planning with the modern technology today.
376
In fact, I just want to highlight one article here, I think this is from on two weeks ago in The Economist,
377
it's called Enter Third Wave Economics.
378
They talk about the idea of the real time economy that's developing, where they say, because of modern technology,
379
it's not a question now of planning things by year by year or month by month, but now big firms like Google, they know what we're doing day by day and minute by minute.
380
They are tracking our every movement and everything that's being produced.
381
There's a huge amount of data out there.
382
And policymakers are semi trying to utilize this, but they can't because it's not their data that they control.
383
So, instead of us having control over our lives, we see that this data is used to control us.
384
We therefore see the complete limits of planning under capitalism
385
because at the end of the day you can't genuinely plan what you don't control
386
and you don't control what you don't own
387
and that's the key question the question of ownership
388
which is a class question now all of this planning has arisen
389
because of the objective laws of capitalism it's a tendency
390
that marx explained in his writings the tendency towards monopolization centralization
391
and concentration of production we see on the one hand an incredible level of planning across the economy,
392
an incredible level of division of labor as well, incredible level of specialization.
393
But all of this division of labor then being brought under one roof, so to speak, with this huge concentration of the means of production in the hands of these big multinational monopolies
394
and their capitalist owners.
395
Now, this is an objective tendency under capitalism.
396
It's not an aberration.
397
It's not a political mistake, which is what Hayek and the libertarians assert.
398
Marx explained in Capital and his other economic writings that because of the law of value, precisely because of this, free competition turns into its opposite.
399
It turns into monopoly.
400
If you want a proof of it, go play the board game Monopoly.
401
It was invented to prove precisely this point.
402
Everyone starts out with the same amount and one person gets Mayfair and then wins the game.
403
That's my experience of it anyway.
404
It's normally not me.
405
But the point is that you have the most competitive companies gobbling up the weakest ones.
406
You have those who can invest and get these bigger and bigger economies of scale, more efficiency.
407
They then squeeze out the smaller firms from the market.
408
And when there's a crisis, they gobble up all of the firms that go bankrupt.
409
That is the objective tendency under capitalism.
410
And it's those same laws of capitalism that lead to crises of overproduction.
411
And that's really the important point that we see
412
that it's not socialism but capitalism
413
that neither works in theory nor in practice in capital marx actually starts from the exact same assumptions as ricardo
414
and adam smith and the classical economists he starts actually by assuming the kind of ideal capitalism
415
that hayek and the libertarians want they want a a capitalism but there's no distortions no monopolies
416
where there's complete freedom of supply and demand.
417
Marx assumes that in his analysis as his starting point.
418
But the point is, he says that even on that basis, even with these assumptions, the laws of capitalism are such
419
that you inherently see crises of overproduction due to the nature of where profits come from.
420
And that's very easy to demonstrate.
421
I'm going to do it one minute.
422
Cal and I are going to be rational entrepreneurs, okay?
423
Because we're told everything is rational in economics.
424
Now, I'm going to employ you guys on this half of the room.
425
On this half, Cal's going to employ the other half of the room.
426
That's already an assumption because in reality, probably quite a few of you are unemployed and haven't got any job.
427
But let's just assume that half and half are employed for me and Cal.
428
Now, I'm very rational.
429
I'm going to pay you guys here as little as possible in order to boost my profits.
430
Cal hopefully will be paying you guys over there as much as possible to buy all the things
431
that you guys are producing with your blood, sweat and tears.
432
Cal's also a very clever, rational capitalist.
433
So he's doing the same, pushing down your wages, trying to boost his profits, hoping you guys are getting paid a lot on this side.
434
Everyone here, I'm sure, can see the overall result.
435
Everyone's wages are getting driven down.
436
And whilst in theory we should be able to make lots of profits, we can't sell the goods that we're producing, the whole system grinds to a halt.
437
That's the organic crisis of capitalism you saw in 2008 in the Great Depression.
438
And what does this create?
439
Does it create efficiency?
440
No, it creates enormous waste.
441
We see mass unemployment, the most scandalous waste of human potential.
442
You see idle factories.
443
You see the destruction, not the development of the productive forces.
444
And this all leads to a situation not of genuine scarcity, but of poverty amidst plenty.
445
Look at what Marx says in the Communist Manifesto.
446
You have the devastation, not because there's too little, but because there's too much, Marx says.
447
And Trotsky makes the same point in Revolution Betrayed.
448
He says, the fundamental evil of the capitalist system is not the extravagance of the possessing classes, however disgusting that may be in itself,
449
but the fact that in order to guarantee its right to extravagance, the bourgeois maintain its private ownership of the means of production,
450
thus condemning the economic system to anarchy and decay.
451
That's the point.
452
Even when everything and everyone is behaving rationally,
453
that's precisely when you end up with a system that is irrational for the whole of society as a whole.
454
In other words, even when, or rather you could say exactly when capitalism is behaving as it should, that's precisely when it's not working.
455
That's what the Austrian school can never really explain.
456
Why does capitalism go into these periodic crises?
457
Instead, they entertain themselves with these red herring debates about trying to allocate scarce resources.
458
But we don't have scarce resources.
459
We have a super abundance.
460
We have immense productive forces.
461
The real question is how do we put those superabundance
462
and productive forces under a common ownership and workers' control in order to develop these forces further, eliminate any scarcities that might still exist,
463
and put all of this to rational use democratically in order to meet our needs and not the capitalist profits.
464
Now, for all these reasons, actually, the ruling class were never actually convinced by Hayek.
465
And in fact, you could even say even Hayek wasn't really that convinced by Hayek,
466
because he actually retreated away from these economic arguments towards more political arguments,
467
moralistic arguments about freedom and choice and individuality.
468
And that's what you'll read if you ever have the mispleasure, as I did for this talk, of having to read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.
469
I really do not recommend it.
470
Unless there's another toilet paper shortage, in which case I will know where to go.
471
But the point is he complains moralistically in this.
472
And later in life, actually, however, hypocritically, he
473
and his acolytes had absolutely no qualms about supporting the iron
474
fist of the Pinochet regime in order to crush the socialist
475
government of Allende in Chile in order to install forcibly the invisible hand of the market.
476
Now, instead of this nonsense, the ruling class turned in the Great Depression in the 1930s towards the pragmatism, the so-called pragmatism of Keynesianism.
477
This in itself actually is a tacit admission of the need for planning and the failure of the market.
478
The ruling class couldn't handle what Hayek and his followers were suggesting in terms of the social consequences There's a mass unemployment, huge cuts to living standards.
479
That's what Hayek was suggesting by saying just let the market sort itself out
480
and in the long run everything will be fine.
481
Keynes quite humorously said yes, in the long run everyone's dead.
482
But the point is that Keynes
483
and Keynesianism as opposed to this seem to offer a solution based on managing and patching up capitalism.
484
The bourgeois weren't interested in trying to justify or apologize for this free market that wasn't working.
485
Clearly, they were looking for a solution or so-called solution based on saving capitalism from itself using the state.
486
And that's what we see in more recent crises today with the pandemic.
487
The most ardent defenders of the free market running cap in hand to the government asking for money and loans and bailouts.
488
In the wake of the 2008 crash, you had huge, giant financial monopolies coming to the state and the governments asking for bailouts,
489
saying that they were too big to fail.
490
Now, we've got to be clear on this question.
491
Keynesianism and Hayekianism are two sides of the same capitalist coin.
492
Both fundamentally defend the idea of capitalist system.
493
The differences were over the form of this system, not the content.
494
It was about over degrees of how much capitalist state intervention versus how much capitalist free market,
495
neither of which offers a way forward for the working class.
496
Keynesian attempts to manage capitalism don't work, but neither does leaving our lives and our futures in the hands or rather the invisible hand of the market.
497
Today, as I said, libertarians have largely abandoned any of these economic arguments and instead they've reduced themselves to these moralistic,
498
individualistic prejudices about liberty and freedom.
499
As I said, you know, road to serfdom is the Bible in this respect.
500
And the ideas that Hayek put forward today are mainly really just promoted by various right-wing reactionary,
501
well-financed think tanks and free market institutes, funded ironically, most of the time,
502
by the very monopolies that Hayek claimed to abhor.
503
And they're used by right-wing politicians, obviously, as a fig leaf behind which to hide whilst attacking workers' rights and wages and boosting their profits.
504
now in answer to these questions of individual freedom and
505
so forth we've got to say we've got to tell the
506
truth there is no freedom for any individual within a system
507
that is out of our control within a system
508
that imposes itself upon us in a system where the economy
509
and its laws do not work for us
510
but against us where all the real decisions in society are not taken by us but by unaccountable,
511
unelected bureaucrats, bosses, bankers, and billionaires.
512
Real freedom, in this sense, Frederick Engels outlined very astutely.
513
He said, real freedom lies in understanding necessity.
514
He's actually paraphrasing Hegel in this respect.
515
Real freedom lies in understanding necessity.
516
What does he mean by that?
517
He says, real freedom does not come about from imagining ourselves to be free you know, and, you know, I can imagine myself to be free of the law of gravity,
518
but I jump out the window and I'll be very brutally reminded
519
that there is a law of gravity that imposes itself upon us.
520
Real freedom comes from understanding laws and turning them to our advantage, you know, breaking the law of gravity.
521
How?
522
Not by imagining it doesn't exist, but by inventing machines that can fly, you know, airplanes and drones.
523
These are what allow us to actually manipulate these laws to our own advantage.
524
Today, we need to manipulate the laws of the economy to our advantage.
525
And we can't reform the laws of capitalism, though.
526
What we need to do is understand the laws of capitalism in order to overthrow them through revolution
527
and replace them with a new set of laws based on socialist planning and workers' control.
528
That's the task that lies before us.
529
That's what Engels called would be the leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.
530
That's what we need to do.
531
The only way to do it is organizing through revolution.
532
So if you haven't already, join Socialist Appeal, join the International Marxist Tendency, and help us in this task.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
Zelfde Kanaal
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
C11
202 zinnen
What is Marxism? (And Why The Outrage is Wrong)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
222 zinnen
Why Living in London has Become Impossible
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
230 zinnen
The Liberalism to Fascism Pipeline (Neoliberalism Explained)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
158 zinnen
馬斯克：不只基本收入，是「全民高收入」｜辦公室工作會「像閃電一樣」被 AI 取代，那剩下什麼工作？｜Joe Rogan 節目 馬斯克｜真實訪談精選、單字解釋、雙語字幕
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
144 zinnen
Toby Young | Woke Culture HAS Gone Too Far - 3/8 | Oxford Union
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
362 zinnen
How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
130 zinnen
Is France signalling the end of neoliberalism?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C111
73 zinnen
Why you should "steel man" other people
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
232 zinnen
Why Europe's GDP Growth Is Crippling Its Economy
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
79 zinnen
An economist’s 4-point framework for making decisions in volatile times | Dambisa Moyo
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C18
48 zinnen
Gift economy, commodity fetishism, and what we owe each other #capitalism #environment #philosophy
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles op niveau C1 is gebaseerd op de video “Marxism vs libertarianism: The economic calculation problem”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: labor, capitalism, value. Deze video bevat 532 zinnen en 7918 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 47:12. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 168 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. 82% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
De 15 moeilijkste woorden uit de video, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| capitalism zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/ | kapitalisme |
| commodity zelfstandig naamwoord | /kəˈmɑdəti/ | waar, goederen |
| capitalist zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈkæp.ɪ.tə.lɪst/ | kapitalist |
| economist zelfstandig naamwoord | /iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/ | econoom |
| socialism zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ | socialisme |
| bureaucracy zelfstandig naamwoord | /bjʊˈɹɑ.kɹə.si/ | bureaucratie |
| subjective bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /səbˈd͡ʒɛktɪv/ | subjectief |
| monopoly zelfstandig naamwoord | /məˈnɑpəli/ | monopolie |
| scarcity zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈskɛɹsɪti/ | schaarste |
| betray werkwoord | /bɪˈtɹeɪ/ | verraden |
| calculation zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌkælkjuˈleɪʃn̩/ | berekening |
| tendency zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈtɛn.dən.si/ | neiging |
| rational bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/ | rationeel, redelijk |
| dynamics zelfstandig naamwoord | /dɑɪˈnæm.ɪks/ | dynamica, stromingsleer |
| necessity zelfstandig naamwoord | /nɪˈsɛsəti/ | behoefte |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Betekenis |
|---|---|
| point out werkwoord | aanwijzen, aanduiden |
| bring up werkwoord | opvoeden |
| come across werkwoord | overkomen |
| come up with werkwoord | bedenken, verzinnen |
| give up werkwoord | zich overgeven |
| go back werkwoord | teruggaan |
| go down werkwoord | afdalen |
| throw away werkwoord | weggooien |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- I'm not going to do that today.
- You know, that's what we see, the noise.
- That's what we're confronted with.
- It's something objective that you're confronted with.
- We're trying to put food on the table.
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | be slaughtered · be provided · was riddled |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | particular, which was · value, which is · commodity which can |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | has alluded · I've just highlighted · who've defended |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 82 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals don't, we're, I'm. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: theorist /ˈθiːəɹəst/, theoretical /ˌθi.əˈɹɛt.ɪ.kəl/, mathematical /ˌmæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪ.kəl/, underneath /ˌʌndɚˈniθ/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/, calculation /ˌkælkjuˈleɪʃn̩/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, socially /ˈsoʊʃəli/, bourgeoisie /ˌbʊə(ɹ)ʒwɑːˈziː/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: capitalism /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/, commodity /kəˈmɑdəti/, capitalist /ˈkæp.ɪ.tə.lɪst/, economist /iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/, socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: subjective /səbˈd͡ʒɛktɪv/, squeeze /skwiːz/, centralize /ˈsɛntɹəlaɪz/, frenzied /ˈfɹɛnzid/, idealize /aɪˈdɪəlaɪz/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: capitalism /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/, capitalist /ˈkæp.ɪ.tə.lɪst/, calculation /ˌkælkjuˈleɪʃn̩/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, dynamics /dɑɪˈnæm.ɪks/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: extravagance /ɪkˈstɹævəɡən(t)s/, pragmatism /ˈpɹæɡmətɪzəm/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als capitalism, commodity, capitalist.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.