Wanted to just connect to the world. So, here I am!
Will post my trysts with Economics, Cooking, Travel, Photography and some other passions I (seem to) have!
I suggest that you join a multinational corporation !those guys really need you!
I will keep reading your blog and posting my unwanted comments!
Comments from you are never unwanted!
As for the multinational corporations, unfortunate for them and fortunate for me, I have made my choice!
Lenin had observed that ‘in view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition.’ Present day neo-Marxists, with their petty bourgeois consciousness, fail to understand ‘value’ correctly with its form and content and hence, consider capitalist mode of production and capitalism, synonymous. They choose data and arguments at will, to prove what they want to prove. Evaluating ‘Make in India’ per say, in isolation with domestic and international Socio-economic formations, is a futile exercise.
So, are you suggesting that what is proved here is wrong? Instead of prices, you can use the labour theory to prove exactly the same set of assertions, so please let me know where is the argument wrong? By the way I have not used any data to prove any thing here.
In modern world, with the development of technology, boundaries have broken down for products and money, which can travel across the globe, wherever needed, in no time, and commodities and capital have become truly global. But to produce any commodity, human labour power can be expanded only where the worker is present, and hence creation of value in manufacturing or distribution will continue to be local.
Newly created value is split into two parts, wages and surplus value. Wages have to be disbursed locally to the worker. Surplus value is shared amongst various owners of the assets and money or, means of production needed to set the labour power into motion to create new value. The share in surplus value could be termed rent, interest, profit etc. The surplus value in the form of money is free from any geographical constraints and can move globally at will.
Sharing of surplus among various players depends upon their respective strengths, and state as a moderator between various conflicting classes is the most powerful arbiter. Whosoever can influence a state within the national boundaries or various states globally, will get the larger share in the surplus produced nationally or globally.
Every effort to increase efficiency and productivity of human labour through cooperation and large scale production is innate quality of human society, and hence liberalisation of economies for globalisation is progressive and must be supported. Marx in his speech on 9th January 1948 before Democratic Association of Brussels stressed, ‘But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.’
Problem is in individual disproportionate appropriation rather than social appropriation of surplus value, collectively produced.
Any effort to oppose the natural forward movement of global integration of various national economies is counter-progressive and reactionary. Every effort to curtail the share of private appropriation and augment share of social appropriation of surplus value produced, is progressive and revolutionary.
Every socially conscious intellectual, who understands Marxism as a scientific world outlook, must support globalisation to ensure large scale production and distribution, and must participate in every movements that may push for collective ownership of resources rather than individual ownership and may augment share of social appropriation of surplus value produced.
In his famous pamphlet ‘Marxim and Revisionism’, written in 1908 on Marx’s 90th birth anniversary, Lenin warned, ‘Whoever does not understand the inevitable inner dialectics of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy—which leads to an even sharper decision of the argument by mass violence than formerly—will never be able on the basis of this parliamentarism to conduct propaganda and agitation consistent in principle, really preparing the working-class masses for victorious participation in such “arguments”.’ CPC, with correct understanding of Marxim, was able to follow Lenin’s warning to understand correctly the contradictions in the Chinese Society and to evolve the concept of ‘New Democracy’ as elaborated by Mao in his famous pamphlet.
Lenin in the same pamphlet observed, ‘Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to “coach” it against internal and foreign enemies.’ And the history of 90 years of communist movement in India, which, in the absence of correct understanding of Marxism, first disintegrated into more than 40 fragments and is now trying for unprincipled unification, testifies Lenin’s observation.
For more on my views on left movement in India, please see my various articles on my blogs ‘marxdarshan.blogspot.com’ and ‘marx-darshan.blogspot.com’ and old issues of Hindi quarterly ‘Marx Darshan’.
I think this is among the most important information for me.
And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style
is ideal, the articles is really excellent : D.
Good job, cheers
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.