Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

[cjppjc]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

I really can't imagine how any party that espouses social democracy can be "right wing". "Right wing" would apply to something like Jobbik in Hungary, or perhaps the BNP.

Democracy = not right wing

My point was his answer to the contract question. Is that questioned answered by invoking the Icelandic Constitution?

[reggie]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

I stopped reading at "far right winger".

I like Mr. Hudson, but his inability to comprehend how the utilitarian/democratic liberalism he supports inherently leads to a plutocracy is, at this point, inexcusable.

I like Hudson as well, but I don't understand why he is framing this in a left versus right paradigm.

[Rajiv]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

In Hudson's view, it is the top 0.1% vs the bottom 90% which is a class issue, which therefore makes it a classic left vs right issue.

[reggie]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

In Hudson's view, it is the top 0.1% vs the bottom 90% which is a class issue, which therefore makes it a classic left vs right issue.

Wait, so your claim is that the bottom is on the left and top on the right?

As far as EJ's post, I don't understand how regulation of predatory financial practices makes Hudson a Marxist. I think an agreed-upon definition of Marxism would be helpful here.

[Rajiv]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Wait, so your claim is that the bottom is on the left and top on the right?

That is the historical definition of left and right -- as a class struggle

The terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization.[3]

The concept of a political Left became more prominent after the June Days Uprising of 1848. The term was applied to a number of revolutionary movements in Europe, especially socialism, anarchism[4] and communism. The term is also used to describe social democracy and social liberalism.[5][6]

Also from Marxism, Class Conflict, And The Conflict Helix*

It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in this structure. His was no equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not deviational within society's structure, nor were classes functional elements maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of and ingredient in the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view of modem (nineteenth century) society.

The key to understanding Marx is his class definition.1 A class is defined by the ownership of property. Such ownership vests a person with the power to exclude others from the property and to use it for personal purposes. In relation to property there are three great classes of society: the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production such as machinery and factory buildings, and whose source of income is profit), landowners (whose income is rent), and the proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a wage).

Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status. These are determined by distribution and consumption, which itself ultimately reflects the production and power relations of classes. The social conditions of bourgeoisie production are defined by bourgeois property. Class is therefore a theoretical and formal relationship among individuals.

The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of classes is class interest. Out of similar class situations, individuals come to act similarly. They develop a mutual dependence, a community, a shared interest interrelated with a common income of profit or of wages. From this common interest classes are formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that their interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class.

At first, the interests associated with land ownership and rent are different from those of the bourgeoisie. But as society matures, capital (i.e., the property of production) and land ownership merge, as do the interests of landowners and bourgeoisie. Finally the relation of production, the natural opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities.

As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle between classes was initially confined to individual factories. Eventually, given the maturing of capitalism, the growing disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the increasing homogenization within each class, individual struggles become generalized to coalitions across factories. Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class consciousness is increased, common interests and policies are organized, and the use of and struggle for political power occurs. Classes become political forces.

The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e., capital). Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and in the mature capitalist society, the state's business is that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation of production, on ownership of the means of production.

[chr5648]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

In Hudson's view, it is the top 0.1% vs the bottom 90% which is a class issue, which therefore makes it a classic left vs right issue.

Maybe back in the day this was true, but this is exactly how the ruling class wants modern day 'citizens' to play it our in their 'minds'. The 'REALITY' is IMHO different much different than what we are lead to believe in our 'minds'.

Hudson is great at explaining how it all works. Where he loses me and alot of others is the whole left vs. right thing. For a man of his intellect to be caught up in the left vs. right paradigm is somewhat discouraging.

[Rajiv]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Maybe back in the day this was true, but this is exactly how the ruling class wants modern day 'citizens' to play it our in their 'minds'. The 'REALITY' is IMHO different much different than what we are lead to believe in our 'minds'.

I think you may understand the viewpoint by perusing and understanding the Pareto vs the Boltzmann Theory of wealth distribution. See my discussion of this here and here

[chr5648]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

I think you may understand the viewpoint by perusing and understanding the Pareto vs the Boltzmann Theory of wealth distribution. See my discussion of this here and here

I have read quite a bit about pareto, in fact Benoit Mandelbrot goes quite deeply into the pareto principle in his books and articles, he also models income distributions with fractals.

But once again these articles use the words 'capitalism' and 'free markets' I disagree I highly doubt there is any capitalism or free markets in the modern western world. If you look at the media is the US the so called left wing media bashes 'capitalism' and 'free markets' the right wind media adores 'capitalism' and 'free markets'.

In my opinion, or even fact, the current system we have is not capitalism or free markets it is more like 'corporatism' or 'corporate facism'. The illusion is that the left is against 'corporatism' or 'corporate facism' and the right is for it, but instead of using the words corporatism we use capitalism and free markets.

The so called solutions from the left and right do not increase or better capitalism but further create more 'corporatism' and 'corporate facism' under the guise that they are either helping or hurting 'capitalism' or 'free markets'. This is why the whole left vs right thing is a joke. They both want more and more 'corporatism' and 'corporate facism' while they play it off like its the free markets fault.

[Rajiv]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Do read the discussion at the two threads I linked to earlier -- I have outlined where I think the problem is coming from - namely

Time value of money
Intergenerational transfer of wealth,
and the nature of economic exchange and the power relationships that are inherent in that.

[oddlots]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Here's a link to the BIS report that I believe EJ and Hudson touch upon:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.htm

It's funny. It popped up tonight when I hit upon a link to the latest GEAB Bulletin:

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-44-is-...ank_a4531.html

I was about to go off half-cocked but haven't read it yet. So schtumm til then.

I applaud from the cheap seats EJ's appreciation of Hudson's contribution. I'm sure I regularly garble his arguments but he's given me more clarity than any other thinker out there. Really an incredible resource in a world of stultifying cognitive dissonance.

[reggie]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Maybe back in the day this was true, but this is exactly how the ruling class wants modern day 'citizens' to play it our in their 'minds'. The 'REALITY' is IMHO different much different than what we are lead to believe in our 'minds'.

The problem is that the ruling class has usurped and co-opted both the left AND the right, and play each group of followers 'off' on each other. In the former Soviet Union, they called this the "Pincers Strategy".

Hence, I simply don't see these labels as relevant or pertinent any longer, they simply act to be divisive.

[chr5648]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Do read the discussion at the two threads I linked to earlier -- I have outlined where I think the problem is coming from - namely

Time value of money
Intergenerational transfer of wealth,
and the nature of economic exchange and the power relationships that are inherent in that.

I really enjoy kennedy's remarks, especially the first graph in her presentation which almost all her presentations have. I agree with her and hudson on the issues. The time value of money thing I agree with you. The intergenerational transfer I sort of agree with you, (excessive transfers). But at the end of the day the left and right both want to continue the current system of exponential growth under the guise of 'capitalism' and 'free markets', they know exactly what they are doing, they just play dumb to the cameras. The system is like this by design. There is no left vs. right they are the same thing.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

[bart]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

The problem is that the ruling class has usurped and co-opted both the left AND the right, and play each group of followers 'off' on each other. In the former Soviet Union, they called this the "Pincers Strategy".

Hence, I simply don't see these labels as relevant or pertinent any longer, they simply act to be divisive.

Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization

[chr5648]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

The problem is that the ruling class has usurped and co-opted both the left AND the right, and play each group of followers 'off' on each other. In the former Soviet Union, they called this the "Pincers Strategy".

Hence, I simply don't see these labels as relevant or pertinent any longer, they simply act to be divisive.

Exactly, If you go to the former countries of the soviet union, many of the current leaders, businessmen, and politicians, were they same guys under the communist system, nothing changes. Maybe the semantics, democracy vs communism change, but the people are the same.

[reggie]

Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Exactly, If you go to the former countries of the soviet union, many of the current leaders, businessmen, and politicians, were they same guys under the communist system, nothing changes. Maybe the semantics, democracy vs communism change, but the people are the same.

Hence, my confusion with Hudson is that he employs these left vs right terms, which appear to me to lost all meaning, unless speaking historical.

But I am also quite confused by EJ's labeling of Hudson as a Marxist, and the almost immediate acquiescence to this point by the forum. It seems to me that Hudson has a solid understanding of Marx and how this framework differs from the neo-classical economists as well as the Austrians, etc. Having this understanding and being able to explain it is a far cry from being one.

Further, I don't think promoting a progressive tax system, taxation on economic rents, and regulation on financial predatory practices qualifies one as a Marxist. Am I missing something here, because I'm concerned that this "Marx" label may too easily facilitate dismissal of any finer points being made and/or discussed.