Personal info

My Photo
Vishwavidyalya, North Campus, New Delhi, India
A blog of Post-Capitalist critique in general, economic, philosophical and political analyses, Post-Capitalist poetry and prose, Post-Capitalist philology, book reviews, Postcapitalist news, interviews, praxis, art and much more! For the record, Davide Ferri is a Postcapitalist, who graduated with B.A.Economics(Honours) degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, India.

Search

Loading...

Latest News

Loading...

Flags

free counters

NEWS

-This blog is under maintenance!
-The anticapitalist motto is: Don't "occupy" just public squares, public buildings and public parks! Institutions aside, how can you "occupy" something that already belongs to you?
-The postcapitalist motto is: Occupy private activity!"
-ADD THIS BLOG TO FAVOURITES to stay tuned on post-Capitalist writings, poetry, polls, excerpts and videos!
-WRITE TO C.DE FERRI FOR ANY DOUBT/CRITICISM: faveankitderri@yahoo.co.in
-FOR PDF COPIES OF MY WORKS AND RESEARCH SHARING FOLLOW ME ON ACADEMIA.EDU:
http://srcc.academia.edu/DavideFerri

Saturday, 18 January 2014

DAVIDE FERRI'S FICTION

SOME FICTION WORKS (PDFs) BY DAVIDE FERRI


The Unknown Behind the Window (2014) - Abstract: A man - obsessed by the Horror of daily life - feels observed by an Unknown living in the opposite building. 
Daily hallucinations would escalate up to the point of no return from an alternative surrealistic and terrific dimension.


Shanty's Princess (2013) - Abstract: A charming woman living in a slum acquires education and builds up a participatory network of active residents 
She will challenge neighbourhood exploiters and pave the way for a Democratic revolution against the ruling Politburo."


The Revolutioniad (2013) -Abstract:
Three Volumes of English poetry on the transition towards Post-Capitalism.
The three phases, Life under Capital, Life fighting Capital and Life after Capital are metaphors of the Hell, Purgatory and Paradise of our history.


The Crew (2011) - AbstractThe Ministry of War and Space Exploration sends a Crew into the immensity of space; the mission is to look for Commercial opportunities and establish new market routes. 
The Functionaries will discover all but investor-friendly occasions to expand terrestrial trade and  - after coming back to Earth - will come across the Horror. 


Friday, 26 April 2013

CRAZY FRATELLI - UN ESERCITO DI UGUALI (WITH ITALIAN/ENGLISH LYRICS)


Crazy Fratelli - Un esercito di Uguali 
(2007)
Album: Yeah (2008)

VOCALS AND RHYTHM GUITAR: Jeremias Gabriel Cornejo
DRUMS AND PERCUSSION: Joaquin Nahuel Cornejo 
LEAD GUITAR: Davide Ferri
BASS: Agustin Ignacio Cornejo
KEYBOARD: Simone Pizzi



LYRICS(Italian): 
Sentito che in Italia
mancava il rock'n'roll
Ho preso una chitarra
con il volume al top.
Ho spento la tv!
L'ho riportata giu'!
Troppi applausi falsi
e idoli del marketing!

Non ti sommare
a un esercito di uguali
Non farli comandare!

Dov'e' finita l'arte?
E la creativita'?
Per far capire al mondo
che qualcosa non va

Io non ci credo mai
che non esista, sai,
un branco di animali
con gli ideali uguali

Lascia pensare
questo acido pianeta
Dovra' maturare!
Hai capito il senso, no?

Trova il modo per far girare la voce che ci proteggera'
Se non riesco a far cambiare e' soltanto..soltanto colpa mia!
Hey tu, che fai? Dove sei?
Dove andrai?
(solo)
Non ho detto niente!
La vita per tutti e' perfetta!
Il Capitale e' indifferente!
Seh Seh Seh!

LYRICS (ENGLISH)
Heard that in Italy
there was no rock'n'roll
I took a guitar
turned the volume to the maximum!
I switched off the TV
I brought it back downstairs
Too many false applauses
and marketing idols!

Don't add yourself to an army of indistinguishable people
Don't let them command!

Where has Art ended up?
As well as creativity?
To make the world understand
that something's wrong

I can never believe that, you know,
there exists no herd of animals sharing the same ideals
Let this acid world think
It will have to grow up!
You've got it, ain't ya?

Find the way to spread that voice, which will protect us
If I don't manage to make people change other people
it will be just my fault
Hey you, what are you doing?
Where are you?
Where will you go?

I haven't said anything!
Life is perfect for everybody!
Capital is unresponsive!
As if ! As if! As if!
----------
[Work registered at SGAE (Madrid, Spain)]

Saturday, 13 April 2013

KEVIN JOHANSEN - MCGUEVARA'S O CHEDONALD'S (WITH SPANISH AND ENGLISH LYRICS)




This simple and perceptive song is about the tragic commodification of Guevara's image.(I have posted below the lyrics in English and Spanish lyrics of Kevin Johansen's song).
If you are interested to know more about the problematic politico-economic character of Communist politburos and Communist regimes, my book on Post-Capitalist participatory democracy may be useful to you. 

Here's the link to download it for free:


Davide Ferri - The Problems Of Democratic Centralism and their Solutions

What to do for the making of a Participatory Front and How to do that
[Get an updated free PDF version on my academia profile here: here]


MC GUEVARA ’S O CHE DONALD’S

English:

Everybody got beard and hair like him
But they are not like him
Everybody declares to speak on his behalf
As if they were him
I wonder what he would think now
If only he could see
How they make tons of money talking about him
Without knowing anything about him

Everybody buys the t-shirt of Che
Ignoring who he used to be
His name and face do not stop selling ...

Looks like McGuevara's or CheDonald's
Looks like McGuevara's O CheDonald's
He is neither Fidel's brother nor a relative of Pinochet
He was born in Argentina and went to tour
He lived during the times of Evita and despite the musical
Never was he the assistant of Peron the General
I wonder why it was up to him
Being Jesus Christ at the end of the millennium, 
hey, hey, Che


Spanish: 

Todos se dejan la barba y el pelo como él
Pero no son como él
Todos declaran y hablan en nombre de él
Como si fueran él
Yo me pregunto que estará pensando él
Si pudiera ver
Cómo se llenan de plata hablando de él
Sin saber nada de él
Todos se compran la remerita del Che
Sin saber quien fue
Su nombre y su cara no paran de vender…
Parece McGuevara’s o CheDonald’s
Parece McGuevara’s O CheDonald’s
No es hermano de Fidel ni pariente de Pino’che’
El nació en la Argentina y salió a recorrer
No es de la época de Evita y a pesar del musical
Nunca fue asistente de Peron, el General
Yo me pregunto por qué le tocó a él
Ser Jesucristo al final del milenio, che, eh, che

Monday, 25 February 2013

THE PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM AND THEIR SOLUTIONS


Davide Ferri - The Problems Of Democratic Centralism and their Solutions

What to do for the making of a Participatory Front and How to do that
[Get an updated free PDF version on my academia profile here: here]
"INDEX:

INDEX:
1.   INTRODUCTION
Hereby I have discussed my reasons and objectives.
2.   A NON-PARTICIPATORY HISTORY OF COMMUNIST DISUNITY
Within this chapter I have outlined the impotence of individualised Communist parties across the world and mentioned the South Asian scenario.
3.   THE PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM, COMMUNIST PARTY POLITICS AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
In this chapter, I have introduced lottery-based democracy. In order to explain the concept of Democratic Centralism, I have analysed the Constitution of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its political implications. I have also mentioned Lenin’s and the Social Democratic support towards representative democracy. With this chapter, I shall argue that Democratic Centralism is one of the reasons behind the Left’s disunity in the XXI century.
4.  THE REASONS FOR A PARTICIPATORY FRONT. SOME EXAMPLES OF PARTICIPATORY POLITICS Here, I have pointed out why a participatory front is important and discussed many features of Bolivarianism, as well as the historical significance of the Five-Star movement in Italy.
5.   IDEOLOGICAL CONFUSION IN THE LEFT: THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING
I have mentioned the concept of planning, problem with money relations in Leninist countries, the advantage of labour-time accounting, the potential of welfare associations and social centres. I have also elucidated the problematic character of left’s segmentation and the importance of participatory ideas.
6.   THE PROBLEMS OF UNDIALECTICAL REFORMISM
In this chapter, I have talked about aprioristic reformism as opposed to tactical reformism.
7.   PRE-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD:  A PARTICIPATORY CONSTITUTIONAL FRONT AND DEMARCHIC PRAXIS TO GO BEYOND THE LEFT’S DISUNITY
From chapter 7 onwards I have begun to illustrate my theory of revolution and describe a participatory way of implementing pre-revolutionary praxis, by means of a tool called “Participatory Constitutional Front”.
8.   PRE-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD: THE WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS’ NETWORK
I have illustrated how a network of welfare associations could be put into practise. I have discussed its historical significance for the achievement of a radical change through and against bourgeois politics. Also, I have specified the difference between spokesmanship and representation.
9.   PRE-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD: REVOLUTIONARY ACCOUNTANCY
Here, I have discussed my theory of revolutionary accountancy for the pre-revolutionary period, which deals with a feasible quantification of the social impact of both progressive and reactionary labour. With this chapter, I shall argue that Leftists could organise a revolutionary accountancy (based on Marx’s Labour Theory Value) that could greatly contribute to the coming of a radical change and give a clear revolutionary direction to workers and activists.
10.                    POST-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD: DEMARCHIC COMMUNISM
Here, I have elucidated general politico-economic characteristics of Postcapitalism.
11.                    THE CONCEPT OF HISTORICAL PRODUCTIVITY: THE PRECONDITIONING FOR A THEORY OF CONTEMPLATION
In this chapter, I have dealt with philosophy, mass communication and religion.
I have presented my theory of dialectical morality and mentioned features of Islam, Hindu Mysticism, Christianity, the concept of violence etcetera to introduce  a theory of contemplation, which could help the Postcapitalist activists to get a more appealing praxis with the workers.
12.                    ART FOR THE BOURGEOIS, ANTI-ART FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE
Here, having introduced my concept of historical productivity, I have discussed the concepts of art and anti-art and explained a way to render art historically productive, providing examples.
13.                    CONCLUSIONS
I have provided the readers with a small recap of the book.
14.                    BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wednesday, 24 October 2012

THE POSTCAPITALIST MANIFESTO

Davide Ferri - The Postcapitalist Manifesto

A very short introduction to the building of a Post-Capitalist economy
[for an updated and downloadable free PDF, click here]
A very short introduction to the building of a Post-Capitalist



THE POSTCAPITALIST MANIFESTO

Written by: Davide Ferri
B.A.Economics(Honours)
Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, India.
First published on: March 5, 2012

INDEX: INTRODUCTION
Ch.1 WHO IS A POSTCAPITALIST?
Ch.2 IS POSTCAPITALISM A DICTATORSHIP?
Ch.3 WHO WANTS A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP?
Ch.4 ON VIOLENCE
Ch.5 ON MASS MEDIA, POLITICS, NGOs AND A POSTCAPITALIST ELECTIVE/GRASSROOTS EXPERIMENT
Ch.6 ON PRO-CAPITALIST REFORMISM, AUSTERITY AND THE CRIMINAL CHARACTER OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL
Ch.7 ON VALUE
Ch.8 ON RELIGION
Ch.9 ON NAZISM & FASCISM: TWO BOURGEOIS PHENOMENA
Ch.10 ON IDEOLOGY
Ch.11 ARE MARXISM-LENINISM AND ITS "BY-PRODUCTS" THE SOLUTION TO CAPITALISM?
Ch.12 ON MARKET CHAUVINISM
Ch.13 ON DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND HISTORICAL PRODUCTIVITY
Ch.14 ON MONEY
Ch.15 WHAT TO DO
Ch.16 HOW TO DO
: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRONT


[Read the downloadable free pdf on Davide Ferri's Academia Profile. Click on the link above.]

Sunday, 24 June 2012

FALLING RATE OF PROFIT, SWEEZY'S UNDERCONSUMPTION THEORY AND TUGAN-BARANOVSKY'S DISPROPORTIONALITY THEORY

FALLING RATE OF PROFIT, VALUE, SWEEZY'S UNDERCONSUMPTION THEORY 
AND TUGAN-BARANOVSKY'S DISPROPORTIONALITY THEORY
(Recap of Chapters of Sweezy's "Theory of Capitalist Development (1942)" on Value, Falling rate of Profit and Realisation Crises)


Written by: Davide Ferri
SRCC, Delhi University
First published on: June 24, 2012

Here's to you some academic notes of mine, written in a rush during my hectic examinations session in May-June 2012!
I decided to post the notes (rather than uselessly keeping them in some corner of my hard disk!) in order to give whomever is new to Marx's Labour Theory of Value a general idea regarding the concept of value, Sweezy's (problematic) under-consumption theory and the imbroglio of Tugan-Baranovsky's theory of Disproportionality.
Enjoy these notes and mind not possible errors and grammatical mistakes (in all sincerity, I haven't checked the orthography! Am busy with other works at present.)


PART I


The concept of value

All commodities share in common two kinds of value: use-value and exchange value.
Use-value is the value of needs satisfaction. It is excluded by Marx from the field of economic investigation because it doesn’t entail a direct social relation, according to Sweezy.
A commodity, to be sold, must be needed; no one wants a use-less commodity!
Exchange-value expresses a quantitative relation between commodities, entailing human labour.

In fact, according to Marx, the only creator of use-value is human labour. Hence, a commodity — apart from embodying a determined use-value per se — embodies a determined quantitative amount of human labour that is exchanged for other quantitative amounts of human labour, whenever sales take place. A certain quantitative amount of money can be exchanged for another quantitative amount of commodities, insofar as both embodies human labour.
This quantitative relation is defined by human abstract labour, insofar as human labour, to be exchanged, needs to be abstracted, namely, needs to be reduced to simple quality-less labour.
Individual quality doesn’t count in commodity production, due to the achievement of an ever-growing division of labour; personal contribution is valued in quantitative terms, say, in work-hours.
“Time is everything. Man is nothing” says Marx (see Marx’s “The poverty of philosophy”).
This simple labour embodied in commodities, however, must be needed if commodities need to be sold on the market. By no accident, Marx asserts that the exchange-value of one commodity is defined by the socially necessary labour-time embodied in a commodity.

The fetish character of one commodity comes into being whenever a buyer cannot see the effective reality behind a commodity on sale. In Capitalism, whenever a common buyer goes and buys a commodity s/he doesn’t see what all lies beyond the appearance of a commodity, that is to say, an entire production process behind it.
Hence, whenever we regard the value of a commodity as defined by human labour, it may sound ambiguous at first impact.
However, Marx’s analysis remains sound.

Value of labour (w) = c+v+s

where:
c=constant capital
v=variable capital
s=surplus value



Under simple commodity production, the ciculation form as symbolically designed by Marx is C-M-C (commodity-money-commodity).


A commodity is exchanged for money that in its turn will be exchanged for another commodity, embodying the same amount of socially necessary labour (exchange value) but a higher use-value for the Capitalist in question.

C-M-C represents the circulation form for most of the people in Capitalism, namely, the workers, who sell their labour-power (a commodity with a certain use-value for the capitalist) to get a remuneration (money) and purchase necessaries and conveniences of life (commodities).

The Capitalist, in expanded reproduction, goes to the market with money, exchange this money for commodities involved in production and gets a higher amount of money vis-à-vis the money originally invested in production.
The process M-C-M would not make sense, insofar as money in the beginning would have the same magnitude of money in the end.
The Capitalist cares about the exchange-value and not about use-value and by employing labour power and constant capital in his production he aims at achieving a larger amount of money as compared to that utilised for the purchase of variable capital and constant capital.
Since Capitalism is production for profit, that is to say, production for an additional quantitative of money obtained after a given amount of money has been invested in production, the production process would be M-C-M’ (money-commodity-greater amount of money vis-à-vis the money invested in production).
The difference this greater amount of money M’ and M is called surplus value. Its nature, according to Marx, is owed to an appropriation of labour, as human labour is the only creator of use-values.
It is important to point out that money can be expressed in labour terms too (e.g. say, 20Rs=1ounce of gold=1hour of labour). The difference between the value of commodity (in labour terms) and the value of labour power (namely, the amount of labour necessary for the reproduction of one worker) defines the concept of surplus value. (s= w – v- c)
The Capitalist tries out of competition to drive down the value of labour power to the minimum (workers’ survival) so as to get the maximum surplus value

The following relation defines the value of commodity:

C+ v + s = w

Rate of surplus value (or rate of exploitation)—> e = s/v

Organic composition of Capital —> OCC = q = c/c+v

Rate of profit —> p = s/c+v for Marx
P = s/v (1-q) where q=c/c+v

Sweezy says the Marx assumed OCC to be constant among different branches and that is not the case.
In Capital VOL III Marx says it may vary according to different branches of production, but for the sake of analysis he assumes it to be constant.

[Critique: when Karl Marx converted values into prices in the transformation scheme, he referred to the average price and not to the price, as Sweezy argues; which varies according to the OCC (q) of each sector. (O Sweezy!)
It is important to point out that with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (see p=s’(1-q) or p=s/c+v), the OCC tends to equalise.]


PART II


Department I and Department II

Sweezy assumes the industry is divided into two branches, department I, namely, producers’ goods, and department II , namely, consumers’ good. The relations for both departments are following:

C1+v1+s1=w1 —> Department I (producers’ goods)

C2+v2+s2=w2 —> Department II (consumers’ goods)

For the condition of simple reproduction to be satisfied (no expansion of production involved/no accumulation for higher profit) the constant capital used up must be equal to the output of department I (producers’ goods, e.g. machines, tools etc)

Demand for producers’ goods (“industrial consumption”/demand for constant capital)= Supply of dept.1, namely, the supply of producers’ goods at equilibrium in simple reproduction:

DD for producers’ goods = SS of producers’ goods
C1+c2= C1+v1+s1
(capital in all department is produced by department I production)
Also, demand for consumers’ goods (workers’ and capitalists’ consumption) must be equal to the supply of dept. II, namely, the supply of consumers’ goods

DD for consumers’ goods = SS of consumers’goods
(consumers’ goods are demand by both workers and capitalists!!)
V1+s1+v2+s2=c2 +v2+s2

When can reduce both the relations to c2=v1+s1
That is to say, the supply of constant capital, namely, the value of constant capital used up in department 2 is absorbed by the consumption of workers and capitalists

This reproduction scheme lays the bases, the groundwork, for an analysis of the discrepancies between DD and SS

Sweezy, against the abstinence (from consumption) theory, says that a decreased accumulation in favour of consumption would mean for the capitalist an abstinence from accumulation that is as much as painful as an abstinence from consumption.

The capitalist would look for a balance between consumption and accumulation.

The workers, in their case, abstain from accumulation, insofar as they don’t manage the social produce, which is managed by Capitalists!

Sweezy argues that accumulation increases the demand for variable capital. One could argue that the value of variable capital could cancel out the gap between c+v and the value of labour overtime, that is to say, it could eliminate surplus value.
Variable capital would increase leading to higher real wages, in monetary terms. But Marx already proved that a increasing real wages are offset by increasing reserve army of labour as fostered by an increasing population.
Population growth increases labour supply

PART III

Falling rate of profit

Marx discovered the tendency of the rate of profit (p=s/(c+v)) to fall overtime, assuming constant surplus value and growing organic composition of capital q=c/(c+v).
Whenever a rise in total constant capital (c) over total capital rises (c+v) - with a change in variable capital (delta v) equal to zero, negative or inferior to the change in constant capital (delta c) - the rate of profit p=s/(c+v) falls.
This is equal to say that the organic composition of capital q=c/(c+v) rises, reflecting an increasing marginal productivity of labour.

Marx enumerates six counteracting tendencies:

•Higher rate of exploitation (s/v) —> lengthening of working day or higher intensity of work imposed
•Wages below the value of labour power (immiseration)
•Lower wages (w/p) due to foreign trade or lower price of constant capital (Pc)
•accumulation of constant capital and lowering of the price of constant capital
•relative overpopulation (Potential labourers>Employed labourers —> say, L>N)

Sweezy challenges Marx’s assumption of constant surplus value. If the rate of surplus value remains constant it means that a rising surplus value (s) is offset by a rising labour productivity.
With a rising organic composition of capital (q or OCC) due to higher change in constant (delta c) as compared to the change in variable capital (delta v) labour productivity rises and a higher rate of surplus value (s’) is achieved as commodities are cheapened and the value of labour (v) – based on the price of necessaries – fall.
In brief, a lesser amount of value is needed for workers’ reproduction and maintenance.
According to Sweezy, a rise in the organic composition of capital (q) goes pari passu with a rising rate of surplus value (s’). Further, he argues, there is no reason to assume that a change in the organic composition of capital can be greater than a change in the rate of surplus value.

Sweezy ends up (problematically) attributing the tendency of the rate of profit to fall to external factors such as:

1. Trade unions and growing bargaining power of workers
2. Pro-workers state action (in the form of legal limitation of the working day, transfer payments etc)

At the same time, he recognises external forces that push up the rate of profit such as:

1. Employers’ organisations
2. Export of Capital
3. Formation of monopolies
4. Pro-Capital State action

PART IV

This falling rate of profit entails the dynamics of initial accelerated growth and final decelerated growth and breakdown. The Capitalist bases his/her own investment on a calculated rate of profit over, say, a year.
Whenever the rate of profit (p) falls s/he adjusts his/her investment decisions accordingly by withholding it, expecting the rate of profit to rise again.
This leads to a fall in output and to a displacement of workers and can lead to crises. Therefore it is not true that the rate of profit (p) must disappear or become negative to produce a crisis!

Sweezy individuates 2 types of crises.

Crises arising from disproportionality and Tugan-Baranovsky's theory

They occur when Price >Values

The organic composition of Capital (OCC or “q”) varies according to the various branches of production.
The organic composition of capital is not constant among branches [note: as Marx acknowledges but assumes as a necessary condition to describe the dynamics determining the average price of commodity].

This implies disproportionalities of prices with respect to values. In some branch P>W in some other branch Prices <Values
This occurs because of the anarchy of capitalist production, abandoned to market forces.

This disproportionality theory was rendered popular by Russian economist Tugan-Baranovsky.
Tugan-Baranovsky rejected Marx’s law of the falling rate of profit, whereby growing constant capital would decrease the rate of profit (not the absolute amount of profit achieved) and that mass underconsumption would produce stagnation.
Tugan-Baranovsky argued that growing constant capital would even increase the rate of profit!


Crises arising from underconsumption

Recalling Sweezy’s simple reproduction scheme:

C1+v1+s1=w1 —> Department I (producers’ goods)

C2+v2+s2=w2 —> Department II (consumers’ goods)

Where:

Demand for producers’ goods (industrial consumption of constant capital) = Supply of producers’ goods at equilibrium

C1+c2= C1+v1+s1

And:

Demand for consumers’ goods (workers’ and capitalists’ consumption) = Supply of consumers’ goods at equilibrium:

V1+s1+v2+s2=c2 +v2+s2

We can reduce the entire relation to:

C2=v1+s1

In passing to the process of accumulation, namely, expanded reproduction, we must assume that the capitalists invest a part of their surplus value into consumption and another part into investment for the sake of expansion of production (and higher profits).

Surplus value — according to Tugan-Baranovsky — can be conveniently divided into surplus value for capitalist consumption, surplus value for accumulation of capitalist consumption, surplus value for accumulation of variable capital, surplus value for accumulation of constant capital, that is to say, respectively, Scons, S∆cons, S∆v, S∆c

Hence a new relation can be established for both department I and II (producers’ goods and consumers’ goods):

C1+v1+scons1+s∆cons1+s∆v1+s∆c1 = w1 (producers’ goods)
C2+v2+scons2+s∆cons2+s∆v2+s∆c2 = w2 (consumers’ goods)

Now, to get the equilibrium in accumulation for both department I and department II (producers’ goods and consumers’ goods)

DD for producers’ goods = SS of consumers’ goods

C1+c2 + acc. of capital = C1+v1+s + acc. of s
Hence:
C1+c2 + s∆c1 +s∆c2 = C1+v1+scons1+s∆cons1+s∆v1+s∆c1

By simplifying we get:
—>c2 +s∆c2 = v1 +scons1+s∆cons1+ +s∆v1

Tugan believed that stagnation came from accumulation of capital, from expanded reproduction.
If surplus value is not allocated proportionately to each industry and departments there is underconsumption. Tugan asserted that however low the social consumption might be, if the capitalist producers had knowledge over demand they could allocate accumulation so as not to create realisation problems. Hence, according to Tugan underconsumption, as an effect of overproduction, is merely impossible if the capitalist producers know how to allocate resources.

Tugan’s fallacy comes from the fact that he assumes a balance of supply and demand whereas in Capitalism such balance has no place.

Assuming social consumption to be constant, namely, that the capitalist accumulate variable capital and constant capital but don’t accumulate consumption, we get:

C1+v1+scons1+s∆cons1+s∆v1+s∆c1 = w1 (producers’ goods)
C2+v2+scons2+s∆cons2+s∆v2+s∆c2 = w2 (consumers’ goods)

If variable capital and capitalist consumption increase, social consumption also increases. But we assumed the social consumption is constant, reflecting an hypothetical balance between Demand and Supply of both departments. Hence variable capital and increased capitalist consumption are eliminated from the above-mentioned relations.

According to the logic of Tugan-Baranovsky of an all-knowing capitalist, in accumulation we would get:

C1+v1+scons1 +s∆c1 = w1 (producers’ goods)
C2+v2+scons2 +s∆c2 = w2 (consumers’ goods)

and at equilibrium in department I:

DD of consumers’ goods = SS of consumers’ goods:
C1+c2 + acc. of capital = C1+v1+s + surplus elements

so:

C1 + s∆c1 + C2 +s∆c2 = c1 + v1 +scons1+s∆cons1+ +s∆v1 + s∆c1
—> c2 +s∆c2 = v1 +scons1+s∆cons1+ +s∆v1

Because social consumption is assumed by Tugan to be constant:
C2 +s∆c2 = v1 +scons1

where s∆c2 shall be 0.

[Recall that in simple reproduction, at equilibrium of SS and DD we have:

C2= v1 +scons1
where s1 = scons1 (in simple reproduction surplus is consumed)]


If both the relations of expanded reproduction and simple reproduction are correct, the accumulation of constant capital in department II, given the assumption of Tugan, would have to be zero. In order to make constant capital in department II square in algebraic terms, its accumulation would not take place; and this is not a real case.  Capitalism without accumulation can't simply exist.
Tugan-Baranovsky is conceptually wrong when he assumes that supply and demand can be at equilibrium in capitalism.
In brief, to have an organised (and non-anarchic) capitalist production we need to have balance between supply and demand in both departments, in accumulation, insofar as planned production must equal planned social consumption for the realisation of sales.
This implies that social consumption is kept constant.
At this point, expanded reproduction and simple reproduction would be reduced to the same thing, according to the extreme logic of Tugan-Baranovsky!
In fact, if social consumption is to be constant, accumulation of constant capital will have to be zero to make constant capital in department II have the same value that it had in simple reproduction, given the relation of expanded reproduction.

The lack of accumulation of constant capital in department II would be, of course, an impossible scenario. In fact, Capitalist production — whether “planned” or left to the anarchy of market forces — is inseparable from accumulation!

Sweezy's Underconsumption Theory

Sweezy points out that sustainable production in Capitalism is unattainable, insofar as the ration given by:

(Rate of growth of consumption) / (Rate of growth of means of production)
Is perpetually falling, whereas the ratio given by:

Rate of growth of consumption goods / Rate of growth of means of production
is constant.

Assuming growing national income, the rate of investment would an ever growing one and therefore the rate of growth of consumption goods would outstrip the DD for consumption goods. This would mean underconsumption, which Sweezy calls a disease of old age.

Monday, 18 June 2012

GAMBLING AND DIAPERS

GAMBLING AND DIAPERS

Gambling's the Word for this age
Gang yield's the form that it takes.
Bailout is what all can come out
of the burps, farts and shouts
of investors, who are only good at
promptly panicking like chased little rats.

I heard they are the ones that command...

Liberal Freedom's to people
as the sharp Private saw is to maples
The financial press is to yuppies
as the diaper's to babies.


Davide Ferri
June 16, 2012

Saturday, 28 April 2012

NATIONALISM


NATIONALISM.

When I hear the word Italy
can't feel heartbeating easily.
What all I can feel is production tragedies
for national European subsidies.

Sometimes I feel sunsets on Florentine hills
just like I feel warmth for the Netherlands' mills
or the plains of North India.
or African wars to remember.

Blessed is the nation
with sharp contradictions
as there is no motion,
no whole,
without interaction
of poles.

The only good nation
is an abolished bled nation.

Davide Ferri
Delhi, April 28, 2012

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

HATE

HATE

I write poor poetry 'cause my planet is poor.
Blame not that subject plus object whose name is wrongdoer
what else can we do 'part from draggin' our carcasses
in this universe, which roughed up our purposes?
Our hate is pure love for humanity
isolated and moulded by lords.
Our life is the struggle for verity,
to live with just sweet major chords.

Written by: Davide Ferri
Delhi,
24 April, 2012


Thursday, 19 April 2012

ON COPYRIGHT AND SOCIALLY NECESSARY SHARING


ON COPYRIGHT AND SOCIALLY NECESSARY SHARING

excerpt from: A Theory of Revolution
Written by: Davide Ferri
B.A.Economics(Honours)
SRCC, Delhi University
First published on: January 16, 2012
Lastly modified on:  March 25, 2012


<<[...] talk about the recent legislative imbroglio of SOPA and PIPA in America! Its political dynamics clearly show that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Monopoly Capitalism to enforce property rights over  the sharing of certain internet data having certain use-values, though it was always relatively easy for Capitalist to enforce property rights on the means of production, over human material and immaterial "offline labour".
One might - not without reason - wonder whether something called "online labour" really exists or not. I shall return later on the matter.

The limits within this liberal political repression of internet sharing come from medium and small networking Capitalists, whose liability costs would consistently rise in case an anti-piracy bill is passed by the US congress and monitoring of sharing activity is imposed on the pockets of free websites owners (not to mention the lower profits that big electronics firms would realise without the help of piracy!).

Talk about Copyright! Wanna see what all happens behind Capitalist production?
Bourgeois economics says:
there's no need, dude!  Our economics is value-free!
There is only price, and there is no value based on labour.


Why does the "legal economics" need this fancy bourgeois trick?

Because behind production (and non-production), there is sheer exploitation of socially necessary labour on the part of ownership of the means of production.
In fact, the buyer - by craving commodities on the market- implicitly desires the human labour necessary to their production, which is the only precondition for a value that satisfies needs (namely, use-value), as embodied by the commodities.
Capitalist ownership of the means of production, a transitory historical product of Capitalism, is not a value, as one can achieve social production without it.
Whatever happens behind its production does not matter to the buyer, because one does not care about exploitation or profit behind commodities/service, one cares only about the use-value of commodities. Value is given neither by labour, nor by desire. Value is given by "desired labour", the dialectical combination of both these elements (which we can call "socially necessary labour").
With complete automation, nobody would have to pay for the robots'produce, insofar as there would be no human socially necessary labour objectified by the production.
But, as hinted above, the copyright question - as we shall see in a while - is not something relative to socially necessary labour.

In general, the less is the price the higher is the demand, teaches us Bourgeois economics.
If the price of one service/commodity is zero, there will be the highest possible demand.


What about Online "services"?

These "services" approximately have zero cost and should approximately have zero price in terms of electronic distribution, where little external offline labour is required.

If one artist or scientist allegedly performs "socially necessary labour" within his or her production of online use-values, then why nobody should pay for it?

Because what's behind online use-values is not socially necessary labour, insofar as the historical degree of technological development does not objectify the online activity as labour, but as artistic/cognitive contribution to the human growth, a natural ideological process; a normal social relation, like "talking, discussing and hugging".

In brief, people, by desiring online the artist's or scientist's online material, regards his or her' performance as a gift to humanity and not as a commodity.
Within the framework of online use-values, people are naturally bound to be people, and not buyers.
By desiring the artist's performance, people implicitly desire his or her gift to humanity, his or her normal social interaction; and not "his or her labour on payment".

If not socially necessary labour, what does an artist/intellectual's activity represent?
It represents what I call socially necessary sharing.


Needless to say, one doesn't feel like paying for insightful comment below an article or in a social network, exactly because one doesn't regard sharing as labour. And internet use-values are pure elements of sharing, unless there is an external reactionary force that curbs this natural scientifico-historical process and forcefully makes you pay for it, as if one could make you pay for the information he tells you by sharing something with you in a cafe.

Sharing is perfectly natural - whether it occurs on a social network, down the street or all over internet -  in the sense that is a natural need; and Nature has use-value too, yet we don't pay for its products (unless some fancy bourgeois privatises its fruits and reminds us we have to pay for what's naturally free!).
The only remuneration of sharing is the happiness behind the use-value enjoyment of a user, perhaps returned by his or her sharing.

One might cry out: but I worked hard to share it! I need money!

Do one asks for money whenever s/he shares an interesting mutually-enriching discussion on physics, art, politics or psychology?

One might also cry out (more coherently) I shared a lot! I need gratification!
Well, this would depend on how much its online sharing is socially necessary!

As hinted above, the historical degree of technological development of our advanced society compels a former labourer (e.g. a film maker or an artist) to perform what's wrongly regarded as "labour online" as a gift to humanity, or - if s/he Capitalistically wants - to curb the natural development of society tending to priceless socialisation of art and enforce unnatural property rights. Video sharing websites e.g. are not open markets, where people directly bargain and relate to each other. The technological development has simply gone beyond all this and increased the natural ability of people to share, fostering its quantity and quality and decreasing distances. Yet Capitalism doesn't care about the quantity and quality of this immense human dialectical development, because it is not give a fig about dialectics and the progressive growth of human beings and human society.


Does this mean that in Postcapitalism - where we find no production property - artists and film-makers will magically stop uploading material online?


Perhaps the only ones interested in uploading for profit will do, but not those interested in enriching humanity as a whole by sharing and psychologically enriching themselves through the gratification resulting out of it.


As discussed previously, offline activity is regarded as labour, whereas online activity as sharing.
Postcapitalism will realise an era, in which high-budget artistic and scientific performances may even require a Communal or State fund based on surveys or competitions.
On the other hand, low-budget artistic and scientific performances will come directly from working people, who desires to materialise their activity as a gift to humanity, as a hobby and as a de-commodified act of sharing, not on payment.


Will this reduce the amount of court directors making films for personal financial interests?

Yes. That's exactly what we Postcapitalists want. The remaining willing directors will be people producing (nay sharing) for the sake of people's and personal non-financial growth.
If the amount of, say, comedy movies decreases to such an extent that people feel the need to increase them, people will do so, by calling for Commune-level or State-level funds to be donated to whomever is disposed to contribute in artistic terms, under the right grassroots supervision.
This will go on until "artistic equilibrium" of supply and demand is restored.

What's paradoxical within the scenario of commodities/services is that, in the first place, bourgeois economists and various court philosophers claim one should not care about what all happens behind offline commodity production of use-values (perhaps for the worthy Capitalist enjoyment of sweatshop exploitation and "value-free" political economy!).
In the second place, with the assertion of property rights on online sharing, bourgeois economists and court philosophers claim that in this occasion one should grasp what all happens behind the online production of use-values and think about the worthy enjoyment of royalties (far from being "labour", just like sharing) on the part of bourgeois brats.
O Liberals!
The same ideological contradictions of democratic Capitalism prevent its own victory in the name of Copyright.
People pirate to learn and grow, as technology, nay science, (therefore "nature"), spontaneously curious people to do so.
Yet Capitalism,with its property rights and court philosophers, doesn't want this, even if human growth is socially desirable, while its repression is a mere bourgeois horror.
Capitalism doesn't want humanity to grow, it wants short-run returns and in the name of profit prefers creating the biggest market failure through the enforcement of property rights, namely, the destruction of an immense pool of online use-values, which could potentially enrich humanity in moral, cognitive, political and artistic terms.

By taking to account my concept of mechanical political labour, we may notice how pro-monopoly administrations wish to use their reactionary political labour-time, nay political surplus value, against what all natural technico-scientific development and social need historically require: free web content.

To conclude with this topic, I may also argue that the ability of one person with progressive ideas to contribute to a consistent dialectical change also depends on how much his/her social structure unwillingly or willingly allowed him/her to spread ideas through his/her political labour as mechanised by the mode of production, bearing in mind what all a certain superstructure could historically permit. In labour terms, the mode of production play an important role; a computer with an internet connection e.g. would reduce all that production labour necessary to his political activity, in terms of "transportation of data".
We are not discussing here, however, how much and how internet (or other "machinery") can really contribute to political success in modern times.
Socially necessary sharing e.g. has, like commodities, a determined use-value (namely, a value relative to the satisfaction of human needs) within our Capitalist society.
The example of internet piracy is very similar to the dynamics that would occur in case production is to be robotised and therefore value/prices to abolished.
With automised production, commodities would be free - given the fact that there would be no socially necessary labour time objectified within robot-produced commodities - and would be increasingly difficult for Capitalists to enforce property rights over "material" production.
With modern web circulation of data, any datum would be socially necessary sharing time circulating at zero cost; a gift from the user for humanity, given the technico-scientifical development that presupposes its free character and the will of the user to spread it for free.
The fact that one has to pay for certain content - which has been privatised by Capital - has nothing to do with socially necessary sharing; it has to do with labour (and, alas, the pockets of one boss, in Capitalism).>>

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

WITH A MARGINAL HELP FROM MY FRIEND

WITH A MARGINAL HELP FROM MY FRIEND

O violent pro-charity systemic prop!

saving tens of privileged kids and forgetting the mob,

the revolution is struggling to break out in years
maybe ten, and your marginal help could make it in nine
One year saved! Cast away your privileged fears
and don't get impressed by your boss-friendly fight.
The whispers you hear in your semi-deaf ear

are the thousands or millions you passively killed in that year

Davide Ferri,
Delhi, April 18,2012

FRIEND

FRIEND

All in all,
what is a friend lost?
It is just a set of humanity and heart
of creativity, projects and art
that in the very same space, time and form,

won't come back anymore.

Davide Ferri,
Delhi, April 18,2012.

Sunday, 8 April 2012

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

The classroom's a temple of a boss-friendly nation,
arranged by the Ministry of Education.

Davide Ferri, Mumbai
April 8, 2012

Monday, 2 April 2012

I SHALL VANISH WITH WHAT BAD CREATED ME

I SHALL VANISH WITH WHAT BAD CREATED ME

I shall vanish with what bad created me
within my down-going, which is also the employer's
I shall vanish with mires that, yes, set me free,
what gave too less to others,

and too much to me.

The Sun is my crutch, makes me ignore why am reeling
in this planet of dirty poor slums

still a planet of feelings.

The Sun projects inside me what all hasn't come yet
'cause the Sun is the reason why we transcend the night.
Care not for your Sunset in red

because People will see your Sunrise

Davide Ferri
Delhi, April 2, 2012

Thursday, 1 March 2012

STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART

STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART

Straight from the heart
is this message for you.
For your conscience, your art

your well-flattened austerity mood.
the word "workers" itself
has become boredom, the past

a dusty wretched book on a shelf!
Then how can you freaking remind them of us?
And to think am so charmed by all them,

99%, who can't exploit anyone!
Proletariat, an old misused term, now renders justice to what's
just the old working class, and excludes a wage-labour mass

of white-collars by west Commies forgot!

Fake communist dorks!

Davide Ferri
March 19, 2012

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

SOME REMARKS ON "VIOLENCE" BY SLAVOJ ZIZEK





“Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation"
(Zizek, Violence 22)

I suggest everybody to get the must-read work Violence by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek; you'll find a soft copy (in PDF) with a brief search on Google.

I discuss the concept of "systemic violence" in my "The Problems of Democratic Centralism and their Solutions". To download it, you might conveniently click here!

Or here:

Davide Ferri - The Problems Of Democratic Centralism and their Solutions

What to do for the making of a Participatory Front and How to do that
[Get an updated free PDF version on my academia profile here: here]

and in the Postcapitalist Manifesto. To download it, you might conveniently click here!
Or here:

A very short introduction to the building of a Post-Capitalist economy
Davide Ferri


What is Violence?

Among other things, Violence is an intelligent, concise and perceptive critique of the systemic violence (or "the often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems ") on the part of passive "liberal Communists", court philosophers, philanthropists,  hippies, NGOs and "humanitarian activists".
As Slavoj Zizek observes, systemic violence - which is dominant in our social structure - is far more dangerous and ruthless than the 'subjective' isolated violence, a produce of the former.
Zizek excels with his irony, cultural examples, intelligence and politico-economic insight; and provides a precious analysis of various cultural and socioeconomic perverse dynamics of Capitalism.

Davide Ferri