Three Talks by Loren Goldner - London January 19th, 21st and 22nd, 2008

Submitted by mutenews on 3 January, 2008 - 23:56.

New York-based Marxist Loren Goldner is giving a series of talks in London this month, hosted by Mute magazine [http://metamute.org]

Best known for his prescient and revelatory analysis of the global credit bubble of the last thirty years, Goldner has revived and synthesised the theoretical insights of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx and CLR James suppressed by orthodox Marxism and the mainstream Left to offer a rigorous and revolutionary critique of contemporary life, politics, economy and culture.

This is a rare opportunity to hear one of today’s most interesting left communist analysts discuss a broad spectrum of his research and writing.

There are 3 talks at 2 venues:

From Mass Strike to Casualization and Retreat: The Korean Working Class, 1987-2007

Saturday January 19th 2008, 6pm – Housmans Bookshop

This talk will focus on the recent history of class struggle in Korea, from mass strikes, wage increases and radically democratic unions in the late 1980s - mid ‘90s to casualisation and bureaucratisation today when as many struggles take place between regular and casualized workers as against capital itself. (More below)

Housmans Bookshop ,
5 Caledonian Road, 
Kings Cross, London
N1 9DX. Entry: Free

How to get there: http://www.housmans.com/contact/index.htm

Class Struggle and the Adamic Imagination in Herman Melville
Monday January 21st 2008, 7pm – Housmans Bookshop

1848-1850 witnessed the birth of communism, modern art, the end of classical political economy, and the formulation of the entropy law, or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This talk explores the mid-19th century crisis of the bourgeois ego, and the emergence of the working class onto the stage of world history, as echoed in Melville’s novels. Against the cliché of the US as lagging behind Europe on the long parliamentary march to socialism, a Melvillean, and un-orthodoxly Marxist account emphasizes instead the radically anti-statist character of the multiracial working class as portrayed in Moby Dick, and manifest in the struggles of the 70 years after 1850 in the US. (More below)

Housmans Bookshop ,
5 Caledonian Road, 
Kings Cross, London
N1 9DX. Entry: Free

How to get there: http://www.housmans.com/contact/index.htm

Fictitious Capital and Today's Global Crisis
Tuesday January 22nd 2008, 7pm – The Whitechapel Centre

The fallout from 2007’s credit crunch becomes daily more visible as the global financial system goes from shock to recoil to shock. To understand the stakes of the current crisis and the possible impact – both from the perspective of capital and of the working class – one needs to understand the nature of the 30-year-plus ‘fictitious capital’ bubble whose bursting we may now be witnessing. If this is indeed the end of that long and perverse combination of boom and depression in which capital has ‘successfully’ cannibalised itself, what will ‘the new 1973’ – or ‘new 1929’ be like? How is the global balance of power likely to be affected? (More below)

The Whitechapel Centre,
85 Myrdle Street (off Commercial Road), Whitechapel, London E1. Entry: Free. How to get there: http://linkme2.net/co

Getting to the talks:

Housmans bookshop. Tube: 5 mins walk from Kings Cross. Directions: http://www.housmans.com/contact/index.htm

The Whitechapel Centre. Tube: 10 mins walk from Whitechapel or Aldgate East tube stations. DLR: Shadwell. Bus: 15, 25, 254, 106.

Map: http://linkme2.net/co

More information
T: 44 (0)20 7377 6949. E: ben AT metamute.org

About Loren Goldner:

Loren Goldner is a writer and activist who divides his time between New York and Seoul, South Korea. He has written on various economic, political and cultural matters over the past three decades. He is currently writing a book on the Korean working class. Most of his work is available on the Break Their Haughty Power web site at

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner

Mute Magazine:

Mute is a quarterly print magazine dedicated to culture and politics after the net. The Mute website is updated weekly with web-only content and it’s complete archive is made available free:

http://metamute.org

Mute Vol2 #6 (July 2007), a special issue on credit, debt and crisis, featured Loren’s article: ‘Fictitious Capital For Beginners’ :

http://www.metamute.org/en/Fictitious-Capital-For-Beginners

MORE ABOUT THE TALKS

1. From Mass Strike to Casualization and Retreat: The Korean Working Class, 1987-2007

Similar to patterns that have been played out in Spain and Portugal (1974-76) as well as in Brazil (1978-83) since the mid-1970’s, the Korean working class in the late 1980’s destroyed the foundations of a decades-old military dictatorship with remarkable mass strikes in the years 1987-1990. The strikes resulted in the creation, briefly (1990-1994) of radical democratic unions and in high wage increases across the board. But, as in other cases, the working class was relegated to a battering ram for a “democratic” political agenda that quickly embraced globalization and the neo-liberal mantra of free markets. In fact, even before the strike wave but particularly thereafter, Korean capital was already investing abroad and pushing neo-liberal austerity at home. In 1997-98, the Asian financial crisis forced Korea under the tutelage of the IMF and greatly accelerated the casualization of the Korean working class which had been the main capitalist riposte to the breakthroughs of the late 1980’s. Today, at least 60% of the work force is casualized in the most brutal way, subject to instantaneous layoffs and half or less the wages of the 10% of the work force classified as “regular workers”. The bureaucratic remnants of the radical democratic unions of the early 1990’s are today reviled corporative organizations of that working-class elite, and as many struggles take place between regular and casualized workers as against capital itself.

2. Class Struggle and the Adamic Imagination in Herman Melville

In Europe, after 1848, bourgeois consciousness in revolt sought a new universal in the working class but soon found itself in the orbit of the state civil service; in America, bourgeois consciousness in revolt found a new universal in what Melville called "antemosaic" reality, Queequeg, embodied in the multiracial working class , the "Anacharsis Cloots deputation", in radical antithesis to the state.

Herman Melville (1818-1891) came to this perspective in the feverish production of six novels of the sea, culminating in Moby-Dick, in the 1846-1851 period. As the whaling ship Pequod was destroyed by Moby Dick, the Indian harpooner Tashtego nailed a red flag to the mast, also catching the wing of a sky-hawk, with its "imperial beak". Thus Melville connects the red man with the red flag, pulling down the imperial eagle, but more in what Marx called the "mutual destruction of the contending classes" than the triumph of proletarian revolution. In Moby Dick, Melville places the "antemosaic" cosmic men, Queequeg-Tashtego- Daggoo, at the head of the working class, and, in Billy Budd, such a figure re-emerges as the "Handsome Sailor", "a common sailor so intensely black that he must needs have been a native African of the
unadulterate blood of Ham". Melville is Miltonian, and Blakean; his Adamic figures combat the world of radical evil, and do not, like the wide-eyed Transcendentalists Melville lacerates, inhabit a benevolent nature, a "prejudice of the more temperate climes" as he put it. But when Melville treats race and class, his framework is not merely modern capitalist society. Melville's cosmic men come out of a Biblical eschatology and revolt against the cosmic kings of the same eschatology, above all Charlemagne.

Melville was a grand bourgeois, with aristocratic overtones, whose life path abruptly turned downward at 13 with the bankruptcy, madness and death of his father in 1831. Poverty obliged Melville to go to work as a seaman, in his late teens. He thus experienced, more than any other writer of the "American Renaissance", the shattering of the old bourgeois personae in the new capitalist conditions.

Melville, then, is a writer of dispossession. But his dispossession is not merely personal or social or artistic: it is epochal. Melville, all his life, was a case of“exiled royalty". His work repeatedly revisits the death agony of his bankrupt, raving father. And from the exaggerated cosmic kings and their symbols (e.g. Charlemagne), as well as from their pitiful devolution in the tinsel of the modern world, Melville attempts to work his way through his crippled father imago to the "state secret". His dispossession moves from family to class to politics to the cosmic and back again.

The 1848-1850 conjuncture in the Atlantic world witnessed the birth of communism (Marx), modern art (Courbet, Flaubert), the end of classical political economy, and the formulation of the entropy law, or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Their simultaneity was not accidental, and Melville's work echoes each of them.

1848, in Europe, had been the year of the eruption of "the dangerous classes”; in America, it marked the end of interclassist Jeffersonian-Jacksonian populism, over the slavery issue. The link between communism, modernism, neo-classical economics and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the beginning of the "dissolution of the object" in the "dream worlds" of a new mass consumption.

This study attempts to situate Melville’s works in this convergence.

3. Fictitious Capital and Today's Global Crisis

The worldwide credit crunch we are seeing today is just the culmination of a process underway since the late 1950’s, (the proverbial “from a scratch to the danger of gangrene”), whereby an ever-increasing mass of nomad dollars, corresponding to no real wealth in the world economy, are tossed around like a hot potato by central banks always counting on the “bigger fool” to be holding them when they finally deflate. The central banks of Asia (China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) currently hold over $2 trillion of these nomad dollars, and China alone is expected to have $2 trillion sometime in 2008. The Middle East oil exporters, above all the Saudis and the Gulf states, hold a comparable amount.

We can call these dollars, which represent uncollectible debts arising first or all from five decades of chronic American balance-of-payments deficits, “fictitious capital”, a concept which, when unpacked, leads straight to the heart of fifty years of capitalist history and to the illumination of own our precarious present.

Far from being a remote “economic” concept, fictitious capital leads us straight to the central political questions of today, and above all those questions confronting the international left. To see this clearly, these fictitious nomad dollars must be connected to the dynamics of contemporary geopolitics and the closely related class struggle.

4 January, 2008 - 01:11

hmmm, i miht go to the last one.

will there be food? The last time i went to an academic marxist bash there was food.

4 January, 2008 - 03:13

Will definitely be interested in the third talk...

4 January, 2008 - 10:18

not worth coming from preston i suspect.

4 January, 2008 - 15:35

dp - net connection shenanigans - yawwn!

4 January, 2008 - 15:36
Tacks wrote:
not worth coming from preston i suspect.

Ah Tacks - behind on the news featuring the global movements of our fellow comrades! smile

I agree the third talk looks the best tho i am prolly working and i guess a Marxist night out doesn't sound too jolly! tongue

Love

LW XXX

5 January, 2008 - 00:39

do you think someone will be recording that? "abroaders" like me would be interested in at least heraing the talk;)

11 January, 2008 - 08:39

Comrades from the ICC are planning to go the meetings on Korea and fictitious capital. I'm aiming for the latter. A good opportunity for continuing debates on the roots of capitalism's crisis.

11 January, 2008 - 09:38

I'm looking at the first 2.

And it's Loren Goldner, of course it'd be worth coming from Preston.

11 January, 2008 - 09:45
Quote:
A good opportunity for continuing debates on the roots of capitalism's crisis.

And what are the roots of capitalism's crisis, Alf? I wish the ICC would be a bit more forthcoming with their views on this important issue. sad

wink

11 January, 2008 - 22:32

Let's see - a tongue in cheek, ironic smiley with a slightly perplexed one? What does that signify?

In any case. Rosa Luxemburg thought the following passage from Capital Vol III was particularly important:


"Let us see how Marx describes this contradiction in detail in chapter 15 on ‘Unravelling the Internal Contradictions of the Law’ (of the declining profit rate)":


‘The creation of surplus-value, assuming the necessary means of production, or sufficient accumulation of capital, to be existing, finds no other limit but the labouring population, when the rate of surplus-value, that is, the intensity of exploitation, is given; and no other limit but the intensity of exploitation, when the labouring population is given. And the capitalist process of production consists essentially of the production of surplus-value, materialised in the surplus-product, which is that aliquot portion of the produced commodities, in which unpaid labour is materialised. It must never be forgotten, that the production of this surplus-value—and the re-conversion of a portion of it into capital, or accumulation, forms an indispensable part of this production of surplus-value—is the immediate purpose and the compelling motive of capitalist production. It will not do to represent capitalist production as something which it is not, that is to say, as a production having for its immediate purpose the consumption of goods, or the production of means of enjoyment for the capitalists. (And, of course, even less for the worker. R. L.) This would be overlooking the specific character of capitalist production, which reveals itself in its innermost essence. The creation of this surplus-value is the object of the direct process of production, and this process has no other limits than those mentioned above. As soon as the available quantity of surplus-value has been materialised in commodities, surplus value has been produced. But this production of surplus-value is but the first act of the capitalist process of production, it merely terminates the act of direct production. Capital has absorbed so much unpaid labour. With the development of the process, which expresses itself through a falling tendency of the rate of profit, the mass of surplus-value thus produced is swelled to immense dimensions. Now comes the second act of the process. The entire mass of commodities, the total product, which contains a portion which is to reproduce the constant and variable capital as well as a portion representing surplus-value, must be sold. If this is not done, or only partly accomplished, or only at prices which are below the prices of production, the labourer has been none the less exploited, but his exploitation does not realise as much for the capitalist. It may yield no surplus-value at all for him, or only realise a portion of the produced surplus-value, or it may even mean a partial or complete loss of his capital. The conditions of direct exploitation and those of the realisation of surplus-value are not identical. They are separated logically as well as by time and space. The first are only limited by the productive power of society, the last by the proportional relations of the various lines of production and by the consuming power of society. This last-named power is not determined either by the absolute productive power or by the absolute consuming power, but by the consuming power based on antagonistic conditions of distribution, which reduces the consumption of the great mass of the population to a variable minimum within more or less narrow limits. The consuming power is furthermore restricted by the tendency to accumulate, the greed for an expansion of capital and a production of surplus value on an enlarged scale. This is a law of capitalist production imposed by incessant revolutions in the methods of production themselves, the resulting depreciation of existing capital, the general competitive struggle and the necessity of improving the product and expanding the scale of production, for the sake of self-preservation and on penalty of failure. The market must, therefore, be continually extended, so that its interrelations and the conditions regulating them assume more and more the form of a natural law independent of the producers and become ever more uncontrollable. This eternal contradiction seeks to balance itself by an expansion of the outlying fields of production. But to the extent that the productive power develops, it finds itself at variance with the narrow basis on which the conditions of consumption rest. On this self-contradictory basis it is no contradiction at all that there should be an excess of capital simultaneously with an excess of population. For while a combination of these two would indeed increase the mass of the produced surplus-value, it would at the same time intensify the contradiction between the conditions under which this surplus-value is produced and those under which it is realised.’"

Rosa quotes Marx in chapter XXV of The Accumulation of Capital, 'Contradictions within the diagram of enlarged reprduction', in order to support her argument that the diagrams of enlarged reproduction in Volume II of Capital (which appear to prove the possibility of indefinite accumulation within the closed circuit of capitalist relations) should not be taken literally, otherwise they would be inconsistent with Marx's insistance that there is a fundamental contradiction between the 'productive power' of capital and the 'conditions of consumption' dictated by wage labour.

Are you coming to the meeting, Button?

13 January, 2008 - 16:58

There is a 'Reply to LG' in an article in 'Internationalist Perspectives' which I posted a link to earlier under this announcements page, which some might find useful.

13 January, 2008 - 18:50

Alf -- if the East London line wasn't suspended, I'd be there like a shot. wink

13 January, 2008 - 18:52

Hmmm.... this said, the one on Herman Melville & that does sound fascinating.

16 January, 2008 - 11:52

Anybody going to record this? Something to listen to whilst I'm packing boxes!

22 January, 2008 - 21:20
Tacks wrote:
not worth coming from preston i suspect.

Ive changed my address line...happy now.....

23 January, 2008 - 09:52

The meeting on fictional capital was interesting. About 90 people. Loren gave a good summary of the main ideas contained in his texts. There was time for discussion, though it did peter out towards the end(some people went on a bit in their interventions....). I spoke (quite briefly) to support Loren's defence of the marxist approach to the crisis, its relationship to the class struggle and the drive towards imperialist war. I also asked him to elaborate on his approach to Rosa Luxemburg and the problem of overproduction, as he didn't directly mention her in the talk. One of the main issues that emerged in the discussion was whether or not the economic crisis is in some sense'caused' by the class struggle. Two people put this idea forward, one from a fairly straightforward starting point, another from a more sophisticated 'autonomist' one. There were also some ideas being put forward which seem to look at the question from an 'anti-neoliberal' starting point. Loren at at any rate reiterated his criticisms of the 'alternative worldist' ideology which so often ends up taking the side of the national state against the multinational corporations.
In a brief chat I had with Loren at the end, he said that he was expecting me to question him more 'sharply' and that he would have been very happy to have discussed decadence, which I had only referred to by implication when I spoke...I said that it seemed to me that you can't get very far with a discussion on decadence unless you have established that capitalism is a system with inbuilt and insurmountable contradictions which impel it towards crisis, and that it seemed to me (or rather us - I came with a couple of other ICC comrades) that it was important to support his basic approach.
I saw Catch there, who left before the end, and Ret - any other posters from libcom? Any comments on the meeting?
I also had a brief talk with N, formerly of Aufheben, who told me a bit about their split - he went with the pro-Theorie Communiste current.
Coming to this meeting was an act of heroic militancy on my part as I missed watching Spurs' triumph over the old enemy, although I did catch the last goal in a pub nearby.

23 January, 2008 - 12:25

Hello there Alf- I was sat next to catch. I left after the question on militarist investment from a man at the back near you, but had heard the first (?) question on autonomist ideas asked from the guy near the middle. I thought Loren's answer was very convincing, and it articulated problems I'd had with the autonomist current very well. What was the other question about?

To summarise for those that weren't there: the autonomist perspective seems rarely to be articulated in an historically-conscious way, and it is generally posited as a transcendent theory of capitalist development- one that puts the struggles of the working class at the centre. Loren pointed out that this was a reasonable thing to theorise by the Italian extra-parliamentary Left during the massive wave of struggles of the 'mass-worker' that happened in northern Italy in the 70s, but since the decomposition of the working class as a conscious political actor there has in fact been a speeding up of capitalist development- not only in Europe but in the US. With a tiny fraction of the strikes taking place now (official and otherwise) compared to the 70s-80s, where would those holding a strong-autonomist position see this development arising from. In the face of the rapid change since the destruction of the Bretton-Woods system, we are smashed politically.
I had always had trouble with this aspect of autonomism. If I have made a mistake in my understanding feel free to correct me.

The guys form Mute videoed the event, so hopefully it will be made available for others to see. I had trouble following all of it as I am not too familiar with the structure of credit markets (and indeed high-level capitalist infrastructure in general), but I got some interesting ideas from it.

23 January, 2008 - 13:01

Yeah the guy in the middle (who posts on here very occasionally I think, perhaps he'll turn up), was putting forward the "crisis /always/ caused by the actions of the working class" autonomist line - which is a step too far beyond class struggle in general, or 'sometimes yes, sometimes no, and not really at the moment' which was essentially what Loren was saying in his answer I think.

I'd also say the massive reliance on consumer credit is in itself a result of working class defeat - living standards in the UK and US have been maintained in large part due to cheap credit and housing bubbles, while wages drop in real terms. In the same way credit and financialisation adds elasticity of boom and bust phases (and a bit of a snap back in the eye at the moment perhaps), it also does this at the personal level in terms of buffering consumption vs. wages - and I think this is part of the reason we don't see so many wage struggles gathering momentum - since what's going on with interest rates and the rest can have a far higher effect on people's disposable income (perceived or not) than if they get 2 or 4% on their salary.

Since I could stay late yesterday, I e-mailed Loren a couple of follow-ups, will also direct him here.

23 January, 2008 - 13:29

very stimulating. saw lots of people I've not seen for a while and had some interesting discussions. got called 'mr libcom' which is probably a pretty bad sign, and a little weird too. Then ended up bogged down talking to Fabian - someone else I've not talked to for a long time - about hermeticism. So I got the whole bundle really. Nice to meet the mute characters again, too.

I spent the whole evening getting increasingly agitated at not knowing enough (critique of political) economy. Something to work on,

Shame I didn't recognise anyone off the board apart from Ret.

23 January, 2008 - 17:31

Hi pingtiao – sorry I missed you. Maybe we can discuss on another occasion.
The other ‘autonomist’ question (from a proper Italian ‘operaist’) was less a question than a long critique of Loren for failing to mention ‘The Subject’ (ie, the true cause of the crisis, the proletariat). He also criticised Loren for having a conception of decadence (which is true – he does, although he didn’t use the exact term last night). Loren however rejected his assertion that he didn’t deal with the proletariat as subject. He sees the present global crisis as the basis for a class revival which is already taking shape (we agree with this). But presumably this wouldn’t be good enough for an autonomist because reacting to the crisis would make the proletariat into a mere Object.

23 January, 2008 - 18:42

Also there was a guy who mysteriously spoke of "progressive forces" and someone else who thought there'd been a revolution in China. I suppose we were all too polite to mention it.

23 January, 2008 - 19:58

I bought a copy of Mute and then promptly lost it. Can someone explain their outlook on things?

23 January, 2008 - 20:27
Alf wrote:
I bought a copy of Mute and then promptly lost it. Can someone explain their outlook on things?

whatever it is, its well presented.

23 January, 2008 - 20:41
Alf wrote:
I bought a copy of Mute and then promptly lost it. Can someone explain their outlook on things?

I'm pretty sure they don't have an official outlook.

23 January, 2008 - 22:18

Further elements from the discussion with N.

Though brief, we actually covered lot of ground. N told me that he follows libcom (though he doesn’t post and he has many reservations about the usefulness of the discussions), so if I have misrepresented him he can break his habit and do a post.

The Aufheben split: As I said, N went with the pro-Theorie Communiste grouping. He described it as made up of younger members who were interested in continuing the discussion with Theorie Communiste. The old guard of Aufheben wanted to stop the discussion in a rather peremptory manner and ‘get on with the work of the group’, producing the magazine, etc He said that this old guard had wanted to expel the younger members and believed that N, as a founder member, would go along with this, but he refused to do so. The implication was that the old guard had acted in a bureaucratic manner to suppress discussion. I was rather stunned that Aufheben even have a concept of membership, let alone the notion (and practice) of expelling people, and didn’t get to ask him any more about this.

N was critical of my comments on TC – dismissing them without having read them and referring to someone else (the former Riff Raff guy) who was nothing to do with them. I have already admitted that I haven’t read much of their stuff, but I have read some, enough to get an impression at least. The feeling I have that they are theorising an abandonment of the proletarian revolution was not lessened when N answered my question about the differences between the two groupings in Aufheben: he said that the group he was with were discussing whether or not the proletariat has a “revolutionary essence”. I asked him if he could say whether his group would, from our (the ICC’s) point of view represent a step forward or a step back, and he said probably we’d see it as a step back. Anyway, perhaps others can say more about the debate between TC and Aufheben and the reasons for the split. Am I right that the question of alienation was one of the issues? That at least would be interesting.

We also touched on the thread on fictional capital – the ‘mikus’ debate. He said that he didn’t think we had put forward a good case in that thread. I accepted that there were problems with it and that in particular I found it virtually impossible to debate with mikus. However, it struck me as ridiculous that so many people were impressed by the basic argument advanced by mikus, who makes no bones about supporting Otto Bauer’s criticisms of Luxemburg (which she replies to so vigorously in the Anticritique) – ie that you can prove the possibility of indefinite capitalist accumulation by referring to an abstract mathematical equation, and that Rosa had raised a complete non-problem. N replied by saying that on this point mikus was with Marx and Otto Bauer was also correct on this. He also said he thought mikus was in agreement with Grossman and Mattick’s theory (I said that I know virtually nothing about where mikus stands on this or virtually any other political question). In any case, he thought that if you were looking for a theory of capitalist decline in Marx, you had to look in Vol III and the chapters on the falling rate of profit. I agreed, but these chapters are also precisely the ones where Marx also examines the problem of overproduction; yes, N replied, he does show how crises of overproduction are a product of the falling rate of profit; and I said, yes, but he also shows that the fundamental root of the crisis of overproduction resides in the wage relation itself, which is the basis of Rosa’s theory. The meeting then got started and the conversation ended.

All that in a few minutes’ discussion. Nothing like face to face discussion, fellow posters!