Economie Politique Internationale - International Political Economy.

MARGINALIST SOCIALISM OR HOW TO CHAIN ONESELF IN THE CAPITALIST CAVERN.

1) Marginalist socialism from von Mises to Oskar Lange to Liberman.

Jean Triole with his « contrat unique », Thomas Piketty and his perennial and insurmountable inequalities (1), as well as many others, share the same Marginalist paradigm, which has now become hegemonic in the academic milieu. We thus find it necessary to recall that this modern Marginalism goes back to von Mises. We are not dealing here with a simple matter of allocation of resources but rather with a viscerally regressive world view.

Von Mises waxed eloquent about speculation. He was the first to conceive what would eventually become the patently fallacious theory of « efficient markets ». With his book entitled Socialism, von Mises initiated a fraudulent critique. It nurtured the theoreticians from Chicago University and many others, among them the members from his own Société du Mont Pélerin. Refuting these criticisms, Fred M. Taylor and Oskar Lange coined the concept of « market socialism » (2). This, by way of Liberman and Khrushchev, will induce a debilitating effect over socialist planning. In the longer run, it caused the internal destruction of the Soviet Union, and still has the potential to do the same for all those regimes which proclaim to be inspired by Marxist socialism.

If one accepts Marginalism as a science, one will naturally tend to blame any real difficulty as resulting from a discrepancy between theory and facts: Hence, there is no better way to establish speculative capitalism as the future of socialism! This was verified for the Soviet Union State bourgeoisie, which was made totally hypocritical and schizophrenic by this Marginalist socialism. (3) In the end, it disowned its own system and from 1990-1991 it launched its cold-blooded razzia upon the State and collective assets. This singular forma mentis equally characterises modern Marginalist thinkers; for them the market is never free enough, particularly the labor market. From the beginning, von Mises's criticisms aimed at all forms of State intervention, not excluding war planning in Germany during the First World War. Thus, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, the Welfare or Social State was seen as the main obstacle to be removed so as to return to a level of inequality such as existed prior to 1914 and, in particular, prior to October 1917! Any forms of Keynesianism or of State intervention was portrayed as heresy, forgetting in the process the legitimate role of the State in progressively concretizing the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Individual and Social Rights …

To be sure, Taylor and Lange were well-intentioned. However, it is foolish or at least irrational to pretend to build socialism on the basis of a bourgeois Marginalist paradigm, which, in any case, was demonstrated by me to be fundamentally a-scientific. (4) If Marxism were scientific then it should prove capable to solve the sets of problems engendered by a socialist mode of production. Gramsci underlined this evidence rightly. Von Mises sees marginal productivity, derived from the private property of the Means of production, as the sine qua non condition for any economic calculus. This he calls the « price system ». Without it you are economically blind, so to speak. However, marginal productivity optimizes private profits, which are redistributed according to the respective weight of the capitalists involved, but it is ontologically incapable to optimise the respective quantities of Means of production (Mp) and Means of consumption (Cn) to be produced. The pseudo-optimization which follows is strongly oriented and falsified by the distribution of capital. In effect, it follows an anarchical mechanism based on waste as Enrico Barone had recognised. (Il ministro della produzione nello stato collettivista (1908) http://www.panarchy.org/barone/stato.collettivista.1908.html .) The « invisible hand » is moved by the differentiated private accumulation process. It is inspired by a frenetic egoism presented as the best way to ensure the general interest. In brief, as illustrated recently by France, it ends up substituting Planning, even moderate incitative and indicative planning, with a vulgar Lolf, thus leading the country to its ruin. All public spending necessary to ensure real equilibrium - namely of Mp and Cn - or at least to counterbalance the devastating effects of the « animal spirits » of capitalism, are then subordinated to the Treasury. Starting from the Volcker-Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution of 1979-1980, the Treasury took the preeminent role above the national ministries of finance and economy, so as to be directly in tune with the exigencies of short-term global speculative finance. This, in turn, was regulated by the US Federal Reserve itself placed under the hegemony of the 4 main New York banks that reign over the local district of the FED located in that metropolis. (5)

The general equilibrium reached in this fashion - or even through the Marginalist accounting method used by central planning according to Lange -inevitably leads to entirely renege on Marxism, and consequently reneges on any pretenses to apply science to economic matters. One takes for granted that Marginalism is THE economic science. As Lange insisted, this would then imply its universality, hence its possible extension to socialism. Sadly, Marginalism is nothing but a narrative. The list of charges is long. We will limit ourselves here to the most obvious. Its primary aim is to occult the exploitation of labor. Its marginal utility, a subjective and cloudy notion, does not even stand on one leg. It was precisely developed to hide the ontological duality of all merchandises, including the labor force, namely their use value and their exchange value. Its value added is incapable of accounting for its own genesis nested in the rate of surplus value. Its prices are nothing more than fluctuating epiphenomena over-determined by exchange values. Its pseudo-theory of money is blind and was added as an afterthought. It nonetheless informs the operations of the capitalist central bank which was later grafted upon its body. Today, this leads to « credit without collateral » (6), an evidence which does not need any further comments.

Moreover, technology remains exogenous simply because Marginalism does not even have a coherent law of productivity. Productivity changes involve a proportionally inverse movement in the organic composition of capital (v/C, where C = c + v) and the rate of exploitation or surplus value (pv/v). Increasing or decreasing returns and economies of scale do not solve anything. (7) Piero Sraffa had already demonstrated it in his essays written in the Twenties. I have demonstrated the scientific validity of the Marxist law of productivity, integrating it fully and coherently within the Equations of Simple Reproduction (SR) and of Enlarged Reproduction (ER) laid out by Marx. These Equations constitute the sole real general equilibrium. I have integrated credit in these Equations. Furthermore, on the basis of the fundamental distinction between interest and profit, I have demonstrated that speculative credit displays an ingrained tendency to cannibalise the whole profit. This deleterious tendency fatally leads to more serious capitalist crises than ever before. We all know about the LBOs often used by equity funds and invariably ending in surgical restructuring in order to satisfy double digit ROE. (See my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy in the section Livres-Books of my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

So far I have not seen the least attempt to refute my demonstrations granting me the right to response. However, I saw many attempts to typically reverse and occult, in particular with

regard to my clarification of living labor, a key concept of the Marxist law of value, and thus of the capitalist form of extraction of surplus value, namely productivity.

Comparing humble things to great, I note that this shameful and rather un-academic strategy was refined and massively applied in unegalitarian Masonic spirit against Marx. I have demonstrated the falsity of the critique Böhm-Bawerk pretended to address to Marx, more precisely after his death, i.e., the pseudo-problem of transformation of values into prices of production. I take notice that von Mises was a student of Böhm-Bawerk. On the basis of the initial falsification operated by his master, he thought to prolong its effects through his attempt to occult the essential meaning and use of the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction. Here lies the intimate meaning of his linking marginal productivity with general equilibrium and with the so-called « price system ». Nevertheless, even assuming an identical rate of productivity in all sectors, these Equations prove beyond criticism, a hard fact which does not authorize their being pushed aside with a slight of hand as a particular case.

The method always remains the same: Get your inspiration from the most advanced scientific Marxist theories and reduce them into a reversed Marginalist narrative resting on plausibility. In the present case, von Mises made his best to manipulate the work of Paul Lafargue. He was one of the greatest Marxist theoreticians after his father-in-law Karl Marx. This explains his lasting influence on Lenin. Surely, it equally explains why he was and continues to be laboriously falsified and occulted. For instance on the crucial matter of the secular reduction of working time. The unfairness of it can be realized when you look at the 8-hour legislation; it owes a great deal to him since it was on the basis of the careful dossier documented by the Marxist doctor Paul Lafargue that Jules Guesde was able to successfully presented his law to the National Assembly. Paul Lafargue had a full scientific training. Given that he could not arrive at a refutation, he attacked the transformation problem in a preliminary fashion from a different angle; he thus marshalled the concrete empirical evidence provided by the society he lived in. (For a résumé of the fallacious transformation problem see the « Annexe » in my Tous ensemble or in English my Book III entitled Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth, both freely accessible in the Livres-Books section of my site.) In the process, Lafargue elaborated upon the theory of credit initiated by Marx and importantly added to the theory of financial capital. No doubt Lafargue confused interest and profit as he used the logic of interest to illustrate the equalization of the rate of profit. Von Mises was conscious of Böhm-Bawerk's initial falsification and thus he quickly realized the benefits he could draw form this confusion between interest and profit.

The argument is as follows: Böhm-Bawerk announced what he called a lethal logical contradiction between Capital Book I (dealing with value) and Books II and III (respectively dealing with reproduction and price of production). Afterwards all, including Bortkiewicz and Tugan-Baranovsky, will rightly consider the argument in the framework of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction - as Marx himself had done. For Böhm-Bawerk, the problem resided in the fact that data provided ex ante in exchange value terms at the beginning of a cycle of Reproduction were transformed into prices of production through the systemic equalization of the rate of profit, that is to say in a post hoc fashion; this was contradictory since these prices of production would then substitute for values at the beginning of the next cycle. The value coherence of reproduction was then destroyed. This problem has simply no solution until one demonstrates the Marxist law of productivity, integrating it fully within the Equations of Reproduction, an achievement which I alone provided. (See the references alluded to above). Otherwise, on the wrong premise of a post hoc equalization of the rate of profit, the tendency will be either to criticise this equalization process, and with it the scientific validity of Marxism, or else to attempt a resolution of the problem on a new basis, namely the simultaneous resolution offered by tutti quanti starting from Bortkiewics and Tugan-Baranovsky.

As far as he was concerned Paul Lafargue strived to show that the equalization process was real given the extreme mobility of capital, particularly with the generalization of stock-market capitalization. He never tried to present this illustration as a theoretical refutation of Böhm-Bawerk. It is only sad that the great and dedicated Paul Lafargue did not see that the equalization process in question was performed by productivity, that is to say as the ex ante organic working of the function of production itself (i.e., the inverse proportion prevailing between the rate of organic composition of capital and the rate of surplus value, a law which dominates at the microeconomic level with the individual functions of production as well as at the macroeconomic level with the sectoral and subsectoral functions of production that enter into the Equations of SR-ER.) This would have established the absolute scientific superiority of Marxism and would have change the face of the XXth Century even more than was done by the precious scientific and practical contributions of Lenin ...

Von Mises pushed wide open this ajar door. He knew exactly all the advantages he could derive from it: Confusing interest and profit renders the genesis of profit, of which interest is only a part, even more difficult to explain. There only remains a fluid « game » involving liquidities that sends one back to risk calculus, exactly as J. B. Say wished to do using Ricardo's « paper currency » as his basis instead of human labor. This risk calculus sends us back to De Witt when he questioned himself on how to divide the hazardous benefits of maritime companies equally between partners. This probably explains why some tried to pick Blaise Pascal's brain to arrive at a mathematical resolution of these kinds of problems. As we know Adam Smith had pushed aside the reward of risk as an explanation of profit - if you think of it, it can at best explain distribution not genesis - in abstraction of any consideration of the part played by human labor. He famously wrote that the owners of the Means of production typically « love to reap where they newer sow » (See Sutherland edition, 1993, p 47). In his theory of the hegemony of financial capital, Paul Lafargue criticised it as being speculative and thus leading to world-wide crisis. Von Mises quickly affirmed the opposite, namely that speculation with its risk taking was the purest form of capitalism, albeit a form that still needed to be perfected in its implementation, eliminating all obstacles. Of course, the main target was the alleged poor fluidity of the labor market, thus entirely abstracted from any consideration of social safety nets and other social programs, not to speak about safety in the workplace.

The obfuscating enterprise carried out by von Mises can be explained in yet another fashion. At the time, all, including Pigou, had recognised that the capitalist « invisible hand » induced enormous waste without proving able to satisfy the essential needs of the masses. (See Pigou Socialism versus capitalism, 1937.) Here lies the ideological origin of von Mises's argument concerning economic calculus. Of course, it is a fallacious argument given that Enrico Barone had confessed that capitalist equilibrium can only be reached thanks to the « anarchy » of the market - here lies the origin of von Hayek's libertarian anomism. That is to say, economic equilibrium can be reached thanks to an enormous waste carried out on a large scale. We also know that before the emergence of capitalism, voluntary waste, or squandering, had been theorized as a necessity aimed at preserving class and cast inequality by all the most reactionary and most exclusivist groups and lodges.

Von Hayek later attempted to consolidate von Mises's vacillating critique. He did so pretending that Planning would clash with an insurmountable difficulty, namely the necessity to solve million of equations simultaneously. This argument is nothing but a patent fallacy; it follows directly from the solution offered by Tugan-Baranovsky to the false problem of the transformation of values into prices of production, one which was born fully armed in the brain of Böhm-Bawerk. Tugan-Baranovky had introduced a Gold sector along the two main sectors theorized by Marx following his monumental analytical work on Sismondi's « annual revenue », on the theories of the Physiocrates and of the proponents of classical political economy and, of course, on Quesnay's Tableau economique. He did so in an utterly artificial fashion so as to obtain the same number of equations as of unknowns that was necessary to perform a simultaneous resolution. This is why he also uses Gold as his unit of account.

I have demonstrated since the end of the 70s and then in my Tous ensemble that this was only a formalist subterfuge. It had nothing to do any longer with the economic field and even less with Marx's law of value and with his Schemas of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction. Moreover, gold and generically speaking money are but general equivalents which are themselves in need to be measured against the unique universal equivalent, namely the exchange value of labor power. We hasten to add that the so-called « market of markets » devised by Léon Walras, one that necessitates throughout liquefied inputs in terms of money, is just an adapted variation on Tugan-Baranovsky's fallacious reproductive system. After my contributions, these and similar arguments should provoke laughter. To date, I did not see a single attempt to refute my arguments giving me the right to respond.

My Schemas provide the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction in an entirely coherent manner in both quantities, values, prices, hours and also in terms of physical workers when due care is taken to express their contribution in terms of « socially necessary labor ». This is crucial to understand the genesis of unemployment and its effects on « structural inflation ». Above all, this remains valid when productivity rates differ. This organic coherence permits the elaboration of the Marxist quantitative theory of money on the basis of the crucial distinction between salary mass and social salary mass (which includes the price cost of social insurance.) After 2007-2008, the Western central banks, among which the FED - Ben Bernanke's doctoral work was on money and inflation ... - injected gigantic amounts of liquidities with the vain initial hope to cause hyperinflation aimed at shifting the cost of debt financing on foreign creditors. Naturally, as salaries were lowered and social safety nets destroyed, the opposite happened. But no one seems to have realized it and no one dares utter a single word on the subject!

As far as austerity strategies are concerned Blanchard from the IMF talked defensively about a simple calculus error but in reality he could not ignore if only because of my critiques that what was at fault was his own paradigm, one which is now leaking from every side. In my Book III of 2005 - in both French and English - entitled Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth see the section Livres-Books the subprime crises had been clearly announced underlying the fact that it merely masked a more profound structural crisis. It suffices to use the word « montage » in the search function to verify ...

In my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy I equally provide an essential demonstration of the scientific universality of Marxism. It is demonstrated that market prices, whatever their epiphenomenal oscillations, do remain over-determined by the Schema of Reproduction, in

other word by « social demand ». I thus demonstrate the thesis Marx brilliantly advanced in his Parisian manuscripts of 1844.

Von Mises's so-called « price system » always remains post hoc. On the contrary, the value schemas do not necessitate any intermediation by consumers' choice in the price fixing sense adopted by von Mises or even by Oskar Lange. This is so because their data are given ex ante and remain coherent through and through, as long as we move within the initial parametric conditions - also called « moral conditions » by Marx in the classic sense of civilization underlying norms. When these parametric conditions do change - revolution etc -, the system readjusts on a new basis but the rate of profit, not to be confused with the volumes of profit which induce concentration and centralization of capital, remains identical for all the functions of production, independently of their respective productivity.

Oskar Lange rightly insists on the role played by historically given parametric conditions. Indeed, when a socialist regime emerges, it inherits a general equilibrium which it knows how to correct thanks to the Marxist function of production and to the Equations SR-ER. Correcting the data for at least one complete cycle of reproduction based on full-employment, one empirically reaches a value system that will be more precise than the Marginalist « price system » given in so-called constant prices. At the same time, one will correct the SR-ER granting priority to social needs as well as to essential individual and collective needs. The propulsive force of the system resides in the search for maximum productivity at all levels, enterprise, industry, sector and filière. This tendency will be greatly strengthened by the collective allocation of the « social surplus value ». In effect, micro-economy is never independent from macro-economy, on the contrary, although Marginalism is ontologically unable to coherently conjugate both.

Social surplus value characterises the dominant form of extraction of surplus value in a socialist mode of production in the same way that productivity embodies the dominant form of extraction in the capitalist mode, or absolute surplus value in the pre-capitalist modes. The dominant form of extraction of surplus value, as well as the « redistributive epochs » it implies, characterises a specific mode of production. However, it does not cancel the subordinated operation of the other forms. These forms are: absolute surplus value based on the duration of work, relative surplus value based on the transient intensity of work, productivity based on the structural work intensity embodied in norms, and social surplus value based on the collective allocation of profit to maximise the efficiency of the other forms at the micro level. Hence, social surplus value implies some sort of State intervention - say the Welfare State - and, in the end, when it becomes fully hegemonic, Central Planning.

Socialist consumers' choices, taken individually or together, do not follow the narrative logic of capitalism. Salaries being equal or at least not too divergent - see Jules Guesde on socialist salary equality - « prices » are not susceptible to be bargained. They are values which represent exactly the sum of the values of the input of the production function (c + v + pv = p). The « global net revenue » of the households is calculated in function of the optimal « structure of v » at any given time, so that the choice bears on what the consumers actually do desire to satisfy their needs. The question is not at what price do I buy but more importantly what do I need most. This process will be increasingly simplified for all consumers as well as for Planning as substitutes will be made available (butter/margarine; pasta/rice; coffee/tea etc.) In case of relative scarcity, choice mill be mediatised by the availability of these substitutes or by the socialist management of individual savings or even by appropriate fiscal policies.

We should note that Pareto's indifference curve do function with an immutable price system at the time of buying at this precise moment the consumer knows and assumes that his actions will not modify the said price structure. This is not without raising some serious question for the internal logic at the level of this general equilibrium since we are constantly sent back to the aforementioned ex ante/post hoc contradiction which affects all forms of bourgeois economic theories. A vicious circle. The consumers' indifference curves in a socialist regime are not only possible, as Pareto himself was the first to admit, but they prove even more efficient. As salaries and revenues are comprised in only a few brackets, predictability will be proportionally higher while the Equations of Reproduction will allow for the avoidance of the systemic waste that characterises the capitalist mode of production.

Let us equally note that Pareto's indifference curves as well as all Marginalist supply and demand curves lead to a static system which cannot be made internally dynamic. Marginalists attempted to dynamize it in an exogenous manner. They did so with the introduction of credit and savings, or else with the introduction of technology according to R. Solow. The first case was attempted by Keynes-Harrod-Kahn and later followed by the pauperized normalization of Keynesianism operated by Hicks, Samuelson and Solow that some termed « bastard Keynesianism ». An even more damaging version is offered by so-called « military Keynesianism ». The latter took its flight following the first industrial crisis of post-World War Two in the United States, and was immediately used as a pretext to launch the Korea War. Despite Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, this process culminated in the gigantic military spending, which characterized the Reagan Administrations and those of his successors in the White House. To crown it all, then came von Mises with his hegemonic speculation. It eventually led to institutionalized austerity with its devastating « credit crunch » complete with its induced negative economic spiral. All of us, individuals as well as Statespersons, will surely appreciate its « scientific » efficiency ...!

The problem, if it can be called that, resides at the level of production. At that level, the optimal productivity must always prevail and be mediatise by Planning to avoid any uncontrolled intersectoral contraction. Innovations going in that direction will always be privileged, as well as design, so as to more closely satisfy needs as well as taste. Here too, the indifference curves are simpler to establish and more efficient. This is because they can be worked out in coherent ex ante/post hoc terms, namely on the basis of exchange values. They are thus eminently predictable and will increasingly be so as authentic Marxist statistics will be developed on the basis of the Marxist function of production and SR-ER Equations - something which has nothing to do with the unpalatable Pikettian-confusion on the subject. The choices pertaining to the allocation of resources will be accounted for. In this way, the indifference curves send us back to a set of scenarios of Enlarged Reproduction, which in turn will involve what I called « socialist democracy ». All these scenarios, or 5-Year plans, will be optimal but the one that will be chosen will directly correspond to consumers, qua citizens, choice. We would be dealing here with perfectly controlled trade-offs. (8) As demonstrated by the practices of real socialism, the major difficulty, though not a lethal one, lies in the insertion within the World Economy. This is particularly true when this is still placed under capitalist dominance i.e., the setting of the rate of change and, in particular, when this is further aggravated by an embargo.

In a capitalist regime these choices are over-determined by the private property of the Means of production. In this context, the optimum reached will invariably be function of the unequal redistribution of revenues and wealth. Moreover, when this includes monetary inequality, the logic of Reproduction will closely reflect the adequate systemic expression of the « structure of v », namely of the « global net revenue » of the households. The latter involves the individual salary and the differed salary - i.e., UI, pensions -, etc to which must be added the benefits derived from citizen access to public social programs and infrastructures. When it is greatly unequal, the capitalist equilibrium will more properly entail a « graveyard equilibrium », which includes the graveyards of the enterprises forced to bankruptcy because of a chronic overproduction going hand in hand with chronic under-consumption. This is verified with the current policy aimed at reducing labor costs instead of production costs, and privatizing social services thus curtailing the crucial micro and macro-economic role of social surplus value. According to Zerohedge, today, in the United States, 20 % of the population consumes 40 % of the products and 40 % consume 80 %. Obviously, we are dealing here with percentages strongly skewed by the debilitating weight of speculation. This situation is socially and economically catastrophic, especially as it now clashes with the rapid emergence of autonomous competitors, for instance the BRICS.

Let us underline the fact that the American Marginalist GDP is characterized by a lesser degree of structural State intervention. It does fictitiously over-reflect the impact of demography, and above all that of the increasingly privatized services and infrastructures for instance Obamacare. We should not forget that the official and relatively low rate of unemployment (now around 6 %) hides a real rate of more than 23 %. This catastrophic rate goes hand in hand with an active force around 55 %, that is to say the lower level experienced in the last 35 years! Moreover, the increase in Marginalist GDP equally lies on the explosion of financial sector, particularly speculative in kind, despite the fact that this sector already had been responsible for the last subprime crisis. We are here dealing with a crisis which only represents the tip of the iceberg of a more serious underlying structural crisis that has the potential to be more damning and more lasting than the Great Depression. Viewed from a Spenglerian angle, the United States and the West in general are now following the same declining path walked by the fading British Empire and its conquering City after 1939 when they were dethroned by the rising USA and by Wall Street.

The Marxist logic of Reproduction thus leads to optimal satisfaction of social and individual needs, including free time away from work. The latter gained an ever increasing productivity, one which will still be amplified by the macro-economic use of « social surplus value ». Free time equally plays a fundamental role in the individual and collective emancipation, that is to say in the blooming of personalities, a process guaranteed by the Socialist Constitution and its Socialist democracy, further informed by the Marxist theory of psychoanalysis. (9) It also opens the road to the production of non merchandized value - use value - thus to a different culture and psychology no longer based on what Hobbes called the « acquisitive mentality ».

In effect, the accumulation of the real Wealth of Nations would characterise socialism more than capitalism. In a socialist mode of production, needs would first be satisfied with massified products. Then the renewal of the existing stocks would be met with quality products manufactured either in short runs or by rehabilitated socialist crafts. Ecomarxism permits the integration of environmental criteria - precaution principle - together with a sane management of available resources. The nature and life cycle of products would be function of the degree of their recyclability. There would be no place for capitalist programmed product obsolescence with the sole aim of guarantying markets, and thus forcing the rapid renewal of existing stocks just to insure profit flows. Massified products answer a relative emergency logic and would therefore have a relatively short life cycle. Quality products would necessarily have a longer life cycle. In the medium and long term this would engender

great saving of resources without limiting the expression of personal taste, a privilege now exclusively reserved to the rich.

Aside from recycling, the necessary resources would be ensured thanks to the artificial or natural renewal of available stocks and with the development of massifiable substitutes. Given a good zoning of the national territory, respectful of a socialist agriculture based on land rotations etc., this strategy could even mobilize the agricultural sector (dual use biofuels, latex, algae's etc.) This can be done without danger for human health or for what I called « agricultural or food sovereignty », this last not to be confused with the Monetarist « food security » subjected to derivative financial vehicles. As any modern society is based on transformation, the more a society will dispose of agricultural and energy surpluses, the more will it gain in productive flexibility and productivity. For instance, the Civilian filière of molten salt plants which are capable of burning nuclear waste, including plutonium, should become the object of a careful exam. (10)

The choice of occupation would present no particular problem given that education would be informed by a modern pedagogy (11). Furthermore, it would be accessible in permanence to all in the framework of recurrent cycles of Reduction of Working Time (RWT) etc. (Incidentally, the salary scale under capitalism is presumed on formation that is to say on bourgeois selection and the ability to pay high tuition fees ... In actual fact, the hardest jobs, particularly manual, should be paid higher.) I have already touched upon this subject in various places, for instance in the chapter dedicated to Cuban socialism in my Book II - idem - and also in the section of my site dealing with Cuba as well as in my Synopsis. The equality of the global net revenue of the households should in any case be the ultimate goal to reach. The drastic diminution of the salary scale, to be initially from 1 to 3 maximum, would be strongly backed by the development of social, cultural and sport policies etc...

This socialist revenue policy would not cause any disincentive to work. There would be no need for what Lange called « social dividend », or, if you will, for the Marginalist form of material incentives. Full-employment would be the rule. Moreover, socialist management of human resources would no longer be based on coercion on the model of the capitalist workfare policies and Jobs acts, but instead on a positive pedagogy to borrow Gramsci's terms. It would stand on socialist emulation (Hô Chi-Mingh). The management would be collective, plant worker councils strong and generalized, and all would be comprised within the processes pertinent to industrial and economic democracy within the framework of Planning.

Would then emerge a culture based on self-discipline and on the control inherent to participative democracy at all levels. Socialism features the collective worker. Particularly at the level of the immediate process of production, the work team would naturally exercise the kind of soft pressure usual amongst peers. This would be concretely measured by the fulfillment of the quota of work allocated to each team. Each team would be responsible for its individual and collective realization. These teams can also play on the allocation of overtime, the occasional increase of working time to allow for catch-up work within legally accepted norms this would also verify the Taylorist and ergonomic norms used -, sickness leaves, vacations etc, according to the pre-set objectives, which would have been determined collectively at the enterprise, industry and sector levels. This is necessary to maintain fairness of treatment among all workers. As a matter of fact, this was one of the greatest contributions made by comrade Mao Zedong with his brigades and communes integrated into a central planning administratively decentralised and bidirectional. The Japanese quality circles, as

well as the Swedish assembly lines of the 70-80, which allowed workers to partially control the rhythms of the line, were inspired by it with the hope of improving productivity (i.e., less work porosity, less sick leaves, less absenteeism, greater consciousness of quality control etc.) In any case, we should remember that the recurrent RWT cycles would play their underlying but potent moderating role. The great French writer and jazz player, Boris Vian, alias Vernon Sullivan, author of J'irai cracher sur vos tombes and also inventor of the piano-cocktail, dreamed loudly about the 2-Hour working week. Having had both a literary and mathematical training and being a serious reader of Paul Lafargue, he knew this would soon become technically feasible. The system would equally rest on the guarantee offered by the three forms of revenue of the households duly protected by an adequate definition of the anti-dumping. On the new anti-dumping see http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/appeal/. This would also allow for the institutionalizing of socialist savings by way of Workers Funds, Productivity Funds and individual saving accounts.

In so doing, a socialist regime would distinguish between the Domain of Necessity (Planning, industrial economic and social democracy) and the Domain of Liberty, guaranteed by the socialist Constitution. Despite the redundancy, this transition aims at the emergence of a « Libertarian communism ».

I should perhaps add that my work was written despite everything and all, and despite the barbarous and intrusive harassment perpetrated 24 hours a day for decades, without the least regard for my family. In the end of 2013, I had initiated a vast scale editing process, correcting the orthography and the syntax while respecting the initial texts. These were always the fruit of a first draft written and circulated rapidly to avoid online theft leading to reversed plagiarism. Without this I would have been forced to quote the robbers despite their repugnant and vicious abuse of an already illegal wall-to-wall surveillance, adding to their grotesque and overpaid over-representation. After a year, my USB storage device gave way, probably because of the usual manipulations, and I was not able to retrieve the corrected data. I do not have the courage to start the work anew immediately, especially as I have to work on the chapter dealing with Planning. This as a form of excuse. Despite it all, I modestly believe that my texts are worthy to be read.

Unless the proof to the contrary be provided granting me the right to respond, I affirm that Marginalism is no more than a socially and economic dangerous narrative. Marxism only qualifies as science in this discipline when it is corrected for the Marxist law of productivity duly integrated within the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction. Marxist statistics have still to be developed on this clarified scientific basis. Given that a debate is timidly opening over pluralism in the discipline - when will we have a serious debate on its scientific basis? - I take the opportunity to underline the fact that departmental deans are themselves accountable for academic deontology. That is unless they want to consciously pose as impostors ready to venally support and propagate narratives, while continuing to be paid out of the public purse. Including, in large measure, when the universities and schools have unfortunately already been privatised.

2) Concerning socialist democracy.

In line with what was said above the superiority of Marxist political economy should be obvious. Alone can it logically pretend to the status of science in the economic field. The proponents of Marginalism are only forgers who nurture a narrative. They know perfectly well, or have no excuse to ignore, that it is the consequence of successive falsifications, all aimed at preserving its plausibility in order to perpetuate the capitalist class and cast domination. Von Mises himself was a liberal-fascist Austrian-Jew who never felt any need to renege on his exclusivist and unegalitarian convictions, even after the Anschluss when he had to quickly flee from Austria. (13) It should be clear that lending faith to the so-called « Marginalist socialism », equally known as « market socialism », in order to build socialism is like chaining oneself in the capitalist cavern and then complain to be blinded by the sunlight once allowed outside for a short walk under strict surveillance!

A similar diagnostic concerns the superiority of socialist democracy over bourgeois pluralism. The latter is always over-determined by money and by the unegalitarian Masonic pre-selection. This is strongly influenced and masked with the snobbish rags of class « meritocracy », one which the Law of Great Numbers would soon illuminate as the spoiled offspring of money and family connections. Capitalist democracy had its history; the same applies for socialist democracy and its new forms that still need to be invented.

Oskar Lange himself affirmed the superiority of socialism in this field albeit he backed his affirmation on his Marginalist socialism. In all fairness, we must however underline the fact that Oskar Lange argued in favor of equal salary and of a quick nationalization of all strategic Means of production. He did not believe in a slow transition to socialism because he was intimately convinced of the effective subordination of government to big capital. These views probably explain why Stalin was instrumental in enticing him to move over to the East although he himself never conceded the least space to bourgeois theory, especially in planning matters in a socialist society. (14)

Thus Lange interestingly notes that consumers' freedom would be greater in a socialist regime. This is because salary equality would go hand in hand with a planning that would grant priority to the fulfilment of social needs. He states that in such a regime the consumer would not be forced to sacrifice essential daily needs to pay for health and education expenses. In the same fashion, as long the operations of Planning remain transparent, no chronically bad misallocation of resources could happen, simply because it would not be tolerated by the citizens. This concept of transparency is crucial. Jointly with the various councils, soviets, committees etc., established at all levels, this transparency becomes fundamental for socialist democracy. Contrary to bourgeois pluralism it would not cherish secrecy, and thus it would not mimic the functioning of the Administrative Board of a big capitalist enterprise.

Lange's well-intentioned schema fails however at the level of statistics and of the Marginalist processes and equations they inform. What good can be derived from such a transparency when the data is ontologically wrong, thus leading astray the planning choices based on Marginalist theories that cannot even conceive the general equilibrium nor the real (Marxist) quantitative theory of money and credit? The theory one refers to is not indifferent. In reality, these choices are informed by the consequences expected from the theories. (Look for instance at Blanchard and his bogus so-called simple calculus error ineluctably feeding the negative economic spiral which I had predicted from the beginning. Yet, in a most Brughelian fashion, the expectations of Blanchard and tutti quanti are based on Marginalist statistics and theories portrayed as « science »...)

Be it as it may, Lange's transparency concept is very useful when you integrate it into the Marxist function of production (workers' control of management) and in the SR-ER Equations (workers' and citizens' control of Planning.) Because we would then be able to derive solid statistics in quantity, value, price and hour terms in an utterly coherent fashion. The gathering and articulation of these socialist statistics will enable us to imagine various scenarios for Enlarged Reproduction to be submitted to the choice of citizens and their organized groups (national assembly or regional and local assemblies as the case may be; enterprise management; workers' councils, academics' and other experts' councils fed by socialist permanent education; consumers' council ...) Socialist democracy eliminates class pluralism namely political parties and interest groups tied to the various fractions of the dominant groups. This would be substituted by the democratic centralism embodied in the Party and above all by the transfer of power toward social pluralism, specifically centered upon the administratively decentralised and participative Central Planning. This would open the road to the demise of the capitalist State to be transcended by a definitively more horizontal socialist State.

One will never insist enough on the fact that socialist scientifically anchored statistics will be much more versatile. This is because of the sheer potency of the Marxist function of production that can preserve the coherence of its terms in quantity, value, price, hour etc. Productivity increase, that in any case should always have priority, would not modify the rate of profit. We already know that abstracting from parametric shocks this rate is given organically by the system albeit the volumes of profit vary. In addition, these statistics provide an authentic enumeration in value terms of the input of the various functions of production. Today, the gathering of these statistics could easily be done online thanks to the bar-codes and laser-reading devices. An enormous treatment and articulating power would be placed at the disposal of Planning.

With the help of a few algorithms, Planning could proceed with great agility with all the aggregations it needs. This, in turn, will ease the simulation process of the various scenarios of SR-ER from which the citizens would choose from. The main two sectors ideated by Marx, the sector of Means of production (Mp) and the sector of Means of consumption (Cn) would be preserved. However, in this framework all sub-sectors could be conceived and their operation and impact within the SR-ER Schema be verified and tested. Better still: Other crucial intersectoral aggregations, for instance filières, could easily be managed and analysed. The same thing would remain valid for money salary and social salary masses. We thus could properly mediatise the monetary effects and conceive the right management of the socialist credit needed to liquefy and reinforce the circuits involved in the Enlarged Reproduction. The most delicate aspect remains without the shadow of a doubt the management of the rate of change of the national currency, at least as long as the Social Formation will be inscribed within a World Economy still dominated by capitalism.

The main optimizing rules of the ER are as follow: 1) the appropriateness of the strategic sector of Mp for Mp according to the objectives and the rhythm of development chosen; this will affect the rate of re-investment according to the law demonstrated in my Synopsis. 2) the appropriateness of the « structure of v » with respect to the progressive complexity of the productive system; this is what could be called the systemic or « Fordist » aspect of the system, because it is useless to produce if no one can buy the goods or services produced. 3) The level of satisfaction felt by the citizens. When Stalin visited the working places, it was customary for him to ask his audience if they thought that « we were a little happier than before » - something unthinkable in the capitalist enterprise since the well-being of the workers is at best an after-thought. Given that social quality needs were privileged by socialist Planning, one can easily understand the deep meaning of the criterion of judgment used by the great communist Stalin.

It is plain to see that these socialist statistics and accounting, both at the enterprise and at the national or Planning levels, have nothing to do with the successive approximations (or Walrasian « tâtonnements ») of the Marginalist central planning imagined by Lange. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to miss the ingenious practical and down-to-earth management of the flows of supply and demand by way of a simple control of the provisioning of the warehouses shelves. The idea originated with Fred Taylor but was developed ingeniously by Lange to dispel von Mises's and von Hayek critiques of the practical feasibility of a socialist system. Having an initial idea of the quantity of goods and services normally required, and adjusting for seasonal changes, this simple management of the stocks would provide the necessary feedbacks. These would only need to be worked out thanks to a good territorial and national management of the stocks, and with a good responsiveness at the productive level. In fact, in a typical illustration of the learning dialectic between Greeks and Persians, the modern management of stock flows and the development of Marginalist Indexes were greatly influenced by this. Similarly the knotted ropes of the Incas also illustrated the sheer power of this system, as modern anthropologists have lately confirmed.

Let us now turn to the problematic of socialist democracy, understood as an institutionalised socialist decision making process. I send the reader back to the chapter dealing with Cuban socialism in my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme; it only requires a slight amendment to avoid confusing internal consultation within the Party, one which would be carried out according to the logic of democratic centralism, with the mechanisms of bourgeois political pseudo-pluralism. In reality, socialist democracy consists in subordinating power and institution to the institutionalization of social input in economic life. This is primarily reached through Planning, namely through the collective control of the allocation of the social surplus value. The objective is to meet the priorities determined collectively, a process carried out in the respect of the law of value and of the logic of SR-ER.

See also the section Pour le socialisme cubain/For Cuban socialism in www.la-commune-paraclet.com .

As for the crucial distinction between the Domain of Necessity and the Domain of Liberty see my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy in English in the Livres-Books section of the same site.

Discussing the superiority of socialist democracy Oskar Lange was mainly concerned with the refutation of von Mises and von Hayek (Road to serfdom together with the other similar demagogic arguments.) Lippincott synthesises his argument as follows:

« If equality is a fundamental characteristic of democracy, so also is liberty. In this regard also a socialist democracy is more in harmony with democracy than a capitalist, for, with a more equal distribution of income, free consumers' choice would still be freer. Where many under a capitalist economy must choose between a coat and a pair of shoes, under a socialist many could choose between a radio and a telephone.

It will doubtless be argued that public ownership of a great segment of industry is the high road to dictatorship. The corollary of this argument is that private ownership is a bulwark against tyranny. The immediate comment on these arguments must be that the form of property ownership of itself, whether public or private, neither promotes not hinders

freedom. What is crucial is the character of the authority which administers it, or the way in which the property is controlled.

(..)

At the present time the very place where tyranny exists in democratic states is in privately owned industry; here power is exercised autocratically and often ruthlessly. To be sure, private ownership of the means of production prevents government from tyrannizing over industry; at the same time, it enables industry to dominate over government and to tyrannize over workers. In view of this condition of things, government ownership of basic industry carried out by a democratic government offers a means of taking autocracy out of industry. » (p 32-33)

Next, Lange's line of argumentation brings him to consider the nature of administrative authority - i.e., of the bureaucracy. It must be made responsible. To achieve this one must institutionalise permanent consultation between management and workers:

« A socialized industry would work in an atmosphere of publicity; records would be open to the public. Few things would make for responsibility more surely than this. Where industry is publicly owned, measurement, however rough, is possible; this would make for efficiency as well as for responsibility. » (idem, p 34.)

Contrary to bourgeois pseudo-meritocracy, Lange adds that this would ensure real meritocracy - in the framework of salary equality - that is to say an accountable meritocracy placed at the service of the citizens.

We will analyse the concept of a « bulwark to tyranny » in more details. This is because it entails the essential relationships between civil and political society in a bourgeois society as well as in a society in transition to a communist one. This last pretends to lead to the demise of the bourgeois State, not to be confused with the State generically speaking. This transition is the heart of what we call socialist democracy. It should lead to what could very well be called, in a voluntarily redundant fashion, « Libertarian Communism. »

As soon as the bourgeoisie was forced to grant the universal and secret ballot, the Masonic lodges went literally berserk. One only needs to go back to the vehement principled denunciation laid by the great American revolutionary Thomas Paine against the betrayal of Edmund Burke in the name of Tradition (see Rights of Man in http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/ ). See also the hysteric fright which took hold of Nietzsche when confronted with the force of number. The dominating classes immediately initiated to implement a system which was well summed-up by the Whig Sydenham when he took over after Durham had crushed the Rebellion of the Patriots in the North-American Dominion. Sydenham was a Whig but nurtured in the best British Tradition which led him to proclaim that one had to grant « the appearance of democracy and not democracy itself. » A quick reading of Macaulay's The History of England unearths the roots of this renewed Tradition in the Orangist counter-revolution leading to restoration. Titus Oates remains an emblematic figure of this restoration and in many ways seemed to have preceded Burke's renegade choice ...

This system was then refined at all levels, political, social, academic, cultural, entertainment and sport. Elections are controlled through the careful socio-political design of electoral

ridings and adapted electoral modes. With its so-called Italicun, today's Italy provides a perfect cynical example since it is devised to be even less constitutional than the preceding Porcellum system declared ultra vires by the Constitutional court, although the latter had to invent a « State continuity » rule since its own designation had become rather shaky ... The elections themselves were soon subjected to the power-that-be controlling money, the press and the media. In this context, promotion and social mobility were and remain subordinated to the initiation rituals of the bourgeois universities and Grandes Ecoles which operate according to strictly bourgeois pedagogy and syllabus. This applies wall-to-wall. In fact, the system was preventively foreclosed while the demagogic propaganda machines did their best to present it as a so-called « open society ». The American political party system is more transversal than bipartisan. It publicly recognises the fact that they all share the same « mind set », that is to say the same world vision. This is now emulated in Europe with a domestic zeal, Seymour Lipset, R. Dahl, Bell and all. A short while ago, those who did not share this « mind set » were persecuted for « un-American » activities. Today it is even worse because to it is now added the exclusivist crusading Patriot Act. The social groups ignominiously censured without prior information bear witness to this Fascistic drifting. (See the article « Yahoo, la liberté d'expression et sa fiscalité » 15 décembre 2014 in the International Political Economy section of my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

Bourgeois democracy is therefore just a masquerade of democracy under strict surveillance. (Snowden illustrated what I had been denouncing since the 80, Echelon being only the archaic ancestor of the current golem.) Some time ago, in the prehistory of Internet when I first put up my site, I had denounced the intimate working of the system and its renewed philo-Semite Nietzschean evolution. Lately Piketty did some checking of his own. He provided an excellent illustration in his otherwise useless book entitled Le Capital au XXIè siècle see my critique in English in the Book Reviews section of my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com ). Here is the rather telling quote:

Nonetheless the citizen Boutmy was speaking in terms of real republican and useful merit verified by exams. He would never have fathomed a system founded on private schools which selection their students based on their « pedigree » and their ability to pay tuitions fees often exceeding many times the median salary prevalent in their country. Yale with its Skulls and Bones is a case in point; indeed, it suffices to take a quick look at the list of Presidents and leaders of big corporations to verify. Concerning the argument of Lester C. Thurow regarding the importance of education in the framework of a global free-trade competitive system, we just note that even the MIT needs to take advantage of the brain drain! As for the rest, the liberal-fascists, who too often share the same origins as von Mises, are grotesquely over-represented at all meaningful levels. They are now leading the United States in a self-destructive speculative road. The same is now happening in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and the EU in general. The destruction caused is at least as rapid as that inflicted upon Yeltsin's Russia by Jeffery Sachs and de Boissieu et al. In just 7 small years, the disaster was consumed, but it is taking far longer for the Russian Federation to rebuild its

strength. This is certainly why the same forces are now trying to destabilise it again with the hope of dismembering it as they did the Ottoman Empire. Sultan instead of the Sultan: This singular and lunatic pathology embodied by Sabbatean Zevi is far from being only a personal one! (See Scholem on this important question.)

Be it as it may, the debate opposing bourgeois theoreticians and their socialist counterparts became even more acute on the subject of what can be called « popular conquests » following the socio-historical analysis of Marx, especially those concerning class struggles in France. In particular, we note the importance of Soviet Planning for the development of bourgeois statistics. Kuznets knew the Soviet Regime well and so did Leontief. The same argument holds for the development of so-called « industrial democracy » finally extirpated from its early Censitarian form. The reading of Friedrich Taylor in the text is illuminating in this regard. Indeed, the father of the « trained gorilla » excluded him carefully from the universal ballot. Eventually, he was promoted to a slightly more human condition after the New Deal reforms and the development of modern industrial relations with Darhendorf and even the Nixonians Dunlop and Kerr.

The truth is that the rapid progression of the well-being of the Soviet workers forced the capitalists to grant some minimal rights to their own proletariats. First, there was the creation of the Tripartite and « monarchical » ILO with the Versailles Treaty; this was followed by a better understanding of labor relations, eventually leading to bourgeois industrial democracy. Following the dismembering of the USSR and the disappearance of the economic and political challenge it represented (see Fred Bloch), the heirs of the liberal-fascist von Mises, too often from the same origin, are now doing their best to engineer a return backward. People like Piketty and his acolytes at Harvard and elsewhere initiated their statistical falsification on a very simple premise, namely that the time was now ripe to return to income and wealth distribution as it existed prior to the Bolshevik October 1917 Revolution, and even prior to the war mobilization of 1914. They even pretend to present this as a progressive policy (sic!), although Piketty quickly acknowledges that his « capital tax » paean is just a useful « utopia ». But it is clear that it is ideated as a mean to distract people from their real problems and from those facing the capitalist mode of production. Even more clearly it tried to distract people from the problems facing the current hegemonic speculative brand of capitalism.

In his ideologically important book entitled Socialism von Mises lays out the first comprehensive set of lunatic arguments, which continue to inform current Monetarists and neoliberal politicians. Let us just emphasise one of the main trait of his book: Its line of reasoning is typically not based on a positive logic starting with capitalist reality in an effort to apprehend it; rather it is engendered by the « deconstruction » method used to fabricate plausible narratives. Von Mises lavished praises on systemic normalized speculation, including the complete dismantling of even the less interventionist State; not even health care is spared from this un-creative destruction craze. In fact, the philo-Semite Nietzschean von Mises states with outmost conviction that a public health-care system causes sickness and induces abuses of sick leaves. Obviously, this is because in - rabbinico-Nietzschean - reality, sickness is a function of psychology and Will (see among others p 476). Such a belief is well attuned to the theory developed by Robert Solow et al., starting from the original falsification of Keynes operated by Hicks, Samuelson, Solow etc. (Samuelson once declared ironically that he wished he had a summary of both Finnegans Wake and of the General Theory ... Hicks provided it, though the intrinsic worth of the General Theory was lost in the process ...) For these vulgarly Malthusian so-called neoclassics or neoliberals, economic equilibrium can only be reached when workers are reduced at the physiological level. Unfortunately, this level is itself elastic as is quickly illustrated by the average longevity of 40 years of the half-billion Dalits comrades, and this shamefully in the age of so-called XXI Century capitalism!

In such a context, I had pointed out an alarming trend, namely that the secular increase of average longevity is now at risk to be stopped and even reversed. Some years ago, Le Monde diplomatique analysed the situation in Glasgow, the old industrial capital of the World. The average longevity for male had dropped to 59 years. Few months ago, an updated reportage showed a deteriorated situation, the average being now the worst in Europe (54 for males and 75 for females.) Soon after Reagan became president and launched his Monetarist counter-revolution the same monthly paper had reported that infant mortality in the poor neighborhoods behind the White House was greater than in Bangladesh. At the same time Julius Wilson started theorising the emergence of the « working poor ». Needless to say, the Will with which von Mises mouthwashed is exactly that of the unrepentant liberal-fascist (the kind who financed and supported Mussolini in Italy up until the racial laws of ... 1938 when they were forced to change attitude. See the book or film The Garden of the Finzi-Contini and the praise of the Duce by his Jewish lover and financier Margherita Sarfatti; her father had financed the two most reactionary popes in the whole history of Christianity etc. See also the Fascist propaganda role of the Jew Ezra Pound in Italy, and its present unconstitutional rebirth. Check also the biography of Max Warburg ... the list is pathetically long. Trotsky called these people « gangsters ».) These people are « once again » capable to cynically contemplate the creation of new classes of « chandalas » - to use Nietzsche's term - thus ignoring « once again » the lessons imparted by History. Presumably, this is derived by their intimate conviction to be exclusively elected as the « masters of the Earth », « once again ». A pretense which would have provoked the hilarity of Suetonius and Titus not to speak of a Shakespeare after due and rigorous examination of the famous question ...

Let us now examine briefly the relationship between Socialism and Freedom.

As always we first need to clarify the meaning of the terms used. When one speaks of Liberty there are two possible meanings of the word.

a) An egalitarian meaning derived from the scientific Pythagorean tradition.

b) An unegalitarian meaning derived from the obscurantist-theocratic thought, complete with its exclusivist, divine, tribal or cast self-elections. In the West, this send us back to an obscurantist-rabbinical Old Testament that led Baruch Spinoza, its victim despite himself, to speak of « rabbinical delirium ». This vein knew many imitations and re-elaborations. They go from the Tradition of English inequality - Burke and many others - to its revisited version of the Hindu cast system used by the British military intelligence services, first to « divide and conquer » colonial people, and soon after their own national classes. This import went hand in hand with the borrowing of many mythological and ethnological elements often reserved to the élites.

Unfortunately, in the Western march towards emancipation, both meanings have been so far confused. In fact, the capitalist reality is squarely contained within the second meaning. Indeed, it is only a modern and accomplished variant of the regimes founded on private property and the exploitation of Man by Man. But in its struggle against the Old Feudal Regime the bourgeoisie was forced to invoke the first in order to forge the class alliances necessary to carry out its « social revolution » and establish its own hegemony.

We can summarize this fundamental problematique looking at the confusion which still surrenders the respective points of view of Montesquieu and of the more Lockean American Constitution.

a) The egalitarian and scientific Pythagorean tradition. It reached its apex with the concrete translation of Kant's Imperative into the first article of the first French Republican constitution. Of course, Kant had carefully clarified the epistemological and methodological foundation of Human thought, thus establishing science upon a solid and secular basis. Marx historicized this still steady state scientific thought (investigation, exposition based on a scientifically elucidated « concrete in thought » ...) The first article enunciated that the freedom of a citizen ended where the freedom of others started. In his Holy Family Marx analysed the importance of this political and secular conquest showing that it embodied two aspects of the Triptych of Human Emancipation, antithetical to any possible form of esclusivism. It implied religious freedom or rather the freedom of each individual consciousness, embodied in the separation of Church and State; political freedom with the formal equality of all citizens; and finally, Human freedom with the attainment of the real equality of all Human Beings based on individual and collective emancipation.

The second aspect of the Triptych shows that Liberty goes hand in hand with individual and social emancipation, thus still requiring to be completed with a new « social revolution », to borrow Trotsky's phrase. This is necessary to bring it to its logical and practical conclusion, a process that had been initiated with the political republican revolution.

Kant and the First French revolution represent the end line of the natural law philosophy which starts from Antiquity. As far as the West is concerned, it goes from Pythagoras to Plato up to the Universalist Romans like Seneca. This led to Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant, passing through the fundamental contribution by Giambattista Vico with his « diritto delle genti ». They clarified and refuted the old thinking embodied by Pufendorf and Grotius among others. These were still defending of divine right and the rights derived from imperial conquests, despite the fact that Aristotle had already clarified in own time that there was no natural excuse for slavery or subordination of a Man to another other than the hazard of war. The conceptual and theoretical achievement of this line of human thought is summed up by the denunciation of esclusivism (the Jewish question in the Holy Family) formulated by Marx as well as by his exposition of the Triptych of Human emancipation. Its completion will come with communism as announced by the Commune de Paris in 1871.

Leibniz and Spinoza held divergent points of view. Leibniz was a believer and belonged to the Rosicrucians. Spinoza for his part announced modern atheism with his natura naturans. Even a simple perusing of these two authors and of Kant would soon show that Liberty is never conceived as the arbitrary imposition of the will of an individual upon others. Instead, it is viewed as the self-realization of individuals and of the entire society, thanks to the egalitarian access to all material conditions necessary to achieve this goal. This would include the conceptual, cultural and institutional conditions. This conception of Liberty finds its higher achievement in Marx's Triptych of Human Emancipation, which would find its concrete realization in the elaboration of his Critique of the Gotha Program (a fundamental essay in which Marx first proposed the creation of a « social fund », if you will the first elaboration of what I called « social surplus value », a logic which the Bolsheviks, Mao and the Che well understood.) This critique elaborated in the light of my clarification of Capital - the Marxist law of productivity fully and coherently integrated within the SR-ER Equations - lead to perfectly controlled socialist planning.

b) The rabbinico-Buerkean-Nietzschean « Liberty B. As we all know the rabbinate emerged historically after the monarchical usurpation which followed the assassination of the Great Priest. It instituted itself as the Guardian of the inequality among the Hebrew tribes and between Hebrews and Gentiles. It did this claiming an exclusive divine election as a race. In the present state of my knowledge, I do not know of any other sacred text in the whole history of religions, to be distinguished from the more pernicious and dangerous sects, that sustains such a dangerous racist-Nietzschean pretention. Yet, it is aggravated by a systemic obscurantism aimed at blocking the road to science (the forbidden fruit), while, at the same time, imputing this crime to god. In the Koran, for instance, god's injunction to the Prophet is « Read! Read! Read! ». While the Koran condemns violence except in case of self-defence as is taught by natural law, the Hebrew bible and in particular the Book of Kings makes the apology of war and calls for the genocide of all the people already present in the so-called « promised land ». The Hindu texts never confuse cast and race, if for no other reason that they try to universalize the cast system in an ethnically extremely variegated Indian sub-continent. The unique comparison would be the identically viscerally obscurantist narrative offered by Nietzsche with his pretention to culturally and militarily create a « race » of overmen.

Of course, the rabbinate had its own historical evolution. Attempts were made to extirpate racist exclusivism and sectarian theocratic obscurantism from within, for instance the Pythagorean attempt (Christianity) and others (such as the Mormons.) However, the rabbinate support for racist, exclusivist and theocratic beliefs never gives way. In the best of cases the rather self-serving propagated thesis is that the exclusivist election remains but « god is for all ». In short, god has created the Gentiles gentile, a belief which was not without inducing recurrent reactions, they too dangerously exclusivist. If a non-exclusivist version of the rabbinate does exist, I would be the first to rejoice. Of course, everyone is free to believe in what s/he desires privately. However, when these openly exclusivist, racist, theocratic and obscurantist beliefs pretend to take over the public sphere, they must immediately fall under penal law (including the International Criminal Court). This is what the Italian Constitution states. These rabbinic exclusivist pretences are just inconceivable in a modern globalised world, and yet they led a Kinkielkraut to openly advocate the « separation » of Jews (?) with impunity within one of the most prestigious Grandes Ecoles of the French Republic, the same secular Republic, which for the first time in Human History, opened citizenship to the Hebrews. (See my critique in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/fascismFrame1Source1.htm#racisme .) Note that, at the time, I was re-proposing the concept of « métissage » and developing that of « mixité sociale ».

Getting his inspiration from Baruch Spinoza, Ernst Bloch tried to demonstrate that the Hebrew history does negate this narrative. We also know that the biblical narrative of the Golden Calf sends back to a popular desire vehemently denigrated to return to older beliefs such as those of the Sumerian-Babylonian god Marduk. Be it as it may, it is clear that the effect of this rabbinic narrative is to cancel the contribution to the common march to Equality and Emancipation which can be derived from Hebrew hermeneutics - from the more egalitarian prophets to Ibn Ezra and Spinoza etc. This exclusivist thought invented god's will to block the Human march to science and thus to equality. In so doing, it did not even prove original but, according to an old and well-rehearsed practice, it borrows the idea from older mythologies and immediately aggravated it in a racist-theocratic sense. In its one way, the rabbinate tried to emulate the Brahmin system of domination. (The great professor now unfortunately deceased, Ms Rege, did contribute an important book for the understanding of casts; see my critique of her book in the Critiques de Livres/Book reviews in www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

The rabbinate instituted itself as the ideological support of Jewish monarchy, or more precisely, monarchies. It did so inventing from scratch the founding event of the erection of the Salomon Temple for which there does not exist the least historical or archeological trace. Symptomatically, this invention rests on the - pre-Freudian? - tale of the assassination of the last great priest. The Christian monarchical version of this divine election borrowed the concept of Holy anointment, without doubt to unconsciously underline the murderous and usurpation aspect of the whole affair. In our own times, this frenetic exclusivism derives from the warmongering and lunatic will to rebuild the mythological and domineering Temple of Salomon on lands which belong to the Palestinians, and which, moreover, include the Third Holy Place of Islam, namely Haram al-Sharif. We are here confronted with the predictable consequences of a folly that led General Rabin to refuse entering into Jerusalem East in June 1967, in a last ditch attempt to avoid the worst.

Jewish Congresses around the world have now become venal and totalitarian machines which only prove able to stultify critical sense. The racist-theocratic deliria of Obadiah Yossef (just check Wikipedia and the Internet) are but small things compared to what is cultivated and preached in these places, especially in France. It would be useful to inform the Press and the public opinion of those countries which like to call themselves free and whose citizens like to pretend to be all equal under of law. This results from their utter ignorance of the ABC of democracy and from the weight of guilt they are prone to instill in order to intimidate even the few « Jews » who would still feel the urge to talk. The ignominious invention of an exclusivist Shoah, substituted by them to the Common History of Resistance to Nazifascism and Deportation, is in my sense purely and premeditatively criminal in nature. This is because the sole victims worthy of being remembered would only be those belonging to the so-called « divinely elected race ». All the others, though much more numerous, would be forgotten. This type of shameful Shoah narrative is invented as the modern version of the original sin specifically reserved to the Gentiles! We are here dealing with a perfectly ignoble strategy but above all a very dangerous one if we only pause to consider the teachings of the history of exclusivism until today.

As we all know, in the end, the foresight of General Rabin did cost him his life. After his odious and pathological assassination, all Hebrews, with few rare exceptions, have forgotten his diagnostic according to which Israel was in need of a « psychological revolution » after years and years of hate propaganda and a long series of war crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people, and increasingly against the supporters of the Palestinian cause. This will not happen without the propagation of the Marxist theory of psychoanalysis, and of Marx's Jewish Question and Capital. We all know that the beheading of Charles 1St Stuart was the first concrete and highly symbolic negation of Monarchical divine right. The assassination of Julius Cesar derived from the same republican logic opposed to « tyrants » and ready to act before it was deemed to be too late. (Italy does not forget Agesilao Milano) The logic of the « carbonari », always ready to aim at the head, equally illustrates this « tyrannicide » logic.

In the framework of this tradition, Liberty is an attribute which belonged solely to the Elected. It is defined by the ability to impose inequality with impunity. In congruence with the spirit of the times, this includes the capitalist version which features a purely formal equality preserved through systemic and intrinsically unegalitarian mechanisms. These mechanisms endure and even display a tendency to be aggravated with the so-called popular brand of capitalism, or shareholder capitalism. This is because production remains social whereas accumulation is private and badly skewed by the respective weight of the shareholders. One will recall Black Friday in 1929 when small shareholders were quickly

fried while big shareholders benefitted greatly from the crisis. These are systemic mechanisms; the same causes produce the same effects mutatis mutandis as illustrated by the subprime crisis of 2007-2008. One merely needs to add that the liberal-fascist strategy known as « global private governance » is the apex of this narrative. It aims at the dismantling of the Nation-State, the very cradle of democracy and with it of the equality of nations among themselves.

Let us now briefly analyse the confusion that still prevail between the understanding of Montesquieu and of the American Constitution.

A) Montesquieu's l'Esprit des lois was conceived and written after he bought an exemplar of Vico's Scienza nuova while on a trip in Venice ... apparently well furnished with small Venus gloves ... Be it as it may, a rigorous analysis of Ancient authors, and in particular of Roman authors, led Giambattista Vico to propose a modern theory of class struggle. Marx was greatly inspired by it and brought it to completion adding the Marxist labor law of value and the theory of exclusivism to it. For his part, Montesquieu added more archaic elements such as the influence of the climate. Nonetheless, his theory was inscribed within the framework of a still predominantly agricultural society, so that this had an objective sense similar to the influence of solar cycles for the Marginalist Jevons. He equally tried to synthesize its own contribution on the distinction between civil and political society in new terms. He surely remembered the magnificent book Contr'un written by La Boëtie to denounce what he called « voluntary servitude ». Rising up against the arbitrariness of Absolute Monarchy, Montesquieu, the provincial aristocrat familiar with the best Parisian Salons, proposed a clever defense of the main social categories or Estates of the Realm. In a certain sense, this remains Hobbesian: Hobbes maintained that only kings could be equal to each others because they had the power to deter each other's efficiently. The other common mortals had to entrust their sorts to a social contract, more precisely a Social covenant, which would guarantee their security (and that of their private property ...). This accommodation assumed a more positive form with John Locke and a positively egalitarian and citizen oriented form which was enunciated in his Contrat Social by J. J. Rousseau.

We here have the institution of Liberty as a negative expression derived from the domination mechanisms featuring economic and political deterrence.

This eventually led to bourgeois industrial democracy as mentioned above - F. Taylor, Darhendorf, Dunlop and Kerr, Piore, etc. In purely political terms, it led to the counterweight legislation of the New Deal which saw John Galbraith as one of its mains theoreticians. (For a summary of his theories see Note 15 on John Galbraith in my book III entitled Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth, 2005.)

c) The American system of « checks and balances». This system is directly inscribed in the deterrence theory of Montesquieu and more precisely of John Locke, namely the conception according to which social conflict needs to be mediatised by a Social Convenant (based on capitalist and acquisitive human nature taken as a perennial historical given.) However, while Montesquieu emphasized civil society's role, the American Constitution operates at the institutional level, and more particularly at the political level. It attempts to codify its operating rules. As we know, rights are only valid as long as they are supported and defended: Hence, the importance of Montesquieu's conception. With the American Constitution and its prior Federalist Papers, the problem never was to confront private property and its inevitable tyranny, including slavery in the beginnings. Rather it was to know how to impede one specific fraction of the dominant classes to establish a complete monopoly over the juridical and political system and over the Congress, this last controlling the ability to legislate and to implement the laws thanks to its legal monopoly of force.

Marx talked of the« communism of capital ». It could be said that the finality of the American « checks and balances » system consists in codifying and controlling the operating mechanisms of bourgeois political pluralism for the benefit of the capitalist classes and of their entire system. Thus the Supreme Court is instituted more as a last instance Guardian of the system than as an objective Umpire. Its mission is to save the system were both houses of Congress to fail in their institutional task. This role as a Guardian shows that it often remains prisoner of the current orthodoxy. One recalls F.D. Roosevelt's reaction when confronted to the initial propensity and proactive role of the Supreme Court in invalidating the main New Deal reforms. Recently, dealing with Obamacare, the strength of the transversal internalization of the same « mind set » became obvious at the constitutional level; it was clear that the main tendency remains to stifles any autonomous expression from civil society.

Instead of basing this social reform squarely on the spending power exclusively vested with the Federal government, thus pre-empting any Court's move, it was based as usual on the principle of commercial freedom. What better way to ensure the subordination of this reform to the economic and political weight of the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies? The initial inclination to create a public health system was quickly confronted with a rising-up in arms of all lobbyist groups including within the Democratic Party. Ironically, the national Marginalist accounting system - GDP etc - is so perverse that the more waste is produced by the privatised regime, the more will the GDP rise mutatis mutandis, and the more will equal access to services and care decline. See for instance the Court distinction between Medicaid and Medicare, calling for cuts in basic Medicaid. But see also how good public health-care regimes do compare with the American private version in terms of GDP and in terms of access. But in the process make sure to understand the impact of privatisation in the progressive degradation of the Western public regimes ... (For instance, to publicly finance private clinics and hospitals, now conceived as enterprises just like sausage factories, the great majority of heavy surgical events are kept within public structures and the rest is nicely transferred to private... it looks like Peter Sellers had this right, see Where does it hurt, 1972, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PdlHZDKDk ) Note that the respective GDP weights of these regimes - including pension regimes - are part of « social surplus value ». As such they tremendously impact entrepreneurial productivity: Not too far ago, GM and Chrysler had to be bailout by the hated « interventionist » State, because they could no longer afford the weight of their internal privatised regimes ... It is the same across the board. And this probably explains why, in the context of hegemonic speculation, the American model has become the « promised land » of the hegemonic liberal-fascist regression now unleashed in Europe.

I believe that it is crucial to gain a firm understanding of both distinctions - not to be confused with oppositions - in order to be able to conceive socialist democracy. Instead, the meaningful opposition is between equality and inequality. I have insisted elsewhere on the pioneering aspect of the Polish and Corsican constitutions written by J. J. Rousseau. He was a great admirer of Ancient legislators, particularly of Lycurgus. And he was a great reader of Vico, who in turn was greatly influenced by the writings of the secular reforming spirit of the great Calabrian and Pythagorean Abbot, Joachim of Fiore. Rousseau deliberately conceived his two constitutions as transitions founded on the respective reality of the two countries under consideration. Their internal logic was essentially conceptualized to lead to an always more perfect expression of his Contrat Social. In this sense, Rousseau's constitutions are the true modern pioneer of socialist transition theory.

Socialism has nothing to do with Liberty conceived as an exclusive form of power. It cannot rest on Montesquieu's thesis or on the American checks and balances, albeit Mao was right in underlying the persistence of social classes during the socialist transition. Socialism must transcend these concepts born from the bourgeois reality. Transcending does not mean outright cancellation. Socialism must create a social and political system that will prove capable to organically walk towards an ever greater form of Human Emancipation. When he insisted on transparency and accountability Oskar Lange was particularly well inspired; this includes his understanding of bureaucracy. Marx and Engels had summed up the difference between capitalism and communism emphasizing the fact that the first concerned the administration of persons through private ownership of things, while the second concerned the collective administration of things to liberate people. To paraphrase Lenin the all-out attacks on bureaucracy are nothing less than the expression of an infantile leftist pathology, an uncritical indigestion which forgets that the so-called socialist « social revolution » equally rests on division of labor, and thus on the crucial role of bureaucracy. In particular, it rests with Planning being in charge of the collective administration of « social surplus value. ».

The shorter way to sum up this whole problematique consists in distinguishing the two Domains of Necessity and of Liberty. Lenin wrote beautifully that Liberty was the Aesthetics of Equality, both being naturally organically linked.

In the Domain of Necessity every citizen has the duty to participate equally in the creation of surplus value. We are moving here in the precincts of Economic Planning. It operates according to the Marxist law of value duly integrated within the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction. The aim is to reach an increasingly more elevated qualitative growth, respectful of the principle of Ecomarxism. Every citizen is expected to work because on this participation lies her-his right to equally participate in every democratic decision-making processes. These chiefly concern the collective use of « social surplus value » and the determination of the priority list that prevail in its allocation. As a matter of fact, the Marxist law of productivity and the dynamic Equations of Enlarged Reproduction permit the secular legal shortening of the working week - although note should be taken of the fact that in a socialist society this tendency will be naturally confronted to numerous and even new socially important tasks to be met. Thus, it will have to learn to increasingly favor the production of use value during liberated time, inventing new forms of entertainment and of socialization. This implies the availability to society of what could be called socialist surpluses - over and above the needs of Planning in the traditional exchange value sphere. In my Synopsis for instance I mention the creation of socialist Home Depôts together with neighborhood artisan's shops and socialist laboratories.

The bureaucracy is the indispensable form of the social division of labor. As such, it is more important to socialism than to capitalism, including monopolist capitalism. Bureaucracy has to become the object of a special scrutiny aimed at furthering the implementation of the principles of transparency and accountability by way of a permanent and decisive implication of employees and workers. Central Planning involves gathering and articulating information to propose various optimal scenarios from which to choose collectively, and the accountability for the implementation of the chosen scenario, or 5-Year Plan. The democratizing of the processes of Central Planning will constitute the beating heart of socialism. The political institutions the Party and its cells, the national assembly together with its regional and local counterparts as the case may be, will participate in the definitive choice of the 5-Year Plan, as well as in the verification of its implementation at a more general level than the various committees included in the organs of Planning itself management boards, technical, academic and experts committees, workerscouncils, citizenscommittees, consumers' committees etc. In brief, the Domain of Necessity produces the material and social conditions for individual and collective Emancipation under collective control.

The Domain of Liberty concerns all those fundamental rights not already dealt with by the Domain of Necessity. Both are protected by the socialist constitution. Cardinal principles, such as the collective ownership of the Means of production and of exchange, as well as equality, the security of the person, privacy and the like will have to be constitutionally secured. In short, they cannot be amendable nor should they be subordinated to any notwithstanding clause prejudiced by dominant fads. They can be bettered and added to, but not restricted. Possession as opposed to property of the Means of production was devised by real socialism to gain more flexibility. Personal belongings - including the Dacha - were protected in so far as they ensured the stability necessary for secure and blooming personalities. Moreover, the main focus here will be on the set of rights pertaining with convivial and social behavior. These last would be apprehended in the framework of the institutionalisation of socialist mores - see the pink section of my site - and of the Marxist theory of psychoanalysis contained in the second part of my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme, which is translated in English in the book section of my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com . The main objective being to make possible what Marx called the « recovery of Man by himself. » Freedom for a human being educated in the spirit of emancipation will be solely limited by the freedom of others, all being economically or otherwise equal, respecting their differences, notably as members of a species defined by sexual reproduction.

Socialist pedagogy is fundamentally diverse from bourgeois pedagogy. I have tried to analyse the issue in an essay entitled « Dioscures » and in part summarized in the Appendix « Spoliation » of my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme. In brief, as noted by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha program, the law will not be content being merely or formally equal for all, nor would it be content within a socialist mode of production with a Weberian initial « equality of opportunity ». On the contrary, it will strive to realize an authentic equality, permanently preserving the opportunities or « life chances » as the Austrian School named them which are necessary to do so. Each person's potentiality to express one's own personality will be maintained for a simple reason perfectly enunciated by Joachim of Fiore, according to whom the forms of intelligence are diverse although all, without exception, are equally necessary for the optimal and harmonious functioning of a sane society. (See my essays on Joachim among which one in English in the Italia section of my site.)

Authentic merit will be expressed with an equal salary in the Domain of Necessity (concept of « collective or responsible worker » further supported by permanent education.) But it will not be limited to this Domain. Indeed the temporal importance of it will secularly diminish contrary to the capitalist system always characterised by a psychology of individual ownership, nurtured by an unequal redistribution of the material conditions of existence. Authentic merit will be fully expressed as such more particularly within the framework of liberated time in new emancipated forms of sociability. One of the greater contributions of modern ethnology is certainly its new understanding of the fact that badly called « primitive » societies were compensating their lacunae at the level of technê with the greater refinements of their social episteme. They were concretized in the rituals used to govern their social relationships and their interpersonal interrelationships.

I affirm with Marx that the finality of Marxist socialism and communism is not at all to induce the return of citizens in forms of Communitarianism stratified by social status or into a simplistic Communitariansim such as envisioned by some non-Marxist and often Utopian socialist. One great contribution of capitalism was its so-called « cold » pushing aside of all this suffocating forms, including at the family level where the revolution carried out against the enlarged patriarchal family still needs to be completed for the specifically capitalist bourgeois nuclear family. See my « Mariages, unions civiles et institutionnalisation des moeurs » in the pink section of my site). On the basis of an always more elaborated technê, geared to an increasing satisfaction of real individual and social needs, the new social epistemê will need to invent the new socialist Liberty. This will include the realm of interpersonal relationships, founding it on the transparency of social rapports, that is to say the ending of bourgeois and gender alienation. This would have to be achieved in the utmost respect of privacy and intimacy of people - the real basis for their own responsibility and accountancy toward their own consciousness, or « for intérieur », and towards others. This implies the development of new forms of social, institutional and psychoanalytic mediations as announced in my theory of Marxist psychoanalysis.

In brief, as Marx wrote: In a socialist mode of production, every person with a potential to become a Raphael should have the possibility to become one. This is why I chose to describe it in a redundant phrase as « Libertarian Communism ».

Notes:

1. My critique of Piketty in English will be found in the section Critiques de Livres/Book Reviews of my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com . As far as Jean Tirole is concerned, his micro-economy deprived of any macro-economy is nothing but a painfully obvious and dangerous ineptitude. Social surplus value forms the competitiveness of the Social Formation, one which holds a tight relationship with micro-economic productivity. Tirole does not even understand that he is sacrificing this crucial relationship ... or, if he knows, and he is happy with a micro-economy arbitrarily posed as hegemonic such as wished by transnational firms in the context of their engineered demise of the Nation-State. The latter is supposed to clear the way to a « global private governance » which will dictate its own Monetarist « public policy ». Be it as it may, I believe that his « contrat unique » is only a vulgar if typical reversing of the argument presented some time before in my own « Norme CDI ou précarité » available in the Commentaires d'actualité section of my site. In its implementation in Italy - the so-called Jobs Act of Gutgeld-Renzi - it produces what I like to call a CUPID namely a « Contract Unique but Precarious for an Indeterminate and Demoniac duration »; this is because no possible recourses in case of unjustified lay-offs will be possible! It seems born out of Goethe's Mephistopheles explaining to Faust that the best way to destroy the World was to control the printing of money and to subject to it both kings and peoples ... It is true that the Marginalist economic equilibrium is established at the physiological level, one which is naturally elastic. Today, this elasticity is verified in the context of a global free-trade regime based on an anti-dumping definition which went to great length to forbid any reference to labor and social rights or to environmental criteria. This drives everyone down and as Coralie Clément warns in her song Enfer, once you touch bottom you can still dig your way down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1wACl-A3lE . So called socialist France - von Mises was not merely a social-liberal but, to call a cat a cat, a liberal-fascist - is now traveling along the same road but at a greater speed. 25 % of its labor force earns 650 euro or less a month; this percentage rises over 37 % in Spain. I have already emphasized the false representation and over-representation in a pseudo-democracy falsified by the power of money, by preventive class and cast pre-selection and by the control of the flows of communication. Neither Nietzsche nor his true models could possibly negate the centrality of the Law of Great Numbers for democracy.

2. See Oskar Lange, Fred M. Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, edited by Benjamin Lippincott, First McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1964.

3. Those who are not appraised with the heated debate in the 50s, 60s and 70s - Mao's contribution, the edition of Gramsci's works, Che Guevara's contribution notably on the presupuesto, namely the budget version of social surplus value, Althusser's writings etc - can refer to W.B. Bland's book as a first step to a more sustained enquiry of the subject. (See W.B. Bland http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html ). This book has a great advantage because it quotes abundantly from important sources.

4. Adam Smith's function of production as well as that of classical political economy writes: c + v = p, namely capital plus labor equal the product. It is thus unable to explain the genesis of profit as was demonstrated by Marx. This is because profit cannot be equated to the part of v corresponding to the salary of owners and managers. On such shaky grounds economics remains an irrational pseudo-science. This lacuna is not filled by J. B. Say, Cournot, Walras and the entire Austrian School. They all present a totally liquefied version of the equation, resting it on the subjective concept of marginal utility (the psychological calculus of joy and pain ...) On such a basis the general equilibrium is always confronted with the lethal contradiction ex ante/post hoc which Böhm-Bawerk tried to impute to Marx. No Marginalist theory is able to coherently link micro-economy and macro-economy. Thus Marginalism is ontologically incapable to reconcile quantity and price of produced merchandises. Of course, this proves lethal for the general equilibrium which can only be arrived at through the Equations of SR-ER, namely in both values, or prices, and quantities. At best, we will have a narrative fitted for « nihilist militants » chosen to obediently serve the regime, in particular in the academic and media world. As we all know, academic selection does no rest uniquely nor principally on academic criteria. This perversion is still aggravated by privatization.

5. See for instance M. Song Hobing's book on war currency http://www.eleconomista.cubaweb.cu/2010/nro385/guerra-divisa.html

6. As for « credit without collateral » see the two essays « Credit without collateral » and « The FED and the Treasury B; they were written as the subprime crisis was mounting and then unfolded. It had been announced as early as my Book III of 2005. See also my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy for a more detailed exposition of the Marxist quantitative theory of money and of non-speculative credit, including in the framework of a socialist regime.

7. The distinction which Pareto tried to introduce between technical and price conditions should provoke a Rabelaisian laughter in any normally constituted person. Unless, of course, technology in a capitalist regime has no exchange value ... Too bad then for patent rights, brands and the whole normative framework. Contrary to other conservative theoreticians, Pareto was from the very beginning a great supporter of Mussolini; he believed in innate cast, or better fascist, inequality, which is in contradiction with the façade ideology of capitalism. In effect, its costs of opportunity and its indifference curve send us back to the generic exploitation of Man by Man more than to a specific form of capitalism as such. As was customary in his own time, it is equally true that modern Marginalists are always ready to substitute the liberism of Benedetto Croce to classical liberalism, say, such as theorized by John Stuart Mill. Their vain hope seems to be to dispel the contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production by engineering a « return » backward ... The liberal-fascist von Mises never attempted to hide it. In his Socialism, he goes as far as stating that the health-care system does actually cause sickness (seer http://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis, p 476). The rest is true to the same peculiar inspiration. The current privatization of the health field follows the same barbarous logic, care becoming function of the crashworthiness of patients. The same logic prevails for all public sectors which, at least in Europe, were once offered by public enterprises. Today they are provided by private enterprises pay out of the public purse, because they are more able to transform beneficiaries in clients following the so-called market logic. The drama lies in the fact that the generalized precariousness of work ruins the fiscal revenue base of the State, despite the fact that it continues to finance charities and private assistance by way of exonerations and fiscal credits. Both are often confessional. One can only expect an unprecedented barbarous regression. Unless, of course, there is a strong awakening in the name of civilization. Equality or barbarity?

8. Simon and Cyert at the MIT had insisted on an important fact; in social matters, problems cannot be simply classed in the determinist or indeterminist categories. More often than not, more than one unique solution does exist. We hasten to add that then the crucial element is to know how, for whom and who do actually determine the resulting « trade-offs ».

9. See my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme, in particular the second part in which I offer the definitive criticism of Freudism and other such rabbinico-Nietzschean charlatanesque narratives. The English version is available in the Livres-Books section of my site. All aim at the « normalization » and control of citizens destined to be subjected to the double moulinet of capitalist exploitation and of the exploitation of Man by Man. I have shown that Freud's founding myth is nothing other than a typical reversing of the emergence of sociability and thus of class struggles by Giambattista Vico, the first modern philosopher to conceive History as science. Nietzsche and Heidegger among others tried their best with their own vicious reversing aimed at occulting historical becoming and thus the march of human history towards equality. In a renewed anti-Vico, anti-becoming inspiration, Heidegger even specialised in falsifying philology and the epistemological roots of language! This is demonstrated in my refutation of both of them - in English - in the Livres-Books section of my site.

10. Before the Fukushima catastrophe we witnessed a renewed interest for nuclear energy. We know that the current so-called civilian filières were chosen at the origin by Westinghouse and other enterprises to answer the criteria set by the US Navy in particular the propulsion of their submarines. Plutonium production was equally favored because it was necessary to produce the nuclear bomb. The reactors in Fukushima have withstood a terrifying earthquake of 10 on the Richter scale which also provoked a terrifying tsunami. The honor of Japanese engineers and architects is safe. Personally, I believe that the catastrophe was directly caused by the Marginalist logic with its privatizations. The plant had been scheduled to close some years earlier but was kept in activity because of the huge annual dividends paid out to shareholders. Furthermore, as is too often the case in Japan and elsewhere, the heart of the reactors included zirconium, a material which becomes very reactive at high temperatures, producing then hydrogen. The explosions at Fukushima and the other serious problems that followed from them had nothing to do with the nuclear in itself including for this military derived filière. They were caused by the zirconium a less expensive material. No hydrogen saturation methods were available (the use of azote was implemented later.) Without the explosions caused by the zirconium this catastrophe, albeit serious, would have remained confined within the precincts of the plant.

As far as the ecological footprint is concerned, we note that it is rather fraudulent to discuss the subject without protesting against the inequality of revenues and against the systemic huge waste that characterises capitalism. Moreover, it truly embodies a frontal attack on the standard of living of the employees and workers. They are destined to be returned by force even through the instrumentalization of fear, to a society of new salaried slavery and new domesticity (see the Italian Jobs Act and the occasional on-call vouchers at 10 euro/hour etc... These employment gimmicks are in fact informed by the necessity to get people off the official unemployment statistics in the ILO sense ...For a clearer understanding of the real numbers of unemployment see the Note ** of my Livre-Book III. ) This strategy had already been announced in the 1950 by the US Establishment then already gripped by the Cold War hysteria of its own invention (containment and rolling-back). This took the form of the Report from the Iron Mountain. Nowadays, it is falsely presented as a prank, although at the time of its first edition John Galbraith wrote a preface in which he authentified the report on his honor. (Beside the huge documentation that led to its writing cannot possibly also be the fruit of the prank of a single individual and thus should belong to the public domain.) See my Défi aux écologistes, au Giec et à tous les apôtres du réchauffement climatique (14 juin 2007) in the Commentaires d'actualité of my site http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com . One must underline that when dealing with climate warming, the refusal to take into account important elements like the precession of equinoxes and other non-anthropogenic variables does amount to a very singular a-scientific choice. A viscerally reactionary and manipulating choice which origins are perfectly known. Attributing consequences to false causes, moreover in a calculated fashion, inevitably leads to false diagnostics and thus to the offering of false solutions. After this Report we were treated to the shaky and primitive geometrical progressions of the Club of Rome - immediately refuted by Cambridge. I add that they were conceived in the framework - a finite world? - abstracted from the production of substitutes and other alternatives, for instance the development of a more qualitative and equal socio-economic system. Too many climate experts' theories share these same attributes. This is then used to conclude with the necessity to forcefully lower the proletariat's propensity to consume (without considering Al Gore et al., own footprints). This is a propaganda well in tune with the modern Marginalist fight to reduce the « rising expectations » of employees and workers as theorized in the Trilateral Commission by Samuel Huntington. He had already been responsible for the theorization of the « strategic hamlets » in Guatemala and Vietnam, as well as for the more recent theorization of « clashes of civilization » which is at the bottom of the illegal doctrine of preventive war declared against more than 66 countries. Not surprisingly, the majority of these are Islamic although all are considered as potential military or economic rivals of the Empire ... of the putative self-elected « masters of the world ». This is a strange imperial project which now involves Holland's France after its reintegration into NATO's unified command. With its singular governments it pretends to be acting as the first in-house domestic of the Empire - a role, pace Sraffa!, which London will surely not relinquish easily ... - Rome being probably content playing the role of sub-domestic in the Mediterranean Sea. It squarely rests with the use of brute force and « regime change » in order to create a Great Israel domineering over a Great Middle-East and over Africa and Central Asia. The weight of the Crif on this president and his governments knows no limit to the point of being overtly anti-democratic. In France, the Hebrew community is comprised of some 300 000 persons maximum, that it to say an infinitesimal percentage of a population of more than 66 million. The culturally Muslim community comprise around 8 million, the great majority being historically well integrated although it is systematically under-represented at all important levels, and although it is daily subjected to shameful islamophobic propaganda and manipulation (see my Book III using the term « veil » in the search function in the English version.). Obviously, we are faced with an orchestrated islamophobic manipulation from people who prize themselves to have « teeth ». A Manuel Valls, despite his Frankist-totalitarian spirit, did not obtain more than 6 % in the Socialist party primary elections. People like Kessel go around affirming openly that the Constitution, born from the common struggle against Nazifascism, is an obstacle to development - read to the development of speculative capitalism as conceived by the liberal-fascist von Mises. (In Italy, they talk less but they already have rewritten the Constitution, deconstructing it one part after another in a frontally anti-constitutional fashion, given that the Constitution did not allow the amendment of more than one article at the time.) This catastrophic project is stamped with the sign of the philo-Semite Nietzschean warmongering spirit. It also implies the subordination of the Maghreb and of the Makhrek - West and East North Africa - by the force of the sword in a pathological attempt to return to a colonial psychology. The more immediate origin of this neocolonial push can be found in the Marrakesh Conference where the accomplice of the pathological war criminal Ariel Sharon and gravedigger of the Oslo Accords and of the assassination of President Arafat, Shimon Peres, one who once said of himself that he was « cursed ». To this was grafted a debilitating philo-Semite Nietzschean ideology known as « Europe puissance » based on neocolonial interventions in Africa and elsewhere. (For the reverse but earlier strategy see my Europe des nations, Europe sociale et Constitution, January 14, 2004, in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/EPIFrame1Source1.htm#epi ) These numerous manipulations violate the UN Charter - the non-meddling in the affairs of sovereign States, the repudiation of war to resolve conflicts etc. They come from a declining permanent member of the Security Council which is now looking at an armed intervention against Syria, before extending it to Iran, albeit this would happen under the protective umbrella of the US Army operating on behalf of Israel. As an analyst of International Relations, we can already predict that this adventurous push will end up in a more disastrous fashion than the armed intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first victim will be democracy and the authentic thought of the Left, particularly in France and in Europe, unless there is a salutary reaction based on the Constitution and on the principles of La Sociale. The consequences of this degeneration can already be felt more strongly within the ranks to the French socialist party than within the Right. The PS is now victim of a grotesque over-representationsomething quite extraordinary in and by itself! This can be verified with the caused dismantlement of Libya, Mali etc, etc, as well as with the tens of thousands of death by drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. We are, of course, dealing here with poor unarmed people displaced by these archaic interventions, which disfigure the Ideals of the Republic to the benefit of those who like to think of the entire World as a vast Palestine reduced to a few Bantustans.

This philo-Semite Nietzschean crusading movement, grotesquely over-represented within the ranks of the PS, has already reneged on the 35-Hour as well as on all the other progressive reforms enacted by the « gauche plurielle ». A wall-to-wall submissive attitude - à-plat-ventrisme - is now becoming internalized in the Hexagon. And what is worse this is presented as a triumph of « liberté d'expression » god knows in what kind of French tongue! Typically, this is suppressing every possible expression authentically from the Left. The PCF born in the Tour Congress has now turned into a collaboration nightmare worse than Guesde and Kautsky put together in 1914! Moreover, we were recently confronted with abuses rarely seen in France when Matignon arrogantly and singlehandedly destroyed due process, and arbitrarily caused the reversion of a judgement by an administrative court without a single protest; soon it intervened in the internal affairs of unions. This with a single objective, namely to preventively suppress any possible democratic opposition to its austerity measures, although they have no scientific or constitutional basis whatsoever, and have already failed in practice. The country is thus led to its ruin at an accelerated rhythm. This internally debilitated France founds itself « once again » where Nietzsche had wanted it. It might be said that this is hardly surprising given the number of « Nouveaux philosophes » now followed by « Nouveaux Economistes » both illustrating the deplorable level to which the country has fallen in academic, cultural and ethico-political terms. These putative masters of the world are equally « willing » epigones of the modern brand of Marginalism guilty for deregulation, privatization and speculation. The adverse consequences can also be felt in the manner with which climate problems are confronted. Suffices here to add that the public infrastructures necessary to deal with climate change whatever its causes - do imply huge long-term investments which are not compatible with short-term capital as I had already denounced in my « Les conséquences socio-économiques de MM Volcker, Reagan et Cie », mars 1985 - as well as in my Tous ensemble 1996.

11. See the Appendix « Spoliation » in my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme.

12. See for instance http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/raveaud/2015/01/05/profs-deconomie-a-luniversite-la-guerre-est-declaree/. Formalizing is without any doubt a necessary procedure in science, although it must account for the congruence of concepts and theories with their object of study. This supposes the demonstration of a « concrete in thought » to pretend to scientific universality, otherwise we remain at the level of more or less general laws. The positivist formulations à la Popper or à la Prigogine cannot pretend to universality; they remain arbitrary or worse still they are derived from a purely formal convenience. It suffices to give the Schema of Tugan-Baranovsky as a proof. His use of quadratic equations is an epitome of a model substituting to the reality it is trying to apprehend. It is the perversion of heuristics. Arghiri Emmanuel has beautifully written that mathematics are the shorthand of logic. As testified by Plato's Discourses, Pythagoreans never taught anything to the contrary and considered mathematics as techniques and certainly not as Ideas per se. Wittgenstein demonstrated that there is not one single mathematics but a plurality. From the formal point of view, it was demonstrated that one can arbitrarily develop the mathematics one likes posing a set of axioms and deriving all the logical consequences from them (in the same way as Peano or Russell did albeit on slightly more secure grounds but not without being met with paradoxes.) The useful mathematics are those which remain congruent with their object, which is a character applying to all sciences. I believe to have demonstrated that this congruence in this specific and highly formalized discipline rests on the determination of the basic unit and its congruence to the reality it is used to apprehend and quantify. It is grotesque to keep on using heavy mathematical apparatuses when problems can be dealt with simple arithmetics once they have been properly understood. For no mathematics can go against logic or against arithmetics, which is the first and most secure quantitative formalization of logic. This pretension to irrationally applies heavy mathematical apparatuses for instance the pathetic attempts to apply the theory of chaos to the « factual » data of the Dow Jones by a vulgar Mandelbrot should only provoke scorn and hilarity. They are nothing else than a vicious class strategy perfectly illustrated by a letter Jules Ferry wrote to Léon Walras. Its object was to congratulate him for his contribution to the formalization of the economic discipline, thus rendering it more abstruse and less accessible to the proletariat and to the masses of citizens. Jules Ferry was only forgetting that the Uniservité of his own country had refused Walras's candidacy for the same reason that H. Poincaré refused to supervise the thesis of Bachelier, the ancestor of all the ineptitudes spun by the pseudo-analysis of financial risk taking - risk taking in a theoretical context that is not even able to differentiate interest from profit etc. With regards to the scientific pretention of Léon Walras, it only represents a typical attempt of steal the torch from Karl Marx - his Fanonian aspect? - in pretending that his own theory was the only one proposing a « scientific socialism»! Symptomatically, his own attempt to put this Marginalist « scientific socialism » in practice with another acolyte ended-up in legal litigation. As for Léon Walras's methodology, and consequently that of all Marginalists after him, it was founded on a simple subterfuge. Joseph Schumpeter tried his best to praise it thus restricting the scientific finality of the discipline away from universal laws. Following the warning of August Walras to his son Léon, this methodology ended up establishing an irreconcilable duality between economic science and social economics. There follows a series of ontological, methodological, theoretical, practical and epistemological problems, demonstrating that this pseudo-paradigm is nothing other than a class and cast narrative. We will gloss over the remark relegated in a footnote of the first edition of Léon Walras's Eléments which quickly disappeared afterwards and according to which « scarcity is socially produced ». This is an incredible admission which did not stop this admirable « scientific » endeavour; it was simply saved with a slight cancelation in the subsequent editions! (Nor did it stop all other major Marginalists, for instance Samuelson on diamonds and such ...) I have explained elsewhere that this is the fruit of successive falsifications invented to reverse and occult the really scientific theories of Karl Marx. It must be underlined that after the now hegemonic contribution of the liberal-fascist von Mises, this duality is itself questioned in a manner even more reactionary. It embodies a drifting that greatly offended the great classic Walrasian Maurice Allais. This is because here there is no longer any desire to inform the set of equations to be resolved by « economics » with social data, thus defining the social parameters into which the equations had to be resolved for instance the set of interrelated variables defined by Keynes which included full-employment. Modern and post-modern Marginalism makes abstraction of real society, of citizens and workers in flesh and bones and only cares for speculative data. We then reach the apex in the « dismal science », the worthiness of which is only good for Nouveaux Economistes qua worthy avatars of the Nouveaux Philosophes. Bizarrely, ever since the collapse of the PCF, France is typically afflicted with strong quotas of this provenience. It remains to ask what legitimate place they can pretend in serious institutions dedicated to higher learning and knowledge. Years ago, Samir Amin stated that bourgeois economy was all about « kitchen recipes ». He was right then. But there is more: Being an ideological narrative, it does not aim at truth, not even in Tarsky's sense, and less of all in the sense of its adequacy with analysed facts. It merely aims at establishing plausibility as a catechism destined for the masses and for academic « nihilist militants » who never learned to think with their own head. In so doing, this narrative is yet prone to another danger which Nietzsche emphasized by ironically punctuating his warnings in Thus spoke Zarathustra with his typical « hi-han! » interjections. This because too often great priests and masters end up believing themselves in their own donkish foolishness, a known psychological tendency. The second danger is pointed out by cognitive sciences: It states that perceptions or narratives are not reality, the latter always ending up refuting them. This happens either incrementally or trough a brutal shock, which then opens the way to what Thomas Kuhn called a « paradigmatic revolution ».

Thus, class domination demands a recurrent empirical adaption of the dominant gospel just to preserve its plausibility. This is exactly the function played by the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in the « dismal science », a truth ridiculously easy to establish. It suffices to take a look at the list of laureates and at their contributions which earned them the prize in question. (For instance, the continental market for second hand cars by Stiglitz. It was imagined in prevision of the disappearance of many blue collars and well paid jobs, coupled with the general lowering of working class salaries in the context of the negotiations leading to the North-American free-trade deal. Stiglitz was later freed from the World Bank to pose as one of the main « no-global » thinker! Ineptitudes about so-called « efficient markets » were duly rewarded as well as their application to the commercialization of human organs (this is not a sadistic or morbid joke but the plain truth ... despite what Carla Del Ponte said about the organ criminal trade in Kosovo and elsewhere); lately you had the « contrat unique » of Jean Tirole in the context of the hegemony of « global private governance » trying to substitute for the hated Nations-States which, however, still need to provide the recurrent bailouts ... The sociological origin of these laureates certainly pose another set of important and legitimate problems, as much as all other instances of grotesque over-representation in obvious violation of the Law of Great Numbers. The universality of the latter is not susceptible to be refuted by singularity, be it extra-ordinary or purely monstrous. Thus, bourgeois economy does not know internal contradictions: It is always right post hoc just as the market and its post hoc prices! Which does cause some enormous waste, to say the least. We should note as a conclusion that today a very advanced mathematical discipline would be needed focusing on the development of scientific, hence Marxist, statistics based on the Marxist function of production integrated with the Equations of SR-ER, including credit and anticipations. While I have called for them some time ago, we are now served with an unpalatable mixture for cats and dogs such as that proposed by Piketty and his acolytes with their agitprop of human inequality « always and in all places ». Which demonstrates the real level of academic and social degeneration. In the end, we have the partisans of Human equality such as Pythagoras, the Pythagorean Socrates, the Pythagorean Jesus-Christ, the Pythagorean Joachim of Fiore and Marx, and, on the other hand, we have the epigones of intrinsic Human inequality. Logic as well as ordinary language and other social idioms, all suppose what Hegel called the « intersubjective field », which necessarily sends us back to Human equality, all its members belonging to the same species (Herder, Kant, etc). Otherwise no discourses and no dialogues could ever be imaginable. Benedetto Croce, a reader of Vico, affirmed that becoming is the first concrete concept. Marx, a great reader of Vico too, demonstrated that becoming is inherent to Human equality. The dialectics of master and slave of Hegel had already furnished the proof. Racism and exclusivism, above all in their theocratic and cast form, are not valid refutations. In fact, they are condemned by the recent conquests made by the Anti-Nazifascist alliance, such as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Individual and Social Rights. An evidence which nowadays too many people allow themselves to forget, with the most total, if momentary, impunity, for instance those who would now pretend to reinterpret the Universal Declaration to subject it to their own theocratic-exclusivist archaic texts.

13. For a biography of von Mises, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

14. Stalin was a Leninist and as such he was convinced about the scientific superiority of Marxism without which no real Bolshevik would have dedicated and often sacrificed their own life. But he was both a front line author and witness of the Bolshevik experiments, starting with the chaotic and at time Utopian initial beginnings of the Soviet Union - for instance the will to do quickly away with exploitation, confused it with the necessary extraction of « social surplus value » without which there is no economic life and not dynamic growth (ER). Or with the simplistic concept of abolition of money etc. He lived through the NEP and later insured its rectification and the collectivization of land. This last process supposed the strategic maintenance of the alliance between peasants and proletariat; it thus implied both cooperatives and State agricultural enterprises. In his Economic problems of the USSR of 1951, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm , Stalin brilliantly explains that the existence of agricultural cooperatives imposed a mediation through prices, while the internal accounting of State farms could well be achieved directly in terms of « value », as with the other collectivised sectors. This exceptional comprehension shows the theoretical and practical level reached by comrade Stalin with respect to the vulgar and passably ignorant, if arrogant, « price system » of the liberal-fascist von Mises. It is also true with respect to the well-intentioned but fallacious Marginalist accounting proposed by Oskar Lange. One can then legitimately ask why Stalin made his best to entice Oskar Lange to move East. In my opinion this is explained by comrade Stalin brilliant understanding of class struggle and class alliances. As a great reader of Gramsci, he had developed a concept of transition to socialism in the East European bloc preliminary to the socialist transition proper as was unfolding in the USSR in the late Forties and early Fifties. The hegemony of socialism as a finality had first to be accepted by the Eastern intelligentsia still obfuscated by the capitalist crisis of the 20s and 30s and the subsequent rise of Fascism and Nazism. Thanks to Planning this preliminary stage conceptualized as « popular democracy » had to facilitate the effective economic, social, and cultural transformations necessary to lay the ground for a more advanced socialist transition. Such an approach could only be based on a good knowledge of Marxism. The sole element missed by Stalin was the development of a scientific Marxist law of productivity and its coherent integration in the Equations of SR-ER. However, on the basis of Marx's Capital Book II, Bukharin had formalized these Equations, in particular with regard to Simple Reproduction for the same productivity rate in all sectors - Mp and Cn. The problems emerged only because of the change in productivity rate. However, a continuous practical insistence on the highest achievable productivity possible, then to be corrected by the monitoring of the intersectorial contractions that had not been foreseen, Soviet Planning became tremendously efficient. This was brilliantly demonstrated: With only two 5-Year Plans, Stalin was able to destroy, alone, the industrial-military complex of Nazifascism, which, at the time, was the most important in the World. The United States entered the war against Germany and Japan only after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942, that is to say very, very late ... Thus, Stalin led the Soviet Union from a third world status to one of the two only superpowers at the moment of his death. It should be underlined that Stalin never neglected the hegemony-counter-hegemony dialectics. Pasternaks Doctor Jivago is a master piece in part because it benefitted from intense epistolary exchanges between the author and Stalin, who was never unwilling to comment. Stalin equally contributed to the return of Gorki in the

Soviet Union after its creation because Gorki was then one of the most famous and socially conscious Russian authors on the World scene. However, as a perfect Marxist, Stalin was anti-exclusivist. Despite the fact that he alone had saved Israel from instantaneous annihilation when it proclaimed itself as an independent State on May 14, 1948, transferring arms through East Germany, this service did cost him his life. At the time, the United States shunned the creation of Israel, privileging instead their alliances with the Muslim world and particularly with Saudi Arabia, already then the main oil producer. In effect, Stalin insisted on the resolution of the « Jewish question » within the USSR, proposing the creation of an autonomous Jewish Republic. This would have automatically ended the over-representation of Jews at all central and leading Soviet levels. Thus the Marxist who saved them from the Nazi camps, including from the crutches of the Just Among Nations, the Nazi industrialist Schindler and his Jewish accountant Stern, was assassinated by them to put an end to this process, a well-established historical truth beyond questioning. Later, his memory was systematically falsified and dirtied in the usual manner consisting in falsifying History and attributing to Stalin the crimes committed by the Soviet-Jew Yeshov. This was mainly done through two supposedly secret reports conceived as ploys in the struggle for power. Yeshov was the Soviet Sade of the Section des Piques, infiltrated in the ranks of the revolutionaries just as the known Marquis. The aim was to discredit them through the generalization of Terror used to behead the Revolution. As a matter of fact, immediately after the condemnation of this midget Jewish criminal, Terror ended, an uncontestable fact. The same people, who pushed Khrushchev to accomplish his anti-communist coup d'Etat, were the same who quickly implemented socialist Marginalism in the USSR immediately after he was in control, starting in 1956. They thus contributed in reifying and bureaucratizing the inner functioning of the USSR. In so doing they drastically slowed and corrupted the workings of Soviet Planning with their Marginalist falsifications. In the end, they betrayed and dismembered the Soviet Union from inside, now hoping to do the same for the Russian Federation. Never was a crime against Humanity and its historical becoming, as well as against Memory in particular the memory of all Resistants to Nazifascism - so vile and enormous. It has been written that those who would ignore the lessons of History are condemned to reproduce the same errors and be subject to the same consequences.

XXX

IL SOCIALISMO MARGINALISTA O COME INCATENARSI SE STESSI NELLA CAVERNA CAPITALISTA.

1) Il socialismo marginalista da von Mises a Oskar Lange a Liberman.

2) A proposito della democrazia socialista.

Jean Tirole con il suo contratto unico, Thomas Piketty e le sue disuguaglianze perenne ed insuperabili, (1) come pure tanti altri, condividono lo stesso paradigma, oggi egemonico in ambito accademico. Ci incitano a sottolineare che il concetto di questo marginalismo moderno appartiene a von Mises. Non si tratta solo di un semplice problema di allocazione delle risorse ma in realtà di un progetto di società visceralmente regressivo.

Von Mises laudò la speculazione. Fu così il primo a concepire quello che diventerà poi la teoria patentamene fallacia dei « mercati efficienti ». Con il suo libro « Socialism » von Mises fu anche all'origine di una critica fraudolente di ogni tipo di intervento dello Stato nella sfera economica. Questo nutrirà i teorici della Chicago University e tanti altri, tra i quali i membri della sua Société du Mont Pélerin. Confutando queste critiche per quello che riguardava il socialismo, Fred M. Taylor e Oskar Lange inventarono il « socialismo di mercato ». (2) Tramite Liberman e Khrushchev, avrà un effetto debilitante sulla pianificazione socialista. A termine, questo portò alla distruzione interna dell'Unione Sovietica e potenzialmente a quella degli altri paesi che si proclamano ancora attaccati al socialismo marxista.

Se si adotta il marginalismo come scienza, si avrà naturalmente tendenza ad attribuire le difficoltà reali riscontrate ad una divergenza tra i risultati e la teoria: non vi è miglior modo per stabilire il capitalismo speculativo come l'avvenire del socialismo! Questo fu verificato per quanto riguardava la borghesia di Stato sovietica resa totalmente ipocrita e schizofrenica da questo socialismo marginalista. (3) Alla fine, rinnegò il sistema e messi in atto le sue sfrenate razzia iniziata sin dal 1990-1991. Questa singolare forma mentis caratterizza ugualmente tutti i teorici marginalisti attuali, gente per la quale il mercato non è mai assai libero, particolarmente il mercato del lavoro. Sin dall'inizio, le critiche di von Mises miravano a tutte le forme di intervento dello Stato, senza esentare la pianificazione di guerra tedesca messa in atto durante la prima guerra mondiale. Cosicché, dopo lo smembramento interno della URSS, lo Stato sociale o keynesiano, a dire vero la concretizzazione progressiva della Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Individuali e Sociali nata dall'alleanza anti-nazifascista, fu considerato da questi marginalisti come l'ostacolo principale ... al ritorno verso un livello di disuguaglianza anteriore al 1914 ed in particolare ad Ottobre 1917!

Taylor e Lange erano forse ben intenzionati, ma non si può mai pretendere fondare il socialismo sulla base del paradigma marginalista dimostrato da me essere fondamentalmente a-scientifico. (4) Se il marxismo è scientifico allora i problemi che emergono nel modo di produzione socialista devono essere risolti al suo interno. Gramsci sottolineò quest'evidenza con ragione e con forza. Von Mises vede nella produttività marginale, derivata dalla proprietà privata dei Mezzi di produzione, la condizione sine qua non di ogni possibile calcolo economico. Questo viene denominato da lui come « sistema dei prezzi ». Ora, la produttività marginale ottimizza i profitti privati distribuiti secondo il peso relativo dei capitalisti, ma rimane ontologicamente incapace di ottimizzare le quantità rispettive da produrre di Mezzi di produzione (Mp) e di Mezzi di consumo (Cn). La pseudo-ottimizzazione che ne scaturisce è fortemente orientata e falsificata dalla distribuzione del capitale. In effetti, segue un meccanismo anarchico di spreco già riconosciuto da Enrico Barone. (Il ministro

della produzione nello stato collettivista (1908) http://www.panarchy.org/barone/stato.collettivista.1908.html ) La « mano invisibile » viene messa in moto dall'accumulazione differenziale privata. Essa è ispirata da un egoismo sfrenato dato come propenso ad assicurare l'interesse generale. In breve, rimpiazzate la Pianificazione, anche incitativa e indicativa, con una volgare Lolf ed il Paese corre dritto allo sfaccio. In effetti, tutte le spese pubbliche necessarie per assicurare l'equilibrio reale degli Mp e dei Cn - o per soltanto bilanciare gli effetti devastanti degli « spiriti animali » del capitalismo, saranno sottomesse al Tesoro. Sin dalla contro-rivoluzione monetarista di Volcker-Reagan-Thatcher del 1979-1980, il Tesoro venne sostituire al primo posto i ministeri nazionali della Finanza e dell'Economia, in modo da essere direttamente subordinato alla finanza speculativa globale corto-termista. Questa dipende a suo turno dall'infeudazione della Riserva Federale Americana (FED) alle 4 grandi banche di New York egemoniche nella sede locale della FED localizzata in questa metropoli. (5)

L'equilibrio generale così raggiunto o ancora raggiunto con il metodo contabile di Lange fondato sopra un calcolo similare effettuato dalla Panificazione porta inevitabilmente ad uno rinnegamento completo del marxismo e, di conseguenza, della scienza in materia economica. Si prende come dato di fatto che il marginalismo è LA scienza economica. Per Lange questo suppone la sua universalità e dunque la sua necessaria possibilità di applicazione al socialismo. Purtroppo, il marginalismo non è niente altro che una narrazione. La requisitoria risulta assai lunga. Sottolineeremo solo qualche evidenze. La sua finalità primaria è l'occultazione dello sfruttamento del lavoro. La sua utilità marginale bancale fu precisamente sviluppata per occultare la dualità ontologica tra valore di uso e valore di scambio che caratterizza tutte le merci, inclusa la forza di lavoro. Il suo valore aggiunto è incapace di rendere conto della sua genesi rannicchiata nel tasso della sovrappiù. I suoi prezzi non sono altro che epifenomeni sostenuti dal valore di scambio. La sua pseudo-teoria della moneta è cieca ma non di meno informa l'operato della sua banca centrale che viene innestata sul suo corpo in un secondo tempo. Tutto questo porta oggi al « credito senza collaterale » (6), conclusione che non necessita altri commenti.

In oltre, la tecnologia gli rimane esogena dato che il marginalismo non dispone nemmeno di una legge coerente della produttività. I cambiamenti di produttività suppongono un movimento proporzionale inverso della composizione organica del capitale (v/C, dove C = c + v) e del tasso di sfruttamento o di sovrappiù (pv/v). I rendimenti crescenti o decrescenti e le economie di scala non risolvono niente. (7) Piero Sraffa l'aveva già dimostrato nei suoi saggi degli Anni 20. Ho dimostrato la validità scientifica della legge di produttività marxista e l'ho integrata in maniera totalmente coerente nelle Equazioni della Riproduzione Semplice ed Allargata di Marx. Queste Equazioni rappresentano l'unico vero equilibrio generale. Ho integrato il credito a queste Equazioni e, sulla base della distinzione fondamentale tra interesse e profitto, ho dimostrato che il credito speculativo aveva tendenza a fagocitare tutto il profitto. Questa tendenza deleteria porta fatalmente a crisi capitaliste ancora più gravi di prima. Sappiamo tutti dei LBO speso effettuati dagli fondi di investimento equity funds per concludersi in ristrutturazioni chirurgiche in modo da soddisfare un ROE a due cifre o quasi. (vedi il mio Compendio di economia politica marxista, nella Sezione Livres-Books del mio sito www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

Fin qui non ho visto il più minimo tentativo di confutazione rispettoso del mio diritto di rispondere. Per contro, ho visto più tentativi tipici di rovesciamento e di occultazione, in particolare per quello che riguarda la mia delucidazione del lavoro vivo. Esso è la chiave della legge marxista del valore e dunque della forma di estrazione della sovrappiù dominante nel modo di produzione capitalista, cioè la produttività.

Paragonando le piccole cose alle grandi, noto che questa vergognosa e ben poco accademica strategia era già stata sviluppata, in massima pompa massonica disugualitaria, contro Marx. Ho dimostrato la falsità della critica che Böhm-Bawerk pretese indirizzare a Marx. (Il pseudo-problema della trasformazione.) Noto che von Mises fu allievo di Böhm-Bawerk. Sopra la base della falsificazione iniziale operata dal suo maestro, si mese in dovere di prolungarne l'effetto, appunto tentando di occultare le Equazioni della Riproduzione Semplice (RS) e della Riproduzione Allargata (RA). A produttività uguale in tutti i settori queste Equazioni erano purtroppo inattaccabili, fatto che non autorizzava di scartarle in modo cavaliere come un semplice caso particolare.

Il metodo rimane sempre lo stesso: ispirarsi delle riflessioni scientifiche marxiste più avanzate per ridurle ad una narrazione marginalista rovesciata fondata sopra una certa plausibilità. Nel caso che ci preoccupa, von Mises si mise in dovere di strumentalizzare Paul Lafargue. Quest'ultimo era il più grande e più originale teorico marxista dopo il suocero Karl Marx. Perciò ispirò fortemente Lenin. E forse per questo che fu in seguito laboriosamente occultato e falsificato. Ad esempio, al soggetto della necessaria e cruciale riduzione del tempo di lavoro. In realtà, la legge delle 8 ore quotidiane gli deve molto. Il progetto di legge presentato da Jules Guesde riposava sopra un dossier preparato dal medico marxista Paul Lafargue. Paul Lafargue aveva una formazione scientifica completa. Non potendo arrivare ad una confutazione, egli abbordò il falso problema della trasformazione dei valori in prezzi di produzione in modo preliminare fondato sulla realtà concreta del suo tempo. (Per un riassunto del falso problema della trasformazione, vedi l' « Annexe » nel mio Tous ensemble nella Sezione Livres-Books del mio sito; in italiano riferirsi al mio saggio Contra pitre nella Sezione Italia del mio sito.) Così facendo, sviluppò la teoria del credito iniziata da Marx e né prolungò quella del capitale finanziere. Senza nessun dubbio, Lafargue commesse un'errore confondendo l'interesse ed il profitto, utilizzando la logica dell'interesse come illustrazione di un processo di equalizzazione effettiva del tasso di profitto. Von Mises era cosciente della falsificazione iniziale di Böhm-Bawerk in modo che capì istantaneamente il partito che poteva tirare di questa confusione tra interesse e profitto.

L'argomento è questo: Böhm-Bawerk annunciò una contraddizione, letale secondo lui, tra il Libro I del Capitale (valore) e i Libri II e III (Riproduzione e prezzo di produzione). Così, tutti, compresi Bortkiewicz e Tugan-Baranowsky, rifletteranno poi giustamente nel quadro della Riproduzione Semplice ed Allargata. In realtà, in una lettera scritta a Engels, ma poco conosciuta fino agli Anni 70, Marx aveva insistito che il problema doveva essere risolto nel quadro della RS, per ovvie ragioni di coerenza. Per Böhm-Bawerk il problema risedeva nel fatto che i dati ex ante in valore di scambio all'inizio di un ciclo di Riproduzione venivano trasformati in prezzi di produzioni alla fine del processo dopo una equalizzazione del tasso di profitto, cioè post hoc, mentre questi ultimi dovevano giocare il ruolo di valore di scambio all'inizio del nuovo ciclo. Questo problema non è risolvibile finché la legge marxista della produttività non è delucidata ed integrata in modo totalmente coerente nelle Equazioni della Riproduzione, dimostrazione che fui l'unico a stabilire scientificamente (vedi l'Annexe del mio Tous ensemble oppure il mio Contra pitre op citati.) Altrimenti, sulla base del fasullo concetto dell'equalizzazione del tasso di profitto , cioè dopo il fatto …, la tendenza sarà contestare questa equalizzazione e con essa la legge del valore marxista oppure tentare una dimostrazione fondata su base novelle non-marxiste, cioè la risoluzione simultanea offerta da Bortkiewicz e da Tugan-Baranovsky.

Per parte sua, Lafargue tentò di mostrare che il processo di equalizzazione era reale dato l'estrema mobilità del capitale, particolarmente del capitale borsistico. Non tentò mai di presentare questa illustrazione come una confutazione teorica di Böhm-Bawerk. Peccato che Lafargue non abbia visto che l'equalizzazione in questione era dovuta alla produttività in modo che era organica alla funzione di produzione (la relazione di proporzionalità inversa tra tasso di composizione organica e tasso di sovrappiù alla quale abbiamo accennato sopra, legge che prevale al livello microeconomico con le varie funzioni di produzione ed al livello macroeconomico, cioè per le funzioni di produzione settoriali delle Equazioni della RS-RA.) Questo avrebbe stabilito la superiorità scientifica assoluta del marxismo, cambiando la faccia del XXè secolo in modo ancora più duraturo di quanto fatto col prezioso contributo scientifico e pratico di Lenin ...

Von Mises spalancò questa porta socchiusa capendo subito tutto il beneficio che ne poteva tirare: confondendo profitto e interesse, la genesi del profitto, dal quale l'interesse forma solo una parte, diventava ancora più oscura. Rimaneva solo un gioco fluido di liquidità che rimandavano al calcolo del rischio, esattamente come J.B. Say augurava fondandolo sull'uso della « paper currency » di Ricardo. Questo calcolo del rischio rinvia a De Witt quando si interrogava sull'equa divisione dei guadagni tra azionari delle compagnie marittime, tenendo conto degli azzardi di questo tipo di commercio. Questo spiega probabilmente perché Blaise Pascal fu contattato indirettamente per risolvere in modo matematico questo tipo di problemi. Sappiamo che Adam Smith aveva scartato il rischio come spiegazione del profitto, in astrazione del lavoro umano concludendo che « i capitalisti amano mietere là dove non hanno mai seminato » (Vedi Ed. Sutherland, 1993, p 47.)Al massimo il calcolo del rischio può spiegare una sua distribuzione mai la sua genesi. Prendendo da Lafargue l'idea dell'egemonia del capitale finanziario, von Mises pone il credito speculativo come forma perfetta del capitalismo. Ma questa forma doveva ancora essere perfezionata togliendo via tutti gli ostacoli che lo confrontavano notabilmente al livello della fluidità del mercato del lavoro, interamente astratto per questa ragione di ogni tipo di diritti e di programmi sociali.

Lo sforzo di von Mises si spiega facilmente in uno altro modo. Di fatti, all'epoca, tutti, incluso Pigou, convenivano sul fatto che la « mano invisibile » capitalista induceva ingenti sprechi senza pero essere capace di soddisfare i bisogni essenziali delle masse. (Vedi Pigou Socialism versus capitalism, 1937.) Sta proprio qui l'origine ideologica dell'argomento di von Mises relativo alla possibilità del calcolo economico. Ben inteso, si tratta di un argomento fallacie visto che Enrico Barone confessò che l'equilibrio capitalista viene raggiunto via « l' anarchia » del mercato (origine dell'anomismo libertario di von Hayek). Cioè venne raggiunto grazie ad un enorme spreco compiuto su vasta scala. Sappiamo in oltre che anche prima dell'emergenza del sistema capitalista, lo spreco volontario squandering in Inglese fu ugualmente teorizzato come una necessità mirata a garantire la perennità delle disuguaglianze di classe e di caste da tutti i gruppi e le logge le più reazionari e le più esclusivisti.

Von Hayek tentò poi di consolidare la critica vacillante di von Mises pretendendo che la Pianificazione si infrangerebbe ad una difficoltà insormontabile, cioè quella consistendo nel risolvere simultaneamente milioni di equazioni simultanee. Questo argomento non è solo una palese inettitudine, dimostra essere derivato dalla soluzione offerta da Tugan-Baranovsky al falso problema della trasformazione dei valori in prezzi di produzione, problema inventato come abbiamo vista da Böhm-Bawerk. Tugan-Baranovsky introdusse un terzo settore Oro a fianco dei due settori dei Mezzi di produzione e dei Mezzi di consumo. Questi due settori fondamentali erano stati teorizzati da Marx dopo un monumentale lavoro analitico relativo al « reddito annuale » di Sismondi, alle teorie dei Fisiocrati e dei propagatori dell'economia politica classica e, ben inteso, al Tableau Economique di Quesnay. Lo fece in modo totalmente artificiale per ottenere un numero identico di equazioni e di variabili ignote necessario per una risoluzione simultanea. Perciò pone l'Oro come unita di conto. Ho dimostrato sin dalla fine degli anni 70 e poi nel mio Tous ensemble che questo era solo un sotterfugio formalista il quale non aveva più niente a che vedere con l'economia, e meno ancora con la legge del valore e con i Schema della Riproduzione Semplice ed Allargata di Marx. In oltre, l'oro, o la moneta, essendo uno equivalente generale deve essere ancora se stesso misurato con l'unico equivalente universale possibile, cioè il valore di scambio della forza del lavoro. Aggiungo che il « mercato dei mercati » di Léon Walras, per il quale tutto deve essere liquefatto in modo preliminare in forma moneta, altro non è se non uno adattamento del schema fallacie di Tugan-Baranovsky. Dopo i miei contributi, questi argomenti ed altri simili portano a ridere. A data, non ho visto uno solo tentativo di confutazione che mi desse il diritto di rispondere.

I miei Schema danno le Equazioni della Riproduzione Semplice (RS) e della Riproduzione Allargata (RA) in modo totalmente coerente in quantità, valori, prezzi, ore, ed anche in termini di lavoratori fisici, almeno se si prende la pena di convertire il loro contributo in « lavoro socialmente necessario ». Questo rimane valido quando il tasso di produttività cambia. Questa coerenza organica permette di porre la teoria quantitativa marxista della moneta sulla base della distinzione fondamentale tra massa salariale reale e massa salariale sociale (includendo il costo dell'assicurazione sociale.) Dopo 2007-2008, le banche centrali occidentali, tra le quali la FED la tesi di dottorato di Ben Bernanke portava sulla moneta e l'inflazione ... - iniettarono volumi ingenti di liquidità con la vana speranza di creare una iperinflazione mirata a fare pagare il costo della crisi agli credenzieri stranieri. Ben inteso, l'inverso prevalse ma nessuno sembra averlo realizzato e nessuno soffia la minima parola al soggetto!

Relativamente all'austerità, Blanchard parlò difensivamente di un semplice errore di calcolo ma, in fondo, non doveva ignorare, se non altro per la mia insistenza, che era proprio il suo paradigma di referenza che faceva acqua da ogni parte. Nel mio Libro III del 2005, in francese ed in inglese, intitolato Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth sezione Livres-Books la crisi dei subprime che occulta una profonda crisi strutturale era già precisamente annunciata. Basta utilizzare il termine « montage » con la funzione « cerca » per verificare …

Nel mio Compendio di Economia Politica Marxista si troverà ugualmente una dimostrazione essenziale a prova dell'universalità scientifica del marxismo. In effetti, va dimostrato che i prezzi di mercato rimangono sovra-determinati dal Schema di Riproduzione, cioè dalla « domanda sociale ». Sono solo degli epifenomeni del valore di scambio. Dimostro così quello che Marx aveva annunciato sin dai suoi Manoscritti parigini del 1844.

Il cosiddetto « sistema dei prezzi » di von Mises's rimane sempre ontologicamente post hoc. Al contrario, i schema valore non hanno nessuno bisogno della scelta dei consumatori nel senso proposto da von Mises oppure da Oskar Lange. Questo perché sono dati ex ante e rimangono coerenti nei parametri iniziali, anche chiamati « condizioni morali » o di civiltà. Se questi parametri cambiano, per causa di rivoluzione ecc., il sistema si riaggiusta ma il tasso del profitto, da non confondere con i volumi del profitto i quali inducano la concentrazione e la centralizzazione del capitale, rimarrà identico per tutte le funzioni di produzione indipendentemente della loro produttività respettiva.

Oskar Lange sottolinea a giusto titolo il ruolo delle condizioni parametriche storicamente date. Quando un sistema socialista emerge, eredita di uno equilibrio generale che sa correggere mettendo a profitto la funzione di produzione marxista e le Equazioni RS-RA. Correggendo per almeno uno ciclo completo di riproduzione badando ad assicurare il pieno impiego, si può passare ad uno sistema valore più giusto, anche rispetto al cosiddetto sistema marginalista dato a prezzi costanti. Parallelamente si corregge la RS-RA privilegiando i bisogni sociali assieme ai bisogni essenziali individuali. La forza propulsiva del sistema risiede nella ricerca a tutti i livelli, impresa, industria, settore e filiera, della produttività massima, una tendenza favoreggiata dall'allocazione collettiva della « sovrappiù sociale ». In effetti, la microeconomia non può pretendere ad una qualsiasi indipendenza rispetto alla macroeconomia, al contrario, benché il marginalismo non sappia coniugarle con coerenza. La sovrappiù sociale caratterizza la forma dominante dell'estrazione della sovrappiù nel modo di produzione socialista, nel stesso modo in cui la produttività né rappresenta la forma dominante nel modo di produzione capitalista, o ancora la sovrappiù assoluta per i modi di produzione pre-capitalisti. La forma dominante di estrazione della sovrappiù, come pure le « epoche ridistributive » che né dipendano, caratterizzano un modo di produzione specifico senza pero cancellare l'azione subordinata delle altre forme di estrazione. Queste forme sono: la sovrappiù assoluta, la sovrappiù relativa, o variazione congiunturale dell'intensità del lavoro, e la produttività ovvero la variazione strutturale dell'intensità del lavoro e la sovrappiù sociale.

La scelta dei consumatori socialisti, individualmente e nel loro insieme, non si fa secondo la logica narrativa capitalista. I salari essendo uguali o almeno in larga misura uguali (vedi pure Jules Guesde a questo proposito) i « prezzi » non sono suscettibili di essere mercanteggiati. Sono dei valori che rappresentano esattamente la somma dei valori degli input della funzione di produzione (c + v + pv = p). Il reddito globale netto dei focolari è calcolato in funzione della « struttura di v » ottimale a un dato momento, in modo che la scelta si fa su quello che i consumatori desiderano per soddisfare i loro bisogni. Questo processo risulterà più semplice per tutti i consumatori come pure per la Pianificazione a misura che prodotti sostitutivi saranno disponibile (burro/margarina; pasta/rizo; caffè/tè etc.) In caso di scarsità relativa, la scelta sarà mediatizzata dalla disponibilità di questi sostituti oppure dalla gestione socialista del risparmio individuale o ancora tramite la fiscalità.

Si noterà semplicemente che le curve di indifferenza di Pareto funzionano con un sistema prezzo immutabile al momento dell'acquisto. A questo momento il consumatore sa , anzi assume che i suoi atti non modificheranno la struttura dei prezzi, il che solleva seri problemi per la logica interna al livello dell'equilibrio generale, dato che saremo costantemente rimandati alla contraddizione ex ante/post hoc che affetta tutte le varianti del pensiero economico borghese. Le curve di indifferenza dei consumatori in un regime socialiste non sono solo possibili, come lo stesso Pareto fu il primo ad ammettere, ma risultano più semplici e più efficaci. I salari e i redditi essendo relativamente identici, la prevedibilità sarà proporzionalmente più efficace mentre le Equazioni della Riproduzione permetteranno di scansare lo spreco sistematico che caratterizza il modo di produzione capitalista.

Notiamo in oltre che le curve di Pareto, come pure tutte le curve di offerta e di domanda marginaliste, portano ad un sistema statico impossibile da dinamizzare dall'interno. I Marginalisti tentarono di farlo in maniera esogena con l'introduzione del credito e del risparmio, oppure con l'introduzione della tecnologia tale che concepita da R. Solow. Il primo caso fu illustrato da Keynes-Harrod-Kahn poi seguiti dalla normalizzazione pauperizzate del keynesianismo ad opera di Hicks, Samuelson e Solow che alcuni denominarono «

keynesianismo bastardo ». Una variante ancora più nociva fu offerta con il cosiddetto « keynesianismo militare ». Questo prese il suo volo con la prima crisi industriale del dopo guerra nei Stati Uniti, subito utilizzata come pretesto per sganciare la Guerra di Corea. Questo processo che culminò poi con le gigantesche spese militari caratteristiche delle Amministrazioni Reagan e dei suoi successori crociati alla Casa Bianca. Per coronare il tutto, ci fu von Mises con la sua speculazione egemonica. Essa portò all'austerità istituzionalizzata ed al devastante « credit crunch » del quale oggi possiamo tutti, singoli o Uomini di Stato, ammirare la spaventosa efficacia ... « scientifica »!

Il problema, se così si può chiamare, risiede al livello della produzione. In quest'ultima, la produttività massima deve sempre prevalere ed essere mediatizzata dalla Pianificazione per evitare ogni contrazione settoriale. L'innovazione che va in tal senso deve sempre essere privilegiata, come pure il design, in modo da soddisfare i bisogni tenendo conto dei vari gusti. Anche qui le curve di indifferenza sono più semplici a stabilire e più efficaci. In effetti, vengono stabilite secondo dati coerenti ex ante/post hoc, dunque sulla base del valore di scambio. Sono eminentemente prevedibili e lo saranno ancora di più quando autentiche statistiche socialiste fondate sulla funzione di produzione marxista e sulle Equazioni della RS-RA saranno sviluppate. Ovviamente, questo non ha niente a che vedere con l'indigeribile confusione-piketty sul soggetto. Entrano in linea di conto le scelte che riguardano l'allocazione delle risorse. In questa maniera, le curve di indifferenza rimandano ai scenari possibili della Riproduzione Allargata, i quali al loro turno ci rimandano a quello che ho chiamato la « democrazia socialista ». Tutti questi scenari, o piani quinquennali, saranno ottimali ma quello che sarà scelto corrisponderà alla scelta dei cittadini espressa democraticamente. Si tratta di trade-offs perfettamente controllati. (8) Come dimostrato dall'esperienza del socialismo reale, la difficoltà maggiore, ma non per questo letale, risiede nell'inserzione nell'Economia Mondiale sopratutto quando questa rimane ancora sotto dominanza capitalista. Si pone allora la questione della determinazione del tasso di scambio con tutti gli effetti ad essa collegati. Questo è particolarmente vero quando questo l'inserzione viene aggravata da uno embargo.

In uno regime capitalista queste scelte sono sovra determinate dalla proprietà privata dei Mezzi di produzione. In questo modo l'optimum raggiunto sarà necessariamente funzione della disuguaglianza della redistribuzione dei redditi e delle ricchezze. In oltre, quando include la stabilità monetaria, la logica della Riproduzione riposa sopra l'adeguamento sistemico della « struttura di v », cioè sulla struttura del « reddito globale netto » dei focolari. Quest'ultimo include il salario individuale ed il salario differito ai quali si aggiungano i benefici derivanti dall'accesso cittadino ai programmi sociali ed alle infrastrutture pubblici. Quando questo è fortemente disuguale, l'equilibrio capitalista sarà un « equilibrio dei cimiteri ». Esso includerà il cimitero delle imprese ridotte alla bancarotta per causa di una sovrapproduzione che coesiste con un cronico sotto-consumo (politica del basso costo del lavoro e della privatizzazione dei servizi sociali e della PA.) Oggi nei Stati Uniti, secondo Zerohedge, 20 % della popolazione consuma 40 % delle ricchezze prodotte, mentre il 40 % ne consuma l'80%. E ovvio che si tratta di ricchezze fortemente ridefinite dal peso debilitante della speculazione. Questa situazione è socialmente ed economicamente catastrofica, sopratutto perché ora si schianta contro l'emergenza autonoma di concorrenti, ad esempio i BRICS.

Notiamo che il PIL marginalista americano aumenta in maniera fittizia per l'effetto demografico e sopratutto per quello delle privatizzazioni sempre più spinte dei servizi e delle infrastrutture pubblici ad esempio l'Obamacare. Questo non deve farci dimenticare che il tasso ufficiale relativamente basso della disoccupazione (attorno al 6 %) maschera un tasso reale superiore al 23 %. Questo tasso catastrofico va di pari passo con un tasso di partecipazione al lavoro attivo attorno al 55 %, il tasso più basso da almeno 35 anni! Per di più, la crescita del PIL marginalista riposa ugualmente sopra l'esplosione della crescita del settore finanziario, particolarmente speculativo. Questo settore fu già responsabile della crisi dei subprime. Essa era solo la punta dell'iceberg di una crisi economica strutturale. E potenzialmente più debilitante sul lungo termine che non lo fu mai la Grande Depressione. In un'ottica, diciamo spengleriana, i Stati Uniti e l'Occidente in generale seguano la stessa declinante via del impero britannico e della sua suprema City, dopo il 1939, quando i Stati Uniti e Wall Street gli detronizzarono.

La logica marxista della Riproduzione porta dunque alla soddisfazione ottimale dei bisogni sociali ed individuali, compreso il tempo liberato, grazie alla produttività amplificata dall'utilizzo macroeconomico della « sovrappiù sociale ». Il tempo liberato gioca ugualmente un ruolo fondamentale nell'emancipazione individuale e collettiva. E fondamentale per lo sbocciare delle personalità, processo garantito dalla costituzione e dalla democrazia socialiste, ancora informate dalla teoria marxista della psicoanalisi. (9) Apre anche la strada alla produzione di valori non mercificati, dunque ad una cultura ed a una psicologia differenti che denotano la fine di quello che Hobbes aveva chiamato la « mentalità acquisitiva ».

In effetti, l'accumulazione della vera ricchezza delle Nazioni caratterizzerebbe il socialismo più che il capitalismo. In un modo di produzione socialista i bisogni sarebbero prima soddisfatti con prodotti massificabili. Poi, il rinnovamento dei parchi esistenti diventerebbe affare di prodotti di qualità maniffatturati in « short runs » o dall'artigianato socialista. L'ecomarxismo permette di integrare il rispetto dell'ambiente (principio di precauzione) assieme ad una sana gestione delle risorse. La natura e il ciclo di vita dei prodotti sarebbero pensati in funzione del loro riciclaggio ottimale. Non esisterebbe nessuna obsolescenza capitalista programmata delle merci col scopo di forzare il rinnovamento rapido dei parchi esistenti, tentando così di preservare artificialmente i sbocchi interni alla produzione ed i profitti privati che né dipendano. I prodotti massificati rispondono ad una logica di emergenza relativa, il loro ciclo di vita sarà dunque più corto. I prodotti di qualità avranno necessariamente un ciclo di vita più lungo. Nel medio e lungo termine questo indurrebbe ingenti risparmi di risorse senza nuocere all'espressione del gusto personale, privilegio oggi riservato ai soli ricchi.

A parte il riciclaggio, le risorse necessarie sarebbero assicurate con il rinnovamento artificiale o naturale delle riserve disponibili, e con lo sviluppo di sostituti massificabili. Mediante una buona gestione del territorio, rispettosa dell'agricoltura socialista fondata sulla rotazione delle terre ecc., questo può anche mobilitare il settore agricolo (biofuel duali, latex, algue ecc.), senza pericolo per la salute o per la sovranità alimentare, da non confondere con la sicurezza alimentare monetarista. Come in oltre ogni società moderna è fondata sulla trasformazione, più una società si doterà di surplus alimentari e energetici, più avrà flessibilità ed alta produttività. Ad esempio, la filiera civile delle centrali a sodio capaci di bruciare certi rifiuti nucleari, tra i quali il plutonio, dovrebbe essere oggetto di un esame rigoroso. (10)

La scelta delle occupazioni non desterebbe nessun problema particolare dato che l'educazione, informata da una pedagogia moderna (11), sarebbe accessibile in permanenza a tutti nel quadro dei cicli ricorrenti della Riduzione del Tempo di Lavoro. (Va notato che nel sistema capitalista la scala salariale dipende in apparenza dalla formazione, cioè riposa sopra una selezione borghese appoggiata dalla capacità di affrontare alte spese scolastiche ed universitarie.... Logicamente, i lavori più duri, sopratutto manualmente, dovrebbero essere i più pagati.) Ho già discusso questo soggetto in vari spazzi, ad esempio nel capitolo dedicato al socialismo cubano nel mio Livre II idem oppure nella sezione del mio sito consacrato a Cuba e nel mio Compendio. L'uguaglianza del reddito globale netto dei focolari dovrebbe essere la meta da raggiungere; la diminuzione drastica degli scarti salariali, al massimo di 3, sarebbe in ogni caso appoggiata dallo sviluppo delle politiche sociali, sportive ecc.

Questa politica socialista dei redditi non indurrebbe nessuna disincentivazione al lavoro. Non ci sarebbe nessuno bisogno di ricorrere al cosiddetto « dividendo sociale » di Lange, o se si vuole alla forma marginalista dell'incitazione materiale. Il pieno-impiego diventerebbe la norma. In oltre, la gestione socialista delle risorse umane non sarebbe più fondata sopra una pedagogia coercitiva tipo workfare o Jobs Act, ma invece sopra una pedagogia positiva, per riprendere l'espressione di Gramsci. Metterebbe in opera l'emulazione socialista (Hô Chi-Mingh). La gestione o management sarebbe collettiva, i comitati di fabbrica generalizzati e potenti, il tutto essendo inserito nel quadro della democrazia industriale ed economica nel quadro della Pianificazione.

Si creerebbe così una cultura dell'auto-disciplina e del controllo democratico partecipativo a vari livelli. Il socialismo mette in scena il lavoratore collettivo. Particolarmente al livello del processo di produzione immediato, le squadre di lavoro eserciterebbero naturalmente la pressione usuale alle squadre formate di pari, misurata dal quota di produzione assegnato ad ogni squadra. Esse sarebbero responsabili per la sua esecuzione collettiva e individuale. Le squadre possono così giocare sulla ripartizione delle ore supplementari, l'allungamento della giornata di lavoro per eventuali recuperi produttivi nel quadro legale previsto. Questo verificherà ugualmente i dati tayloristi ed ergonomici. Potranno ugualmente essere messi a profitto i giorni di congedo malattia, la durata dei congedi, il tutto in vista dei risultati da raggiungere, i quali sarebbero determinati collettivamente al livello delle imprese, delle industrie e dei settori. Si tratta qui di equità tra lavoratori. Di fatti, era questo il grande contributo di Mao Zedong con le brigate e i comuni integrati nella pianificazione amministrativamente decentralizzata e bidirezionale. I cerchi di qualità giapponesi, come pure le catene di montaggio svedesi degli anni 70-80 che permettevano un controllo dei ritmi dagli operai stessi, ne furono in parte ispirati, con la speranza di migliorare la produttività (meno porosità, meno giorni di malattia, meno assenteismo, più attenzione per la qualità dei prodotti ecc.) In ogni caso, i cicli ricorrenti di RTL giocheranno il loro ruolo di moderazione. Il sistema riposerà ugualmente sulla garanzia offerta dalla tre forme del reddito dei focolari protette da una buona definizione dell'anti-dumping. Questo permetterebbe anche l'istituzionalizzazione del risparmio socialista tramite i Fondi Operai, i Fondi di produttività ed i libretti di risparmio individuali.

Cosi facendo il modo di produzione socialista distinguerà tra Dominio della Necessita (Pianificazione, democrazia industriale, economica e sociale) e Dominio della Libertà garantito dalla costituzione socialista e dal centralismo democratico. Nonostante la ridondanza, questa transizione socialista ha per meta l'emergenza di uno comunismo libertario.

Aggiungo che la mia opera fu scritta malgrado tutto e tutti e malgrado l'assillo barbaro intenso e intrusivo perpetrato 24 ore su 24 durante decenni, senza risparmiare la mia famiglia. Alla fine del 2013, aveva intrapreso di correggere i sbagli come pure la sintassi, rispettando pero il testo iniziale. Questo era sempre frutto di una scrittura di getto. Questa scrittura e messa a disposizione rapide erano necessarie per proteggere il mio lavoro dei furti online menando a plagi rovesciati. Questi andavano di pari passo con moltipliche manipolazioni patologiche di criminali sempre pronti ad abusare di questa sorveglianza filosemita nietzschiana, per altro gratuita, viziosa ed illegale. Dopo uno anno di lavoro la mia chiavetta USB smessi di funzionare, senza dubbio per effetto della medesima persecuzione. Non sono riuscito a fare recuperare i dati dei miei testi corretti. Non ho il coraggio di ricominciare subito dato che devo ancora portare a buon termine la redazione del capitalo relativo alla pianificazione. Questo in modo di scusa. Malgrado tutto credo che i miei testi sono degni di essere letti.

Affermo, finché non sarà fatta la prova scientifica del contrario dandomi il diritto di risposta, che il marginalismo è una narrazione socialmente ed economicamente nociva. Perciò solo il marxismo, da me corretto per quello che concerna la legge della produttività coerentemente integrata nelle Equazioni della RS-RA, ha valore di scienza in questa disciplina. Preme ancora sviluppare le statistiche socialiste sopra questa base scientificamente delucidata. Dato che sembra aprirsi un dibattito sul pluralismo in questa disciplina (12) a quando un dibattito sulle sue assise scientifiche ? - mi permetto di sottolineare che anche i rettori stessi sono governati dalla deontologia accademica. A meno che non vogliano parere coscientemente come impostori pronti a favoreggiare e propagare venalmente narrazioni, continuando pero ad essere pagati con fondi pubblici, compreso in gran parte quando le università, le Fondazioni e le Ecoles sono già sfortunatamente privatizzate

2) A proposito della democrazia socialista.

Dopo l'esposizione che precede, la superiorità dell'economia politica marxista mi sembra evidente. Essa è la sola a potere pretendere legittimamente allo statuto di scienza nella disciplina economica. I proponenti del marginalismo sono solo dei falsari che mantengano una narrazione che sanno essere con certezza, oppure che dovrebbero sapere essere, la conseguenza di falsificazioni successive, mirate a preservare la sua plausibilità per ragioni rilevanti strettamente della dominazione di classe e di casta. Von Mises stesso era un Ebreo austriaco liberale-fascista che non ha mai sentito il bisogno di rinnegare le sue convinzioni esclusiviste e di disuguaglianza umana, anche dopo l'Anschluss quando dovette fuggire dell'Austria. (13) Deve anche essere chiaro che prestare fede al « marginalismo socialista », altrimenti battezzato « socialismo di mercato », per costruire il socialismo, ammonta ad incatenarsi se stessi nella caverna capitalista, lagnandosi poi di essere abbagliato dalla luce del sole quando si ottiene il permesso di una corta passeggiata all'esterno sotto stretta sorveglianza!

Un'affermazione simile riguarda la superiorità della democrazia socialista sopra il pluralismo borghese sovra-determinato dal denaro e dalla preselezione massonica disugualitaria. Quest'ultima è fortemente influenzata dal esclusivismo e mascherata sotto i panni di una « meritocrazia » di classe che la Legge dei Grandi Numeri illumina immediatamente come essendo funzione del denaro e delle relazioni familiari. La democrazia borghese ebbi la sua storia, e così è per la democrazia socialista, le cui forme nuove rimangono da inventare.

Oskar Lange stesso affermava la superiorità del socialismo in questo dominio malgrado appoggiava questa sua affermazione sul suo marginalismo socialista. Dobbiamo pero sottolineare che Lange argomentava in favore dell'uguaglianza salariale e della presa di possesso collettiva rapida della proprietà dei Mezzi di produzione. Non credeva in nessuna transizione progressiva al socialismo perché era intimamente convinto della subordinazione effettiva del governo al grande capitale. Queste prese di posizioni chiare spiegano senza dubbi la ragione per la quale Stalin si impiegò per attirarlo all'Est, benché lui stesso non concedeva nulla alle teorie borghesi in materia di pianificazione socialiste. (14)

Così Lange nota piacevolmente che la libertà dei consumatori è più grande in un regime socialista dato l'uguaglianza dei salari che va di pari passo con una pianificazione che sa privilegiare i bisogni sociali. Lui afferma che in un regime socialista il consumatore non dovrà scegliere di sacrificare i bisogni di prima necessità per pagare le sue spese di salute o di educazione o vice-versa. Nel stesso modo, purché l'operato della Pianificazione sia trasparente, nessuna cronica cattiva allocazione delle risorse sarebbe tollerata dai cittadini. Quest'idea di trasparenza è cruciale. In parallele, con i vari comitati, soviet, comuni ecc., stabiliti rispettivamente ad ogni livello, questa trasparenza diventa fondamentale per la democrazia socialista. In effetti, il pluralismo borghese funziona spesso in segreto come il Consiglio di Amministrazione di una grande impresa.

Lo schema ben intenzionato di Lange fallisce pero al livello delle statistiche e dei processi marginalisti. A che cosa servirebbe una tale trasparenza se i dati sono ontologicamente falsi, mettere le scelte della pianificazione saranno falsificate da esse e dalle teorie marginalisti? Queste non possono neanche concepire l'equilibrio generale né la vera teoria (marxista) quantitativa della moneta e del credito! In effetti, queste scelte sono informate dalle aspettative teoriche relative alle loro conseguenze scontate. Non di meno il concetto rimane utile se va corretto tenendo conto della funzione di produzione marxista e delle Equazioni della RS-RA. Perché allora saremo capaci di derivare autentiche statistiche in termini di quantità, valori, prezzi, ore ecc., e questo in modo coerente. La raccolta e l'articolazione di queste statistiche socialiste permetteranno immaginare i vari scenari della Riproduzione Allargata da sottomettere alla scelta dei cittadini e dei loro gruppi (assemblea nazionale oppure, secondo i casi, regionale o comunale; comitati di direzione aziendali; consigli di fabbrica, comitati di accademici ed altri esperti nutriti dall'educazione socialista permanente; comitati di consumatori ... ) La democrazia socialista elimina il pluralismo politico di classe partiti politici legati alle varie frazioni di possedenti. Viene sostituito con il centralismo democratico espresso dal Partito ma, sopratutto, essa opera il trasferimento del potere verso il pluralismo sociale specificamente centrato sul operato amministrativo decentralizzato e partecipativo della Pianificazione. Così si aprirebbe la via al deperimento dello Stato di classe borghese trascendendo questi in un Stato socialista ben più orizzontale.

Notiamo in oltre che queste statistiche socialiste scientificamente ancorate sono molto versatile perché reggono sopra la potenza della funzione di produzione marxista capace di preservare la coerenza di tutti i suoi termini, quantità, valori, ore, operai fisici ecc. L'aumento della produttività, comunque sempre da privilegiare, non modifica affatto il tasso del profitto. Sappiamo già che facendo astrazione dei shock parametrici, questo tasso viene dato dal sistema benché i volumi di profitto cambiano. In oltre, queste statistiche rappresentano una autentica enumerazione in valore degli input delle diverse funzioni di produzione. Oggi, la raccolta di questi dati potrebbe benissimo farsi online grazie ai codici-barre. Ne deriverebbe una potenza enorme di trattamento dei dati per la Pianificazione.

Con l'aiuto di qualche algoritmi, quest'ultima potrebbe procedere con grande agilità alle aggregazioni desiderate. Potrebbe dunque procedere alle varie simulazioni per testare i vari scenari della RS-RA da proporre alla scelta dei cittadini. Conserveremo i due settori principali concepiti da Marx, il settore dei Mezzi di produzione (Mp) e il settore dei Mezzi di consumo (Cn). Ma potremmo pero concepire tutti i sotto-settori possibili e verificarne la funzione e l'impatto nello Schema RS-RA generale. Meglio ancora: le altre aggregazioni intersettoriali cruciali, ad esempio quelle che riguardano le filiere, saranno ben più facili ad ideare ed a analizzare. La stessa cosa rimane valida per la moneta masse salariali reale e sociale. Questo permetterà di mediatizzare gli effetti monetari e concepire la gestione del credito socialista necessario per fluidificare e rafforzare i circuiti implicati dalla RA. L'aspetto più delicato rimane senza dubbi la gestione del tasso di scambio, almeno finché l'inserzione della Formazione Sociale socialista continua a farsi nel quadro dell'Economia Mondiale ancora sotto dominanza capitalista.

Le regole principali di ottimizzazione della RA sono le seguenti. 1) l'adeguazione del settore dei Mp per Mp secondo gli obbiettivi ed il ritmo di sviluppo fissati; questo affetterà il tasso di re-investimento secondo la legge data nel mio Compendio. 2) l'adeguazione della « struttura di v » alla complessità progressiva del sistema produttivo; è il lato, diciamo « fordista », sistemico del sistema, dato che non serve produrre se nessuno può comprare. 3) il livello di soddisfazione dei cittadini. Sappiamo che durante le sue visite su i luoghi di lavoro Stalin chiedeva sempre ai suoi interlocutori se si era un poco più felice di prima, cosa inimmaginabile nelle aziende capitaliste. I bisogni sociali e di qualità essendo privilegiati dalla Pianificazione socialista, e facile capire i senso profondo del criterio di valutazione usato dal grande compagno Stalin.

Possiamo costatare che queste statistiche o contabilità marxiste, tanto al livello delle imprese quanto della Pianificazione, non hanno più niente a che vedere con le approssimazioni ed i brancolamenti della contabilità centralizzata marginalista di Lange. Benché importa ritenerne il senso pratico-pratico ingegnoso della gestione dei flussi dell'offerta e della domanda per mezzo del semplice controllo dei scaffalletti dei magazzini; idea ripresa da Fred Taylor ma elaborata da Lange. Avendo un'idea iniziale delle quantità di beni normalmente necessari secondo le stagioni ecc., lo stato dell'approvvigionamento dei scaffalletti fornirebbe ottimi feedback. Questi richiederanno solo essere coniugati con una buona gestione dei stock su tutto il territorio, e con una buona reattività al livello produttivo. In effetti, lo sviluppo della gestione moderna dei stock e degli indici marginalisti ne furono fortemente influenzati. Va ricordato che le benderelle a nodi degli Inca costituivano attrezzi molti potenti e versatili in questo senso, come gli antropologi hanno confermato di recente.

Vediamo ora la problematica specifica della democrazia socialista, cioè intesa come un processo di presa di decisione istituzionalizzato. Rimando qui al capitolo relativo al socialismo cubano nel mio Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme; esso richiede solo modifiche al margine per vietare che le consultazioni interne al Partito, effettuate secondo il centralismo democratico, vengano confuse con il pseudo-pluralismo politico borghese. In realtà, la democrazia socialiste consiste nel subordinare il potere e le istituzioni all'istituzionalizzazione degli input sociali nella vita economica. Questo si compie in primo luogo tramite la Pianificazione, cioè con il controllo collettivo dell'allocazione della sovrappiù sociale per soddisfare le priorità determinate collettivamente, un processo che va effettuato nel rispetto della legge del valore e delle Equazioni della RS-RA.

Vedi pure la sezione Pour le socialisme cubain/For Cuban socialism in www.la-commune-paraclet.com.

Per quello che concerna la distinzione primordiale tra Dominio della Necessità e Dominio della Libert0, vedi il mio Compendio di Economia Politica Marxista accessibile liberamente in « italiano » nella Sezione Livres-Books del stesso sito.

Discorrendo della superiorità della democrazia socialista Oskar Lange si preoccupava sopratutto di confutare le accuse di von Mises e di von Hayek (Road to serfdom assieme agli altri argomenti demagogici e vuoti di quest'ordine.) Lippincott sintetizza il suo argomento così:

«Se l'uguaglianza è una caratteristica fondamentale della democrazia, ne va così della libertà. In questo dominio ugualmente un'economia socialista sarà in più grande armonia con la democrazia non che una economia capitalista. Questo perché con una distribuzione più ugualitaria dei redditi, la libertà di scelta dei consumatori sarà più libera. Mentre in una economia capitalista molta gente deve scegliere tra un capoto e un paio di scarpe, in una economia socialista la maggiore parte potranno scegliere tra una radio ed un telefono.

Senza dubbi verrà ritorto che la proprietà pubblica di una grande parte dell'industria da il via libera alla dittatura. Il corollario di questo argomento vorrebbe che la proprietà privata sia un baluardo contro la tirannia. La critica spontanea di questi argomenti farà certamente valere che la forma di proprietà in se stessa, che sia pubblica o privata, non promuove né fa ostacolo alla libertà. L'elemento cruciale è il carattere dell'autorità responsabile dell'amministrazione, oppure il modo in cui l'esercizio di questa autorità viene controllato.

(...)

Se esiste mai oggi un luogo dove questa tirannia prevale è proprio nel quadro dei Stati democratici nei quali predomina la proprietà privata dell'industria. Qui il potere è esercitato in modo autocratico e senza nessuno stato di anima. E verro che la proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione farà ostacolo alla possibilità per il governo di tiranneggiare l'industria; nel stesso tempo, permette all'industria di dominare il governo e di tiranneggiare gli operai. Dato questa realtà, la proprietà governativa delle industrie essenziali create dal governo democratico offrirà il mezzo per sopprimere l'autocrazia nell'ambito dell'industria. » (Op. citato, 32-33. La traduzione è mia.)

L'argomento di Lange porta in seguito sull'autorità amministrativa, cioè sulla burocrazia. Deve essere responsabile assicurandosene istituzionalizzando la consultazione tra management e lavoratori:

« Un'industria socializzata funzionerebbe sotto l'occhio del pubblico il quale avrebbe accesso a tutta la documentazione. Esistono poche altre misure capaci come questa assicurare la responsabilità delle diverse istanze. La dove l'industria è pubblica, le misure relative al calcolo economico, anche se approssimative, sono realmente possibili. Questo assicurerebbe tanto l'efficacia quanto la responsabilità. » (idem p 34)

Lange aggiunge che questo indurrebbe una reale meritocrazia, nel quadro dell'uguaglianza salariale, al contrario della pseudo-meritocrazia borghese, cioè la meritocrazia del servizio pubblico responsabile.

Analizzeremo qui in più dettagli la nozione di « baluardo contro la tirannia » dato che implica una relazione essenziale tra società civile e società politica, nella società borghese come pure nella società in transizione verso il comunismo. Di fatti, quest'ultimo pretende menare al deperimento dello Stato borghese da non confondere con lo Stato in se. Questa transizione forma il cuore di quello che chiamo democrazia socialista, e dovrebbe portare a quello che si potrebbe chiamare in modo volontariamente ridondante « il comunismo libertario ».

Nel momento in cui la borghesia fu costretta a concedere il diritto di voto universale e segreto, le logge massoniche ne persero istericamente la testa. Basta per rendersene conto riportarsi all'esemplare denuncia di Edmund Burke e della sua Tradizione da parte del grande rivoluzionario americano Thomas Paine nel suo Rights of Man (voir http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/ ). Oppure il panico risentito da Nietzsche confrontato con la forza del numero. Cominciarono così a concettualizzare ed a implementare un sistema che, tutto Whig che si pretendeva, Sydenham riassunse in modo lapidare; lo fece dopo che Durham abbia sconfitto nel sangue la rivolta dei Patrioti del Dominion nord-americano. Whig si, ma anche nutrito dalla migliore Tradizione britannica, Sydenham proclamò ce si doveva « concedere l'apparenza della democrazia, non la democrazia stessa. »

Questo sistema fu raffinato a tutti i livelli politico, sociale, accademico e culturale. Le elezioni sono soggette ai frastagliamenti opportunistici dei collegi e circoscrizioni elettorali ed ai modi di scrutino adottati su misura. Vedi ad esempio l'Italicum ancora più anticostituzionale del Porcellum bocciato dalla Corte … Le elezioni furono subito sottomesse al potere della finanza, della stampa e dei media. La promozione e la mobilità sociale nel quadro della democrazia borghese furono e rimangono sottomessi ai riti di passaggi delle università e delle Grandes Ecoles. Operano tutte con una pedagogia e dei syllabus rigorosamente borghesi. Il resto è della stessa farina. In modo che il sistema fu preventivamente chiuso mentre la propaganda demagogica s'ingegnava a presentarlo sotto le apparenze di una « società aperta ». Il sistema di partiti politici americani, più trasversale che bipartisan, riconosce pubblicamente essere fondato sopra la condivisione di un identico « mind set », cioè su una visione del mondo condivisa. Oggi viene emulato in Europa con uno zelo da domestici. Poco fa, quelle e quelli che non lo condividevano erano perseguitati per tendenze « un-American ». Oggi, nell'ottica esclusivista crociata sancita dal Patriot Act, la situazione è peggiorata drammaticamente. I gruppi sociali ignominiosamente censurati senza nessuno preavviso ne testimoniano! (Vedi l'articolo « Yahoo, la liberté d'expression et sa fiscalité » 14 déc. 2014, nella Sezione Economia Politica Internazionale de mio sito www.la-commune-paraclet.com )

La democrazia borghese non è dunque niente altro che una facciata democratica sotto stretta sorveglianza. Dopo che io abbia denunciato a più riprese questo stato di cosa inaccettabile, sin dalla lontana creazione del mio sito, Piketty si ingeniò verificare. Ci fornisce un'eccellente illustrazione nel suo altrimenti inetto libro intitolato Le Capital au XXIè siècle riportarsi alla mia critica nella sezione Critiques de Livres-Book Reviews del mio sito www.la-commune-paraclet.com) Ecco la formidabile citazione:

« Nel 1872, Emile Boutmy creava Sciences-Po attribuendoli una missione chiara: «Costrette di subire il diritto del più numeroso, le classi che si denotano loro stesse più elevate possono solo preservare la loro egemonia politica invocando il diritto del più capace. Così, dietro il muro di cinta collassato delle loro prerogative e della tradizione, il flusso della democrazia deve essere ancora ostacolato da uno secondo baluardo fatto di meriti eclatanti ed utili, di superiorità il quale prestigio si impone, di capacità che possono essere scartate solo con follia. » In Quelques idées sur la création d'une Faculté d'enseignement supérieur, 1871 (sic), citato da Piketty (2013, p 782.)

Notiamo intanto che il cittadino Boutmy parlava ancora in termini di meriti repubblicani reali e utili verificati tramite esami e concorsi. Non gli sarebbe mai venuto in testa l'idea di un sistema fondato su scuole private che selezionano i loro studenti sulla basa del loro « pedigree » e della loro capacità di pagare spese di inscrizione eccedenti da gran lungo il salario mediano. Yale con i suoi Skulls & Bones ne fornisce una indiscutibile illustrazione, basta guardare la lista dei Presidenti e degli alti dirigenti dei Stati-Uniti per verificare. Concernendo gli argomenti di Lester C. Thurow a proposito della competizione e dell'importanza dell'educazione, basta dire che il MIT stesso è costretto a mettere a profitto il brain drain! Per il resto, i liberali-fascisti che condividono le stesse origini di von Mises, sono grottescamente sovra-rappresentati a tutti i livelli. Conducono gli Stati Uniti in una via speculativa autodistruttiva. Lo fanno ugualmente oggi in Francia, in Italia, in Spagna, in Portogallo, in Irlanda, in Grecia e nella UE in generale. La distruzione causata è per lo meno tanto rapida quanto quella perpetrata in Russia sotto Eltsin dai Jeffrey Sachs ed altri de Boissieu. In 7 piccoli anni il disastro fu consumato, ma ne sono necessari molti di più per salvare la Federazione russa. Questo spiega senza dubbi perché le stesse forze tentano ancora oggi destabilizzarla con la speranza di squartarla come fu fatto per l'Impero Ottomano. Sultano al posto del Sultano: la singolare patologia lunatica di Sabbatean Zévi, la quale sfortunatamente non è individuale! ( Vedi Scholem a questo proposito.)

Sia quello che sia, rimane chiaro pero che questo dibattito tra teorici borghesi e « teorici socialisti » assunse un ruolo fondamentale per quelle che vengono usualmente chiamate « conquiste popolari » seguendo il Marx dei scritti storici, sopratutto quelle relative alle lotte di classi in Francia. In particolare, noteremo qui l'influenza della Pianificazione sovietica sul sviluppo delle statistiche borghese. Kuznets conosceva bene il regime sovietico come pure Leontiev. L'argomento vale per la progressione della cosiddetta « democrazia industriale » fuori della sua forma inizialmente censitaria. Basta ricordarsi dello « trained gorilla » rigorosamente escluso dal scrutino da Friedrich Taylor, per poi accedere ad una forma borghese un pochettino più democratica con Darhendorf oppure con i nixoniani Dunlop e Kerr.

La verità è che la progressione rapida del ben-essere dei lavoratori sovietici forzò i capitalisti a concedere dei diritti almeno minimi ai loro lavoratori. Prima ci fu la creazione della tripartita e « monarchica » OIT, poi ,con lo sviluppo delle relazioni industriali, la cosiddetta democrazia industriale. Oggi, dopo lo smembramento della URSS e la sparizione della sfida politica ed economica incarnata da essa, gli eredi del liberale-fascista von Mises, troppo spesso di stessa origine, tentano di rovesciare la marcia. Gente come Piketty ed i suoi colleghi ad Harvard ed altrove iniziarono le loro falsificazioni statistiche sulla base di una idea semplice, cioè il ritorno ad una distribuzione dei redditi anteriore alla Rivoluzione bolscevica, anzi anche anteriore alla mobilizzazione di guerra del 1914. Pretendono presentare questo come una politica progressiva. Benché, secondo quanto confessato da loro stessi, il loro « grido di guerra » di tassare il capitale non è altro che una « utopia » utile. Ma è chiaro che permette ingannare le masse distraendole dei veri problemi che le confrontano assieme al modo di produzione capitalista, e più particolarmente che confrontano il capitalismo speculativo filosemita liberale-fascista, oggi egemonico.

Basta leggere il libro Socialism di von Mises per trovare la prima esposizione completa degli argomenti lunatici che informano le politiche monetariste attuali. Noteremo en passant un tratto tipico: questo ragionamento non è a fatto un ragionamento positivo. Non parte della realtà capitalista da afferrare, ma scaturisce dal metodo della « decostruzione » in modo da permettere la fabbricazione di una narrazione contraria ma plausibile. Questo elogio della speculazione sistematica normalizzata include lo smantellamento del sistema pubblico di sanità col pretesto che ( von Mises lo afferma con massima e nietzschiana serietà ) questo regime pubblico causa la malattia. Nel stesso tempo, si pretende che induce ad abusare dei congedi malattia, dato che in realtà ( sic! ). Così, secondo von Mises, la malattia sarebbe affare di psicologia e di volontà (vedi tra altre la pagina 476). Una tale credenza ha per se di essere in sintonia con la teoria sviluppata da Robert Solow et al., alla luce della falsificazione iniziale di Keynes da parte di Hicks ecc. Per questi cosiddetti « neoclassici » volgarmente malthusiani, l'equilibrio economico può solo emergere sulla base del livello fisiologico dei lavoratori, questo livello essendo lui stesso elastico come viene testimoniato dalla longevità media di 40 anni per il mezzo miliardo di Dalits, e questo a l'ora del capitale del XXIè secolo!

In questo contesto, ho già segnalato un fatto allarmante, cioè che la crescita della longevità media in Occidente rischia di battere un tempo di arresto e anche, in certi casi, di rovesciarsi. Qualche anni fa, il Le Monde diplomatique analizzava la situazione della città di Glasgow, vecchia capitale industriale. La longevità media era scesa a 59 anni per gli uomini. Pochi mesi fa la verifica mostrava una situazione ancora deteriorata con il livello più basso di Europa (54 anni per gli uomini e 75 per le donne.) La volontà alla quale allude von Mises è esattamente quella del liberale-fascista. Egli è sempre pronte a concepire senza stato di anima particolare le nuove classe di « chandala », secondo il termine ripreso da Nietzsche, ignorando pero « una volta ancora » le lezioni della Storia. Questo lo porta a concepirsi, « una volta ancora », ma in modo improbabile, come membro dei nuovi maestri del mondo !!! Il che avrebbe provocato l'ilarità di Svetonio e di Tito, per non dire di un Shakespeare dopo esame rigoroso della famosa questione …

Esaminiamo dunque brevemente la relazione tra Socialismo e Libertà.

Come sempre dovremmo prendere cura di chiarire il senso dei termini utilizzati. Quando si parla di Libertà esistono due sensi possibili.

a) Un senso ugualitario derivato dalla tradizione scientifica pitagorica.

b) Un senso disugualitario derivato dal pensiero oscurantista-teocratico con le sue elezioni esclusive divine, razziste, tribali o di casta. In Occidente, questo ci rimanda ad un Vecchio Testamento rabbinico-oscurantista che Baruch Spinoza, vittima malgrado se stesso, qualificò di « delirio rabbinico ». Questa vena conobbe varie imitazioni e rielaborazioni. Vanno dalla Tradizione della disuguaglianza inglese ( Burke e tanti altri ) alla sua versione rivisitata dopo la scoperta del sistema di casta induista dai servizi di sicurezza militari. Questi l'utilizzarono prima per « dividere e conquistare » i popoli coloniali e poco dopo le loro proprie classi nazionali. Questa importazione andò di pari passo con quella di numerosi elementi mitologici ed etnologici spesso riservati alle logge ed alle élite.

Sfortunatamente, nella marcia dell'Occidente verso l'emancipazione, questi due sensi vengono spesso confusi. In effetti, la realtà del capitalismo era contenuta nel secondo senso benché fu costretto ad invocare il primo per forgiare la sua alleanza con le altre classe subalterne. Questo era necessario per potere portare a termine la sua rivoluzione sociale e stabilire la sua egemonia.

Possiamo riassumere tutto questo sottolineando la confusione che persiste nella comprensione del punto di vista di Montesquieu rispetto a quello della Costituzione americana di natura più lockiana.

a) La tradizione pitagorica ugualitaria e scientifica. Raggiunge una vetta con la traduzione dell'Imperativo kantiano nel primo articolo della prima costituzione repubblicana francese. Ben inteso, Kant aveva chiarito la base epistemologica e metodologica del pensiero umano, ponendo così la scienza sopra uno zoccolo solido. Sarà Marx a storicizzare questo pensiero scientifico (investigazione, esposizione portata avanti sulla base del specifico « concetto pensato » …). Il primo articolo enunciava che la libertà di una persona finisce la dove comincia quella degli altri. Nella Sacra famiglia Marx analizza l'importanza di questa conquista politica e laica mostrando che si tratta solo di due aspetti del Trittico dell'emancipazione umana. Esso è antitetico ad ogni possibile forma di esclusivismo. Implica la libertà religiosa, o meglio di coscienza, con lo Stato laico; la libertà politica con l'uguaglianza formale dei cittadini; ed infine la libertà umana, la quale, per parte sua, implica l'uguaglianza reale degli esseri umani appoggiata sopra l'emancipazione individuale e collettiva.

Il secondo aspetto del Trittico mostra che la Libertà va di pari passo con l'emancipazione individuale e sociale, mentre richiede ancora essere completata da una nuova « rivoluzione sociale », secondo il termine di Trotzki, per portare a termine quanto iniziato dalla rivoluzione politica repubblicana.

Kant e la Prima costituzione francese rappresentano il punto di arrivo della legge naturale della filosofia che comincia nell'Antichità. Per l'Occidente diciamo che va da Pitagora, a Platone, ai Romani universalisti come Seneca, fine a Leibniz, Spinoza e Kant, passando dal contributo fondamentale di Giambattista Vico e del suo « diritto delle genti ». Chiarirono il pensiero ancora confuso di Pufendorf e di Grotius ancora ambedue legati al diritto divino ed a quello delle conquiste imperiali, benché Aristotele aveva già confessato alla sua epoca che la schiavitù e la subordinazione non erano affatto stati naturali ma bensì derivati dall'azzardo della guerra. Il punto di arrivo concettuale e teorico definitivo di questo filone del pensiero umano si trova nella denuncia dell'esclusivismo ( la Questione ebrea nella Sacra famiglia) formulata da Marx e nella sua esposizione dei Trittico dell'emancipazione umana. Esso deve essere realizzato con il comunismo come fu annunciato in modo concreto dalla Commune di Parigi nel 1871. Leibniz e Spinoza hanno punti di vista diversi, Leibniz essendo un credente membro dei Rosicruciani, mentre Spinoza annuncia l'ateismo moderno con la sua natura naturans. Purtroppo, anche una lettura rapida di questi due autori o di Kant mostra che la Libertà non viene mai concepita come l'imposizione arbitraria della volontà di un individuo sugli altri, ma bensì come l'auto realizzazione degli individui e della società intera. La rende possibile all'accesso ugualitario a tutte le condizioni materiali necessarie per realizzarla. Queste includono le condizioni concettuali, culturali e istituzionali. Questo concetto trova la sua compitezza teorica nel Trittico dell'emancipazione umana di Marx e la sua compiutezza socio-economica nella sua Critica del programma di Gotha (dove il « fondo sociale » proposto da Marx costituisce il primo abbozzo della « sovrappiù sociale », come i Bolscevichi, Mao e il Che ben capirono.) Questa critica elaborata alla luce delle mie chiarificazioni del Capitale ( legge della produttività integrata nelle Equazioni della RS-RA ) porta alla pianificazione scientifica socialista.

b) La « libertà » rabbinico-burkeana-nietzschiana. Come ben sappiamo tutti, il rabbinato emerge storicamente in seguito ad un'usurpazione monarchica avvenuta dopo l'assassinio

mitologico del Grande Prete. Si istituì sin dall'inizio come il Guardiano della disuguaglianza tra le tribù ebraiche e tra gli Ebrei ed i Gentili nel nome di una esclusiva elezione divina. Nello stato presente delle mie conoscenze, non conosco nessuno altro testo sacro in tutta la storia delle religioni, da distinguere dalle sette le più perniciose e le più nocive, che sostiene una tale pretenziose razzista-teocratica pericolosa. Viene raddoppiata da un oscurantismo sistematico mirato a bloccare la via verso la scienza (il frutto proibito) e, nello stesso tempo, imputando questo crimine a dio. Mentre il Corano condanna la violenza con l'eccezione dei casi di legittima difesa all'insegna della legge naturale, la bibbia ebraica ed in particolare il Libro dei Re fa l'apologia della guerra e del genocidio di tutti i popoli presenti nella cosiddetta « terra promessa ». I testi induisti non confondono mai razza e casta, se non altro perché cercano di universalizzare il sistema delle caste dato l'estrema pluralità etnica del sotto-continente indiano. L'unico sistema paragonabile sarebbe la narrazione, anch'essa visceralmente oscurantista, di Nietzsche con la sua pretensione a creare culturalmente e militarmente una « razza » di sovra-uomini.

Ben inteso, il rabbinato conobbi anch'esso un'evoluzione storica. Tentativi furono fatti ad esempio quello pitagorico (cristianesimo) o altri (ad esempio i mormoni ) per estirpare l'esclusivismo razzista, teocratico oscurantista e settare dall'interno. Ma nel migliore dei casi questa credenza razzista-teocratica difesa dal rabbinato non si smentisce mai. Al massimo viene ponderata dalla tesi passabilmente self-serving secondo la quale l'elezione esclusiva rimane ma « dio è per tutti ». In somma dio avrebbe creato i Gentili gentili, cosa che non mancò di provocare delle negazioni altrettanto esclusiviste nel corso tormentato della Storia. Se esiste nel mondo una versione non-esclusivista del rabbinato, sarei il primo a felicitarnemi. Ben inteso, ognuno è perfettamente libero di credere a quello che esso o essa vuole ma in privato. Quando queste credenze apertamente esclusiviste, razziste e teocratiche pretendono imporsi alla società ed alla politica, debbono allora immediatamente essere oggetto del diritto penale. Così prevede la costituzione. Questa credenza esclusivista rabbinica, inconcepibile in un mondo moderno globalizzato, portò comunque un certo Finkielkraut a fare l'apologia aperta della «separazione » degli ebrei (?) nella più totale impunità . Questo avvenne nel seno di una delle più prestigiose Grandes Ecoles di una Repubblica che si onora essere nata come repubblica laica, e per ciò fece accedere per la prima volta nella storia umana gli ebrei alla cittadinanza. (vedi la mia critica in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/fascismFrame1Source1.htm#racisme . ) All'epoca, io cercavo di re-adattare il concetto di « métissage » e proponevo quello di « co-abitazione (mixité) sociale ».

Ispirandosi ugualmente a Spinoza, Ernst Bloch tentò di mostrare che la lotta delle classi durante la storia ebrea contestò questa narrazione. Sappiamo anche, ad esempio, che la narrazione biblica del Vitello d'Oro rinvia al desiderio popolare denigrato di ritornare alla antiche credenze sumeriane-babiloniane del dio Marduk. Non di meno, l'effetto di questa narrazione dominante ha per conseguenza di cancellare il contributo all'Uguaglianza ed all'Emancipazione umana comune che deriva dall'ermeneutica ebrea sin da alcuni profeti ugualitari fin a Ibn Ezra e a Spinoza ecc. Questo esclusivismo inventò una volontà divina intesa a impedire la marcia dell'Umanità alla scienza, e dunque all'uguaglianza. Così facendo, non si faceva neanche prova di nessuna originalità. Secondo una vecchia pratica ben rodata, si prendeva invece in prestito queste idee ad altre culture ed altre mitologie più antiche, aggravandole poi nel senso razzista-teocratico. Il rabbinato tentò di emulare al modo suo la dominazione dei Brahmani (Ms. Rege, la grande teorica oggi sfortunatamente deceduta, ha dato un contributo importantissimo alla comprensione delle caste in un bel libro; vedi la mia critica nella Sezione Critiques de Livres/Book Reviews in www.la-commune-paraclet.com ).

Il rabbinato si istituì come il supporto ideologico della monarchia, o meglio delle monarchie, ebree. Inventando interamente l'atto fondatore della costruzione del Tempio di Salomone per il quale non esiste la minima traccia storica o archeologica. Questa invenzione riposa sulla base sintomatica dell'assassinio (« freudiano »?) del ultimo grande prete. La versione cristiana monarchica di questa elezione divina prende in prestito il concetto di unto del Signore, senza dubbio per sottolineare incoscientemente il ruolo usurpatore e micidiale dell'affare. Nel nostro tempo questa frenesia esclusivista deriva dal tentativo lunatico e guerresco contemporaneo di ricostruire il Tempio mitologico e dominatore di Salomone sulle terre che appartengono ai Palestinesi, e che per di più contengono il Terzo Luogo Sacro dell'Islam, cioè Haram al-Sharif. Siamo qui confrontati ad una follia con conseguenze prevedibili, follia che portò il Generale Rabin a rifiutare di entrare in Gerusalemme Est nel giugno 1967, tentando così di vietare il peggio.

I Congressi ebrei nel mondo sono oggi diventati delle macchine venali e totalitarie solo buone a squarciare lo spirito critico. I deliri razzisti teocratici di Obadia Yossef sono poca cosa relativamente a quello che viene ivi coltivato ed a quello che si ci dice troppo spesso, particolarmente in Francia. Sarebbe utile informarne la stampa e l'opinione pubblica dei paesi che si pretendano liberi e uguali in diritti. Questo risulta dalla loro ignoranza dell'ABC della democrazia e del peso di colpevolezza assieme al peso cinico di intimidazione esercitato da loro sopra i pochi « ebrei » che osano ancora parlare. L'ignominiosa invenzione di una Shoah esclusivista fu da loro sostituita, secondo me in modo criminale, alla Storia Comune della Resistenza al Nazifascismo: le uniche vittime delle quali conservare la memoria sarebbero le vittime ebree, appartenenti all'unico popolo eletto, le altre, ben più numerose, passando al secondo piano, oppure totalmetne ignorate se erano comuniste. Purtroppo, i comunisti furono le prime vittime del Nazifascismo, le più numerose contando i Sovietici e quelle che subirono le condizioni carcerali più dure. Questo tipo di Shoah viene inventato come una versione moderna del « peccato originale » riservato ai cosiddetti Gentili! Si tratta di una strategia perfettamente ignobile ma sopratutto pericolosa, come viene insegnato dalla logica dell'esclusivismo fin ad oggi.

Come sappiamo tutti la lungimiranza del generale Rabin gli costò la vita. Ma dopo il suo odioso e patologico assassinio, tutti gli ebrei, con pochissime eccezioni, hanno dimenticato il suo diagnostico secondo il quale Israele aveva bisogno di una « rivoluzione psicologica » per dissipare anni e anni di propaganda, di odio e di crimini di guerra perpetrati in seria contro il popolo palestinese ed anche spesso contro i simpatizzanti della causa palestinese. Questo non si compierà senza la propagazione della teoria della psicoanalisi marxista, della Questione ebrea e del Capitale di Marx. Come ben sappiamo la decapitazione di Carlo 1 Stuart fu la prima negazione in atto altamente simbolica della monarchia di diritto divino. L'assassinio di Giulio Cesare deriva della stessa logica repubblicana opposta ai « tiranni » e volonterosa di agire prima che sia troppo tardi. (L'Italia non dimentica Agesilao Milano.) La logica dei « carbonari » sempre desiderosi di colpire alla testa, rivela ugualmente di questa logica tirannicidio.

Nel quadro di questa tradizione, la Libertà è un attributo che appartiene solo agli eletti. Essa si definisce come la capacità di imporre la disuguaglianza con impunità. In congruenza con lo spirito dei tempi, include la variante capitalista che mette in campo una uguaglianza puramente formale preservata tramite meccanismi sistematici puramente disugualitari. Questi meccanismi dimorano, anzi hanno tendenza ad essere aggravati col cosiddetto capitalismo popolare o di azionariato diffuso, dato che la produzione rimane sociale mentre l'accumulazione privata si fa secondo il peso respettivo degli azionisti. Viene in memoria il Venerdì Nero del 1929, quando i piccoli azionari furono rapidamente spennati mentre i grandi azionari fecero il loro miele con la crisi. Essendo meccanismi sistematici, le stesse cause portano ai stessi effetti come testimoniato dalla crisi dei subprime del 2007-2008. Aggiungiamo solamente che la strategia liberale-fascista della « governance globale privata » è il punto coronato di questa strategia.

Analizziamo ora brevemente la confusione che prevale tra Montesquieu e la Costituzione americana.

a) L'Esprit des lois di Montesquieu fu concepito e scritto dopo che ebbe comprato uno esemplare della Scienza nuova di Vico durante un viaggio a Venezia ben fornito con piccoli guanti di Venere in vescica di maiale … Sia quello che sia, un'analisi rigorosa degli autori antichi, in particolare gli autori romani, condusse Giambattista Vico a proporre una teoria moderna delle lotte di classe. Marx se né ispirò aggiungendoci la base scientifica della legge del valore. Montesquieu per parte sua inserì elementi più arcaici, come il clima. Comunque, la sua teoria si iscriveva nel quadro di una società a forte predominanza agricola, in modo che aveva un senso oggettivo similare alla teoria dei cicli solari proposta più tardi dal marginalista Jevons. Tentò ugualmente di sintetizzare la sua comprensione della distinzione tra società civile e società politica in termini nuovi. Certamente il ricordo del magnifico libro Contr'un, scritto da La Boëtie per denunciare la « servitù volontaria » ebbe un ruolo. Elevandosi contro l'arbitrario della Monarchia Assoluta, Montesquieu, l'aristocratico di provincia abituato dei Salotti parigini, propose un'abile difesa dell'autonomia delle categorie sociali e notabilmente dei Stati del regno. In un certo senso, questo rimaneva molto hobbesiano: Hobbes sosteneva che solo i re potevano pretendere all'uguaglianza tra loro dato che potevano dissuadersi con efficacia. Gli altri dovevano fidarsi ad un contratto sociale, più esattamente ad uno Social Convenant che garantiva la loro sicurezza. Questa accomodazione assumeva una forma positiva con John Locke ed una forma cittadina ugualitaria chiaramente enunciata con il Contrat social di J.J. Rousseau.

Abbiamo qui la Libertà istituita come un'espressione negativa derivata dai meccanismi di dominio e di dissuasione economici e politici.

Questo portò eventualmente alla democrazia industriale borghese come menzionato qui sopra ( F. Taylor, Darhendorf, Dunlop e Kerr, Piore ecc. ), e, in termini più puramente politici alla legislazione dei contrappesi concepiti dal New Deal dai quali John Galbraith fu uno dei massimi teorici (per un riassunto delle sue teorie vedi la Note 15 on John Galbraith nel mio Libro III intitolato Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth , 2005.)

b) Il sistema dei « checks and balances » della Costituzione americana. Questo sistema si pone in linea diritta con la teoria della dissuasione di Montesquieu e più precisamente di John Locke, cioè il concetto secondo il quale i conflitti sociali debbono essere mediatizzati da un Social Convenant. Ma allora che Montesquieu fa portare la sua attenzione sopra la società civile, la Costituzione americana opera al livello istituzionale, e più particolarmente al livello politico. Tenta di codificarne le regole di funzionamento. Come sappiamo, i diritti esistono solo in quanto vengono sostenuti e difesi, perciò l'importanza del concetto di Montesquieu. Con la Costituzione americana e i Federalist Papers anteriori, il problema non è mai di confrontare la proprietà privata con la sua inevitabile tirannia, compreso la schiavitù all'inizio. Si tratta piuttosto di sapere come preservarla impedendo che una frazione delle classe dominanti possa stabilire una dominazione completa sul sistema giuridico e politico e sul Congresso. Quest'ultimo detta le leggi e applica avendo a sua disposizione il monopolio legale della forza.

Marx parlava di « comunismo del capitale ». Se si vuole, la finalità del sistema dei « checks and balances » americano consiste nel codificare e controllare l'operato del pluralismo politico borghese al profitto delle classi capitalisti e del sistema intero. Così la Corte Suprema è istituita come Guardiano in ultimo grado del sistema nel caso nel quale le due camere del Congresso fallirebbero nel loro ruolo. Va ricordata pero la reazione di F.D. Roosevelt quando fu confrontato con la reazione iniziale della Corte Suprema nel bloccare le riforme più progressiste del New Deal. Ultimamente, al soggetto della Obamacare, siamo stati testimoni dell'interiorizzazione trasversale del stesso « mind set » al livello costituzionale americano col scopo di eliminare preventivamente ogni espressione autonoma della società civile. Invece di fondare la riforma sociale sul potere di spendere esclusivo del governo federale in prelazione di ogni possibile intervento della Corta Suprema, fu invece rigorosamente fondata sul principio della libertà commerciale. E dunque senza grande sorpresa che si apprende che l'Obamacare fu pensata per servire gli interessi delle grandi compagnie di assicurazione e delle grandi compagnie farmaceutiche. Le velleità iniziali di adottare un sistema interamente pubblico fu confrontato ad un innalzare degli scudi, incluso all'interno del Partito democratico. Ironia della sorte, il sistema di contabilità nazionale marginalista è a tal punto perverso che più lo sperpero è grande più il PIL aumenterà mutatis mutandis, e più l'accesso ai servizi ed alle cure sarà disuguale. Questo fu verificato dal costo smisurato dei regimi di sanità e di pensione privati rispetto a quelli pubblici; contribuirono fortemente alle difficoltà risentite da GM e da Chrysler ecc.. Queste aziende evitarono il fallimento solo grazie al salvataggio operato dal « odiato » Stato interventista! Il resto è della stessa acqua; ecco senza dubbi perché il sistema americano è diventato la « terra promessa » della regressione liberale-fascista oggi dominante in Europa …

Io credo che sia fondamentale capire queste due distinzioni ( da non confondere con delle opposizioni ) per essere capaci di concepire la democrazia socialista. L'opposizione sta invece tra uguaglianza e disuguaglianza. Ho insistito altrove sull'aspetto pioniere delle costituzioni polacca e corsica redatte da J. J. Rousseau. Era un grande ammiratore dei legislatori antichi, tra i quali Licurgo. Era pure un grande conoscitore di Vico, il quale era al suo turno informato dalla spirito riformatore secolare e pitagorico del grande abate calabrese Gioacchino da Fiore. Rousseau concepì deliberatamente le sue due costituzioni come transizioni fondate sopra le realtà rispettive dei due paesi considerati. La loro logica interna è ideata per portare ad uno compimento sempre più perfetto del suo Contrat social. In questo senso, questa analisi è l'antenato sempre vivace del concetto di transizione socialista.

Il socialismo non ha niente a che vedere con la libertà concepita come una forma esclusiva del potere. Non può riposarsi sulle tesi di Montesquieu né sopra il sistema dei checks and balances americano benché Mao aveva ragione quando sottolineava la persistenza delle classi sociali durante la transizione socialista. Il socialismo deve trascendere questi concetti nati dalla realtà borghese. Deve creare un sistema sociale e politico capace di favorire organicamente la marcia verso l'Emancipazione umana. Insistendo sopra i concetti di trasparenza e di responsabilità, Oskar Lange fu particolarmente ben ispirato, incluso nella sua comprensione dell'operato della burocrazia. Marx e Engels avevano riassunto la differenza tra capitalismo e comunismo sottolineando che il primo riguarda l'amministrazione delle persone sottomesse alle cose, ed il secondo l'amministrazione delle cose per liberare le persone. Per parafrasare Lenin, gli attacchi a tutto campo contro la burocrazia non sono niente altro che l'espressione di una malattia infantile di sinistra, una indigestione critica che dimentica che la « rivoluzione sociale » socialista riposa anch'essa sopra la divisione del lavoro, e dunque sul ruolo cruciale della burocrazia, in particolare a traverso la Pianificazione in vista dell'amministrazione collettiva della « sovrappiù sociale ». Pero la burocrazia va democratizzata.

Il mezzo più corto per riassumere questa problematica consiste nel distinguere i due Domini della Necessità e della Libertà. Lenin scrisse con raffinatezza che la Libertà era l'Estetica dell'Uguaglianza, le due essendo ben inteso organicamente legate.

Nel Domino della Necessità ogni cittadino ha il dovere di partecipare ugualmente alla creazione della sovrappiù. Ci situiamo qui eminentemente nel quadro della Pianificazione Economica. Essa mette in opera la legge del valore integrata nelle Equazioni RS-RA per raggiungere un livello sempre più elevato di crescita qualitativa, rispettosa dei principi dell'ecomarxismo. L'obbligo fatto ad ogni cittadino di lavorare fornisce il fondamento del diritto a partecipare ugualmente a tutti i processi di decisione democratici. Questi riguardano l'utilizzo collettivo della « sovrappiù sociale » e la determinazione delle priorità che presiedano alla sua allocazione. Comunque, la legge marxista della produttività e delle Equazioni dinamiche della Riproduzione Allargata permettano di ridurre secolarmente il tempo di lavoro legale. Comunque, una società socialista sarà naturalmente confrontata a numerosi e nuovi compiti socialmente importanti. Così, dovrà imparare a favoreggiare la produzione dei valori di uso durante il tempo socialmente liberato, inventando nuove forme di divertimento e di sociabilità. Questo implica la messa a disposizione della società di surplus socialisti da parte della Pianificazione. Nel mio Compendio menziono gli Home Depôts socialisti assieme alla creazione di botteghe artigianali e di laboratori socialisti.

La burocrazia è una forma indispensabile della divisione del lavoro e per questo più cruciale ancor per il socialismo che per il capitalismo e le sue imprese monopoliste. Riceverà dunque una attenzione speciale in modo da mettere in moto i principi di responsabilità e di trasparenza, implicando in maniera permanente i lavoratori e i cittadini, a parità di genere. Pianificare implica la raccolta dell'informazione e delle statistiche marxiste, l'articolazione di questi dati, il concepimento di scenari ottimali possibili da sottomettere alla scelta della collettività, e la responsabilizzazione al livello della messa in applicazione del scenario, o piano quinquennale, ritenuto ecc. La democratizzazione dei processi della Pianificazione Centrale costituisce il cuore pulsante della democrazia socialista. Le istituzioni politiche ( il Partito e le sue celle, l'Assemblea nazionale, le assemblee locali e comunali ) partecipano alla scelta definitiva del piano quinquennale assieme alla verificazione della sua implementazione ad un livello più generale dei comitati inclusi nell'organizzazione stessa della Pianificazione comitati di amministrazione delle aziende, i comitati tecnici e accademici, i comitati operai, i comitati cittadini, i comitati di consumatori ecc., In breve, il Dominio della Necessità produce le condizioni materiali e sociali dell'Emancipazione dei singoli e della collettività.

Il Dominio della Libertà concerna i diritti fondamentali diversi di quelli già presi in carica dal Dominio della Necessità. I due tipi di diritti sono protetti dalla Costituzione socialista. In questo ultimo caso, avremo a che fare con l'insieme dei diritti pertinenti alla convivialità ed alle condotte sociali. Queste ultime verranno afferrate nel quadro dell'istituzionalizzazione dei costumi socialista ( vedi la sezione rosa del mio sito ), e della teoria della psicoanalisi marxista contenuta nella secondo parte del mio Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme. La finalità principale essendo di permettere quello che il giovane Marx puntò come il « recupero dell'Uomo da se stesso. » La libertà di uno essere umano, educato ed elevato nello spirito dell'emancipazione, sarà unicamente limitata dalla libertà altrui, tutti essendo economicamente o altrimenti uguali, nel rispetto delle loro differenze, notabilmente come esseri frutti dalla riproduzione sessuata.

La pedagogia socialista è fondamentalmente diversa da quella borghese, tesi che ho tentato di analizzare nel mio saggio « Dioscures » in a parte sintetizzato nell'appendice « Spoliation » nel mio Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme. In breve, come nota Marx nella Critica del programma di Gotha, la legge non si accontenta di essere formalmente uguale per tutti, e nemmeno deve accontentarci in modo ipocrita e socialmente criminale di una weberiana « uguaglianza dell'opportunità » iniziali. Al contrario, si ingegnerà a realizzare una autentica uguaglianza preservando in permanenza le opportunità per realizzarla. Questo suppone la negazione di ogni livellamento. Le potenzialità di ognuno ad esprimere la sua personalità saranno mantenute per la semplice ragione perfettamente enunciate da Gioacchino da Fiore secondo il quale le forme di intelligenza sono molteplici benché tutte, senza eccezione, sono ugualmente necessarie per il funzionamento ottimale e armonioso di ogni società sana. ( Vedi i miei saggi su Gioacchino nella Sezione Italia del mio sito.)

Il merito autentico si esprimerà con un salario uguale nel Dominio della Necessità ( concetto di « lavoratore collettivo o di lavoratore responsabile.) Ma non sarà limitato a questo dominio. La sua importanza temporale ira comunque diminuendo, al contrario del sistema capitalista segnato col marchio della psicologia del possesso individuale, alimentata da una redistribuzione disuguale delle condizioni materiali di esistenza. Il merito autentico si esprimerà pienamente di se stesso sopratutto nell'ambito del tempo liberato nelle nuove forme emancipate di sociabilità. Uno dei più grandi contributi dell'etnologia moderna non è forse di avere fatto notare che le società maldestramente dette « primitive » compensavano le loro lacune al livello della tecnê con sviluppi più spinti della loro espistmê sociale concretizzati da i rituali usati per governare le loro relazioni sociali e le loro relazioni interpersonali?

Affermò con Marx che la finalità del socialismo marxista e del comunismo non è affatto quella di fare ritornare i cittadini nelle forme comunitarie stratificate dal status sociale oppure in uno comunitarismo semplicista tale che adoperato da certi socialisti non marxisti. Uno dei contributi del capitalismo, il suo aspetto a volte detto « freddo », fu di sbaraccarci di queste forme affoganti, compreso al livello della famiglia, nella quale la rivoluzione compiuta rispetto alla famiglia patriarcale allargata rimane da portare a termine per la famiglia nucleare borghese. (Vedi « Matrimonio, unioni civili e istituzionalizzazione dei costumi » nella parte rosa del mio sito.) Sulla base di una tecnê sempre più spinta ma orientata secondo i bisogni individuali e sociali reali, la nuova epistemê sociale dovrà inventare la nuova libertà socialista. Incluso per le relazioni interpersonali. Sarà fondata sulla trasparenza dei rapporti sociali, cioè la fine dell'alienazione borghese. Questo dovrebbe farsi nel rispetto della vita privata e dell'intimità della gente, fondazione imprescindibile della loro responsibilità inverso la loro propria coscienza, o « for intérieur », e verso gli altri. Questo implica lo sviluppo di nuove forme di mediazione sociali, istituzionali e psichiche annunciate dalla mia teoria della psicoanalisi marxista.

In poche parole, come scrisse Marx: in un modo di produzione socialista, ogni persona con il potenziale di diventare uno Raffaele potrà effettivamente diventarlo. Ecco perché ho scelto di chiamare questo sistema usando l'espressione volontariamente ridondante di « comunismo libertario ».

Note:

1. La mia critica di Piketty si trova nella sezione Critiques de Livres/Book Reviews del mio sito www.la-commune-paraclet.com . Per quello che concerna Tirole, la sua microeconomia senza macroeconomia non è altro che una pericolosa inettitudine. La sovrappiù sociale fa la competitività della Formazione Sociale, la quale intrattiene una relazione forte con la produttività microeconomica. Tirole non sa nemmeno che sacrifica questa relazione ... oppure forse lo sa e si accontenta di una microeconomia arbitrariamente egemonica tale che auspicata dalle firme transazionali nel quadro del deperimento programmato dello Stato nazionale. Quest'ultimo dovrebbe lasciare il posto alla « governance globale privata » che detterà la sua « public policy » monetarista. Sia quello che sia, io credo che il suo « contratto unico » è solo un volgare rovesciamento dell'argomento presentato nel mio « Norme CDI ou précarité » disponibile nella sezione Commentaires d'actualité del mio sito. Nella sua applicazione in Italia ( Jobs Act di Gutgeld-Renzi ) questo da quello che può chiamarsi CUPID ossia « contratto unico precario a tempo indeterminato demoniaco », visto che sprovvisto di ogni ricorso sindacale o giuridico, anche in casi di licenziamenti arbitrari !!! E come se scaturirebbe del Mefistofele di Goethe quando assicurava Fausto che il migliore modo per distruggere il mondo era di controllare l'emissione della moneta e di sottometterci i re assieme ai popoli ... E verro che per i marginalisti l'equilibrio si stabilisce alla soglia detta fisiologica, la quale e per natura elastica. Purtroppo, oggi questa elasticità si verifica nel quadro del libero-scambio globale fondato sopra una definizione dell'anti-dumping che scarta d'ufficio ogni referenza ai programmi sociali ed ai criteri ambientali. La Francia cosiddetta socialista ( von Mises era in realtà uno liberale-fascista austriaco più che uno liberale-socialista ) segue la stessa via forzando il passo. 25 % della forza del lavoro guadagna già 650 euro o meno; questa percentuale sale oltre al 37 % in Spagna. Ho ugualmente sottolineato la nuova tendenza liberale-fasciste a volere operare un ritorno alla società della nuova schiavitù e della nuova domesticità. Ho ugualmente teorizzato le questioni della falsa rappresentanza e della sovra-rappresentanza in una pseudo-democrazia falsificata dal potere del denaro, dalla preselezione preventiva di classe e di caste e dal controllo dei flussi di comunicazione. Non è certo Nietzsche né i suoi verri ispiratori che potranno negare la centralità democratica della Legge dei Grandi Numeri. Questa legge universale causò in loro un'isteria simile a quella causata dalla Commune de Paris nello spirito vendicativo cognato al segno della subordinazione dello soggiuntivo di Gustave Flaubert.

2. Vedi Oskar Lange, Fred M. Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, edited by Benjamin Lippincott, First McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1964.

3. Quelli che non hanno familiarità con il dibattito infuocato degli anni 50, 60 , 70 ( contributo maoista, edizione dei scritti di Gramsci, contributi di Che Guevara notabilmente sulla politica budgetaria nel 1964, contributi di Althusser ecc. ) potranno consultare il libro di W. B. Bland, a carica di approfondire poi il soggetto. ( Vedi W.B. Bland http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html ) Questo libro ha il grande vantaggio di dare un gran numero di citazioni molto esplicite.

4. La funzione di produzione di Adam Smith e dell'economia politica classica si scrive c + v = p (cioè capitale più lavoro uguale prodotto.) E dunque incapace di spiegare la genesi del profitto come fu dimostrato da Marx, dato che il profitto non si riassume al salario dei proprietari o dei loro manager. Sopra questa base bancale l'economia rimane una pseudo-scienza irrazionale. Questa lacuna non è colmata passando, via J.B. Say, Cournot, Walras e tutta la scuola austriaca, ad una espressione liquefatta di questa equazione poggiandola sopra l'utilità marginale. In effetti, l'equilibrio generale raggiunto sopra questa base è confrontato alla contraddizione letale ex ante/post hoc che Böhm-Bawerk pensava, a torto, potere imputare a Marx. Nessuna teoria marginalista è capace di coniugare in maniera coerente la microeconomia e la macroeconomia. In oltre, l'utilità marginale procede all'amputazione della realtà di ogni merce che uniscono in se valore di uso e valore di scambio. In questo modo, il marginalismo è ontologicamente incapace di conciliare quantità e prezzi delle merci prodotte. Questo si verifica letale per il concepimento dell'equilibrio generale che solo le Equazioni della Riproduzione di Marx può fornire. Al meglio, si avrà una narrazione solo buona per « militanti nichilisti » scelti con cura per servire il regime, in particolare nel mondo accademico e mediatico. Come ben sappiamo, la selezione accademica non riposa unicamente né principalmente sopra criteri accademici. Questa perversione si aggrava con la privatizzazione.

5. Vedi ad esempio il libro di M. Song Hobing sulla guerra delle monete http://www.eleconomista.cubaweb.cu/2010/nro385/guerra-divisa.html

6. Per il « credito senza collaterale » riportarsi ai due saggi « Credit without collateral » e «The FED and the Treasury » scritti mentre si sviluppava la crisi delle subprime che avevo già annunciato nel mio Livre III del 2005. Vedi pure il mio Compendio di Economia Politica Marxista per una esposizione più dettagliata della teoria quantitativa marxista della moneta e del credito non speculativo, compreso in regime socialista.

7. La distinzione che Pareto tentò di introdurre tra condizioni tecniche e condizioni prezzo dovrebbe al meglio provocare una risata rabelesiana in ogni persona normalmente costituita. O allora la tecnologia in regime capitalista non ha nessuno valore di scambio ... E poco importa i brevetti, i marchi e tutto il quadro normativo. Ma sappiamo che, al contrario degli altri teorici conservatori, Pareto fu un gran supporter della prima ora di Benito Mussolini. Crede in una disuguaglianza innata di casta, o anzi fascista, la quale risulta assai contraddittoria con l'ideologia di facciata del capitalismo. Di fatti, i suoi costi di opportunità e le sue curve di indifferenza rimandano più allo sfruttamento dell'Uomo dall'Uomo genericamente compreso, nonché ad una qualsiasi epoca del capitalismo in quanto tale. Rimane pero che, all'immagine di quelli del suo tempo, i marginalisti moderni sono anch'essi pronti a sostituire il liberismo di B. Croce al liberalismo classico ( diciamo di John Stuart Mill.) Lo fanno nella vana speranza di togliere le contraddizioni del modo di produzione capitalista mediante un ritorno indietro ... Il liberale-fascista von Mises non l'ha mai dissimulato. Nel suo Socialism pretenda anche che il sistema di sanità causa la malattia (voir http://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis , p 476). Il resto è della stessa acqua passata. La privatizzazione attuale del dominio della sanità segue la stessa barbara logica, le cure essendo funzione della solvibilità economica dei pazienti. La stessa logica prevale per tutti i servizi pubblici. Poco fa questi erano offerti da imprese pubbliche ma, oggi, da impresse private remunerate con fondi pubblici più atte a trasformare i beneficiari in clienti secondo la stessa logica del mercato. Il dramma sta nel fatto che la precarietà dilagante rovina la fiscalità generale, la quale in realtà finanza la carità e l'assistenza privata, spesso entrambi confessionali, tramite ingenti esoneri e crediti fiscali. Si annuncia così una regressione barbara senza precedente. Speriamo che provocherà al più presto un forte e saltuario sussulto di civiltà. Uguaglianza o barbarie?

8. Simon e Cyert al MIT avevano insistito su un fatto importante. In materie sociali, i problemi che si pongano non possono essere volgarmente catalogati come rilevanti dal determinismo o dal indeterminismo. Spesso più di una e unica soluzione sarà possibile. Aggiungo che allora la questione consiste nel sapere come, per qui e qui determina questi « trade-offs ».

9. Riportarsi qui al mio Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme, in particolare la seconda parte nella quale offro la critica definitiva del freudismo e di altre ciarlatanerie rabbinico-nietzscheane di questo genere. Tutte mirano alla « normalizzazione » ed al controllo dei cittadini da sottomettere al doppio mulinello dello sfruttamento capitalista, e, oltre questo, dello sfruttamento dell'Uomo dall'Uomo. Notiamo rapidamente che il mito fondatore di Freud non è niente altro che un tipico rovesciamento della teoria dell'emergenza della sociabilità e dunque delle lotte di classe per l'emancipazione analizzate da Giambattista Vico, il primo moderno a concepire la scienza storica come scienza. Nietzsche e Heidegger tra altri si accaniranno anche loro nei rovesciamenti e nell'occultazione del divenire storico come dimostrato nei saggi che li concernano nella sezione Livres-Books del mio sito. In breve, Heidegger rovesciò il metodo filologico col quale Vico era arrivato a concepire ed a dimostrare il divenire storico. Cercò così di falsificare tanto la filologia quanto l'etimologia con il progetto di salvare la disuguaglianza umana mettendola fuori di portata della critica scientifica.

10. Prima della catastrofe di Fukushima avevamo assistito ad un rilancio inevitabile del nucleare. Sappiamo che le filiere dette civili riposano sopra una scelta effettuata all'origine da Westinghouse ed altre imprese sulla base di criteri militari definiti dalla marina americana per la propulsione dei suoi sotto-marini. La produzione di plutonio era all'origine privilegiata perché necessaria per la fabbricazione delle armi atomiche. Noto ugualmente che i reattori di Fukushima hanno resistito ad un terrificante sisma di oltre 10 sulla scala di Richter; questo provocò un tsunami terrificante. L'onore degli ingegneri e degli architetti giapponesi è salvo. Secondo me, la catastrofe fu causata direttamente dalla logica marginalista con le sue privatizzazioni. In effetti, la centrale doveva essere chiusa anni prima ma fu mantenuta in operazione per continuare a versare gli ingenti dividenti agli azionisti privati. In oltre, come in ben altri casi nel Giappone ed altrove, il cuore dei reattori include zirconio, un materiale fortemente reattivo ad alta temperatura visto che produce allora idrogeno. Le esplosioni avvenute a Fukushima e gli altri gravi problemi che ne conseguirono non hanno proprio niente a che vedere con il nucleare in se, compreso questa filiera in realtà derivata dal nucleare militare. Furono invece dovuti all'utilizzo del zirconio, un materiale molto meno dispendioso. In oltre, nessuno mezzo di saturazione dell'idrogeno era previsto. Senza le esplosioni dovute all'idrogeno causato dal zirconio, questa catastrofe, anche se seria, sarebbe rimasta confinata nel perimetro della centrale.

Per quanto riguarda la cosiddetta impronte ecologica, parlarne senza denunciare la disuguaglianza dei redditi e lo sperpero sistemico capitalista rappresenta più di una frode. Di fatti, rappresenta un attacco frontale al livello di vita dei lavoratori. Questi sono destinati a essere ritornati di forza, con l'aiuto della manipolazione della paura, ad una società della nuova schiavitù salariale della nuova domesticità (Jobs Act e voucher occasionali a 10 euro l'ora ecc...) Questa strategia era già annunciata negli anni 50 dal Establishment americano già preso dall'isteria di una Guerra fredda di sua invenzione (containment e rolling-back), nel suo Report from the Iron Mountain del quale John Galbraith aveva confermato l'autenticità nella sua prefazione della prima edizione. Vedi pure il mio Défi aux écologistes, au Giec et à tous les apôtres du réchauffement climatique (14 juin 2007) nella Sezione Commentaires d'actualité del mio sito http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com .

Sottolineiamo che in materia di riscaldamento climatico, il rifiuto di tenere conto della precessione degli equinozi come pure delle altre variabili non-antropogeni rappresenta una scelta anti-scientifica molto singolare. Una scelta visceralmente reazionaria e manipolatrice, benché sua origine sia perfettamente conosciuta . Attribuire conseguenze a false cause, per di più in maniera calcolata, porta infallibilmente a porre falsi diagnostici ed a proporre false soluzioni. Dopo il Report menzionato abbiamo avuto diritto alla primitive e bancali progressioni geometriche del Club di Roma. All'epoca furono subito criticate da Cambridge. Aggiungo che erano ideate in un quadro ( un mondo finito ? ) senza referenza ai sostituiti ed altre alternative, ad esempio ad un modello di sviluppo più qualitativo e più ugualitario ecc. Troppo teorie climatologiche attuali condividono la stessa manipolazione. Tutto questo per concludere alla necessità di indurre una « disincentivazione a consumare » per il proletariato. Si trattava di una propaganda in linea diretta con la necessita marginalista moderna di mettere fine alle « rising expectations » dei lavoratori, tale che teorizzato dall'alto della Trilaterale da un Samuel Huntington. Questi aveva già fatto le sue armi dato che era l'ideatore dei « strategic hamlets » in Guatemala ed in Vietnam, come pure dei « shock di civiltà » all'origine dell'illegale e criminale dottrina della guerra preventiva diretta contro più di 66 paesi. La maggior parte di questi sono naturalmente di cultura islamica ma sono tutti considerati come dei rivali economici, miliari o culturali potenziali dell'Impero ... putativo dei « maestri del mondo » auto-eletti. Questo è uno strano progetto imperiale che porta la Francia di Hollande con i suoi singolari governi a campeggiare come il primo domestico di casa imperiale, ruolo che Londra no vorrà abbandonarli ... Roma connettendosi di essere il primo domestico nel Mediterraneo. La Francia continua così il cammino subalterne iniziato con la sua reintegrazione nel Commando unificato della Nato. Questo impero putativo riposa sull'uso della forza brutale e del « regime change » per creare un Grande Israele dominante sopra un Grande Medio-Oriente e sopra tutta l'Asia centrale. Il peso del Crif sopra questo presidente ed i suoi governi è smisurato al punto di essere anti-democratico. La comunità ebrea francese conta attorno a 300 000 persone al massimo, il che da una percentuale molto infima rapporto alla popolazione totale di oltre 66 milioni; la popolazione di cultura musulmana, sistematicamente sotto-rappresentata, conta invece attorno a 8 milioni, maggiormente ben integrati malgrado le manipolazioni, e la vergognosa islamofobia della quale sono vittime al quotidiano (per una idea di queste insane manipolazioni ad esempio attorno al « velo », vedi il mio Livre III usando il termine « voile » nella funzione ricercare.) Assistiamo dunque alla propagazione orchestrata dell'islamofobia da parte da gente che a quanto sembra pretendono avere « denti » lunghi. Uno Manuel Valls, malgrado il suo spirito franchista-totalitario, non ha ottenuto 6 % alle primarie socialiste. Certi Kessel vanno in giro affermando che la Costituzione nata dalla Resistenza comune al nazifascismo è un ostacolo allo sviluppo ( leggere allo sviluppo del capitalismo speculativo liberale-fascista di von Mises e dei suoi discepoli.) In Italia ne parlano meno ma hanno già manomesso la Costituzione distruggendola titolo dopo titolo in modo frontalmente anti-costituzionale. Di fatti, la Carte fondamentale non prevede ammendamenti contro i suoi principi cardini e solo articoli per articoli, mai ammendamenti omnibus. Questo progetto imperiale catastrofico è cognato al segno di un pensiero filosemita nietzschiano oscurantista e guerriero. Porta anche con se il tentativo in corso di sottomettere tutto il Magreb e tutto il Makhrek col fuoco e la spada in uno ritorno patologico alla psicologia delle colonie. L'origine di questa strategie neocolonialista va trovata precisamente nella Conferenza di Marrakhech voluta dal complice di Sharon e becchino degli Accordi di Olso, e complice pure dell'assassinio del Presidente Arafat, Shimon Pérès, il quale disse di se stesso che « era maledetto ». A questo fu innestato una debilitante ideologia filosemita nietzschiana di « Europa potenza » fondata sopra interventi armati in Africa ed altrove. (Per la strategia inversa originale vedi il mio Europe des nations, Europe sociale e costituzione , 14 gennaio 2004, in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/EPIFrame1Source1.htm#epi ) .

Dopo numerose manipolazioni che violano la Carta della ONU da parte di un membro permanente declinante del Consiglio di sicurezza ( non-ingerenza negli affari interni dei Stati sovrani ) si prepara ora un intervento in Siria, in attesa di potere attaccare l'Iran, ma solo nei bagagli dell'armata americana nel suo operare per compiere le basse opere israeliane. Possiamo già predire che sarà un'avventura ancora più calamitosa a tutti i livelli di quelle portate avanti in Iraq ed in Afghanistan. La principale vittima sarà la democrazia ed il pensiero autenticamente di sinistra in Francia, ed in Europa, almeno di un sussulto salutare ispirato dalla Costituzione e dalla Sociale. Le conseguenze di questa degenerazione sono più forti nel partito socialista dei sovra-rappresentati che nella destra, il che non è dire il poco. Sono perfettamente leggibili in Libia, nel Mali ecc., ecc., come pure nelle decine di migliaia di morti annegati ogni anno nel Mare Mediterraneo, povera gente sradicata da queste guerre arcaiche che macchiano gli Ideali della Repubblica per l'unico profitto di gentaccia che pensa il mondo come una vasta Palestina ridotta in bantoustan.

Notiamo che con questo filosemitismo nietzschiano essendo sovra-rappresentato all'interno del PS. Esso ha già rinnegato le 35 ore e le altre politiche progressive della « gauche plurielle ». Perciò, si è creato nel Hexagone un « à-plat-ventrisme » generale e perfettamente interiorizzato. Per colmo ora viene dato come « liberté d'expression » chi sa in che tipo di lingua francese (!), sopprimendo così nel modo più nietzschiano al mondo ogni espressione autenticamente di sinistra. Il PCF nato al Congresso di Tour, è diventato peggiore di Guesde e Kautsky presi assieme nel 1914! In oltre, poco fa, abbiamo assistiti atterrati a dei precedenti tipici ma raramente visti in Francia, Matignon facendo rovesciare post hoc le sentenze di una corte amministrativa, o ancora ingerendosi da troppo vicino degli affari interni dei sindacati. Questo con l'oggettivo di sopprimere in modo preventivo ogni opposizione democratica alle sue politiche di austerità purtroppo senza fondamento scientifico né costituzionale, ma non di meno atte a precipitare il Paese nel baratto a marcia forzata. Questa Francia debilitata dall'interno si ritrova « ancora una volta » la dove Nietzsche la desiderava. Si dirà che non c'è proprio da stupirsi visto il numero altissimo di « Nouveaux philosophes » e ultimamente di « Nouveaux Economistes », entrambi testimoniando del pietoso livello al quale il paese è caduto accademicamente, culturalmente e etico-politicamente. Questi maestri del mondo putativi sono ugualmente gli epigoni del marginalismo moderno fautore delle deregolamentazione, della privatizzazione e della speculazione. Non è senza conseguenze neanche per l'ambiente.

Purtroppo le infrastrutture pubbliche necessarie per rimediare al riscaldamento climatico, quale che siano le sue cause, implicano ingenti investimenti a lungo termine che il capitale corto-termista non può permettersi come denunciato da me sin dal mio Les conséquences socio-économiques de MM Volcker, Reagan et Cie, mars 1985,e nel mio Tous ensemble 1996.

11. Vedi l'Appendice « Spoliation » nel mio Pour Marx,contre le nihilisme.

12. Voir par exemple http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/raveaud/2015/01/05/profs-deconomie-a-luniversite-la-guerre-est-declaree/ . La formalizzazione è senza dubbi necessaria in scienza, benché debba rendere conto della congruenza dei concetti e delle teorie con il loro oggetto di studio. Questo suppone la dimostrazione di un « concreto pensato » per pretendere all'universalità scientifica, altrimenti rimarremo al livello delle leggi generali più o meno empiriche. Le formulazioni positiviste à la Popper oppure à la Prigogine non ne sono capaci. Rimangono arbitrarie, o peggio ancora, rilevano della convenienza formale. Per prova basta dare il schema della riproduzione di Tugan-Baranosvky. Il suo uso delle quadratiche è l'illustrazione per eccellenza del modello che si sostituisce alla realtà da afferrare. Illustra la perversione assoluta dell'euristica. Arghiri Emmanuel ha scritto felicemente che le matematiche non sono altro che la stenografia della logica. I Pitagorici, come testimoniato dai Discorsi di Platone non insegnavano altra cosa. Consideravano i numeri come delle tecniche e certo non come delle Idee in se stesse. Wittgenstein ha dimostrato che non esiste una sola matematica ma delle matematiche. Dal punto di vista puramente formale, fu dimostrato che si può creare artificialmente la matematica che si desidera ponendone gli assiomi per poi svilupparne tutte le conseguenze logiche. Le matematiche utili sono quelle che rimangono congruenti con il loro oggetto, il che deve essere il caso per ogni scienza. Io credo avere dimostrato che questa congruenza in questa disciplina hyper-formalizzata riposa sulla determinazione dell'unita di base e sulla sua adeguazione alla realtà da afferrare. Pretendere mettere in moto pesantissimi apparati matematici applicati irrazionalmente deve solo provocare ilarità. Sopratutto quando i problemi possono essere risolti con la logica e l'aritmetica. Vedi ad esempio i patetici tentativi di applicare la teoria del caos ai dati « fattuali » del Dow Jones da un volgare Mandelbrot. Queste manipolazioni non sono altre che la conseguenza viziosa di una strategia di classe perfettamente illustrata da Jules Ferry in una lettera scritta a Léon Walras. In essa, lo felicitava per avere contribuito alla formalizzazione della disciplina rendendola così meno accessibile alla massa dei lavoratori. Jules Ferry si dimenticava che l'Université del suo Paese aveva rifiutato la candidatura di Walras per le stesse ragioni che spinsero Poincaré a rifiutare di soprintendere la tesi di Bachelier, antenato delle inettitudini della pseudo-analisi del rischio finanziare. Per quello che riguarda le pretensioni scientifiche di Léon Walras, rilevano di un semplice e tipico rovesciamento, data che evidentemente cercava di rubare la fiamma a Karl Marx ( il suo aspetto fanoniano ? ) nel pretendere che la sua teoria portava la « socialismo scientifico » ! Sintomaticamente, il suo proprio tentativo di mettere in opera questo specifico socialismo scientifico (!) con un altro comparso finì con problemi giudiziari. Rimane che il metodo di Léon Walras, e di tutti i marginalisti dopo di lui, era fondato sopra un semplice sotterfugio che Joseph Schumpeter si ingeniò in seguito a laudare, diminuendo così la meta scientifica stessa con i suoi oggettivi universali. In seguito alle rimostranze di Auguste Walras al figlio Léon, riposa sopra una arbitraria dualità tra scienza economica e economia sociale senza mai poterle riconciliare. Ne segue tutta una seria di problemi ontologici, metodologici, teorici, pratici e epistemologi a dimostrazione che questo pseudo-paradigma non è niente altro che una narrazione di classe e di casta. Taciamo qui la nota a piè di pagina della prima edizione degli Eléments scomparsa in seguito secondo la quale « la scarsità è socialmente indotta », una incredibile ammissione che non impedì pero la continuazione di questa mirabile impresa scientifica mediante una piccola cancellazione! Ho detto altrove che nasce da falsificazioni successive inventate per prendere il contropiede delle teorie realmente scientifiche di Karl Marx. Va sottolineato che dopo il contributo oggi egemonico del liberale-fascista von Mises, questa dualità è se stessa rimessa in questione in maniera ancora più reazionaria. Si tratta di una deriva che offendeva giustamente il grande teorico walrasiano repubblicano Maurice Allais. Perché qui non si tratta più di informare le equazioni della «scienza » economica con i dati sociali ponendo così i parametri nei quali debbono essere risolte ( ad esempio l'insieme delle variabili interdipendenti di Keynes.) Ora, questo marginalismo moderno o post-moderno fa astrazione della società in carne ed ossa e non bada più se non ai dati speculativi. Uno mostro disumano che si nutrice delle sue proprie produzioni! Si arriva allora ad una verrà e propria « dismal science » solo buona per i numerosi Nouveaux Economistes, avatari dei Nouveaux Philosophes. Bizzarramente, sin dal crollo del PCF, la Francia è tipicamente afflitta da fortissime quote di questa provenienza. Ma quale posto legittimo possono pretendere nelle istituzioni della conoscenza? Tempo fa, Samir Amin aveva parlato delle « ricette di cucina » dell'economia borghese. Non aveva allora torto. Ma c'è di più: trattandosi di una narrazione ideologica, non mira alla verità ossia all'adeguazione con i fatti, ma unicamente alla plausibilit0. Si cerca di creare uno catechismo destinato alle masse ed ai « militanti nichilisti » universitari che non hanno mai imparato a pensare con la propria testa. Così facendo, è ancora soggetta ad un grave rischio che Nietzsche sottolineava ironicamente punteggiando i suoi avvertimenti con un caratteristico ragliare : « hi-han! ». Questo perché, secondo una tendenza psicologica ben conosciuta, i grandi preti e i cosiddetti maestri rischiano di credere loro stessi nelle loro proprie asinate. Il secondo pericolo attinge alle scienze cognitive e consiste nel fatto che le percezioni e le narrazioni non sono la realtà, quest'ultima finendo sempre confutarle. Questo avviene secondo rimesse in causa incrementali oppure sotto l'effetto di uno shock brutale, il quale apre allora la porta ad una « rivoluzione paradigmatica » secondo l'espressione di Thomas Khun.

La dominanza di classe esige dunque un adattamento empirico ricorrente del credo dominante per conservarli la sua plausibilità. E proprio questa la funzione degli equivalenti Premi Nobel conferiti nella « dismal science », cosa derisoria e facile da dimostrare esaminando, se non altro in modo rapido, la lista dei beneficiari e il contributo che valse loro il premio in questione. (Ad esempio, il mercato delle auto di seconda mano da creare in previsione del collasso dei salari operai, già previsti nel dietro bottega durante il negoziato del libero-scambio continentale da Stiglitz ed altri. Stiglitz fu poi distaccato dalla Banca Mondiale e non esitò a campeggiare come un leader « no-global » (sic!) secondo la chutzpah caratteristica di certa gente. O ancora il « contratto unico » di Tirole nel quadro dell'egemonia della « governance globale privata » sostituita allo spazio nazionale degli Stati-Nazioni,ecc.) L'origine sociologica pone certamente altre questioni legittime al soggetto della sovra-rappresentanza rispetto alla Legge dei Grandi Numeri. L'universalità di quest'ultima non è certo suscettibile di essere confutata dalla singolarit0, quale extra-ordinaria o mostruosa che sia. L'economia borghese non conosce contraddizioni interne: ha sempre ragione dopo colpo come il mercato capitalista con i suoi prezzi fluttuanti sempre raggiunti post hoc! Il che causa per lo meno ingenti sprechi di fondi pubblici.

Noto per concludere che una disciplina avanzata delle matematiche sarebbe oggi più che necessaria per sviluppare le statistiche scientifiche, dunque socialiste, sopra la base della funzione di produzione marxista integrata in modo coerente nelle Equazioni della RS-RA. Ma mentre io le chiedo sin da un certo tempo, secondo la stessa tecnica del rovesciamento, ci offrono una polenta per cani e per gatti del tipo di quella proposta da Piketty e dai suoi accoliti della disuguaglianza perenne prevalendo « sempre e ovunque »! Questo mostra il livello di autentica degenerazione accademica e sociale. In fondo, ci sono i partigiani dell'uguaglianza umana come Pitagora, Socrate, il pitagorico Gesù Cristo, il pitagorico Gioacchino da Fiore, Marx etc., e, dal lato opposto, i propugnatori della disuguaglianza umana intrinseca. La logica, come pure il linguaggio ordinare e gli idiomi sociali, suppone uno « campo di inter-soggettività » ( Hegel ) che rimanda ad una uguaglianza umana, tutti i suoi membri appartenendo alla stessa specie ( Herder, Kant ecc. ) Altrimenti non può esistere nessuno discorso o dialogo possibile. Benedetto Croce, lettore di Vico, affermava giustamente che il divenire è il primo concetto concreto. Marx, anche lui grande lettore di Vico, dimostrò che questo divenire è cognato al segno dell'uguaglianza umana. La dialettica del maestro e dello schiavo di Hegel né aveva già fornito la prova. Il razzismo e l'esclusivismo, sopratutto teocratico e di casta, non costituiscono confutazioni. Di fatti, sono condannati dalle conquiste dell'alleanza anti-nazifascista contenute nella Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Individuali e Sociali della Persona Umana. Evidenza che troppa gente si permette dimenticare oggi nella più totale, ma momentanea, impunità. Ad esempio quelle e quelli che, andando tipicamente a ritroso, pretendono piegare questi diritti agli arcaismi dei testi esclusivisti-teocratici antichi.

13. Per una biografia di von Mises vedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

14. Stalin era leninista e a questo titolo convinto della superiorità scientifica del marxismo senza la quale nessuno Bolscevico convinto vi avrebbe dedicato, e spesso sacrificato, la vita intera. Ma fu attore e testimonia in prima linea degli esperimenti bolscevichi, sin dagli inizi utopici ed alla stracca della Unione Sovietica. Ad esempio la volontà iniziale di sopprimere lo sfruttamento confuso con la necessaria estrazione della « sovrappiù sociale », oppure il concetto semplicista di abolizione della moneta ecc. Aveva vissuto la NEP e poi assicurato la sua rettificazione e la collettivizzazione delle terre. Questo ultimo processo supponeva il mantenimento strategico dell'alleanza di classe tra contadini e proletariato ; metteva dunque in causa tanto le cooperative quanto le aziende agricole di Stato. Nel suo Economic problems of the USSR of 1951, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm , Stalin spiega in modo particolarmente brillante che l'esistenza delle cooperative imponeva una mediazione tramite i prezzi mentre la contabilità interna delle aziende agricole di Stato poteva benissimo essere compiuta direttamente in « valore », come per gli altri settori collettivizzati. Questa eccezionale comprensione mostra l'avanzamento teorico e pratico del compagno Stalin sul volgare e passabilmente ignorante e arrogante « sistema dei prezzi » del liberale-fascista von Mises, come pure rispetto alla contabilità marginalista fallacie di Oskar Lange. Uno può allora chiedersi perché Stalin fece tanti sforzi per incitare Oskar Lange a venir a l'Est? Secondo me questo viene spiegato dalla brillante comprensione della lotta e delle alleanze di classe da parte de compagno Stalin. Grande lettore di Gramsci, aveva sviluppato un concetto di transizione al socialismo all'Est preliminare alla transizione socialista in corso nella URSS. Si trattava di stabilire l'egemonia del socialismo nello spirito dell'intelligentsia dell'Est ancora offesa dalla crisi capitalista degli anni 20 e 30 e dalla marcia parallele del Nazifascismo. Grazie alla Pianificazione, questa fase preliminare teorizzata come « democrazia popolare » permetteva di effettuare le grandi trasformazioni economiche, sociali e culturali preliminari capaci di portare in seguito ad una forma più avanzata del socialismo. Un tale approccio non poteva appoggiarsi che su una buona conoscenza del marxismo. L'unica cosa che mancava al compagno Stalin era l'integrazione coerente della legge marxista della produttività con le Equazioni della RS-RA. In tanto, sulla base del Libro II del Capitale di Marx, Bukharin aveva formalizzato queste Equazioni, in particolare per la Riproduzione Semplice, ma per una produttività identica in tutti i settori. Mediante una insistenza pratica continua per il più alto livello di produttività possibile poi correggendo gli effetti di contrazione intersettoriali non previsti, la Pianificazione sovietica diventava tremendamente efficace. Lo dimostrò brillantemente dato che con solo due piani quinquennali Stalin fu capace di sconfiggere, solo, il complesso militare-industriale nazifascista, all'epoca il più importante al mondo. I Stati Uniti entrarono in guerra contro la Germania ed il Giappone solo dopo il 7 dicembre del 1942 dopo Pearl Harbor, cioè molto, molto tardi... Così Stalin fece passare il suo paese dallo statuto di paese sotto-sviluppato a quello di una delle sole due superpotenze del dopo-guerra. Notiamo che Stalin non trascurò mai la dialettica egemonia-contro-egemonia. Il Dottore Jivago di Pasternak è un capo-lavoro in parte perché fondato sugli intensi scambi epistolari dell'autore con Stalin, mai avaro di commenti. Stalin contribuì ugualmente al ritorno in Unione Sovietica di Gorki dopo la sua creazione. Gorki era allora considerato come lo scrittore russo socialmente lucido più in vista sulla scena mondiale. Pero da perfetto marxista, Stalin era anti-esclusivista. Fu l'unico a salvare Israele dall'annientamento istantaneo dopo la sua proclamazione unilaterale di indipendenza il 14 maggio 1948, fornendo tutte le armi necessarie tramite la Germania dell'Est, questo servizio gli costò la vita. All'epoca, i Stati Uniti non favoreggiavano la creazione dello Stato di Israele, preferendo consolidare la loro alleanza con i paesi arabi tra i quali l'Arabia saudita, già incontestata prima potenza petroliera. In effetti, Stalin insisteva sulla risoluzione della « questione ebrea » nella URSS, creando una Repubblica sovietica autonoma ebrea. Questo avrebbe automaticamente portato alla fine della reale sovra-rappresentanza ebrea a tutti i livelli centrali dell'Unione Sovietica. Proprio quelli che salvò dai campi nazi, e tra altro dalle griffe dell'Uomo Giusto tra le Nazioni (sic!) Schindler, con il suo contabile ebreo Stern, lo assassinarono per mettere termine a questo processo. Poi la sua memoria fu sistematicamente avvilita in maniera tipica falsando la memoria storica e imputando a Stalin i crimini dell'ebreo-sovietico Yeshov. Questo fu compiuto con due rapporti falsamente segreti ma ideati nel contesto della lotta per il potere di Khrushchev. Yeshov era il Sade della Section des Piques sovietica, infiltrato come quello sadista marchese nei ranghi dei rivoluzionari per screditarli con la generalizzazione del terrore usato per decapitare la Rivoluzione. Di fatti, il terrore cessò subito dopo la condanna di questo nano ebreo criminale, una verità non contestabile. Le stesse genti che spinsero Khrushchev a compiere questo reale colpo di Stato anti-comunista, introdussero subito dopo il marginalismo socialista in URSS. Contribuendo così a reificarne ed a burocratizzarne il funzionamento, rallentando drasticamente il progresso della Pianificazione con questa falsificazione marginalista. Ed, in fin dei conti, a tradire ed a smembrare l'Unione Sovietica dall'interno. Sognano ancora di fare subire la stessa sorte alla Federazione russa. Mai crimine contro l'umanità, contro il suo divenire storico, e contro la Memoria, in particolare la memoria di tutte e tutti i Resistenti al Nazifascismo, fu così vile e considerevole. Fu scritto che quelle e quelli che ignorano le lezioni della Storia sono condannati a riprodurne gli errori e a subirne le conseguenze. Ma la prossima volta rischia di essere senza Stalin dato che questi vili criminali affermano oggi che Stalin fu peggiore di Hitler!

XXX

LE GALIMATIAS DE JEAN-MARIE HARRIBEY SUR LA LOI DE LA VALEUR.

Critique de son article : « La croissance ? Au-delà des doutes, une certitude : la crise sociale et la crise écologique du capitalisme sont liées. Note pour les Economistes atterrés, octobre 2014.

Lien : http://www.atterres.org/sites/default/files/Note%20croissance%2C%20JMH%2C%20octobre%202014.pdf

(Voir aussi www.atterres.org ainsi que mon B11-12-2014. Etre atterré ne suffit pas, encore faut-il rendre compte du paradigme utilisé. Ex : la banque centrale et le crédit. » (dans la section Commentaires rapides de ce site.)

Si vous voulez rire un bon coup à défaut de pleurer de rage et de mépris - en vous laissant conter que des Stiglitz, Piketty, Boccara, Sen etc., etc. représentent le renouvèlement progressiste dans la discipline lisez : Jean-Christophe Le Duigou : "Et si l'économie redevenait politique ?"Déverrouillons la politique Jeudi, 2 Avril, 2015. L'Humanité http://www.humanite.fr/jean-christophe-le-duigou-et-si-leconomie-redevenait-politique-570235 . Le marxisme? Connaît pas! Vous comprenez pourquoi les électrices et les électeurs de gauche ôtent systématiquement leurs soutiens à ces gens-là ! Voir: http://www.les-crises.fr/le-resultat-des-departementales-en-1-graphique-50-des-ouvriers-votent-fn/ . Comme antidote à cette « servitude volontaire » reportez-vous au livre Hi-Han ! et au Précis d'économie politique marxiste. )

M. Harribey est un penseur circulaire. J'ignore s'il est un adepte conscient des narrations laborieusement montées contre la théorie marxiste rétablie par moi dans ses prétentions scientifiques. Il est toutefois certain que sa compréhension de la loi de la valeur n'est qu'un risible galimatias tautologique privé de tout sens. M. Harribey s'en serait d'ailleurs rendu compte s'il avait tenté de chiffrer ses équations. Il se serait alors immédiatement aperçu de l'incohérence de ses formules, même en continuant d'ignorer besogneusement mes contributions en la matière pourtant incontournables, ce qui est d'ailleurs fort peu académique. Le sens profond des formulations de M. Harribey consiste à réécrire les formules clés de la loi de la valeur marxiste dans un sens lui permettant ensuite de tirer partie des statistiques actuelles. Comme chacun sait, ce sont des statistiques marginalistes, donc fausses. Un seul exemple suffira ici : la valeur ajoutée marginaliste n'est pas similaire au profit dans le sens marxiste du terme ; de surcroît, elle ne permet pas de distinguer intérêt et profit, ce qui est plus que problématique lorsqu'il s'agit de juger du rôle de la spéculation dans la phase néolibérale actuelle du capitaliste. Du coup, les concepts marginalistes de revenu et de revenu national sont à prendre avec des pincettes pour éviter de se fourvoyer comme le fait allègrement M. Harribey.

M. Harribey s'en prend à l'analyse de la crise ambiante que proposent certains théoriciens néolibéraux en vue. Il ne croit pas en un retour à « une croissance économique « durablement élevée. » ( p 9) Non pas qu'il réfute le concept de « croissance potentielle » mettant en oeuvre l'utilisation maximale des facteurs de production capital et travail sans tension sur les prix. Il affirme simplement que cet espoir « se heurte à la logique néolibérale elle-même. » ( p 9) On sait que cette conception marginaliste de la «croissance potentielle » mène également nombre de marginalistes à ne concevoir d'équilibre économique qu'au niveau physiologique pour le facteur travail, ce qui les poussent à demander le ralentissement de la hausse du smic ou tout bonnement sa suppression. Nous reviendrons bientôt sur ce point dans une autre critique. Disons uniquement ici que l'équilibre économique atteint en forçant le travail au niveau physiologique reste la lubie malthusienne suicidaire qui incarne le mieux « les esprits animaux » du capitalisme.

Que veut-il dire par là ? Simplement que le capitalisme actuel, celui de la « 3è révolution industrielle », se heurte à deux obstacles. D'abord au fait que la croissance technique de la composition organique ne suit plus la composition organique en valeur. Ceci démontre en passant que M. Harribey n'a jamais pris le temps de lire Marx, ni le chapitre du Capital Livre I intitulé « La dernière heure de Senior ». Marx y anticipe ce que j'ai démontré par la suite en rétablissant la loi de la productivité marxiste dans sa prétention scientifique, à savoir que dans la fonction de production marxiste, le produit total (que M. Harribey appelle revenu) est la somme des composants de là-dite fonction, c'est-à-dire de « c » le capital constant, de « v » le capital variable et de « pv » la plus-value. Il s'en suit que si l'on prend chaque produit unitaire du produit total, il doit forcément contenir les mêmes intrants dans la même proportion. Contrairement à Senior, qui anticipe pour sa part les inepties de la théorie marginaliste, le profit n'est pas contenu dans la dernière heure de travail mais proportionnellement dans chaque produit, donc chaque fraction de la durée du travail. En outre, contrairement à la croyance marginaliste absurde, il n'existe aucune dichotomie entre technique et valeur dans la composition organique, l'unité et l'homogénéité de cette dernière étant essentielle pour comprendre la productivité. Cette croyance absurde est d'ailleurs tirée de Pareto. Elle est absurde puisque la technique y compris organisationnelle est elle-même une marchandise échangée sur le marché, de sorte qu'elle est forcement prise en compte dans les coûts enregistrés par la fonction de production. Vous ne pouvez pas avoir une machine outil qui n'incorpore pas déjà une technique qui contribue à en fixer la « désidérabilité » et le prix ou valeur.

Cette argutie mérite d'être soulignée ici puisqu'elle joue un rôle central dans la conception de M. Harribey. Elle lui permet de rester à la mode à défaut d'être pertinent - en interprétant la crise écologique comme une tension sur les prix qui se reflète dans le prix du capital faisant ainsi obstacle à la hausse du taux de profit, donc en définitive selon lui à la croissance. Cette tendance lourde aggraverait donc un problème que M. Harribey situe au coeur de la 3è révolution industrielle, après avoir discuté les théories de Robert J. Gordon et d'Erik Brynjolfsson et Andrew McAfee. (1) Il se résume ainsi : cette troisième révolution est axée sur une tertiarisation accrue, laquelle serait caractérisée par une moindre croissance de la productivité. Il s'agit d'une affirmation gratuite qui mélange beaucoup de choses distinctes entre elles. Car la substitution d'un produit par un autre plus neuf et plus cher pour accomplir la même tâche n'ajoute pas à la productivité de l'entreprise. Les gadgets coûteux n'en restent pas moins des gadgets. Cependant, en d'autres domaines, la 3e révolution produit des gains de productivité très grands.

Le problème majeur ici étant le fait que le néolibéralisme dérégule et privatise et, ce faisant, il détruit l'aspect positif majeur de la « plus-value sociale » sur la productivité micro-économique et sur la compétitivité macroéconomique. Bien entendu, la théorie circulaire de M. Harribey est aveugle comme une taupe sur ce sujet pourtant essentiel. Or, ce genre de privatisation produit beaucoup de gaspillage même si, par l'artifice des statistiques marginalistes, ceci peut induire une hausse du PIB : gaspillez 18 % et plus du PIB pour un régime de santé privé du genre de l'Obamacare et vous atteindrez rapidement ce résultat paradoxal. Faite la même chose pour les pensions et il en ira de même, un fait qui conduisit récemment GM et Chrysler à la faillite, ces entreprises ne devant leur survie qu'à l'intervention in extrémis de l'Etat, supposément minimum, puisqu'elles ne pouvaient plus assumer le coût de leur régime de pension maison.

Mais, comme nous le disions, en procédant de la sorte M. Harribey peut dire ce qu'il veut sans se soucier de la cohérence interne de ses formules. Surtout il peut rester dans l'air du temps par rapport à la narration dominante relative à la crise économique. Soulignons en passant que depuis le recyclage des pétrodollars par Kissinger après la guerre d'Octobre 1973, la tension des prix que M. Harribey attribue aux matières premières résulte en très grande partie fausse. En effet, le prix du pétrole, qui constitue un des composants majeurs des trois révolutions industrielles, toutes fondées sur la transformation de valeurs d'usage plus ou moins brutes en autres valeurs d'usage plus ou moins finies, est bien plus sujet aux taxes d'accises qui pèsent sur lui qu'à l'effet d'oligopole induit par l'OPEP ou bien aux coûts de production du baril. Ce coût est très bas puisqu'il oscille autour de 0,4 à 15 dollars plus ou moins selon qu'il soit léger ou lourd v. http://www.cipcre.org/ecovox/eco31/reperes3.htm . La structure du commerce international et la productivité occidentale s'en accommoda jusqu'à récemment. Ceci devient chaque jour plus difficile mais l'Etat n'a pas le courage de récupérer le manque à gagner, qui serait encouru par sa suppression en faveur des entreprises et des ménages, par l'émergence fiscale du shadow banking. Il serait alors possible de poser le vrai problème du coût de production plutôt que de continuer à insister de manière suicidaire sur le coût du travail, donc la baisse imposée alimente la spirale économique négative. Il s'en suit que le problème ne se situe pas là où Harribey voudrait le situer. J'ai d'ailleurs démontré que le débat écologique actuel depuis le Protocole de Montréal et le Protocole de Kyoto était largement prisonnier d'une narration néolibérale. En effet, à l'origine, il s'agissait d'utiliser l'écologie et l'avance technologique occidentale en la matière pour imposer de nouveaux tarifs invisibles au moment même où l'Occident tentait d'imposer sa logique de libre échange global. (2) Cette logique visait surtout le démantèlement des secteurs traditionnels et manufacturiers dans lesquels l'Occident jouissait de très forts avantages acquis, tels ses multinationales avec leurs brevets, leurs réseaux de financements et de ventes etc. Bref, il s'agissait de construire en douce une structure d'interdépendance asymétrique. Les autres pays ont vite compris la manoeuvre ce qui se matérialisa dans l'échec du Sommet de Copenhague. En outre, personne de se soucie plus du fait que les critères de Kyoto sont déjà en défaut d'une dizaine de points malgré l'effet de l'actuelle et très révélatrice « décroissance » ( !) involontaire due à la crise économique. Ce qui n'empêche par les moulins à vent professionnels verts de continuer à se gargariser avec leur apocalypse, quitte à réajuster le tir toujours selon la logique de finalités autres mais dissimulées à un public trop crédule.

Passons maintenant au deuxième obstacle au retour à une croissance durable tel qu'il est conçu par M. Harribey. Ici aussi sa conception est redevable à sa dissociation aussi artificielle qu'absurde entre composition technique et composition valeur du capital. En bref, puisque la 3e révolution ne favorise pas autant qu'on aurait pu le croire le développement de la productivité technique, il s'en suivrait que pour maintenir le taux de profit, les capitalistes soient obligés de rogner sur les salaires. Nous verrons plus bas que ceci confond productivité, durée, intensité etc...

Reste que là aussi M. Harribey, en bon économiste atterré, se doit de rester sous le vent dominant. Il le prend donc vent debout sans se soucier trop de la contradiction sous-jacente. En effet, il fut établit depuis longtemps qu'à la suite de la contreréforme volckerienne-reaganienne les gains éventuels de productivité, de plus en plus soumis à la concurrence globale directe, allaient majoritairement au capital au détriment des salaires. Selon la définition retenue, il fut établi que le transfert du salaire au bénéfice du capital se chiffrait aux alentours de 8 % de la valeur ajoutée certains avaient même avancé le chiffre de 11 % du PIB. (3) Ce gigantesque transfert se vérifie également par les montants astronomiques des exonérations fiscales, la plupart du temps octroyées sans contrepartie pour le travail, et par les ruineuses dépenses fiscales (tax expenditures) qui disparaissent gentiment des bilans et des budgets une fois attribuées. Il suffit alors d'octroyer ces tax expéditures préventivement pour faire apparaitre un budget chroniquement instable exigeant toujours plus d'austérité.

En ce qui concerne M. Harribey, puisque une large audience est désormais convaincue de la réalité de ce transfert sans contrepartie pour le monde du travail, il en tire un problème de débouchés pour le capital et donc une crise de la valorisation (les marxistes parleraient plus concrètement de surproduction et de sous-consommation.)

Ceci est indubitable. Sauf que vous seriez bien en peine logiquement de concilier le ralentissement de la productivité technique de M. Harribey avec le fait que ses gains soient massivement si peu partagés. Nous verrons que ce n'est pas anodin vu son galimatias sur la loi de la valeur de Marx. Il semble donc, qu'en plus d'être circulaire, la pensée de M. Harribey est tout bonnement contradictoire et sans fondement.

Il est facile d'expliquer pourquoi en exposant son interprétation marginaliste loufoque de la loi de la valeur. Passons donc à l'exposé du galimatias marxiste de M. Harribey.

Voici pour commencer quelques notions clés permettant de comprendre la loi de la valeur. Pour le reste, je renvoie à mes livres, dont le Précis d'économie politique marxiste accessible dans la section Livres-Books de ce cite.

La fonction de production s'écrit : c + v + pv = M soit, « c » le capital constant plus « v » le capital variable plus « pv » la plus-value, égale M le produit. On prend C = (c + v) = 100 pour faciliter les comparaisons et mieux contrôler les évolutions.

Le taux de profit s'écrit pv/(c + v). Le taux de plus-value ou d'exploitation s'écrit : pv/v. La composition organique du capital s'écrit : v/C (où C = (c+v) ; ce qui fait bien apparaître le travail comme travail vivant au numérateur et comme travail cristallisé v au dénominateur. Il ne peut pas être question de dissocier composition organique technique ou organisationnelle et composition organique valeur puisque la technique est échangée sur le marché comme marchandise.

Les fonctions de production dans le cadre de la Reproduction Simple et Elargie mettent en cause deux grands secteurs, à savoir le Secteur I des Moyens de production (Mp) et le Secteur II des Moyens de consommation (Cn). Tous les autres secteurs et sous-secteurs peuvent être subsumés dans ces deux secteurs principaux ; de même, moyennant quelques distinctions statistiques (marxistes), on peut aisément appréhender les filières. Les deux fonctions de production résumant les deux secteurs principaux s'écrivent comme suit.

Schéma t1 :

SI : c1 (80 €) + v1 (20 €) + pv1 (20 €) = M1 (120 €) pour 120 Mp (1 Mp = 1 €)

SII : c2 (40 €) + v2 (10 €) + pv 2 (10 €) = M2 (60 €) pour 60 Cn (1 Cn = 1 €)

Les Equations de la Reproduction Simple qui sous-tendent de toute manière la Reproduction Elargie sont les suivantes :

c2 = (v1 + pv1),

M1 = (c1 + c2),

M2 = (v1 + pv1) + (v2 + pv2).

Nous supposons ici le plein-emploi, donc l'absence de toute variation due à l'inflation, de sorte que le prix ici sera égal à la valeur. Notez que dans cet exemple canonique de la RS, 1 Mp = 1 Cn = 1 €. Ceci n'est pas un hasard, mais bien le résultat obligé de la cohérence de la loi de la valeur marxiste déjà établi par Marx, à savoir que malgré l'adaptation à la RS en chiffres absolus les deux secteurs produisent ici dans les mêmes conditions, c'est-à-dire avec une composition organique (v/C ) et un taux d'exploitation (pv/v) identiques.

Notez que les Mp et les Cn sont des équivalents particuliers, de sorte que la valeur pourrait donc être donnée en Mp ou en Cn, mais ceci serait peu pratique. La monnaie, ici l'€, est un équivalent gén9ral (le prix est ici égal à la valeur du fait du plein-emploi.) Cet équivalent général doit donc être lui-même évalué en termes d'un étalon commun, un équivalent universel. Il y en a un seul : la valeur d'échange de la force de travail.

De même que tous les composants peuvent être estimés en monnaie (valeur en situation de plein-emploi) ou encore en Mp ou en Cn, on peut de la même façon les estimer en termes d'heures de travail, ou plus précisément de « travail socialement nécessaire » lui-même décomposable en nombre de travailleurs physiques. Tout restera cohérent et c'est-là la grande leçon du magnifique chapitre du Capital Livre I intitulé « La dernière heure de Senior » il anticipe déjà toute la critique au marginalisme .Cette leçon finalement élucidée par ma démonstration de la loi de la productivité marxiste. Selon cette loi lorsque, suite à une plus grande productivité dans un secteur, les conditions fondamentales de la production changent, i.e. la composition organique et le taux d'exploitation, le système reste cohérent dans tous ses termes. Ceci réfute les critiques levées contre le marxisme, en particulier celles de Böhm-Bawerk concernant la contradiction entre intrants valeur et extrants prix de production, une contradiction de son invention qui n'a cependant rien à voir avec le marxisme. Cette fausse critique et falsification est connue comme « problème de la transformation des valeurs en prix de production ». En démontrant la loi de la productivité marxiste, il apparait que le marxisme est cohérent et seul scientifique alors que le problème de la contradiction ex ante/ post hoc se retourne en fait contre ses inventeurs dans le sens qu'il concerne toutes les théories économiques bourgeoises, en particulier les théories marginalistes.

Il nous reste à donner la définition de la loi de la productivité marxiste puis de l'intégrer dans la RS pour montrer que la cohérence dans tous les termes perdure.

Cette loi s'exprime simplement comme suit : la productivité augmente d'un taux spécifique si la même force de travail en valeur d'échange mais justement pas en ouvriers physiques, autrement le jeu n'en vaudrait pas la chandelle s'exerçant durant une même journée de travail produit proportionnellement plus d'un même produit en t2 par rapport à t1. Pour atteindre ce résultat, le taux de composition organique et le taux d'exploitation doivent évoluer de manière proportionnellement inverse. Ce qui se vérifie par la cohérence de tous les termes en t1 et en t2. On dispose ainsi de toutes les critiques dirigées contre le marxisme, y compris celles des théoriciens de l'« échange inégal » dont Arghiri Emmanuel. Pour ce dernier, l'étalon de mesure ne demeurait pas homogène, ce qui était strictement vrai pour toutes les tentatives de résoudre le problème de la transformation jusqu'à ma formulation de la loi de la productivité et sa démonstration.

Il suffit d'illustrer et de vérifier. Voici un exemple dans lequel la productivité augmente de ¼ dans le secteur SI, SII continuant à produire dans les mêmes conditions qu'avant. Nous supposons par commodité le plein-emploi quoiqu'il serait aisé de calculer la taille de l'Armée de réserve ainsi produite et relier ce fait aux masses salariales réelle ou sociale donnant le taux d'inflation structurel (voir Tous ensemble 1996, ou encore le Précis plus récent.)

Schéma t2 avec changement de productivité en SI :

SI : c1 (84) + v1 (16) + pv1 (20) = M1 = (120 € pour 150 Mp ; 1 Mp = 0,8 €)

S II : c2 (36) = v2 (9) + pv2 (9) = M2 = (54 € pour 54 Cn, donc 1 Cn = 1 € comme avant)

Noter qu'en v1, 16 € valent toujours 20 Mp qui s'échangeront contre 16 Cn. Or, prenez en t1 (v1 + v2) = 30 €. Supposez également que vous ayez 30 ouvriers physiques. En t2 vous avez (v1 + v2) = 25 ouvriers (comme nous supposons le plein-emploi, les 5 ouvriers « libérés » par la productivité et ses effets intersectoriels disparaissent dans la famille élargie comme ce fut d'ailleurs longtemps le cas, mais je montre dans mes livres que cette Armée de réserve produit d'importants phénomènes que nous pouvons laisser de côté ici.) Il reste que les ouvriers effectivement employés en SI reçoivent autant de Cn qu'avant ce qui est congruent avec notre définition rigoureuse de la productivité.

De fait, il est aisé de vérifier que tout reste cohérent dans tous les termes (quantités, prix ou valeurs, heures, etc.), ce qui n'est à la portée d'aucune théorie économique bourgeoise. On sait que le concept d'utilité fut inventé pour évacuer la dualité de la marchandise en valeur d'usage et en valeur d'échange : de cette automutilation ontologique originale naissent plusieurs versions bancales très nobélisées mais qui ne valent pas le papier sur lesquelles elles sont abondamment pondues. Dans nos schémas il faut uniquement tenir compte de ce que j'ai appelé l'Effet RS, c'est-à-dire de l'ajustement intersectoriel exigé par les Equations de la Reproduction.

Lorsque l'on passe à la RE et à l'analyse du crédit, ceci s'avèrera d'ailleurs crucial pour comprendre les anticipations nécessaires à l'équilibre, l'équilibre étant défini comme le respect des Equations de la RS-RE, seul équilibre scientifique qui vaille, la « main invisible » ou équilibre général bourgeois ne valant proprement rien, étant par nature aléatoire, donc gaspilleur, et souffrant toujours de la contradiction ex ante/post hoc.

Nous sommes maintenant prêts pour examiner le galimatias de M. Harribey. Il commence avec un semblant de fonction de production marxiste, mais rapidement il en transforme les termes pour la rendre compatible avec le marginalisme et pouvoir ainsi utiliser les données statistiques marginalistes disponibles pour illustrer sa narration avec des courbes et des tableaux, c'est-à-dire pour évacuer la logique au profit d'une hallucination visuelle.

Selon M. Harribey (p 4) Marx définirait le taux de profit de la manière suivante :

r = (pv/v) / 1 + (c + v) où r = taux de profit, les autres symboles étant connus j'ai uniquement écrit ici « pv » pour le «Pl » utilisé par l'auteur pour désigner la plus-value. Ceci afin de conserver la cohérence des symboles avec mon exposé ci-dessus.

Marx était plus direct, il écrivait r = pv/ (c + v) ce qui est immédiatement parlant, à savoir le rapport de la plus-value sur le capital constant et variable engagé par le capitaliste.

Est-ce là uniquement un effet du pli professionnel de M. Harribey formé dans l'économie mainstream ? Pas vraiment, car si les deux expressions données le même résultat, celle de Marx est scientifique alors que celle de M. Harribey est catastrophiquement circulaire. Prenez la fonction de production que vous voudrez, même au hasard, surtout faites-les varier encore au hasard de t1à t2 et cette définition s'appliquera toujours mais ne vous permettra de rien voir et de rien comprendre. C'est, en outre, pourquoi Marx avait posé C = 100.

Cette circularité tautologique insignifiante est constante avec M. Harribey. Surtout lorsqu'il se met en devoir d'harmoniser ce taux de profit et cette fonction de production faussement attribué à Marx, avec le marginalisme. Il le fait d'ailleurs en revenant aux symboles marginalistes standards, et surtout en dissociant la productivité technique et la productivité en valeur, preuve qu'il n'entend rien de Marx, et qu'il a jugé bon d'ignorer à dessein mes contributions. Il aboutit ainsi à une narration sans fondement formulée en galimatias harrabeyen, voilà tout. Le tout est contenu dans deux demi-pages, pages 4 et 5 de l'article cité plus haut.

Ainsi la définition du taux de profit devient :

« r = (1 part des salaires) / coefficient de capitalvle coefficient de capital étant le rapport du capital total K à la production Q.

Appelons a la part des profits dans la valeur de la production et (1 a) la part des salaires.

r = a / (K/Q) = a . Q/K

Le taux de profit est donc égal à la part des profits multipliée par l'inverse du coefficient du capital qui mesure l'efficacité du capital (les économistes néoclassiques parleraient, au lieu d'efficacité, de productivité du capital). » (p 4)

On se rend immédiatement compte de la circularité tautologique mais également du stratagème. Car cette présentation peut ensuite faire intervenir une distinction entre composition organique technique et composition organique valeur, mais sans jamais éprouver le besoin de vérifier la cohérence des termes comme nous l'avons fait plus haut. (M. Harribey connaît mon travail ne serait-ce que du fait de mes critiques antérieures adressées à Attac. Supposez cependant qu'il se mouche du pied gauche et qu'il ne tienne pas à me citer pour être ainsi libre de pondre le charabia qu'il désire, cela ne l'autorise cependant pas à ignorer la cohérence marxiste telle que Marx l'exige et qu'il démontre magnifiquement en l'occurrence, pour ce qui nous préoccupe ici, dans le chapitre du Capital Livre I « La dernière heure de Senior. »)

Passons à la suite rapidement. Il nous suffira de retraduire ses symboles dans les symboles marxistes pour que la circularité tautologique insignifiante apparaisse au grand jour. Ainsi :

«De quoi dépend la part des profits a ? En appelant N le nombre de travailleurs, w le salaire moyen, p la productivité individuelle du travail et pl la plus-value moyenne par travailleur,

a = pv/Q = (pv/N) (N/Q) = pl /p, qui peut aussi s'écrire (p w)/p = 1 w/p.

La part des profits dans le revenu national est donc égale au rapport de la plus-value moyenne par travailleur et de la productivité moyenne du travail.

Donc le taux de profit est égal à :

r = pl /p . Q/K

En prenant les dérivées logarithmiques de chaque variable, on obtient leur taux de variation que l'on désigne ici en soulignant leur symbole :

a = pl - p

Le taux de variation de la part du profit est égal à la différence entre le taux de variation de la plus-value moyenne par travailleur et celui de la productivité moyenne du travail.

Comment évolue le taux de profit ?

r = (pl - p) + (Q - K )

La première parenthèse composant la variation du taux de profit est une variable de répartition, la seconde une variable technico-matérielle.» ( p 5)

Je m'arrête ici car vous avez-là l'essentiel de la science circulaire tautologique insignifiante et pseudo marxiste de M. Harribey. Nous le mettons au défi de chiffrer ses équations comme je l'ai fait et de conserver la cohérence des termes en modifiant la productivité. C'est-à-dire, en reprenant le terme utilisé par Arghiri Emmanuel, dont les critiques m'avaient bouleversé jusqu'à ce que je parvienne à rétablir la théorie de la valeur sur la base de la loi de la productivité, à faire en sorte que ses pseudo-formules restent cohérentes avec un étalon de mesure travail « homogène » ! (4)

Il vous suffit alors de retraduire ses symboles pour tout démasquer d'un simple coup d'oeil.

K = C ou (c + v) ou capital total.

Q = M ou la production totale (ou, en ses termes, « revenu national » …)

a = pv/Q = pl /p

Les formules r = a / (K/Q) = a . Q/K deviennent tout bêtement pv/ Q . Q/K = pv/K (alias pv/(c+v) )

Vous auriez tort de croire que ceci ne change rien car le galimatias de M. Harribey n'a plus rien à voir avec la démonstration scientifique du marxisme rétabli par moi. On l'a déjà dit, ce genre de formulation vous permet de tourner en rond avec des oeillères en faisant savant. (Je me demande d'ailleurs ce que ces gens-là pensent vraiment du niveau des militants d'Attac … Dans mon Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme section Livres-Books du site je dénonçais déjà ceux qui, se prenant pour des « nihilistes éveillés » pensaient transformer les autres en « nihilistes militants », jusqu'aux hosties bêtes et méchantes mais très crédules de Charlie Hebdo récemment. ) En particulier, la fausse dualité relative à la composition organique vicie tout. Elle détruit de fond en comble les contributions marxistes contemporaines les plus importantes, soit entre autres pour ce qui est de la productivité, de l'armée de réserve et des inflations, de la RE, du crédit et du crédit spéculatif qui deviennent toutes incompréhensibles sans l'intégration cohérente de la loi de la productivité dans les Equations RS-RE. Il est assez risible d'entendre ces gens parler de «croissance potentielle » à atteindre suite à une utilisation maximale des facteurs sans tensions sur les prix …

Arghiri Emmanuel a dit magnifiquement que les mathématiques sont la sténographie de la logique. Elles ne peuvent prétendre se substituer à elle. La circularité est toujours une perversion de la logique.

Prenez la version dynamique de M. Harribey que l'on peut résumer par sa formule a = pl - p . Donc l'évolution du pourcentage du profit sur M égale l'évolution du pourcentage de la plus-value moins l'évolution du pourcentage du salaire.

Tout d'abord avec la circularité habituelle de M. Harribey vous pouvez écrire votre fonction de production initiale (t1) comme bon vous semble. Ceci, en dépit de la cohérence des termes quantités, valeur ou prix, heures, travailleurs etc. qui ne sera pas maintenue en passant de t1 à t2 puisque M. Harribey n'a aucune théorie de la productivité qui vaille. A la place, il a une narration concoctée sur mesure, à savoir que la productivité augmente alors que les salaires baissent La « productivité » est ici entendue selon la vision marginaliste confondant valeur ajoutée et profit, vu que la part du profit est calculée sur M et non sur (c + v). Il s'invente ainsi une évolution de la plus-value (pl) dissociée de l'évolution de la productivité moyenne du travail.

Du coup, cette incohérence des termes, nous renvoie à une narration concernant la hausse ou la baisse du taux de profit, le taux étant bien entendu confondu avec le volume, qui pour sa part explique les principales lois de motions fondamentales du capitalisme dans le cadre d'un taux de profit systémique identique, à savoir la centralisation et la concentration du capital. Notons qu'il n'est pas le seul à se méprendre grossièrement sur la soi-disant « tendance à la baisse du taux de profit » bien qu'il en donne une version toute personnelle. Cette fausse « théorie » vient d'un chapitre du Capital Livre III publié par le renégat Kautsky et ne représente qu'une étape d'investigation de Marx que l'on a fait passer à tort pour une étape d'exposition (ce qui n'est le cas que pour le Livre I écrit et édité par Marx lui-même, y compris dans sa version française donnée par lui comme version de référence.) De surcroît, le chapitre en question est suivi pas un chapitre portant sur les contre-tendances contrecarrant la baisse !!! Ce qui nécessairement renvoie à une autre cause du mouvement réel qui reste à élucider scientifiquement.

Cette formule circulaire est censée appréhender le fait que la productivité a tendance à baisser avec la 3e révolution industrielle. Or, la hausse de la productivité devrait entrainer celle du profit et être associée avec la croissance. Ainsi M. Harribey expliquerait en partie la crise actuelle.

Cependant, comme ceci ne suffit pas la productivité réelle même résiduelle faisant fatalement baisser le coût du capital fixe et circulant on introduit une version fantaisiste de l'impact de l'écologie qui rendrait ces intrants plus chers …

De ce galimatias nous retiendrons un problème réel révélé par la théorie marxiste et dont il faut bien sûr tenir compte.

Nous reposons donc le problème de la baisse des salaires dans le cadre de la fonction de production marxiste en posant C = 100 pour faciliter la compréhension.

Soit notre fonction de production canonique ; en t1 a nous transférons une partie du salaire à pv, mutatis mutandis:

t1 : c (80) + v (20) + pv (20) = M (120 € pour 120 p ; 1 p = 1 €)

t1 a : c (80) + v (15) + pv (25) = M (120 € pour 120 p ; 1 p = 1 €)

t1 b : c (84) + v (16) + pv (20) = M (120 € pour 150 p, 1 p = 0,8 €)

Nous voyons ici que le taux de profit pv/(c+v) ne change pas pour la bonne et simple raison que la productivité réelle est la même en t1 a qu'elle était en t1. En t1 b, le taux de profit reste le même puisque nous avons une augmentation de productivité sur la base d'un capital engagé identique (c + v) = 100 pour une même journée de travail comme en t1 et t1 a. Bien entendu, en t1 b on produit 150 p à 0,8 € ce qui permet de conquérir les marchés disponibles en augmentant le volume des profits. C'est ainsi qu'opère la vraie compétition, le reste est transitoire et insoutenable (par exemple, vendre à moindre prix en approchant la limite inférieure, à savoir le coût de production.)

La question est la suivante : en considérant t1 a, sommes nous autorisés à dissocier composition technique et composition valeur ? La réponse est bien évidemment négative. Bien entendu, ceci reste le cas que l'on soit dans le cadre d'une concurrence « parfaite », i.e. forte mobilité du capital, ou bien en situation d'oligopole ou de monopole. La logique est la même que celle qui prévaut pour la rente féodale confrontée au profit agricole capitaliste dans le cadre d'un régime de change capitaliste hégémonique, donc dominé par la productivité plus grande qui redéfinit la valeur en ses propres termes. La baisse du salaire n'étant pas une vraie productivité, ces entreprises ou même les pays qui suivent en bloc une telle stratégie péricliteront et finiront par disparaître. Il ne s'agit jamais que de batailles d'arrière-garde perdues d'avance, puisque le système légal protectionniste pourra en retarder mais non pas empêcher l'issue fatale.

Ce qui est en cause ce sont très précisément les formes d'extraction de la plus-value sans lesquelles la dynamique du taux de profit ne peut être comprise. Ces formes démontrées dans le Capital Livre I et complétées par moi sur la base de l'exigence de cohérence formulée par Marx pour ce qui est de la productivité forme spécifiquement capitaliste d'extraction de la plus-value et pour la plus-value sociale forme d'extraction ouvrant la voie au socialisme. Ces formes sont : la durée du travail, son intensité conjoncturelle, son intensité structurelle s'établissant comme norme ou productivité, et la plus-value sociale, à savoir l'effet dialectique de la redistribution sur la productivité microéconomique et sur la compétitivité macroéconomique que le néolibéralisme met en cause aujourd'hui de manière suicidaire.

Il est clair que la baisse du salaire ne peut remettre en cause la cohérence de la composition organique, car elle se réduirait à une modification de la durée ou de l'intensité et serait donc transitoire. Par contre, si une telle baisse de salaire devient permanente et sanctionnée par la loi cela aura l'effet de modifier la norme prévalente de la productivité. Autrement dit, les contraintes paramétriques auraient été modifiées. On remarquera que la composition technique et la composition organique étant en fait une seule et même chose, il est statistiquement impossible de vérifier les évolutions techniques affirmées par M. Harribey puisque quantité et valeur ne sont pas indépendantes.

Nous avons cependant écrit plus haut que depuis quelques décennies nous avons à faire à un transfert massif du travail vers le capital, sous diverses formes, y inclus les cotisations et la fiscalité sur le « revenu global net » des ménages.

Le problème principal ici peut être retracé dans l'évolution du système d'échange global, et dans l'évolution parallèle du système monétaire mondial. La mise en oeuvre du Système de Bretton Woods n'est pas compréhensible sans la Conférence de La Havane en 1947 qui inaugura le lancement du Gatt en octobre de la même année à Genève. Ainsi à Savannah en 1944, Keynes compris qu'il avait perdu la partie. Les préférences impériales modifiées en zone Commonwealth furent vite sabotées par l'attaque spéculative contre la livre sterling et la capitulation de la City et surtout du gouvernement britannique qui s'ensuivit. « Le 19 septembre 1949 le gouvernement dévalua la livre de 30.5% à $2.80 » (voir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling#Bretton_Woods )

De même, lorsque Perroux théorisa la « maturation » des sociétés occidentales et que d'autres parlèrent déjà de « futur shocks », d'automatisation etc., ou que M. Maurice Allais, à l'aide de minutieuses régressions statistiques faisait émerger une coupure en 1974 pour la critique positive voir la Note * et la Note ** de mon Livre III (5), on voit d'emblée que les évolutions sont complexes. Mais elles peuvent se résumer en termes de l'évolution de la productivité et de l'utilisation de la plus-value sociale Etat social dans le cadre du passage du Kennedy Round au Tokyo puis à l'Uruguay Round menant au libre-échange actuel et à la désastreuse définition de l'antidumping qui écarte toute référence aux droits acquis du travail même dans le sens minimum du BIT- ainsi qu'aux critères environnementaux. On déclenche ainsi un inexorable processus de laminage des salaires et des « revenus globaux nets » des ménages en fonction du moins-disant, ou seuil physiologique, à l'échelle globale. Le tout dans le cadre de la fin de Bretton Woods et le passage au régime des changes flottants menant à la pseudo New Economy et à l'hégémonie de la spéculation.

Ceci peut encore être résumé comme suit : dans le cadre de la pseudo-théorie de l'interdépendance asymétrique, sous-estimant l'organisation éducative de pays comme la Chine ainsi que les avantages d'une économie même minimalement planifiée, la délocalisation économique occidentale dans le cadre du libre-échange global met en scène des machines occidentales mettant en oeuvre des ouvriers aux salaires slovaques, chinois ou indiens. On sait qu'à la fin des années 1990 et dans les années 2000 la moitié des exportations chinoises étaient dues à des firmes américaines. Dans un tel contexte de libre-échange, de changes flottants et de structurations mondiales des entreprises, sans exclure les échanges intra-firmes, le calcul de la productivité réelle doit tenir compte de ces structures. Evidement, ceci était moins le cas avec la multinationalisation des firmes encore soumises aux tarifs nationaux des Dillon et Kennedy Rounds. Ici se niche le coeur de la globalisation friedmanienne de la fonction de production de Solow concevant l'équilibre atteint par la suppression des barrières à la mobilité du capital et surtout du travail, ce dernier ne menant à « un équilibre sur le fil du rasoir » qu'à son niveau physiologique (lui-même élastique vers le bas ainsi qu'il est misérablement démontré par la longévité moyenne d'environ 40 ans du demi-milliard de Dalits en Inde.)

Ceci veut dire que dans le meilleur des cas mettant en cause une augmentation de la productivité réelle, la norme qui s'impose de facto est celle mettant en cause durablement la meilleure composition organique, en bref, des machines outils allemandes et des travailleurs massivement qualifiés et disciplinés chinois. En attendant bien sûr que les Chinois produisent eux-mêmes de meilleures machines et de meilleures techniques, ce qui arrivent à grand pas puisque, depuis quelques années déjà, la Chine diplôment plus d'ingénieurs que les USA et déposent maintenant plus de brevets.

Du coup, avec une grande suffisance pour ne pas dire une sorte de racisme ou d'occidentalo-centrisme inconscient, nos dirigeant ineptes s'inventèrent une théorie de l'interdépendance asymétrique voir mes critiques adressées dès l'origine à Keohane et à la « Chair of intelligence » Joseph Nye. Ils sont aujourd'hui contraints de combattre des batailles d'arrière-garde, exactement comme le firent les féodaux vis-à-vis des capitalistes agricoles. Ils en ont surtout contre le « coût du travail » négligeant soigneusement le coût de production, dans leur tentative « retourner » à une société du nouvel esclavage et de la nouvelle domesticité. Au fond, ils partagent la même narration de base centrée sur la valeur ajoutée qui nourrit M. Harribey ; ils pensent encore gagner la bataille du libre-échange en démantelant tout, y compris au niveau local. Ils le font sans comprendre que les économies d'échelle ne sont pas la productivité bienqu'elles jouent néanmoins fatalement contre eux, vu la taille de certains pays rivaux. Ce processus délétère ira en s'aggravant surtout ils continuent à démanteler la « plus-value sociale » mise en oeuvre par leur timide Etat-Providence ou Etat social bourgeois.

Pour comble, ces dérèglementations et ces privatisations ruineuses sont couronnées par la privatisation des banques centrales dans le cadre d'un crédit spéculatif hégémonique qui détruit le crédit réel et l'économie réelle il s'agit de facto d'un « crédit sans collatéral » (6). Ce système assujettit également l'Etat par la dette et par la privatisation de ce qui reste des entreprises publiques à la logique des banques dites « primaires », donc du capital court-terme. Ce qui est encore aggravé par la prétention des couches de parasites du système bancaire et financier qui imposent leur protection étatique, donc sur le dos des contribuables, vis-à-vis de l'opération de la loi de la concurrence. Or, via les purges par le biais des faillites, cette dernière demeure néanmoins le seul mécanisme d'autocontrôle cybernétique du capitalisme. Autrement, il doit avoir recours à la guerre sur vaste échelle doctrine de la guerre préventive pour détruire les surplus, alternative risquée et passablement contre-productive à l'heure de la dissuasion et de la réinvention maoïste de la guérilla des peuples en arme. Ceci découle de leur prétention selon laquelle ces banques et ces entreprises sont « too big to fail », ruinant ainsi les Etats par des sauvetages récurrents, y compris par le biais des émissions de liquidités par la banque centrale, qui ne font que reporter les problèmes à des niveaux toujours plus élevés que rien, pas même une nouvelle ruine des Etats accompagnée par celle des déposants, ne pourra sauver.

Ajoutons ne serait-ce que de manière succincte un élément capital.

Ordinairement, la valeur d'échange se forme dans la Formation Sociale nationale ou multinationale. Une transnationalisation sans Etat est inconcevable ; on sait en outre que le soi-disant Etat minimum des néoconservateurs de tous poils, émules à des degrés divers de von Mises voir son livre Socialism , signifie uniquement que les interventions étatiques seront plus lourdes que par le passé mais exclusivement au bénéfice du capital. L'essentiel de la Reproduction voir les Equations de la RS-RE se fait dans cet espace. Les importations et exportations sont évaluées selon le taux de change qui enregistre la compétitivité de la FS.

Avec l'affirmation des multinationales ceci était quelque peu modifié par le commerce intra-firme et, déjà à l'époque, par l'optimisation fiscale voir Sovereignty at Bay, 1973 de Raymond Vernon. Mais ceci ne changeait pas la donne générale fournie pas le GATT. A l'heure du globalisme entériné par le libre-échange et les changes flottants, la situation se complique quelque peu. En effet, la productivité microéconomique est systématiquement organisée à l'échelle globale mais la relation dialectique entre productivité et compétitivité reste nationale ou régionale, malgré la destruction de la forme « plus-value sociale » incarnée par l'Etat providence.

Ainsi la plus-value sociale totalement dévoyée qui est mise en oeuvre par l'Etat néoliberal, et sa politique de l'offre, prend la forme d'énormes exonérations fiscales, visant l'élimination de tout ou partie des cotisations sociales, et celle de la sortie des barèmes de l'impôt pour les plus bas salaires, celle des gigantesques dépenses fiscales (tax expenditures ) etc., le tout sans aucune contrepartie pour le travail à l'exceptions de journées plus longues et de droits sociaux moindres, y compris le report de l'âge de la retraite.

D'ailleurs, le « coût du travail » est toujours comparé sur une base nationale-régionale et sa baisse est compensée par l'Etat. Cette logique qui se heurte déjà à sa limite naturelle puisque la fiscalité générale ne suit pas. Il s'agit ici d'un système d'assistance au patronat qui englouti des sommes bien plus vastes que les anciennes subventions directes mais qui passent sous le radar de l'actuelle définition de l'anti-dumping entérinée par l'OMC. Aussi la vision antithétique à l'Etat incarnée par l'idéologie néolibérale et sa « gouvernance globale privée » a ses limites. Sans l'intervention de l'Etat minimum néoliberal, y compris américain, les banques seraient ruinées et GM, Chrysler et autres auraient disparu de la carte. Comme quoi, il y a un abysse entre l'idéologie et la pratique. Bref, malgré toutes les médiations néolibérales, la valeur d'échange reste déterminée par la compétitivité de la FS, laquelle est à son tour dépendante de l'utilisation rationnelle c'est-à-dire sociale ou moins de la « plus-value sociale ».

Tout ceci reste en dehors de la porté de M. Harribey et des économistes atterrés auxquels il fut déjà dit amicalement qu'il ne suffisait pas d'être atterrés mais qu'il fallait encore rendre compte du paradigme utilisé, autrement dit arrêter de se raconter des histoires apprises vite dans des manuels bancals. (7)

Ceci nous mène donc à dire un mot supplémentaire sur le régime de spéculation hégémonique, ne serait-ce que pour faire ressortir de nouveau le galimatias de M. Harribey qui cette fois-ci n'hésite pas à manipuler une belle citation de Marx sur le sujet.

Nous avons vu que M. Harribey prétend discourir sur la loi de la valeur alors que manifestement il ne connaît rien aux formes d'extraction de la plus-value qui en constitue le coeur. De la même façon, il ne connait pas grand-chose à la théorie marxiste de la monnaie et du crédit. Il est incapable de faire la différence entre économie réelle et économie spéculative dans le sens marxiste simplement parce que sa théorie du profit comme d'ailleurs toutes les théories bourgeoises est incapable de différencier entre intérêt et profit d'une part et entre crédit spéculatif et crédit d'autre part. Du coup, il ne comprend pas les origines ni les conséquences du profit à court terme, et par conséquent du régime de spéculation hégémonique crédit de facto sans collatéral. Le processus de financiarisation actuel de l'économie lui est donc opaque, ce qui donne lieu à une couche supplémentaire de galimatias narratif.

Comme c'est le cas pour von Mises (8) la spéculation fait partie intégrante du capitalisme, et tant pis pour les formes historiques du mode de production capitaliste, c'est-à-dire ici pour les époques de redistribution. Il affirme : « Autrement dit, la financiarisation du capitalisme n'est pas la marque d'une dissociation de la sphère financière et de la sphère dite réelle, elle est au contraire l'expression du capital qui, à la fois, exclut d'un point de vue relatif le travail vivant du processus de production et se réfugie dans des processus de simple captation de la valeur : à l'échelle globale, c'est la quadrature du cercle. » (p 8)

Cette affirmation est extrêmement puérile et gratuite. Elle confond apparence et réalité. Comme nous l'avons déjà dit on ignore ici les formes dominantes du crédit capitaliste selon les époques. Surtout, la spéculation semble être une expression normale du capitalisme qui ne marque pas une fatale dissociation entre économie spéculative et économie réelle. Or, ceci est tout simplement faux. Le crédit avant la privatisation de la banque centrale (en 73 en France) et avant la contreréforme volckérienne-reaganienne (79-81) et plus encore avant l'abrogation du Glass Steagall Act (1999) n'est pas le même crédit qui prévaudra après ces étapes. Or, il importe d'en saisir la différence. Symboliquement aujourd'hui la Maison Morgan la banque a gagné sur H. Ford. (9). La part, en réalité ruineuse, du secteur bancaire et financier dans le PIB marginaliste croît en détruisant emplois et Etats. Le court-terme joue contre les investissements productifs, y compris dans les infrastructures. Bref, l'intérêt étant une part du profit, l'inverse étant impossible, l'intérêt spéculatif phagocyte une part toujours croissante du profit.

On en a une illustration immédiate avec la conjonction des OPA et autres opérations du genre, menées par les investisseurs et en particulier les equity funds, allant de pair avec des ROE insoutenables qui donnent par conséquent lieu à des restructurations aux forceps, uniquement pour satisfaire l'envie de dividendes rapides des actionnaires. Il faut donc cesser de jouer sur les mots et le sens des phrases : la logique du capitalisme le mène à être son propre fossoyeur à son corps défendant. Pour éviter l'issue fatale, il tente une course vers l'avant lorsque ses « esprits animaux » ne sont pas bridés par la lutte de classe et/ou par l'Etat, ce qui implique ici le passage suicidaire du crédit capitaliste classique, fondé sur la ségrégation fonctionnelle du secteur bancaire et financier, au crédit spéculatif hégémonique.

Ceci dit, sa confusion entre économie réelle et économie spéculative tient simplement au fait que son espace mental est marginaliste. On sait que le marginalisme est ontologiquement et méthodologiquement incapable de faire une quelconque différence entre ces deux sphères distinctes quoique non opposées. Tout au plus le manuel ajoutera un chapitre sur la monnaie et un autre sur l'histoire monétaire en tentant d'ignorer jusqu'à l'histoire de la spéculation fournie par John Galbraith. Il se trouve que dans le cadre du crédit capitaliste classique, les contradictions existaient déjà, mais elles étaient en partie prises en charge par la médiatisation exercée par l'action d'autorégulation capitaliste, à savoir les faillites qui opéraient comme une purge salutaire des excès du système. Ce mécanisme n'existe plus depuis 2007-2008 avec l'invention du « crédit sans collatéral », c'est-à-dire très précisément l'adoption d'un ratio prudentiel à seule fin comptable interne, qui néglige d'ailleurs l'énorme shadow banking, et une banque centrale jouant le rôle de ratio prudentiel de facto avec ses sauvetages et ses émissions de liquidités sur demande à cycles récurrents, d'ailleurs de plus en plus rapprochés.

Il reste qu'en dehors des épiphénomènes capitalistes et de ses narrations, il existe bien une différence essentielle entre économie réelle et économie spéculative. Cette différence n'apparaît dans aucune version de l'équilibre général bourgeois qui n'est jamais qu'une version de la « main invisible » avec tous ses problèmes de cohérence ex ante/post hoc. L'économie réelle est très exactement définie en termes de valeur d'échange par les Equations de la Reproduction Simple et Elargie et par le rôle que le crédit nécessaire mais non spéculatif y joue selon sa forme spécifique pour une époque donnée, y compris dans le cadre du mode de production capitaliste. Ce qui est démontrée dans mon Précis d'économie politique marxiste. On peut alors appréhender scientifiquement la genèse et la forme des crises auxquelles le capitalisme est confronté à un moment précis et même prévoir les médiations auxquelles il peut faire appel pour pallier les crises en bien ou en mal. Les divers QE actuels représentant une des formes les plus erronées et les plus nocives qui soient.

On peut alors admirer l'incompréhension risible dont est capable M. Harribey lorsqu'il se met en devoir de manipuler, en sens marginaliste spéculation normale , une citation exemplaire de Marx, c'est-à-dire justement du théoricien qui donna la première analyse scientifique de l'évolution monétaire du capitaliste et des formes du crédit. Ces dernières permirent ensuite à Hilferding et surtout à Lénine de corriger Hobson dans leurs analyses de la phase impérialiste. C'est aussi en poursuivant ce travail qu'il me fut possible de théoriser le « crédit sans collatéral » qui marque l'époque de redistribution actuelle ouverte par l'abrogation du Glass Steagall Act et définitivement entérinée par la gestion de la crise des subprime par le Treasury Secretary Paulson. Voici la dernière partie de cette belle citation de Marx :

« Cette faculté de l'argent ou de la marchandise de faire valoir sa propre valeur, indépendamment de la reproduction, voilà la mystification du capital sous sa forme la plus flagrante. Pour la théorie vulgaire, qui cherche à présenter le capital comme une source autonome de la valeur, cette forme est malheureusement une aubaine : on n'y reconnaît plus la source du profit, et le résultat du processus capitaliste séparé du processus lui-même y acquiert une existence indépendante. » (pp 8,9)

Bien comprise, cette citation de Marx contient la critique anticipée de la spéculation hégémonique actuelle, avec les illusions de la New Economy et de l'économie dématérialisée prétendant s'abstraire des contradictions intimes du capital. M. Harribey lui n'y voit que du feu.

Noter que M. Harribey ne voit que le circuit A-A' sans prêter attention à la formulation de Marx qui parle de « mystification », de « théorie vulgaire» et qui surtout souligne « indépendamment de la reproduction », reproduction dans son sens paramétrique qu'il a analysée en donnant les Equations de la RS-RE dans le Livre II, Equations par moi reprises et élucidées pour la Reproduction Elargie avec une productivité variable et avec l'introduction du crédit. Eviscérer Marx de manière marginaliste voilà la contribution de M. Harribey ici aussi ! Nous l'avons dit, c'est une question de forma mentis.

Double conclusion. Premièrement, ainsi que je l'ai expliqué dans un courriel adressé à ces économistes, il ne suffit pas d'être atterré, il faut encore rendre compte de son paradigme, de la cohérence de sa pensée et de l'adéquation aux faits. Deuxièmement, comme il ressort également du galimatias de M. Harribey, en prétendant contre la déontologie, ignorer, voire occulter, mes contributions économiques majeures, on atteint un seul résultat palpable : on se rend ridicule. Pour certains en toute connaissance de cause, donc vénalement.

Paul De Marco

1) M. Harribey écrit : « Déjà, au cours de la décennie 1990, l'économiste américain Robert Solow avait noté ironiquement qu'« on voit l'ère des ordinateurs partout sauf dans les statistiques de productivité » » (p 3) Un bon point pour Solow ! Pour ma part, depuis de très nombreuses années, je critique la notion de productivité des marginalistes et je fustige les illusions de l'économie dite « intangible » ainsi que de la New Economy aux impossibles P/E ratios. J'ai souvent donné l'exemple du remplacement des machines à écrire électroniques Olivetti par un PC, remplacement qui dans la majorité des cas ne pouvait pas augmenter la productivité de beaucoup ni, paradoxalement, réduire la paperasse. Notons également que le PC fut originellement conçu par Olivetti mais honteusement mais typiquement cédé aux Américains pour quelques centaines de millions … J'avais également souligné le fait que ces nouveaux secteurs, contrairement aux secteurs intermédiaires généralisés après la seconde guerre mondiale, étaient plus intensifs en capital, libérant la force de travail sans effet de « déversement » intersectoriel, augmentant ainsi le chômage, du moins sans recourir à la RTT.

2) Voir mon « Défi aux écologistes, Giec et à tous les apôtres du réchauffement climatique » (14 juin 2007), Section Commentaires d'actualité dans http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/. Pour la stratégie de la peur sous-jacente on se reportera au chapitre sur l'écologie du Report from the Iron Moutain qui constitue également l'inspiration vraie du Club de Rome et de ses quelques peu loufoques progressions géométriques à nénufars d'ailleurs immédiatement remises en cause par Cambridge à l'époque. Pour les fondements de ma théorie de l'écomarxisme, qui implique la résolution du problème de la rente, on se reportera à l'Introduction et à l'Appendice de mon Livre-Book III dans Download Now dans la section Livres-Books de ce site.

3) « Entre 1982, année du « tournant de la rigueur » effectué par la gauche alors au pouvoir, et 2010, la part des salaires (net et cotisations sociales) dans la richesse produite chaque année en France la valeur ajoutée a reculé de huit points.» dans http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2012/11/JAKSE/48338. Voir aussi : «Le cas français ne fait pas exception comme le montre le tableau 1 suivant. Selon les dernières séries de l'Insee, la part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée des entreprises est de 65,8 % en 2006 contre 74,2 % en 1982, soit un recul de 8,4 points. Selon la Commission européenne, la part des salaires dans l'ensemble de l'économie est passée de 66,5 % en 1982 à 57,2 % en 2006, soit une baisse de 9,3 points. » http://hussonet.free.fr/parvabis.pdf , p 2. En Belgique la part des salaires dans le revenu disponible est passée de 62 % à 41 % de 1981 à 2002 voir http://frerealbert.be/antisocial/salaires/transfert-de-revenus-vers-le-capital-147000-par-travailleur-sur-dix-ans/

4) Pour les deux articles essentiels de Christian Palloix et de Arghiri Emmanuel se reporter à L'Homme et la sociét9, No 18, 1970, « A propos de l'échange inégal ». Le premier en Occident à avoir soulevé le problème de la transformation de manière scientifique, en donnant tous les éléments du problème, fut Paul Sweezy. Il demanda également à Einstein de résoudre le problème ; ce dernier le fit sans résultat mais en démontrant une compréhension de la loi de la valeur bien plus correcte que celle de nombre de marxistes nominaux ou de marginalistes repeints en socialistes, voir : http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ .

5) Voir Keynésianisme, marxisme, rigueur économique et croissance, 2005, section Livres-Books de ce site.

6) Voir « Credit without collateral » et «The Fed and the Treasury » dans la section Economie Politique Internationale de ce site. Mon essai « Les conséquences socio-économiques de MM. Volcker-Reagan et Cie » (mars 1985) analyse l'émergence de la contre-réforme néoconservatrice dont la conclusion du cycle aboutit à la naissance d'un autre cycle caractérisé par l'hégémonie légale du capital spéculatif entérinée avec l'abolition du Glass Steagall Act en 1999. La crise des subprime, entrainant l'envolée suicidaire de l'endettement des Etats pour sauver les banques privées, en dévoile toutes les contradictions.

7) Voir le lien cité en exergue ainsi que Hi-han: les âneries visuelles hallucinatoires des économistes bourgeois, qui donnent la critique définitive du marginalisme. Ces économistes en sont arrivés à croire en leurs propres narrations malgré l'avertissement de leur maître Nietzsche. Dans son Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, ce dernier utilisait ce braiment caractéristique pour les avertir du danger qui guète tous les falsificateurs idéologiques ou théocratiques.

8) Concernant la conception de la spéculation hégémonique due à von Mises, je renvoie à mon essai, « Le socialisme marginaliste ou comment s'enchaîner soi-même dans la caverne capitaliste », dans lequel j'en ai expliqué la genèse historique. De fait, la défense de la spéculation pour la justesse de son « système des prix » est la base de la pensée défensive de von Mises. Voici ce que dit Von Mises dans son livre Socialism (p 144) http://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis :

« In the majority of cases in which it is usually assumed that there is a contrast between profitability and productivity no such contrast exists. This is true, for example, of profits from speculation. Speculation in the capitalist system performs a function which must be performed in any economic system however organised: it provides for the adjustment of supply and demand over time and space. The source of the profit of speculation is enhanced value which is independent of any particular form of economic organization. » (…) « The point which concerns us here is that the alleged contrast between profitability and productivity does not exist in this case. Speculation performs an economic service which cannot conceivably be eliminated from any economic system. »

9) Pour ce qui est de l'industriel H. Ford, sa position est exposée dans : https://archive.org/details/TheInternationalJewTheWorldsForemostProblemhenryFord1920s

XXX

THE FED DILEMMA, or how the Marginalists are now trapped into their own shameful narrative.

By Paul De Marco, former professor of International Political Economy and author of the « Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy » freely accessible in the Livres-Books Section of www.la-commune-paraclet.com . See also « Credit without collateral » (March 20, 2008), « The Treasury and the FED » (April 1st, 2008) in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/EPIFrame1Source1.htm#epi

CONTENTS:

A) The FED, growth viz inflation and employment (Oct. 3, 2015)

Addendum Oct. 5, 2005. See: Peter Schiff: The Fed Has Created A "Bad Is Good" Economy 10/05/2015 21:30 -0400, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-05/peter-schiff-fed-has-created-bad-good-economy

B) Sept. 26, 2015. RE : Yellen's speech Sept 24, 2015, Massachusetts.

C) Competition and classical liberalism versus philo-Semite neo-corporative Fascism. September 24, 2015

D) Stocks and bonds synchronisation or how the FED lost the upper hand. September 22, 2015.

E) Epilogue: « helicopter money » or nationalized credit and central banks?

A) Oct. 3, 2015. The Fed, economic growth (viz inflation) and employment.

See: « Brusque accès de faiblesse du marché de lemploi aux États-Unis » Le Monde.fr | 02.10.2015 à 16h52 • Mis à jour le 02.10.2015 à 17h12 | Par Stéphane Lauer (New York, correspondant) http://www.lemonde.fr/economie-mondiale/article/2015/10/02/brusque-acces-de-faiblesse-du-marche-de-l-emploi-aux-etats-unis_4781581_1656941.html (Quote: « One cannot yet speak of a trend yet for the second consecutive month the American labor market caused a deep deception. While the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1% , the American economy created only 142 000 jobs in September according to the numbers published on October 2d by the department of labor. Meanwhile, the numbers for the month of August were revised downwards to 136 000 far from the none to satisfying 173 000 announced earlier » (translation mine)

Comment : One might recall that post-World War II full-employment level was estimated at 2% or 3 % at most, given labor mobility and seasonal jobs. Since the late 70s and even worse since the early 80s, full-employment has always been redefined according to needs by the Marginalist, Monetarist crews. The same goes for the FED given that its mandate includes full-employment as well as economic growth and the management of the market psychology. Today the OECD estimates that unemployment level at 12 or 13 % constitutes full-employment in the EU. And yet this only takes into account unemployment according to the ILO which underestimates the real numbers by more than half without taking into consideration the actual active force and the poverty level caused by the generalized neoliberal precariousness. (a) Nor does it take into account the existing overstaffing in individual enterprises to mitigate the effects of conjuncture and of the trade cycles upon their existing working pools.

This loose definition provides a large margin for the FED above and beyond its ordinary methods which consist in making total abstraction of all the categories of unemployed neatly excluded from the active labor force or forced into precarious under-employment. The real number of unemployed and drastically under-employed is closer to 23 % and over, and the active labor force is at its lowest since the last 30 years hovering around 63 %, which looks like a disastrous Italian level! (b)

One may recall that the FED is a private institution with some sort of public capitalist mandate. It naturally serves the interests of its patrons-clients, namely the private banks and more precisely the greatest 4 New-York banks. And this is exactly why Janet Yellen insists on « inflation » (c) and more specifically on what she calls « anchored inflation », to wit, in the current context, the possible effect of a rise in oil prices and other raw materials etc.

The effects expected by the late drop of the price of the oil barrel did not produce the desired consequences, neither on Russia nor elsewhere, at least not yet. (The exception might be Venezuela given that Maduro seems prisoner of the wrong fraction of the army ...) The productivity gains induced by the drop seem to have favored Germany and China more than anyone else. The American shale oil and gas patch is hurting badly and so does Saudi Arabia which is now obliged to tap into its reserves to equilibrate its budget. (d) This sends us back to purely political and strategic decision-making. No doubt there will be lots of terminological confusion because these people have never learned to conciliate monetary and fiscal policies, being happy to ideologically confuse both. (e) Rational monetary policies have given way to a speculative voodoo Monetarist economics.

You will note the subtle change in the FED's late public pronouncements. The emphasis has shifted away from employment to « growth », that is, speculative and fictitious economic growth. This explains the focus on inflation, simply because so-called « deflation » induces a negative economic spiral and makes growth numbers look bad. At the same time, it poisons the Monetarist Chicago Boys' fiscal consolidation path in a more lethal fashion than the supposed « error » noted by Olivier Blanchard.

So what could or will the FED do? Do not see any irony here, what is written below being just a possible avenue within the Monetarists' Black Box. In fact, it is one that has been silently used before as you well know (f). Simply said, the FED still holds a quasi-miraculous Monetarist remedy in its hands: it could simply begin recalculating M3 and include some derivatives into the consumers' basket. The richest 0,1 % versus the lowest 3 or 4 deciles? With the Marginalist-Monetarist crews averages do make wonders. Inflation and nominal Monetarist growth could thus be brought to the level desired and the FED could then happily apply the brakes to exorcise the bad trends it foresees before they get out of hands. After all this is a world in which narratives feed other narratives as need arises.

Of course, the other alternative is to shed the narratives away and go back to a scientific political economy. But that would require a transformation of both the Fed, academia and society. Today, the return to science in the discipline within academia is the less likely.

Paul De Marco

NOTES:

a) On the real unemployment statistics see the Note ** in my book Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth (2005). Since then many have come to understand the strong bias in official statistics without acknowledging my contribution. Such is academic deontology these days! I had discussed the problem in March 1985 in my « Les conséquences socio-économiques de Volcker, Reagan et Cie » and again in the essays contained in my « Tous ensemble » (2002). The books are freely accessible in the Livres-Books section of www.la-commune-paraclet.com; the essay will be found the the International Political Economy section of the same site. b) I explained in my Tous ensemble and again elsewhere, for instance in the aforementioned 2005 book, that one cannot talk about inflation generically. Marginalists know precisely nothing on the subject. Their a-scientific paradigm cannot distinguish between exchange value and use value nor between interest and profit - the first being contained in the second but not vice-versa -, nor can they distinguish between real and speculative economy. You might remember that Bernanke launched his liquidity program with the hope of creating hyperinflation so as to shift the debt burden to American creditors and particularly to the Chinese and Japanese. Instead, he created the conditions for the ensuing « credit crunch » but probably never felt compelled to revise his PhD work! He is not alone. I have underlined the fact that money is not part of the Marginalist economic thinking, except as an afterthought. Similarly, since the social-fascist Austrian-Jew von Mises, who incredibly never changed his political-ideological stand even after the end of the Second World War, speculation is considered as capitalism at its best, an obvious ineptitude, pace John Galbraith ! This ineptitude later gave rise to the grotesque « efficient market » pseudo-theory. Similarly, Irving Fisher destroyed the essential distinction between constant or fixed capital and circulating capital, wrongly fusing both into his half-backed concept of « income stream ». Hence his theories always make abstraction of money - and inflation. Which explains why, in order to maintain an empirical grasp on reality, he laboriously contributed what later informed the Marginalist capitalist accounting methods based on a Marginalist view of purchasing power. This later informed the national accounting methods leading to such useless Marginalist indicators as the GDP. Note that Fisher, a disciple of Böhm-Bawerk, was almost always wrong with his predictions, for instance on the Great Depression or again on the Recession within the Depression of 1937, and he ended up ruined. He later proposed his 100% money reform, which, at least in my view, refutes all his previous work.

b) On alternate inflation statistics see http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts ; on alternate unemployment charts you might want to look at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts .

c) I had argued that a possible alternative for the Fed and the US government might have been to pump up the main interest rates to provoke a reverse carry trade. This would need to be done in tandem with currency swaps and other agreements with other governments in order to avoid sending weaker emerging countries to the floor. Meanwhile, fiscal measures penalizing short-term speculative investments would be taken to canalise the repatriated money into productive investments. This would discourage purely speculative repatriation. Today most of the biggest US firms do not even calculate their P/E ratios, no more than the FED calculates its old M3 aggregate. They are floated with mountains of cash in the midst of a sever and enduring « credit crunch » and they dilapidate them in useless buybacks, keeping the work force, hence the greatest part, which amounts to around 70 % of internal demand, in financial limbos. What is loosely called « deflation » is a clear-cut effect of endemic over-production going hand in hand with under-consumption. However, the Monetarists have cancelled rational fiscal policies in favor of a reactionary so-called « public policy » relying only on speculative monetary levers securely placed in the hand of the de facto private Central Banks. It is a shame since the only post-2008 real bout of economic growth was due to the Federal stimulus plan most particularly as it affected, infrastructures such as roads, bridges etc., as well as public welfare and educational programs.

Note that the whole discussion around the effects of the Federal Government Stimulus plan, that is to say the effects of the « multiplicator of Kahn » is vitiated by a characteristic confusion. I have argued since at least 1985 that the extroversion of the National Social Formations destroyed the internal logic of Keynesianism. Passing from GATT to the Uruguay Round and then to hemispheric and global free-trade deals as sanctioned by the Monetarist anti-dumping definition adopted by the WTO was the last stroke that broke the camels back. Hence one needs to be very careful to distinguish sectoral multiplicators and the generic « multiplicator ». The latter is almost meaningless in the present context though it informs the reasoning of the austerity crews. When sectors are not extroverted or only partially so education, health-care, roads and bridges etc the multiplicator is very important and hovers around 3 or 4. This demolishes the generic argument of the Monetarist fiscal policy and their suicidal horse recipes of cutting governmental spending whatever it is. The debate is usually carried on without clarifying this confusion. See for instance the articles in http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html ; see also http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/49105d0e-c67f-11e4-959d-74804f4bcbe7/La_bonne_et_la_mauvaise_austérité (these links were quoted by Jean-Charles on G. Ugeux site on March 11, 2013). See also: La commission européenne de plus en plus keynésienne ! (Crédits : Reuters) Ivan Best | 05/03/2015, 10:02 - 1396 mots http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/union-europeenne/20150304tribcdbd1e118/la-commission-europeenne-de-plus-en-plus-keynesienne.html.

The authors of the book Austerity kills see my critique in the Book Reviews section of this site correctly insists on sectoral multiplicators.

Note that the forms of extraction of surplus value, hence of profit, change with the historically dominant mode of production. With the slavery and feudal modes the hegemonic form of extraction was absolute value i.e. based on duration of work mutatis mutandis; conjonctural intensity played a role too but never as a standardized norm. Capitalism made productivity the hegemonic form. Post-Capitalist modes will insist on what I called, following Marxs Critique of the Program of Gotha, «social surplus value ». This is important since rational public spending is the concrete form taken by « social surplus value ». This is because this macro-economic spending enhances microeconomic productivity thus lifting the main contradictions faced by capitalism. Cutting government spending, particularly education, social security and infrastructures, lowers social demand and destroys the positive effect on micro-economic productivity. The case of GM driven to bankruptcy because it could not afford to finance its in-house pension scheme provides a neat illustration. And so does private versus public health-care spending.

However, Marginalism and its Marginalist GDP occult this in the most deadly manner possible. Indeed, the European public and universally accessible health-care sector worked at its best in the late 60s and early 70s and it did only cost around 9 % of GDP then. Today the privatisation of this public sector will soon cause the waste of 16 % of GDP as the EU emulates the neoliberal « model ». Paradoxically, this will translate into a fallacious increase in GDP paralleled by a deadly lowering of national-wide productivity simply because labor power will be less healthy. Enormous social costs will be added as workers will be thrown into poverty for « no cause of their own». The same argument is valid for pension schemes, education, infrastructures, i.e. all those sectors which benefit from national or supranational mutualisation of costs and which embody the beneficial macro and micro-economic « social surplus value. » The conclusion is that Monetarist public policy is like the piper who mesmerises his audience driving it to the river to drawn.

In my « Appeal » see http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/appeal/ - I argued that globalism is now a fact, so that economic coherence demands a new anti-dumping definition that can reconcile economic coherence, full-employment and globalism as well as the nationalisation of at least a part of credit, most particularly that connected to the financing of the public debt and of state enterprises.

d) See: We just got the first significant sign Saudi Arabia is hurting for cash, Lianna Brinded, Sep. 28, 2015, 10:46 AM http://uk.businessinsider.com/oil-prices-2015-saudi-arabia-hit-hard-and-withdraws-cash-from-funds-2015-9 ; see also: Saudi Arabia budget insulated from effects of lower oil prices, February 12, 2015, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19971

Comment: Peter Schiff is good on job numbers and on the de facto lower average workweek. He is alert to the diminished importance granted to the manufacturing sector in the prevailing Monetarists' thinking such as materialized for instance in the FEDs definition of GDP. Now although he comically qualifies Janet Yellen as a left-winger, he is right in noting that the FED, Wall Street and others are all confused, as expected. In truth, despite the lesson imparted to the putative narrative high priests and masters of the Earth in « Thus spoke Zarathustra » - hi-ha!, was the alarm sound - these people have come into believing their own falsifying anti-scientific narratives ...

In the short run, the FED has no margins and no real alternatives, at least inside its own paradigm. But I believe that the US and the global upper financial levels have understood that they need to change gear, they need to shift away from the disastrous recurrent QEs induced « credit crunch ». This crunch is the consequence of their public debt pump-priming conveying belt. Although they shy away from legislating the emergence of the huge shadow banking sector, they are blindly striving for ways to disconnect speculative economy and State finance, if for no other reasons than because a second bailout of the post-2007/2008 magnitude is strictly unthinkable. They know darn well that bail-in are economically no more than short term puerile gimmicks while being politically dangerous. Yet, aside from their ludicrous « helicopter money » or ABS and direct buying of bonds and shares on the secondary markets, they have no real clue about what needs to be done. Yet, this experiment, as carried out in GB, is but a resounding failure. It is even worse than the late Modigliani's 6 % to 7 % engineered inflation level ...

The only positive note is that, as announced in my work long time ago, the Marginalist/Monetarist paradigm has become the greatest gravedigger of capitalism in its hegemonic speculative form and, let us hope, probably also in its generic form.

Paul De Marco.

B) Sept. 26, 2015. RE : Yellen's speech Sept. 24, 2015, Massachusetts

See: Chair Janet L Yellen

At the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amhearst, Massachusetts

September 24, 2015 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm

Comment : Reading Janet L Yellens speech, we easily concur with her view that Volker, and others after him, succeeded in lowering inflation, so that now there is no real wage pressure causing inflation. We differ however on the causation chain. Clearly, the lowering of so-called « inflation » was caused by the coercive suppression of the Cola Clause and by the ensuing low wages and workfare policies, complete with precarious employment, especially lower-end services jobs, involuntary part-time etc. The FED chief believes that « inflation » caused externally is transient. She thus concludes that « inflation is well anchored » business expectations are clearer. Yet, she does not explain why it is now near zero despite QEs and other liquidity programs. She attributes this wrongly to transient factors.

We should insist again on the groundless Marginalist concept of « inflation ». In reality, we are faced with an acute contradiction between overproduction and under-consumption or wage deflation, if you will. Here lies the main cause of the lower « structural inflation B, i.e. the type of inflation measured by the difference between the real and social salary masses , and thus that of the induced downward economic spiral. (There are many other types of inflation, including the financial speculative bubbles, the latter been neatly taken off the picture. As we know the FED does not calculate the monetary aggregate M3 any longer. For a scientific treatment of inflations see my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy, in the Livres-Books section of this site.)

So why does the FED chief thinks inflation will rise soon and actions need to be taken to avoid an upward trend? Simply put, it seems that the US Establishment is re-evaluating the miscalculation it made together with Saudi Arabia concerning oil prices. And that policy could now be reversed if only because Saudi Arabia is now suffering more than Russia , and because the shale oil and gas industry in the US suffers and would continue doing so under a $ 80-85 dollars a barrel. For the rest, the FED was pre-empted by Chinas and Mario Draghis preventive moves, which led to a de facto relative rise.

So this is the long and short about it. In reality, it is all about serving private banksneeds. After all the FED is the private central bank of private banks, albeit it is endowed with some public regulation functions, i.e. its mandate. Note that this mandate massaging market psychology, aiming at full-employment however defined and controlling prices - is itself Marginalist-wrong. Basically, you cannot achieve full-employment only with monetary measures. Yet, this is what the Monetarist creed and its regressive public policy are all about. Essential economic and fiscal policies smack of State intervention and that is supposed to be « bad » if not « sinful ».

It does not amount to much, but then allies and foes will need to stay alert as to the strategic political decisions taken, particularly concerning oil and raw material prices. Note also that, as was predicted by me, the lowering of oil prices i.e. an important element of the cost of production could not have helped the US or Europe much because the impact was the same for all nations and their relative real productivity rates would do the rest. In other words, it was Germany that benefitted most in fact, according to 2013 numbers, it would remains competitive with a euro worth US $1,53 as opposed to France at $ 1,23 and Italy at $1,17 more or less and Greece at 1,07 !!! (see : Leuro est trop fort pour léconomie française, pas pour lallemande, La Voix du Nord, Publié le 07/02/2013 - Mis à jour le 07/02/2013 à 17:35 http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/france-monde/l-euro-est-trop-fort-pour-l-economie-francaise-pas-ia0b0n1015941

We need to deconstruct the whole chain : the CAPE definition; the output gap silly tautology which adds to the non-theoretical and tautological Marginalist/Fisherian understanding of money and money circulation; the wrong assumption about growth, most particularly, in a speculatively driven assumption. Etc. In short, this analysis does not have much to do with economic processes. It is but an infantile Marginalist narrative which ultimately rests on the US attempts to flex its muscles to counter its inevitable demise as the sole superpower and failing to do so. Hence, it tried to manipulate the price of oil just because oil and most raw materials are still largely denominated in US dollars. The truth is that the Fed has lost control over the global financial, monetary and economic order. This is the inexorable conclusion that needs to be drawn.

xxx

In fact, we should underline a painful fact: these people have come to take their own narratives for science despite Nietzsches warning hi-ha! in Thus spoke Zarathustra. The narratives are no longer solely intended for the masses. The function of the Nobel prizes has always been to bring these Marginalist « kitchen recipes » up to date in order to maintain some kind of plausibility. To preserve a connection with reality the plausible narratives still need to be empirically operationalised. This is intended to provide the capitalists some handles to run their businesses; similarly the capitalist State needs some empirical tools to be able to run its own affairs, the general interests thus served being subordinated to moneyed interests. Hence the contributions by Fisher, Hicks et al., in the accounting fields.

In particular, Fisher, the worthy disciple of Böhm-Bawerk, boldly reformulated the main bourgeois economic beliefs subsuming everything into his fallacious concept of « income stream ». This completed J. B. Says initial project to use the « paper currency » aspect of capitalism to get away from classical political economy and its inextricable entanglement with the essential duality of any commodity, namely its exchange and its use values, this duality being a reflection of the distinction between fixed and circulating capitals, hence that between real and speculative economy. As we know, the English-Jew Ricardo, the trader who emulated Rothschild and later married an Englishwomen in order to enter Westminster Parliament and best serve him in the guise of a legislator, had developed the « paper currency » concept in the framework of Rothschilds manipulation of the Napoleonic wars. The ultimate aim, manifested by the manipulation of news concerning the battle of Waterloo, was to enslave the British Kingdom to his own financial power. He succeeded.

This shift from value to one-sided and subjective hence hardly measurable except in a circular mode - « marginal utility » had another advantage that Fisher understood most clearly. Hiding the value duality amounts to the falsifying willingness to eliminate its embodiment in the labor power; it thus amounts to occulting the theory of labor exploitation which inexorably follows from classical political economy. Adam Smith, the Father of classical political economy had disdainfully noted: They ( the capitalists ) love to reap where they never sowed.(Adam Smith, Sutherland ed., 1993, p 47) If labor is the sole creator of new exchange values to be sold on the market, Smith was at a loss to explain the genesis of profit and the huge discrepancy between the retribution of the workers and that of the owners. Of course, it was left to Marx to solve this puzzle.

Fishers « Income streams » neatly transform the workers who only have their own labor power to sell in the image of the speculative capitalist only concerned with investment choices and time preferences! Yet, amusingly Fisher had to develop his main concept in the absence of money and monetary effects such as inflation. Introducing money organically would have destroyed his demonstrations just because every variables would then fluctuate simultaneously in a blissful circular fashion. Of course, dealing with this problem borrowing Tugan-Baranovskys simultaneous resolution of a set of equations only begs the question. (In my books I demonstrated how Tugan-Baranosvky and Bortkiewics resorted to this fallacious use of quadratics to « solve » the fallacious problem of transformation of values into prices of production, a problem cooked up by Böhm-Bawerk but one which has nothing to do any longer with Marx. Yet, until my clarification everyone except my old Bolshevik comrades took Böhm-Bawerks conscious falsification seriously, especially in the academic world!)

This plagued Fisher during all his life, until his beliefs brought him to his own ruin (in 29 just before the Great Crash he thought everything was well and dundee; just before the Recession in the Great Depression in 1937, he was very optimistic; eventually, his financial ruin led him to formulate his 100 % money theory, which in fact refutes most of his earlier theories.) His obsession with indexing methods and purchasing power tells us that he knew exactly where the Achillesheels of his formalized narrative were. His theory of money is even worse and boils down to a puerile tautology. (a) To understand it you only need to compare his circulation of money to the Marxist quantitative theory of money which I demonstrated insisting on real and social salary masses and on their rotations. Of course, Fisherian circulation and price level wont give you any scientific understanding of monetary aggregates. Today, we all have the proof of this assertion under our eyes especially as the FED worries about « inflation » while it stopped calculating M3 just as it fell into the addictive trap of its own recurrent QEs and other liquidity programs.

Now taking their own narratives seriously, the post-Keynesian mainstream economists have come to built narratives upon narratives. This is not only silly , it is suicidal. Any pretense to plausibility is lost. As we said earlier, they do so on the basis of Irving Fishers falsification, i.e. everything salary, profit, investment etc is deemed to be an income stream. When you do this you irremediably loose contact with the real economy, that is to say with the fixed investment and the technology organically tied to it through the law of productivity. Using economies of scale with income streams does not give you any handle on what is happening.

As said before, Fisher and Hicks, who remain responsible for laying the ground for what came to be called « bastard Keynesianism », had to built their theories making abstraction of money hence inflation, deflation etc. Fisher tried to remedy this with his silly tautology which still informs all the economists around , namely the money mass, a price expression, is equated to prices through circulation. More stupid than this you probably die of bliss.

Now check Janet Yellens reasoning and you will see this falsification at work. Given that you do not have a good theory of money, you cannot really evaluate speculation i.e. the relationship between the real economy and speculation -, nor can you handle inflation. Similarly, you cannot handle productivity and its effect on growth and unemployment. In fact, Fisher shared with the Fascist Austrian-Jew von Mises one who never repudiated his beliefs the theory according to which speculation brings you closer to true prices, what was later developed into the silly, fallacious and now empirically disproved narratives known as « efficient markets ». This becomes a deadly setting as soon as speculation becomes hegemonic, a process started in 1979-1982 and completed with the abrogation of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999. With it ushered the era of « credit without collateral B, namely the de facto ending of the banksprudential ratios, whose function was to attempt tying the creation of credit to economic growth, and their de facto substitution by the willingness of the Central banks to create ex nihilo money « as much as needed » as was most ineptly trumpeted ! Plainly this destroys the capitalist logic embodied by competition which now and then purges the system of its excesses and lays down the way for a new and more productive cycle through acquisitions and fusions, in Marxist parlance through the centralisation and concentration of capital.

Hence, Yellen will say that inflation is a problem when it goes over 2 % because it interferes with the « income stream » calculation through expectations. Indexing for instance the Cola clause aside, this is plainly ridiculous see in my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy the crucial difference between the real salary mass and the social salary mass to get the point. Why 2 %? No one really knows. It seems that this threshold was borrowed from the compromise leading to the corresponding Maastricht criteria fixed at 3 %. This was de facto lowered to 2 % by the EU dealing with Italy with the pretext that it needed to lower its greater debt/GDP ratio at a more rapid pace. My protestations were ignored. This was disastrous but nonetheless it became the core of what came to be known as the fiscal consolidation path. No doubt this was because this added pressure on the Italian budget accelerated the liberalisation movement and the privatisation of Italian national firms. This logic eventually led to the European Memorandum imposed on Greece making it the object of a new externalised Treuhand. The proceeds from forced Greek privatisation go into a Fund in exchange for the new European so-called « aid » plan!

This gets worse with the fallacious regulation of the capitalist Central Bank and its useless monetary aggregates. These are not only wrong they are economically devastating as demonstrated by the fact that today the FED ceased calculating the aggregate M3 even though all assets are bubbling out of control. « Structural inflation », for instance, is the resultant of the difference between the real and the social salary masses, the last including the money weight of the Reserve Army of the proletariat, namely the social price paid for unemployment. The monetary aggregate M1 vaguely approaches this. If we were to make abstraction of external factors, with full-employment exchange value would be equal to price. It follows that you can eliminate structural inflation be destroying most of the social benefits going to the inactive force. But in doing so you create a systemically induced poverty, if only because rising real productivity continues to liberate manpower. However, this « freed » labor force will not be automatically absorbed by the economic system, not even if wages fall to the extreme of poverty. This process was described as soon as March 1985 in my « Les conséquences socio-économiques de MM. Volcker-Reagan et Cie. » in this same section. The Marginalist idea according to which where there is need there will be an offer is terribly inept because it is only true when the need in question is solvent. Moreover, today most new and/or intermediary sectors are capital intensive and tend to replace existing sectors, e.g. the Pc partly replaced the electronic typing machine, its computing possibilities being notoriously unused, except perhaps now with the Cloud.

This is serious because Volker killed the inflation beast by cutting social services and salaries. As we know, in the US, no productivity gains were passed to labor during the last 40 years. If the real monetary aggregate is the real salary mass as affected by the cost of maintaining inactive workers to give the social salary mass, then bringing inflation down through the suppression of the social safety nets, and through the general lowering of wages will necessarily destroy the whole economic machine, with serious economic and monetary collateral effects.

The FED leaders and their political supporters did not understand this logic, nor do they really care about the origin of inflation except food and energy. And so, Janet Yellen believes that there is full-employment with 63 % of participation rate, the lowest since four decades. Within such a mind set an inflation moving slightly over 2 % will seem to be a debilitating tend to quickly arrest by monetary tightening. When this is done without due fiscal policy aimed at favoring long-term investment, the result is the preventive destruction of real growth (i.e. in abstraction of the main fictitious share contributed by the speculative sector which went from 3 % of GDP to more than 9 % in the last decade or so.) For more accurate numbers on inflation and unemployment see : http://www.shadowstats.com/ .

But then her bosses and clients, the private banks, and in particular the 4 main New York banks, will call the shots.

You cannot run the economy only through monetary policies, just because Fisher et al. falsified the discipline. Real economy cannot be reduced to an income stream and productivity cannot be reduced to the investment and time preferences analysed by Fisher. Even Solow was not that stupid. Solow was the nemesis of Harrod who had used his knowledge of Bolshevik planning in order to inform his transformation of Keyness steady-state system into a dynamic system. He knew Stalin to be right in insisting on the highest productivity although Stalin did not benefit from the Marxist law of productivity established by me and fully integrated into the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction. With such essential clarifications on the Marxist law of productivity and its coherent integration within the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction i.e., steady-state and dynamic equilibria Socialist Planning becomes a full-fledged science. (see my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy.) However, Stalin never fell prey of the fabricated so-called transformation of values into prices of production. I demonstrated in my work that this fabrication had been engineered by Böhm-Bawerk, of whom Fisher declared himself a disciple. I further demonstrated that the so-called ex ante/post hoc problem plagues all Marginalistsreasoning instead. In his retreat from Keynes, Solow felt obliged to make of technology a crucial element of his theory, but one that was given exogenously. Which, of course, will not do even inside the Marginalist paradigm which had come to depend on Fisher's falsification i.e. income stream - if only because this introduction of technology remains prisoner of the increasing-diminishing return fallacy.

In other words, these guys and gals are totally in the dark, the picture being far worse than that depicted by Breughels painting « The blind leading the blind » (Capodimonte Museum, Naples.) Dragging the successive governments and the Republic of the United States with them, they all go to the abyss happily serving the 4 big New York banks which dominate the FED. There is no escape without taking credit and thus the financing of the public debt out of the crutches of the so-called « universal bank ». Fence-tightening will not do, no more than the already obsolete Dodd-Frank. (b)

Paul De Marco, 24 September 2015

a) « Let M be the total stock of money, P the price level, T the amount of transactions carried out using money, and V the velocity of circulation of money, so that MV = PT.

Later economists replaced T by the real output Y (or Q), usually quantified by the real Gross domestic product (GDP) » see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher#Monetary_economics With Fisher we are left to wonder about M. With the later economists it becomes a typical happy merry-go-round. This passes as a « quantitative » theory of money!

b) The general argument is made in my « To save the Eurozone we must terminate the so-called « universal banks » » see Download Now in the Livres-Books section of this same site.

C) Competition and classical liberalism versus philo-Semite neo-corporative Fascism. September 24, 2015

See : Bubble Machine Timeline: Visual Evidence Of The Fed's "Third Mandate"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/24/2015 15:05 -0400 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-24/bubble-machine-timeline-visual-evidence-feds-third-mandate Quote: « The problem with rushing to combat any sign of economic or financial market turmoil by resorting immediately to counter-cyclical policies is that the creative destruction that would normally serve to purge speculative excess isnt allowed to operate and so, misallocated capital is allowed to linger from crisis to crisis, making the next boom and subsequent bust even larger than the last. »

The lack of the competition-induced purges was one of my critique against the ruinous public bailouts of failed private banks and enterprises right from the very beginning. This suppresses the only systemic albeit wild and approximative feedback mechanism inherent to the capitalist mode of production. The graph provided in the article superposes financial and economic trends. It shows an increasingly tight superposition which makes it intriguingly interesting. However, in a system characterized by hegemonic speculation or « credit without collateral » - how do we differentiate between the business cycles and the financial cycles? It seems that the second is cannibalizing the first so that the crises are recurrent although they now happen at a faster pace. This is illustrated by the addictive and recurrent QEs.

In fact, we are no longer dealing with capitalism in its legitimate evolving forms but instead with a new form of Fascist exclusivist corporative regime. This assertion rests on the fact that the current system, faced as it is with a severe structural crisis, has « once again » chosen to preserve the exploitation of Man by Man instead of moving further on the road leading to the Brotherhood of Man. In the 20s and 30s, Beveridge had defended social rights as fundamental human rights as well as economic stabilizing tools. Now the many disciples of the Fascist Austrian-Jew von Mises argue that any type of State intervention is dangerous « socialism B. Neither Adam Smith nor Keynes are spared from this lunacy. Following their master they even argue that sickness is the result of public health-care systems I suppose that the half billion Dalits with their 40 year average longevity cannot afford the luxury to be sick ... The same « spirit » permeates their entire regressive « public policy ». (a ) In the Gospels Jesus-Christ asked of similar people « From which seeds are you, really? »

A more progressive March towards the Brotherhood of Man (b) and the transcending of the bourgeois Welfare and Workfare State could be achieved, leading to a more equitable system capable to simultaneously preserve human dignity and economic rationality. However, given the destruction of real meritocracy and of social mobility, the over-represented current power elites work exclusively for the preservation of the fascistic sell-elected leading classes, all theoretically and exclusively self-chosen. Privileges are « once again » inherited and transferred within kinship networks. It never reached such an extent with classical liberalism or even with the so-called Welfare State and its growing technostructure ushered by F.D.Rs New Deal.(c)

These self-elected corporative philo-Semite Fascists, in the true sense of the world such as existed in Italy from 1922 to as late as ... 1938, do hate classical liberalism to the same extent if not more than they hate socialist egalitarianism. Liberalism such as was propagated by John Stuart Mills version laid out in his On liberty or by Keynes in his General Theory of employment, interest and money is thrown in the same bag generically called « socialism ». This is a theory for transnational stateless self-chosen elites who hate the Nation-State just because it is the cradle of citizenship resting on human equality and on the democratic expression of the Law of Great Numbers. This derives from their exclusivist, and often racist and theocratic, nature.

In fact, when you refer back to the Fascist history of Italy and of its Jewish financiers such as Margherita Sarfatti et al. - you find a Fascist supporter like Benedetto Croce the post-Nietzschean theoretician of « liberism ». Of course, he turned coat when the Americans were coming but, grosso modo, his « liberism » meant freedom reserved for the self-elected elite in opposition to classical liberalism and competition albeit conceived in a perfect competition setting. Politically this meant Fascist dictatorial rule see Michels, Pareto, Gentile, Croce etc. You also find this in the concept of charismatic leaders in Max Weber or in the Nazi legal doctor Carl Schmitt. This re-edition of philo-Semite Fascism in a supposedly « soft » version preventive wars and liberticidal Patriot Act included ... only differs from the older form in that it moved from a national setting into a global imperial setting. Hence, the necessary control tools cannot be big corporations any longer, but huge transnational firms subordinated to the hegemony of speculative financial-banking capital, namely « credit without collateral ». Free-trade deals typically include a clause eg. Chapter 11 of Nafta which subordinates almost entirely national laws to the needs of transnational firms. This complete the debilitating imperialism of Monetarist micro-economy on macro-economy, although Marginalism was never able to coherently reconcile both (its ex ante/post hoc lethal contradiction.)

One should remember that classical liberalism only conceived of a sexist and property-based democracy: all citizens were formally equal but only the few could participate in the essential decision-making processes. This can be called a Censitarian system: The masses who paid no property taxes ( in French « Cens »), women, mentally challenged and prisoners were all excluded from the ballot. The well-to-be naturally controlled most media of information aside from all the other State Apparatuses. As Lord Sydenham had stated the masses of citizens could have the appearance of democracy but not democracy itself. This remained true after the leading class was forced to concede the universal ballot.

However, in doing so it soon devised ways and means to undermine the force of number which had haunted Nietzsche to maintain its grip on power. Bourgeois meritocracy in Max Webers sense - was developed to achieve this lofty goal. It went hand in hand with the parallel development of the bourgeois bureaucracy, which is often properly called the « permanent government »; governments come and go, bourgeois bureaucracy remains and is indeed very difficult to change even from the most non-bourgeois regime. Of course, Weber had also theorised a « bureaucratic rationality » compatible with the wobbly concept of « marginal utility », which resulted from the falsification of the dual value theory of classical political economy, i.e., exchange value resting on a necessary support provided by the use value that embodies it. Of course, the unegalitarian Masonic lodges, Burkean or not, took care of all the selection processes operated behind-the-scene. Scientific Political Economy, that is to say Marxism, is not taught; worse, when it is, it is transformed into an inept academic Marxology which remains stupidly prisoner of Böhm-Bawerk falsification the so-called fallacious problem of the transformation of values into prices of production despite my scientific demonstrations. These are ignored and occulted by academics who do not deserve their jobs given their venal treason of academic deontology and of the scientific method. Occultation is not refutation. And I pass here over what I called « reverse plagiarism » a usual if criminal Masonic method.

The behind-the-scene selection process affect all levels of the economic, political, union, media, church etc, decision-making processes. Real dissent is utterly excluded in covert or overt fashion McCarthyism and its heirs, including the liberticidal Patriot Act. The philo-Semite Nietzscheans are great adepts of Sun Tzu, they like to win their ideological and political wars without having to wedge them. Hence, they go to the necessary length to choose and control their own generals as well as all the leaders of the « loyal » opposition, not excluding the extra-parliamentarian group ! Exclusion, infiltration and false representation are the names of the game.

This systemic control is what Marx called the « dictatorship of the bourgeoisie », a phrase unfortunately increasingly deformed later by the experience of post-Marx fascist dictatorial bourgeois regimes. When these control mechanisms fail, the leading classes do not hesitate to substitute real dictatorial measures including legalised torture as advocated by the Jewish-American Harvard professor (!) Dershowitz and others like him, in an anti-constitutional emulation of the Israeli practice of torture under medical (!) supervision. My critic of Pikettys silly reformulation of Paretos unegalitarian fallacious presuppositions can be found in the Book Reviews section of this site. Yet, in his book Le Capital au XXIème siècle, Piketty admits the veracity of the philo-Semite Nietzschean evisceration of bourgeois democracy after the granting of the universal ballot was won by the masses of citizens. Here is the rather telling quote:

« In 1872, Emile Boutmy created Sciences-Po with a clear mission: « Forced to suffer the law of the more numerous, the classes which see themselves as higher classes can only preserve their political hegemony invoking the right of the more able. In this way, behind the collapsing defensive wall made of prerogatives and traditions, the flow of democracy will be met by a second line of defense made of shining and useful merits, of superiority resting on imposing prestige, of capacity that only folly could push aside. » In Quelques idées sur la creation d'une Faculté d'enseignement supérieur, 1871 (sic), in Piketty, 2013, p 782. This quote is translated in my essay « MARGINALIST SOCIALISM OR HOW TO CHAIN ONESELF IN THE CAPITALIST CAVERN » in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/EPIFrame1Source1.htm#epi ; you only need to use the name «boutmy » with the Search function to go to the pertaining page.)

Classical liberalism thought that competition was necessary to ensure formal equality among competitors, economic capitalists as well as civil-political competitors albeit in a Censitarian setting. Corporative Fascism suppresses the automatic working of this internal feedback mechanism and replaces it by exogenous decisions, hence potentially by brute force, and irrational and unsustainable narratives always far-removed from reality. Hence, any contradiction is to be resolved by force preventive wars and regime change outside, Patriot Act turning legal domestic dissent into « terrorism » to be dealt with with torture and all the rest (see Snowdens revelations confirming my own denunciations). In so doing, the United-States Republic which counts Thomas Paine, the author of Rights of Man, among its Fathers, imitates the most crapulous Israeli practices, following the advices of such people as Dershowitz who nonetheless kept his job at Harvard (!).

We are dealing here with a return to totalitarianism. Just check Renzi-Gutgeld anti-constitutional omnibus reforms and notably the reform of the electoral system. Yet, the Italian Constitution makes it crystal clear that its founding principles cannot be amended and that legitimate amendments must be made one article at the time! Nonelected people like Renzi are turning the party system i.e. political competition as intended by classical liberalism and by the anti-Nazifascist constitution into a anti-constitutional neo-Censitarian ballot as exemplified by the Italicum. (d) Furthermore, they are turning political competition into a lobbyist games with 300 000 euros for individuals and 200 000 for others, these donations being deductible in great part from taxes, at least as of 2013!!! (e) Not even the American bipartisan system is as dirty as Renzi-Gutgeld reforms are intended to be. They are engineering a soft return to Fascism, a regime they financed in the 20s, one which would have been their dreamed regime had not Mussolini the sheepish lover of the Jewish-Italian Margherita Sarfatti whose father had financed the most reactionary popes in the history of the Catholic Church turned against the Jews under Hitlers pressure ... but only after 1938! You may want to check Sarfattis praise of her lover « Duce » (and her Fascist propaganda books). Similarly you also may want to check about the US willingness to reinstate Pétain and Mussolini back on power were it not for the determined opposition of the Resistance. A similar role was played by the German Jewish financier Max Warburg and his American brother in financing the rise of Nazism in Germany. This American connection even send Ernst Hanfstaengl to polish Hitlers manners as he was deemed to be a « charismatic » leader in Max Webers sense! According to Gramsci « Truth only is revolutionary ».

Paul De Marco

NOTES:

a) See von Mises attack on all kind of State intervention in his book entitled Socialism. His lunacy on sickness will be found for instance on page 476 ... here is one quote: « There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A mans efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. (...) Those who believed that accident and health insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illness and injuries and their consequences were much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident. »

Note further that von Mises was far from being an bald eagle or an eagle tout court, intellectually speaking he flew very low. His attacks on socialism can be summed up in one single idiocy, namely the fact that you cannot arrive at prices thus evaluate the right relative value of commodities if Means of production are collectively own and thus subtracted from the market. This amounts to saying that capitalist markets prices are determined by the capitalist market! The problem is that socialists know that prices are only an expression of exchange values. Exchange value does not need to rely on the capitalist market which in fact became hegemonic only since the time of Adam Smith and in fact a bit later. This is equally true for post-capitalist modes of production. You will find the argument in my Marginalist socialism or how to chain oneself in the capitalist cavern (Dec 14/Jan 15) in http://www.la-commune-paraclet.com/EPIFrame1Source1.htm#epi .

Furthermore, in the last section of my rogue draft Book entitled HI-HA! THE BOURGEOIS ECONOMISTS DONKISH VISUAL HALLUCINATIONS, accessible in the Download Now link in the section Livres-Books of this same site I demonstrated that exchange values always overdetermine their epiphenomenal price expressions which are the result of the working of competition sanctioned by the law. This is the utter proof of the scientific nature of Marxism as clarified by me. Think of it this way: once you have understood the scientific nature of atmospheric pressure you can understand its working both at sea level or in high altitude.

b) The Brotherhood of Man has a long story; in the Middle Ages it was reformulated in its modern form thanks to the secularisation of the Spirit, a Pythagorean revolution due to Joachim of Fiore (see my text in the Italia section of this site). It subterraneously influenced many from F. Bacon to the great English egalitarian Gerrard Winstanley, and up to Marx, through Giambatista Vico, Kant and Hegel. John Lennon too wrote a beautiful song on the subject, see his : Imagine in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8 . See also: « A working class hero » in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU

c) See the « Note 15 on John Galbraith » in my Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth (2005) in the Livres-Books section of this site. This book predicted the current crisis pointing at its real causes. To check this assertion you only need to use the term « montage » in the Search function.

d) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_electoral_law

e) See Finanziamento pubblico ai partiti, sale soglia detrazioni. 26% fino a 70mila euro http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2013/10/16/news/finanziamento_pubblico_ai_partiti_sale_soglia_detrazioni_26_fino_a_70mila_euro-68735553/?ref=search.

Addendum: See « Meet Allen Dulles: The "Psychopath" Who Created America's Modern Shadow Government », Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/14/2015 22:00 -0400, in http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-14/meet-allen-dulles-psychopath-who-created-americas-modern-shadow-government. American analysts are currently more alert than many Europeans on this crucial subject. The system naturally develops its own over-represented and over-paid « servi in camera », the more so in subordinated areas. False representation has become a dangerous plague for democracy. Nonetheless, for a Marxist interpretation of the current regressive trend you can take a look at the Section Racism/Fascism/Exclusivism, of this site as well as at my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme in the Livres-Books section of this same site.

D) Stocks and bonds synchronisation or how the FED lost the upper hand September 22, 2015

See : Up: Profits Are Falling, the Fed is Cornered, and the Uptrend Has Been Broken. Submitted by Phoenix Capital Research on 09/21/2015 10:40 -0400 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-21/buckle-profits-are-falling-fed-cornered-and-uptrend-has-been-broken

Long ago on Ugeuxs site we had predicted that in June and September Janet and Mario would all be confused. Beside we proposed that there was a world synchronization of the economies i.e. no alternate locomotive . Now what we see is a parallel synchronization of stocks and bonds. In other words, the problem becomes the forms of stimulus. Or, if you will, the appropriate fiscal policy with its appropriate monetary policy not to be confused with Monetarist policies. But the current leaders do not know how to manage this. In fact, this is the lesson of Janet Yellen staying put when in fact staying put meant a small hike in relative terms (China and Draghi had moved to pre-empt the FED). In other words, the FED lost the upper hand. And that is a very meaningful historical turn.

Free-trade was based on the fallacious idea that interdependence was asymmetric in favor of the US and the West. I had warned that this was not the case. Soon it became clear that China was graduating more engineers than the US and would soon be the leader in patents, hence in the formulation of international norms. Furthermore, it was obvious that Chinese productivity would benefit from the delocalisation of US and Western firms. They could operate with identical machines but with a much cheaper labor cost.

As expected so much for Joseph Nye and Keohane et al. the globalisation of Solowfunction of production transformed it into a disaster. I had shown that Solows bogus function of production Y= f (K, L) where K is capital and L is labor but not necessarily at full-employment, pretended that razor-hedge equilibrium would impose itself with labor pushed at the physiological level. This only reformulated albeit in a more formalized fashion the ineptitudes of J.B. Say and of Malthus. In effect, lowering wages does not ensure a dynamic equilibrium except perhaps what can be called a « Graveyard equilibrium B. There will always be an offer where there is a need but only if the said need is crashworthy. Moreover, to ensure dynamic growth, that crashworthiness of wages let us call it the « structure of v » - needless to say must reflect the complexity of the reproductive system taking import-export into account. You can think of this as its macro-Fordist aspect. If employees and citizens in general cannot buy, why would anyone produce anything to sell?

As you know however, the Volker-Reagan-Thatcher counter-reform destroyed wages, pensions and social safety nets. Soon, in its attempt to globalize Solows bogus function of production, free-trade led to the enshrining of an anti-dumping definition which excluded any reference to labor rights even the minimal rights guaranteed by the ILO as well as any reference to environmental criteria. Doing so tendentially lowered the Solowian physiological level to the lowest possible. Marxs critiques of Malthus had already demonstrated that you do not have an inelastic or absolute physiological level. It depends on what Marx referred to as the « moral conditions B, using the word « moral » in the educational sense of moral sciences or Classics, in other words, the civilisational parameters. At that game, the tendency it to approach the lowest physiological level experienced by the half billion of Dalits comrades whose average longevity is around 40 years. Did not Nietzsche and von Mises dream aloud of a « return towards midnight » transforming modern citizens into a mass of rubbles or of neo-chandalas? (see my essay « Nietzsche as an awakened nightmare » in the Livres-Books section of this site.)

This destructive tendency is aggravated by the transformation of the labor force into a factor like any other. As said above this was started by Ricardos « paper currency », which went through the hands of J. B. Say and Cournot. With Léon Walras it acquired its « liquid » or money form. When all factors of production are expressed in money terms you soon lose any contact with reality. Labor becomes a mere cost loosing track of the fact that the wage needs to be embodied in a woman or a man in bones and flesh. Moreover, they being part of a species based on sexual reproduction, their labor power needs to be reproduced in a household, and fatally households have different sizes. If the « global net revenue » of the household is reduced to the sole « individual capitalist salary » in abstraction of « differed salary » pensions and UI in particular and in abstraction of the social safety nets which together with individual and differed salary make up the » global net revenue » of households, you do not only destroy the basis of social demand, you also destroy the humanity of the labor force and its ability to reproduce itself as such!

New extensions of so-called free-trade deals do even worse. They basically attempt to subordinate all the functions of the modern State social, educational, economical, ecological etc to the transnational firm and its very liquid form of speculative short-term capital. Billion can move form a country to another with a simple click of the mouse. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to predict what will happen. You can already see this happening under your very eyes, not in Africa, but in Greece and soon in Italy and elsewhere. It has been said that « Austerity kills B. (see the critique of the book bearing this title in the Book Reviews section of this site. More precisely, free-trade kills.

This is exactly why I proposed to replace free-trade with fair trade, an international regime based on a new anti-dumping definition, which would protect the three forms of workersretribution contained within the « global net revenue » of households as well as environmental criteria. This could be done at the WTO without having to change any existing treaties, an arduous process requiring unanimity. These would only be reinterpreted in the light of the new anti-dumping definition. These would recreate the institutional conditions needed to restore economic growth. Notwithstanding this, both the universal bank and its speculative credit need to be reined in. Furthermore, the now too long legal working week must take into account the de facto shorter average working week. Therefore, it would clearly be more rational and socially beneficial to share available work among all citizens able to work. This would simultaneously stabilise the « global net revenue », hence social demand as well as the fiscal base of the State at a time when the debt ceiling must be raised recurrently. There is no human civilisation without it. The detailed discussion about the new definition of anti-dumping is available in my « Appeal » in http://rivincitasociale.altervista.org/appeal/

Paul De Marco.

E) Epilogue: «helicopter money» or nationalized credit and the central bank?

See: « This Is The Endgame, According To Deutsche Bank »

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/01/2015 15:53 -0400 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-01/endgame-according-deutsche-bank (Quote : « We think the end game is that when the next global recession hits, then QE/zero rate world will be re-appraised. Perhaps the G20 will get together and decide to try a different approach. In our 2013 long-term study we speculated how we thought the end game was 'helicopter money' i.e., money printing to finance economic objectives (tax cuts, infrastructure etc). While it has obvious flaws and huge risks (e.g. political manipulation and inflation), one can argue it will always have more economic impact than QE in its current form. However that's perhaps a couple of years away still.»

Comment: We are not dealing here with Humes monetary rain nor with the 100 % money devised in Chicago in 1913 and later in the 1930 including Irving Fisher but ex nihilo money going directly to consumers and firms. The reform lately proposed in Iceland also considered this, though after having dealt with the debt crisis in a different fashion. (a) As if ex nihilo money could solve structural problems in lieu of the production of exchange value in the production process itself ! We have GB and ABS experiments already. Furthermore, money circulation rests on its legal tender nature which in turn rests on confidence more specifically on the concrete confidence derived from the convertibility insured by the State. This was already the case with the Ricardo-Rothschild « paper currency ». How exactly does ex nihilo money squares out with this especially as bail-outs of private banks are legally, though abusively, replaced by bail-ins hurting small depositors? (See the recent experience of Cyprus and of Greece)

You only need to check the effects of the British assets purchase facility started in 2009 as they are materialised in the last report from the BoE. In short, inflation is close to negative 12 months CPI was zero in August - , growth is slow and will still be affected by a global slowdown and more fearfully the current accounts are in the red. ( Monetary policy summary http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2015/010.aspx )

The tendency will be to bet on financial, speculation-led growth, at a time when the City employs around 900 000 employees who are sure to slowly decline as high-frequency trading, trading algorithms and robotic trading will take over, which is already the case in term of volumes. It is said that high frequency trading already amounts to more than 80 % of total trading ...

The Report does not tell you about the real number of unemployed and underemployed nor about the growing poverty, abstracting from the grotesquely widening gap between the rich and poor. The falling longevity rate especially among males in Glasgow, the old industrial core of the West, best portrays the actual state of things.

The ECB has engaged in QEs and timidly in ABS programs despite its mandate, but we already know what to expect

Note that Deutsch Bank is not arguing in favor of changing the speculative parameters. Then again, DB is one of the biggest speculative bank in the world, in fact it is bigger than the biggest American one ....

The only thing that would work is a strictly public bank in charge of public and parapublic debt, i.e. nationalizing part of credit. This is not far-fetched, it already was the case almost everywhere up until the early 70s and early 80s. For instance in France before 1973, and in Italy before 1981-82. Because the Central Bank could act directly on the primary market without having to subordinate itself to the few so-called « primary private banks » those which notoriously manipulated the libor and euribor etc - national debt was safely kept at around 20 % of GDP and kept stable at that level while all the strategic programs were being carried out schools and universities, hospitals, nuclear plants, civilian and military aircrafts, TGV, highways, roads and bridges etc ... i.e., the normal State building process.

This is the only way to disconnect the public debt from the debilitating speculative « credit without collateral » with its induced public and private debt increases and its chronic credit crunch. The other action needed to restore some lustre to State fiscal policies would be to force the emergence of the shadow banking. Taxes on capital are everywhere at their lowest point. Furthermore, the tax cost for banks would be zero because it would be transferred to the selling price of derivative financial instruments. The State could again obtain the resources needed to finance appropriate public infrastructures and public social services, thus simultaneously sustaining micro-productivity and macro-competitiveness.

The crux of rational economics relies in the understanding that the development of the latter amplifies the efficiency of the first (see my Book III, in the Livres-Books section). Of course, Marginalism and especially its Monetarist brand do typically the reverse and subordinate macro-economy to micro-economy. For instance, in the 70s, before the EU started emulating the American system, public health-care in Europe did cost around 9 % of GDP and was universally accessible whereas the private American system already costed around 16 % of GDP leaving some 47 million without coverage. (b) The same goes for public versus private pension plans; not long ago both GM and Chrysler had to be bailed out by the State because they could no longer afford to finance their in-house pension schemes. Note that Obamacare increased the private aspect hence it will end up costing more although paradoxically it will pump up GDP fallacious numbers. This is a neat demonstration that chronic waste is the alpha and omega of capitalism, thus leading to the inevitable search for a more rational, human and sustainable system of production.

But primary banks are against. They rather prefer undermine the system as they selfdestroy.

Paul De Marco

NOTES:

a) See http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/monetary-reform.pdf . I personally believe that the real objective of the report is to save the private banking system because it has become almost as speculative as it was before the subprime crisis and its dramatic consequences on Iceland. The switch to 100 % money would only partially freeze the actual system, but would succeed only partially in doing so, as even I. Fisher recognised when he laid out his proposition. To verify this affirmation you only need to look at the graph p 60 which I reproduce here:

Note also that the 100 % money as devised by Chicago and Fisher does not change per se the private nature of the banking system, it only changes its regulation modes.

We should perhaps quickly mention that the fallacious equation of savings and investment follows from Fishers income stream. This is because this stream confuses both householdssaving and enterprisesreinvestment rates. If you refer back to the Equations of Simple and Enlarged Reproduction SR-ER - in my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy you will soon see that householdssaving cannot be taken out of individual consumption without starting a downward spiral. The contrary illusion emerges from the fact that householdsrequire goods that they do not buy and consume daily and which cost more (cars, domestic utilities etc.) Hence they need to save to acquire them. This in turn impact the duration of a specific reproduction cycle. Similarly re-investment is not enough to ensure the needs of Enlarged Reproduction. We all know about the hate between H. Ford the industrialist and Morgan the banker. The fact is that typically reinvestment is only about 30 % of all investments. This explains why banking credit acquired its specific character with the development of capitalism.

The whole question consists in knowing how much credit is needed. If you refer to the Equations of SR-ER you soon understand that it depends on the material possibilities of the socio-economic system and on the socially determined socio-economic priorities. After all, politics is defined as the ability to mobilise the resources of the community for the benefits of the community, not for the benefits of the few. But of course, the mobilisation of resources includes the rational organisation of the productive process since they need to be produced before being re-distributed. The important thing being that the credit injected needs to transform in real exchange value or else credit crises will follow i.e., the recurrent capitalist trade cycles.

I have argued that the bourgeois central bank system is economically irrational, it only serves the needs of the hegemonic capitalist fractions. A socialist central bank with bureaux directly tied up to their respective sectors and industries and filières would be more efficient as long as it regularly audits the transformation of credit into exchange value. The bureaux would only need to modulate their respective prudential ratios in order to eliminate the sectoral expansion/contraction effects and induce a smooth reproduction process on a larger scale. Current capitalist main interest rates cannot do this because they are a expression of the formal equality of capitals, abstracting form sizes etc. In reality these main interest rates fixed by the capitalist central bank aggravate the capitalist gross misallocation of available funds, an undeniable truth proven on a daily basis by the huge systemic waste going hand in hand with increased poverty. In fact the largest part of the credit offered by the public bureaux would be at low rates and would immediately transform into a greater salary mass thus favoring growth.

Keyness had understood the role that institutionalised saving could play: this rested on a greater development of the global net revenue of the households, but under-capitalist control. As a matter of fact, there were epic battles in the Thirties and after the Second World War in both the US and Canada over the control of the huge pools of capital constituted by this institutionalisation of saving , especially as the pension and UI plans were added to Postal saving. The best example being the Workersplan devised in Sweden by Meidner.

Yet, even this important pool of capital does not allow us to confuse generically called « savings » with investment. Albeit the institutionalisation can create a virtuous productive cycle thanks to State intervention. This cycle is utterly destroyed by the privatisation of the Welfare kind of institutional saving. Private plans only feed speculation with the verified risk, for instance, of seeing a 401K transform into a 201K! Note further that Hicks later laughed about the simplistic form of his IS-LM Model. « Hicks himself did not embrace the theory as he interpreted it; and, in a paper published in 1980, Hicks asserted that it had omitted some crucial components of Keynes's arguments, especially those related to uncertainty.[6] » (see : John Richard Hicks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hicks.)

b) See Peter Sellers movie «Where does it hurt?» 1972 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_PdlHZDKDk

xxx

Advertise with us