Jeremy Corbyn , the Left and Marxism: With Lessons for Australia and the World

above: British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is seen by many as radical, but his policies are traditional-social-democratic

Dr Tristan Ewins

Australian Labor Party activist and social commentator

British social commentator, Mal Fletcher (On Line Opinion 7/11 ; and ‘2020 Plus’)  warns of the ‘dangers’ of a ‘Hard-Left’ Jeremy Corbyn and the spectre of Marxist and socialist resurgence.   But what’s the reality behind this posturing?  We’ll look at both the claims made against Corbyn and at the deployment of Marxism as a ‘political bogeyman’. From there we’ll look at social democratic and Marxist arguments around economy and society more thoroughly.

Firstly: yes British Labour is turning Left after years of Blairite Centrism.  Corbyn is bringing British Labour back to the ‘relative historical mainstream’ of ‘traditional social democracy’. 

Still, Corbyn’s plans for limited resocialisation (eg: of railways and utilities) threaten a precedent whereby decades of privatisation are not necessarily “a one way street”.  Some on the Right – including so-called ‘Labour moderates’ appear quite frightened at that prospect.  If anything it is they who are ideologically-inflexible on the public sector ; and cannot abide by its extension in any way, shape or form.  But compare this with the 1970s when Labour thinkers such as Stuart Holland (in ‘The Socialist Challenge’)  were demanding “Nationalisation of the Commanding Heights”.   Considered historically, Corbyn is not ‘far Left’ ; but rather is suggestive of British Labour ‘returning home’ ideologically to ‘traditional social democracy’. (although some in the Corbyn camp – and in the ‘Momentum’ movement which supports him - might be more ambitious over the longer term) In light of this, Australian Labor’s Bill Shorten’s ‘shift Left’ appears much more modest. Shorten will not consider resocialisations ; but may pursue ‘a living wage’ (though has equivocated on prior commitments to raise minimum wages), and moderate progressive tax reform.

Other Corbyn signature policies include Free Education, preservation of the National Health Service,  efforts to reduce inequality, and an investment in public housing.  This also means a more-progressive tax system; improvement of wages – including for the working poor;  a proper industry policy ; and public investment in infrastructure.  It suggests a Labour Party which treats social democracy seriously ; not a ‘far Left’ Labour Party ; but a Labour Party which refuses ‘Policy Convergence’ on neo-liberalism and ‘right-wing economic consensus’.  The ‘shift to the Left’ is not ‘extreme’, but nonetheless it is the most significant development on the British Left in decades.

Fletcher seems to agree that ‘planning’ is inevitable ; but poses the question “who does the planning?”.  If planning is not democratic, here, do we suppose it is done by the corporates ‘behind closed doors’ ; with many politicians just taking it for granted that ‘the crucial economic decisions’ are not to be made democratically?  That is: that the job of representative government is merely to ‘provide support’ to the corporates – who are the real economic decision-makers.   Nonetheless, comprehensive economic planning by central government is not the answer either. Not least of all because it could result in unacceptable centralisation of economic (and hence cultural, social and political) power if implemented without safeguards.   Arguably we need both ‘democratisation’ AND ‘checks and balances’ in the economy ; which also translate into political, social and cultural ‘checks and balances’.

That said:  what are we to make of charges of ‘Marxism’ ; and is ‘Marxism’ really such a bad thing?

Capitalism is a real ‘mixed bag’ here: a mix of success and chronic failure.

Market economies involve corporations and businesses which can be driven by the market context to respond innovatively to the intricacies of consumer demand ; and allocate resources as efficiently as they can in order to remain competitive.

On the other hand there is the threat of monopoly or oligopolistic collusion ; as well as planned obsolescence.  Some areas (eg: energy markets) exist in a context where product differentiation is difficult ; many consumers would just like to ‘take such things for granted’.  At the end of the day many of them are simply fleeced by predatory corporations. 

So on the other hand while the traditional Marxist aim of ‘centralising the means of production in the hands of the State’ may seem archaic, great swathes of the Marxist critique of capitalism retain force.  What Marx referred to (in Capital Vol I) as ‘the coercive laws of competition’ means that capitalists are constantly driven to revolutionise the means of production.   Historically, this has led to relative material abundance – which Marx saw as ‘a good thing’.  On the other hand, these dynamics result in inefficiencies, including duplication of cost-structures and premature obsolescence.  To offset this capitalism is forced to adopt a posture of ‘perpetual growth’. This can have environmental and social consequences as ‘the economy’ is decoupled from human need ; and instead the emphasis is ‘growth (regardless of actual quality) no matter what the cost’.  Also today’s capitalist economy is truly global ; and arguably capitalism is ‘running out of new markets to expand into’.  This could lead to serious crises into the future with insufficient markets to absorb capitalism’s ‘excess produce’.

Today,  also, those ‘coercive laws of competition’ might result in ‘an unsustainable race to the bottom on tax’ or with regard wages – which means less consumer demand over the long-run.  It can also result in privatisation of essential infrastructure and functions ; which means the State abdicating responsibility for ‘what it does best’.  Hence the possibility of nepotism and corruption in the context of ‘Public Private Partnerships’ for private sector mates ; and/or full privatisations ‘at a relative discount.’

Privatisation of ‘Government Business Enterprises’ (eg: Medibank Private and the Commonwealth Bank in Australia) also means that those enterprises’ ‘social charters’ are lost.  In many cases that included a responsibility to behave competitively.  Reversion to privatisation can mean a return to private oligopoly ; an inferior deal for consumers ; and in the worst of cases damaging collusion.

At the end of the day workers, businesses, citizens, consumers – all end up paying for this.  But many capitalists support the ‘neo-liberal status quo’ for Ideological purposes ; or because they are fearful of “a foot in the door for socialism”.  (more on that later)

Marxism also critiqued the tendency in capitalism to centralise ownership of most capital in fewer and fewer hands.  That observation remains in force ; and the consequence is “the translation of economic power into political power”.  Narrow-neoliberalism is enforced with the zealotry of “an official ideology” ; as are corporate interests.  Unions are curtailed and vilified ; the wage share of the economy falls ; Media Moguls manipulate the climate of public opinion cynically.  ‘Political Correctness’ is constantly beaten up to divide the constituencies of broadly-Left Parties by attrition. A return to the principles of social democracy is dismissed as ‘populism’.  In Australia specifically we have the Conservatives banning labour movement imagery in workplaces (eg: the “Eureka” flag) ; threatening charities who speak out on public policy ; trying to shut down mass movements (eg: ‘GetUp!’) and prevent them from participating in elections.  (and yet at the same time they still talk of ‘liberalism’ and ‘free speech’)

Capitalist societies dealt with problems of distribution via markets and through the dynamics of  ‘supply and demand’.  This was ‘more efficient’ than the ‘waiting queues’ we once heard of in the USSR ; and market forces also meant innovation and responsiveness.  But ‘the market’ also ruthlessly excluded the poor on the basis of ‘capacity to pay’.  In the West arguably we had greater cultural freedom and innovation.  (though perhaps ‘post-the-Cold-War’ the West does not ‘need’ liberalism and democracy as much as it used to for purposes of legitimation ; hence liberties – and perhaps democracy itself - are under threat)  But the ‘economic abundance’ we enjoyed existed in the context of a global economy where the [economic]  ‘Core’ exploited the ‘Periphery’.  For example, American economic exploitation and subordination of Central and South America ; and the emergence of countries like Bangladesh as ‘the sweatshops of the World’.    The ‘World Economic Order’ will also ‘be up for grabs’ with the rise of China and India; and continuing relative prosperity cannot be taken for granted.

But if a ‘traditional socialist economy’ (along the lines of the former USSR) is not the answer, what is?

Firstly in response to those specific issues just raised:  again considering the Australian context ; a socialist energy policy might provide micro-renewable energy for the poor, and for public housing estates (see: the former South Australian Labor Government’s policy as of February 2018) , to reduce demand on the National Grid, and ensure that everyone can enjoy cooling in times of ‘peak-demand’. (eg: Heatwaves)  The ‘leave it to the market’ response, however, would see vulnerable people (eg: the elderly) ‘opting out’ in the process of ‘supply and demand’ – despite the fact they are the ones who need the product most.  (and human lives are at stake!)  Meanwhile importation of textiles from enterprises who ruthlessly exploit their workers – including unsafe working conditions – might be banned.

More generally: Probably the best Leftists can expect in the foreseeable future is to forge “historic compromises” which deliver security, freedoms, opportunity and happiness for the masses they represent.  We should talk about Marxist ideas on socialism and communism honestly and not closed-mindedly.  But if ever the world does approximate Marx’s ‘authentic communist ideal’ it might never occur strictly via the path Marx predicted. The industrial working-class might never return to the economic pre-eminence that Marx predicted, and to a significant extent as he observed in its early development.  This also means the industrial working class might no longer be considered the ‘universal subject’ bearing ‘universal liberation’.  The reality will be much more ‘messy’ ; and the task is one of building alliances ; and indeed what Gramsci may have called a ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’.  This is exactly why efforts to divide the Left’s constituencies against each other are such a threat.

A more ‘rational’ economy means – to begin with – setting the public sector free to do what it does best.  Efficiencies arising from Natural Public Monopolies ; and more competitive markets in the context of Government Business Enterprises with ‘social’ and ‘competitive’ charters ; can mean a ‘better deal’ for everyone . (workers, citizens, business)   And ‘collective consumption’ (via tax) of essential social goods and services (eg: Health, Infrastructure, Education, Welfare Services) also results in a ‘better deal’.   Extension of the public sector in this way does inevitably involve ‘planning’.  And while central planning might not be advisable for an entire economy, there is a strategic place for it.

Most of the OECD is also far from emulating ‘the Nordic Historic Compromise’.  In Australia, specifically, though, we are well behind the OECD average with regard our Tax to GDP Ratio as well. Extrapolating from the percentage gap between Australia and the Nordics, Australia would need to raise tax by around $300 billion/year to match Nordic tax to GDP ratios.  (The current figure may be slightly lower: The OECD recently placed the Nordics at around 45% of GDP ; though Wikipedia suggests in the vicinity of 50% - with 54% for Finland ; Perhaps Wikipedia is somewhat out-of-date ; sadly the Nordic Model continues a slow retreat) And redistribution via tax remains an important lever to ‘grow the social wage and welfare state’.  (which are vehicles not only for redistribution and fairness, but also for ‘efficient collective consumption’)  

But that kind of change ‘does not happen over-night’. A medium term objective for Australia, then, might be to match the OECD average ; and progressively raise an additional $80 billion/year (in today’s terms) ; or otherwise put: raise progressive tax by 5 per cent of GDP.  In the rest of the ‘Anglosphere’ (USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) progressive parties could do to think on a similar scale over the medium term.

Beyond this Leftists could also think in terms of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.   That is: an economy based on a strategic mix of competitive markets and planning ; but also promotion of economic democracy at a range of levels.  Let the public sector do what it does best ; and don’t necessarily be narrowly Ideological or traditional in determining this. (for instance, strategic and limited public investment in print media may be a ‘cultural imperative’ : where ‘legacy media’ retain great cultural power ; are centralised in the hands of a few ; and where the quality of journalism is declining in that context)  But where market forces act more to the benefit of society than not – then democratise those market forces.  This can mean State Aid in support of mutuals and co-operatives on both a large and a small scale. (both producers’ and consumers’ co-ops)  That could also involve ‘public sector co-investments’ with co-ops to help them maintain the scale necessary to remain competitive.  In specific contexts regions could also contribute: where local jobs are at stake.  It can also mean policies for democratic collective capital formation, and also for (union-friendly) co-determination.  ( ‘Democratic collective capital formation’ refers to a range of policies from Superannuation in Australia (less radical and democratic) to the attempted ‘Meidner Wage Earner Funds’ in Sweden (more radical and democratic) which aimed to compensate workers for wage restraint with collective capital share ; resulting in radical economic redistribution.  ‘Co-determination’ means structural corporate consultation with workers ; including worker representatives on company boards.)

Critics could argue that such policies are ‘a foot in the door for [democratic] socialism’.  And indeed they might well be.  But the ‘Keynesian Post-War Historic Compromise’   - which benefited workers and citizens – was in the interests of business as well.  Resurgent social democracy and democratic socialism today might also (in some ways) be beneficial to business as well as to workers, consumers, citizens.  We should be able to reach a ‘rational consensus’ around a robust mixed economy where the debate is focused on ‘where to draw the line’.  This would mean Liberals, Conservatives, and the so-called ‘Social Democratic (Blairite) Centre’ ceding Ideological ground.  It would result in a rebalancing of class forces ; and for this alone it would be strenuously resisted by many.  The Nordics show both the potential for delivering ‘a good society’ on the basis of similar policies ; and also the possibility of pitched struggles over ‘where to draw the line’ on economic democracy.  Swedish corporates ‘had their way’ in defeating the ‘Meidner Wage Earner Funds’ in the 1980s.  Again, there has been a ‘slow retreat’ since ; but the overall historic example is still inspiring.

Today ‘Labour’, ‘Capital’ and other social forces could agree that a ‘robust mixed economy’ is pretty-much in the interests of all ; but that what Swedish social theorist Walter Korpi called ‘the democratic class struggle’ will continue on many fronts ; and in this process there are ‘no guarantees’.  In this process we could envisage what Gramsci would call a long  ‘War of Position’ or what Kautsky earlier referred to as a ‘War of Attrition’.  They are different conceptions; but are similar in way ; and both are valid in their own sense. ‘War of Position’ assumes a long ‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – not only a struggle for the state ; but for society’s ‘common sense’ (the Ideological assumptions that are reinforced such as to be ‘taken for granted’ in a given society) ; and the way that Ideology is entrenched in the various institutions and social bodies of civil society. ‘War of Attrition’ meanwhile suggests a ‘wearing down of capitalism’ over the long term ; through social movements, cultural, industrial and electoral interventions – but not a ‘War of Annihilation’ (another Kautskyan term) which assumes more of a ‘frontal assault’ to overthrow the capitalist state.  Importantly, Kautsky supposed there were (rare) circumstances where ‘War of Annihilation’ made sense ; but if pursued under the wrong circumstances this could simply exhaust the proletariat ; see it demobilised or even suppressed or crushed.   ‘Wars of movement’ (the Gramscian term for a ‘pitched assault’ against capitalism) are not to be ruled out in every circumstance ; but where democratic processes could provide ‘a pathway to democratic socialism’, a strategy of ‘revolutionary reforms’ or ‘slow [democratic] revolution’ is preferable.  Though the Left needs to be prepared for the contingency that the bourgeoisie could well ‘dispense’ with democracy itself (as far as it is capable) if its interests are seriously threatened.

Finally let’s remember the underlying human principles of Marxism  ; which were made a cruel mockery of under Stalinist regimes.  Marx saw the material abundance produced under capitalism as creating the economic basis for human freedom.   This could mean a shorter working week, as well as greater opportunity for cultural, social and economic ‘personal growth’ and participation.  In Australia a reformed National Curriculum might also promote active, informed and critical citizenship, amidst a backdrop of tolerance and deep-seeded pluralism.   (though this is more in the spirit of Chantal Mouffe’s  ‘Agonistic’ ‘Post-Marxism’ than the original perspective of Marx) Marx’s overall approach was not a mere ‘bread and water socialism’ ; even though socialists believe there are areas (eg: health and education, water and energy) which demand comprehensive socialised provision.  Indeed there are aspects of the Marxist vision which could be compatible with certain strands of liberalism concerned with personal growth, liberty and empowerment.

Marxism should not be seen as an ‘Ideological bogeyman’ ; especially where terms like ‘cultural Marxism’ are thrown around with abandon – but where few people understand what Marxism really means anymore.   The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is experiencing such resistance to any return to ‘traditional social democracy’ (including substantial disinformation) provides some idea, also, of the resistance and ‘muddying of the waters’ we might encounter if we propose anything more-radical.  But future convulsions in response to capitalism’s shortcomings (or what Marx would have called its ‘contradictions’) are inevitable.  Somewhat ironically: in the ‘big picture’ socialists could well hold the key to ‘saving capitalism from itself’ even while setting the foundations for surpassing it with a far more democratic and free society much further into the future.

April 2018

150th Anniversary of Capital : Marx still Highly-Relevant Despite the Critics

Debating Marx's ‘Labour Theory of Value’ and 'Marx on the Environment' on the 150th Anniversary of Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ (Vol I) ; Responding to the Critics.

Dr Tristan Ewins  ; September 2017

At the ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ Facebook group we’ve been discussing Marx’s ‘Labour Theory of Value’.  This is notable because this year is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of Marx’s ‘Das Capital’ (Volume One).

In the relatively-near future I intend restructuring, editing and partially-re-writing a speech I made on that subject.

But for now I would like to discuss Marx's famous 'Labour Theory of Value' specifically.  (and also whether or not Marx 'valued' the natural environment)  Another contributor basically argued that ‘labour theory of value’ (as argued in Capital Volume One) was defunct ; and that it led a lot of people to reject Marx.   This is a pretty common response ; and certainly ‘bourgeois’ responses to Marx have often fixated on discrediting his ‘labour theory of value’.  This has arguably been partly for reasons of interest – and hence a wish to discredit the argument that labour is responsible for all ‘values’ in terms of goods and services. (with the exceptions of land and the natural environment)   But there have been philosophical arguments about the nature of ‘value’ as well.  And there has been much confusion because for Marx ‘value’ is an analytical category with a specific (non-mundane) meaning.

Typically respondents have argued that ‘value is subjective’.   And indeed in my PhD Thesis I approved of (Marxist Revisionist) Eduard Bernstein’s merging of ‘objectivist’ and ‘subjectivist’ elements in his critique of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value.  Therein I argued that Marx did not account sufficiently for the relative privilege of what may be called the ‘labour aristocracy’.


Anyway: Having studied Capital more closely now, though, I feel in a better position to respond with greater confidence.  Here’s my understanding, now, of ‘Labour Theory of Value’.

My understanding is that Marx's labour theory of value is in some ways a self-referential system ; and it makes sense on its own terms. To begin you have to distinguish between the price of labour power sold to employers as a commodity and 'labour theory of value' where ‘value’ is ‘the amount of labour congealed in commodities’.  Though truly the idea of "average socially necessary labour time" does not distinguish between different *kinds* of labour.  That said: Marx does not deny a subjective element to items' values - or to the use values AND exchange values of different kinds of labour power ; He even recognises differences in the relative value of different kinds of labour power at some points in Capital ; but it's true that he doesn't explore that in enough detail. It’s a complication with regard his system and perhaps hence he neglects it. We are unclear how different qualities of labour should be recompensed under socialism for instance.  So yes, there are deficiencies in some of Marx’s notions even though they are internally consistent.

To elaborate: There is a problem not only with the *mechanism* or ‘process’ of Surplus Value Extraction (in the context where all value is ultimately created by labour ; so Surplus Value can be argued for as ‘unpaid labour time’)  ; there is also a problem that while some workers experience extreme alienation (ruinous working conditions, lack of creative control or fulfilment) in return for bare-subsistence, other workers (while technically exploited) experience superior conditions (including pay, creative control, prestige, career paths) ; and historically this is played upon to disrupt solidarity within and across the working class.

But also: While Marx DOES recognise the role of Demand and Supply on the price of labour power ; he does not consider as such ‘the relative worth’ of different kinds of labour once skill, difficulty etc are accounted for.  So under democratic socialism what kind of differences of recompense are possible – or even desirable?  How for instance do we promote solidarity and mutual respect ; but also some reward for skill, difficulty, effort and so on?

Nonetheless *Surplus Value* makes perfect sense. That is: workers *broadly* are paid the means of (relative) subsistence (a privileged minority (labour aristocracy) receive considerably more than the average) ; but there is not "an exchange of equivalents" ; the employer extracts surplus value from workers' labour.  The worker is only recompensed proportionate to a fraction of what he or she creates. That much makes sense. Also 'Labour theory of value' makes sense in that values (as defined by Marx) are created by labour ; and Capital is 'value in motion' ; a process for the cyclical creation of values ; and the production of surplus value ; and hence the reproduction of the capital relationship ; and capitalism generally.  Wages maintain workers at the relative level necessary for subsistence. The surplus is extracted both to pay for the maintenance and expansion of production ; and also for the maintenance of bourgeois lifestyles. All that makes sense. And no wonder capitalists and their apologists have strived to discredit Marx ; because the analytical category of surplus value implies a devastating moral critique of capitalism.

Theoretically some return on (small) investments of capital may be warranted ; because of the real sacrifices the small (working class) investors and some petty bourgeois make. But once you start talking about the bourgeoisie proper it's a different story. Only the bourgeoisie proper has access to such credit or reserves so as to overcome the barriers to entry into certain markets. And whatever risks and initiatives the bourgeoisie take ; the fact remains that Surplus Value is extracted. And what is more that the working class is separated from the means of production ; does not control the means of production ; must labour under the capitalists’ terms and labour discipline ; does not usually have creative control over its labour ; is often employed in monotonous, partial tasks which are profoundly alienating.

So there are big problems with capitalism that Marx is still very useful in analysing. Though he also observes capitalism's inbuilt tendency to drive innovations ; in search of what he calls Relative Surplus Value.  (think of it as a 'temporary advantage' in terms of quality or productivity - often driven by technological advances) That - in tandem with what Marx calls 'the Coercive Laws of Competition' - means that capitalism still drives an enormous amount of innovation and technological development. But capitalism proceeds at a terrible cost to some workers. Especially if you're at the wrong end of the Imiseration process ; ie: if you're a textiles labourer in Bangladesh.

‘Imiseration’ refers to class bifurcation ; as well as absolute impoverishment and ruination – which Marx anticipated.  Relative Western prosperity – largely delivered by technological innovation, qualitative developments, as well as improvements in technology-driven productivity ; has been argued as a refutation of this. But arguably absolute ‘Imiseration’ has also been ‘displaced to the Third World’ ; with an ‘outer dialectic’ where Colonial/Imperialistic exploitation of ‘peripheral’ economies provides ‘relief’ in Western (core) economies.  (eg: cheap consumer goods for Western workers) Nonetheless we do see ‘relative imiseration’ WITHIN Western (core) economies as well ; as with the exploitation of the working poor within the United States. (hence perhaps an ‘external’ aspect to the ‘inner’ dialectic  of class struggle within the US ; ie: middle income (working class) living standards are supported by the exploitation of the working poor) And the global capitalist economy (having integrated economies the world over ; and having integrated the labour-power of women) is again pressing its limits ; leaving the question “what next for growth (and hence capitalism) – if not greater intensity of labour?  (and hence further attacks of the rights of labour)

In summary, David Harvey argues that Marx's Capital (Vol I) makes the most sense when applied to 'economically Liberal' or 'neo-liberal' capitalism especially.  This makes Capital (Vol I) highly useful for understanding Anglosphere economies which have largely gone down that path.  But admittedly Marx did not anticipate the rise of modern mixed economies, advanced welfare states, Keynesian demand management and so on.  Arguably these could comprise ‘stepping stones’ towards a socialist economy and society – while at the same time ‘stabilizing capitalism’.  (reducing cost structures and the like)   Marx is still highly RELEVANT ; but perhaps he is not on his own SUFFICIENT in responding to modern economic and social problems.

As for arguments that Marx did not recognise the  ‘value’ of Nature (one person at our Facebook Forum argued this) ; that is demonstrably untrue if you understand Marx in context.  Marx defines between use values and exchange values. Hence 'a beautiful rainforest' may have no 'value' in the sense of exchange value ; or Marx's schema of 'value' according to his specific (non-mundane) definition as ‘the labour congealed in commodities’.  But remember this is just a technicality based on Marx's definitions... It does not mean (literally) that Marx thinks 'nature has no value'.  Again; In Marx's scheme 'value' refers to the labour congealed in a commodity. But 'USE VALUES' are something else entirely. Marx recognises that things can have USE VALUE without comprising 'values' according to Marx's particular (contextual) definition. So 'a beautiful rainforest' can have a 'use value' in the sense that human beings can appreciate its beauty. And 'nature' may have the 'use value' of being necessary for the reproduction, health and happiness of the human species. Though it’s true Marx doesn't consider what some might call the 'intrinsic value' of nature.  Deep Ecologists may not find as much of interest to them in Marx.

Similarly “work/life balance” has value ; as do domestic and voluntary labour ; as does education, philosophical and scientific enquiry , and art ‘in their own right and for their own sake’.  But capitalism does not ‘see’ or ‘encourage’ the identification of these – EXCEPT insofar as they can be manipulated to somehow magnify exchange value ; ‘creation of ‘values’ in the capitalist context ; production of surplus value ; the self-expansion and reproduction of the capital relationship on which bourgeois power, privilege (and arguably purpose) rest.

On the 150th Anniversary of Capital (Volume I) it is worth revisiting Marx ; and questioning some common assumptions.  In-so-doing we encounter a thinker still highly relevant for the current day. 
Even though some (eg: the ‘Post Marxists’ Mouffe, Laclau and others) have suggested revisions and alterations which are also highly useful, and sometimes inspiring.  The 150th Anniversary is as good a time as any to ‘return to Marx’ and to work out what he’s really saying ; and not just depend on the second-hand accounts of bourgeois-Liberal economists.

Das Kapital by Karl Marx - 150th Anniversary Event -- NIB Melbourne September 7th, 7pm Start

150th Anniversary Of Marx's Das Kapital ;

Questions and Answers Event ;

New International Bookshop Melbourne,

September 7th.

Please come along and show your interest and support. I will be there as an ALP Left activist who draws deeply from Marx and Marxism.

PLS SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NETWORKS.