Dodgy investment funds
- This topic has 38 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To invest or not to invest? That is the question.The argument against, taken to its logical conclusion would have the us metaphorically stowing the Party's funds under a loose floorboard somewhere, or the like. This would leave it to the mercies of inflation and of course loose over time some of its value. This value does not evaporate, it would accrue to that section of the capitalist class that inflation rewards.The question as I see it resolves to this; do we invest and use the return gained from surplus value to enhance our reason to be, the abolition of the system that extracts surplus value, or do we agree to what amounts to a whip round from our wages and present it to the capitalist class?
zundap wrote:This value does not evaporate, it would accrue to that section of the capitalist class that inflation rewards.Your mistaken here. The loss of value that is represented by a decrease in the value of money (inflation) does not go to anyone. Think about it, what would the mechanism be for this to occur? There is none. That's why those who say that inflation is like a stealth tax are wrong, the lost value does not go to anyone.Inflation benefits borrowers and hurts lenders since for example, the £1000 borrowed 10 years ago is now worth a lot less then it was then.If we don't invest or bank our money no capitalist will benefit from us not doing so. If we do invest or bank some capitalist will make money out of our money but our funds will not be knawed at by inflation.
DJP wrote:Your mistaken here. The loss of value that is represented by a decrease in the value of money (inflation) does not go to anyone.No, but it can result in a decrease in real wages. In which case the value goes to the capitalist
Isn't Zundap right to the extent that if someone puts their savings into a deposit account paying less than the rate of inflation then the bank will use that money (together with other such deposits) to lend at a higher rate of interest probably higher than the rate of inflation? So that the bank would be getting the protection against inflation plus more which the saver could in theory have got if he or she could have invested their money where the bank did. The trouble is that the saver normally doesn't have the amount of money nor the expertise to do this.Of course if the saver kept the money under the bed nobody would gain.
I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great. Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.Likewise, in this week's Private Eye, a more comparable case, is Newcastle councillor's who criticised Wonga, when it turns out that Newcastle Pension scheme invests in them (and even there the council itself is not directly responsible).Unfortunately I forgot to post my ballot paper back.
Young Master Smeet wrote:……convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great.Precisely; we should primarily be thinking of ways to spend the money rather than ways in which to hoard and accrue it regardless of cost.
Quote:Unfortunately I forgot to post my ballot paper back.Not to worry; this battle may have been lost but the war is not yet over
Young Master Smeet wrote:I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great. Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.I agree. At first I did think that there could be no objection in principle to investing, after all, we do live in a capitalist society and cannot avoid investment via banks, pensions etc. However, directly investing in a fund does risk being associated with unsavoury activity, which would tarnish our reputation.
Moved to world socialist movement by poster
BTSomerset wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great. Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.I agree. At first I did think that there could be no objection in principle to investing, after all, we do live in a capitalist society and cannot avoid investment via banks, pensions etc. However, directly investing in a fund does risk being associated with unsavoury activity, which would tarnish our reputation.
Unlike bank investments where we have no idea of where our funds are placed, the Party could choose a fund that would be comprised of "ethical" investments.
There's no such thing as an "ethical" investment as, in the end, the whole world capitalist class exploit the whole world working class. There's just investment.All investments are linked to each other and you can't really separate them, except artificially or on the surface. As this article pointed out:
Quote:Even if you are more engaged, it is not necessarily any easier to keep track of where your pension pot is being invested. The church did not invest directly in Wonga, after all – it invested in a venture capital firm that put a fairly small proportion of its funds into the company. And, despite Welby's embarrassment, it did not breach its ethical investment policy as Accel, the firm in question, did not commit 25% of its capital to Wonga..
BTSomerset wrote:However, directly investing in a fund does risk being associated with unsavoury activity, which would tarnish our reputation.Our reputation with whom? The pope?
Vin Maratty wrote:The case against capitalism is not based on any morality. Being poor does not make you any 'better' than being rich. Who wouldn't want to be a capitalist?The SPGB is unique and cannot be attacked or its reputation tarnished for investing money, its case is not ethical or moral but is based on the interests of a class. A moral stand against capitalism is sterile. In capitalism money is power.The more money a socialist organisation has the more it can attack capitalism. A moral opposition to capitalism is on the same level as a belief in religion and should be rejected by socialistsSorry Vin but I absolutely and categorically disagree with this argument. I think it is literally impossible for socialists not to take a moral position vis a vis capitalism. The dichotomy that is often presented – "socialism is a question of self interest" versus " socialism is a question of morality" is a totally false dichotomy. It is necessarily and logically both of these things. Think about it. Morality is an other-oriented perspective which ultimately is about the welfare and wellbeing of others (fellow workers) apart from ourselves. The very conception of class solidarity is implicitly a moral conception. If you take as starting point only that which concerns you from the point of view of your own perceived self interest then logically there can be no sense in you striving to foster a sense of solidarity amongst your fellow workers. It would make far more sense, I would suggest , to strive to become a capitalist and take up the attitude "I'm alright Jack and sod the rest of you" in relation to our fellow workers. We dont because actually behind the macho posturing around self interest we care about others. We wouldnt be socialists if we did not. All this nonsense about socialism having nothing to do with morality and scientific socialism being some kind of "value free" construct is just so much old fashioned 19th century mechanistic-cum-postivisitic thinking and despite Marx's supposed repudiation of morality his writings are literally suffused with a moral condemnation of capitalism. How can you possibly condemn exploitation and seek to end it without this implying a moral perspective? Its plain nonsense. As Stephen Lukes points out Marx's underlying moral judgements are all too self evident:Hence all the passages in Capital about ‘naked self-interest and callous cash payment’, ‘oppression’, ‘degradation of personal dignity’, ‘accumulation of misery’, ‘physical and mental degradation’, ‘shameless, direct and brutal exploitation’, the ‘modern slavery of capital’, ‘subjugation’, the ‘horrors’… and ‘torture’ and ‘brutality’ of overwork, the ‘murderous’ search for economy in the production process, capital ‘laying waste and squandering’ of labour power and ‘altogether too prodigal with its human material’ and exacting ‘ceaseless human sacrifices.’ (Lukes S Marxism and Morality, 1985 Oxford Clarendon Press p1). The part of the problem I would suggest is that people have misunderstood what is meant by a "moral perspective". The influence of Kantian universalistic moral categories has not been helpful in this regard. Kantian thinking is what influenced people like Bernstein and Otto Bauer and you can see where this can lead to – appealing to abstract universal moral principles at the expense of a class analysis I would reject that kind of moral universalism in a favour of a moral perspective called ethical particularism. Engels, surprisingly perhaps, put his finger on it in Anti-Duhring:We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressed” (F Engels Anti-Dühring, Moscow 1947, p117). Class morality!. Now thats what we need. Coupled with the notion of self interest and not at the expense of the later.
robbo203 wrote:All this nonsense about socialism having nothing to do with morality and scientific socialism being some kind of "value free" construct is just so much old fashioned 19th century mechanistic-cum-postivisitic thinking and despite Marx's supposed repudiation of morality his writings are literally suffused with a moral condemnation of capitalism. How can you possibly condemn exploitation and seek to end it without this implying a moral perspective? ….Class morality!. Now thats what we need.I'm with robbo on this one.Which also implies 'class science', of course!
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:All this nonsense about socialism having nothing to do with morality and scientific socialism being some kind of "value free" construct is just so much old fashioned 19th century mechanistic-cum-postivisitic thinking and despite Marx's supposed repudiation of morality his writings are literally suffused with a moral condemnation of capitalism. How can you possibly condemn exploitation and seek to end it without this implying a moral perspective? ….Class morality!. Now thats what we need.I'm with robbo on this one.
So am I and as Robbo recently observed on another thread there is that wonderful, almost lyrical, passage from the Communist Manifesto which serves to highlight Marx's moral perspective:The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. (emphasis mine)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.