[alanjjohnstone]

Worth a read on Marx and Engels on crises cycles

Quote:

In his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy (Deutsche-Franzosische Jahrbucher. 1844) Engels mentioned that slumps occur every five to seven years, "just as regularly as the great plagues did in the past". He repeated this in Principles of Communism (1847) while, in the Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (1845), there are references to five-year and five to six-year cycles. Marx held similar views during this period. for in an Address on Free Trade delivered in Brussels in 1848 he drew attention to "the average period of from six to seven years — a period of time during which modern industry passes through the various phases of prosperity, overproduction, stagnation, crisis and completes its inevitable cycle". At the same time, they both expected crises to become "more frequent and more violent"  Wage Labour and Capital. Marx. 1847) and "more serious and more universal" (Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, Engels. 1844). By the time Marx came to publish Capital (Volume I. 1867) he was writing that "the course characteristic of modern industry" was "a decennial cycle

Marx and Engels and the ‘Collapse’ of Capitalism

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

It might be argued, too, that international measures have been and can be taken to solve the worst environmental problems, from the banning of the pesticide DDT in the 1970s to the more recent Montreal Protocol that reduced the use of CFCs.However, energy production and global warming are far different, being integrated as closely as they could be in capitalist production in general. Combatting them would not be a mere matter of disrupting the manufacture of aerosols or weedkillers, but of changing something which is part and parcel of the capitalist system and on which all companies depend. No company will take action which endangers their profits, just as no government will pass legislation that puts the capitalists whose interests they represent at a disadvantage. Capitalism is about competition and profit-making, and this is something which can never be done away with as long as it lasts.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1247-july-2008/capitalism-versus-natureMore specifically on CFCshttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/environment/profit-enhancing-chemicalsYou may say the science was moreorless agreed but as the article pointed out …trade was the main driver and the fact that the USA had a monopoly on the alternatives

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I expect that people in the rural areas of countries like Vietnam live 'better' than the average person in the West, especially if they are distant from the mechanisms of the state.  The simpler life is always better.  Of course, this is a matter of opinion and taste.  But my expectations lead me to question why migration happens.

I happen to live in a country which is very much like Vietnam, and live in one of its rural backwaters.While there exists more a community – as indeed there exists in the countryside of Britain and other developed countries – i find it difficult to imagine them being any distance from the mechanisms of the State. Out of the top of my head, i think the dweller in an urban slum probably lives a more independent life from the State than those in rural areas dependent on government subsidies.The simpler life hopefully does not mean being deprived of the necessities of life – access to healthcare, transport and education etc etc – all the things that rural people complain about lacking in the UK.As for why immigration takes place – from my own anecdotal experience of those i know – to find employment, to escape poverty, to send back remittances to the less fortunate family-member are the primary drivers and, yes, for a few younger folk…travel and adventure to explore the bright lights of the Big City.  I agree with you – if under socialism people demand and expect too much, it won't work.But i think the fact that people would have had to struggle and strive and sacrificed for socialism to be built in the first place, means they won't so easily sabotage it.

[alanjjohnstone]

I think i should make it clear that i do ACCEPT the free mobility of labour. Just as i fully accept that when i applied for a job, there were others competing for the same position. I didn't oppose the existence of other applicants. And i most certainly did not try to categorise the competition in a way that i could exclude them. I certainly do fully support diversity. I am not in agreement of imposed uniformity and that has been by far the much stronger trend under capitalism.You know only too well, Ike, that the "nation" and "nationalism" are artificial entities created through indoctrination and the State. Diversity such as regional dialects were suppressed by the educational system of the various invented countries. Another aspect of this is the capitalist campaign in the market-place for consumers to be all alike in tastes and personal demand. Diversity is permitted only in the niche corners of the minority market, otherwise it eats into price margins and advertising revenues and whatnot. 

Quote:

Why do you think you know what's best for everybody else?

We do think we understand the class interests of our fellow-workers better than they do themselves – it is called being class-conscious. It doesn't make us in any manner superior or elitist. To bring about this increased consciousness involves understanding socialism,  which means talking about it, sharing ideas about it – in short educating ourselves and our fellow workers about it. We indeed claim to understand how the class society basically works and that is the difference to the majority of our fellow-workers who do not understand capitalism. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not very versed in abstract theoretical exchanges as you know from the past, Ike. So i may well misunderstand and leave your issue unaddressed.Our criticism of the cooperative movement, as is our critique of trade unionism in its various garbs, is empirically and evidence-based from nearly 200 years of their practice, not a projection or hypothesis stemming entirely from theory roots. As you know, we recommend them as tools in the class struggle for self-defence but recognise their limitations and from experience know that they are not stepping stones towards socialism as they have been tried and tested and found wanting in that purpose. And that they can easily be effectively adopted by non-revolutionaries for their own ends. Perhaps collective action may lead to a positive trend towards creating a collective society but that is not a guaranteed result. Running on a tread-mill is action but it doesn't lead anywhereMarx's interpretation of cooperatives is not identical to our own, being influenced by his disavowal of Lasalles proposed devils contact with the Bismarckian state in funding/underwriting coops – something that Wolffe also hopes will happen. I am fond of the synonym for socialism – "the cooperative commonwealth" – and the word "commonwealth" i would hope might resonate better with our American audience as it is incorporated in a number of US states names.

[alanjjohnstone]

Karel, just to pick up on a bit of your personal history, here are articles from 1968 and a statement we made at the time of the invasion“The dictators of state capitalist Russia have sent their armies into Czechoslovakia in a bid to impose a puppet regime which will carry out their orders to crush free speech and restore rule by torture and the secret police. . . .The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes workers there every success in establishing the framework within which a genuine socialist movement can grow, namely, political democracy.The crude power politics of Russia once again expose the myth of Socialism there. Russia is a great capitalist power and behaves like one.The Socialist Party of Gt. Britain abhors this latest display of imperialist brutality, all the more vile as it has been committed in the name of socialism, and calls upon the workers the world over to oppose capitalism, east and west, and to unite for Socialism." August 21st 1968

[alanjjohnstone]

"Ever since his election in 2013, Francis’s efforts at reform have made him deeply unpopular with conservative Catholics, some in positions of influence within the Vatican itself….There are whispers in the Vatican loggias that the pope is a communist, a populist and not a proper Catholic."https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/18/pope-francis-attitude-abuse-scandal-catholic-church-critics

[alanjjohnstone]

kenax, we have always been critical of what passes for electoral democracy but we reluctantly accept it with all its flaws.The reason being is the alternatives offered up are no solution in themselves, either.We have seen all sorts of methods suggested and practiced, many have been tried and tested and found wanting. Our party has been in existence for over a hundred years and we have acquired a collective wisdom concerning people power in those years.It is a truism bt nevertheless a truth – the means are the end. Our party aims for what some once called social democracy before that word was corrupted, what others called industrial democracy before that word was forgotten. To achieve it, our party was created and organised fully democratically, unlike any other. Even anarchists respect our organisational  structure and methods. You would be wise to spend some time exploring our webpages and blogs and i'm not trying to be patronising or elitist by proposing that. You can then come back with more questions and challenge us to defend our case for socialism.I hope you will find the exchanges fruitful, kenax

[alanjjohnstone]

"i only hope the revolution will not be bloody, but obviously the present elite will not give up without a fight…"The Socialist Party adopted the old Chartist slogan, "peacefully if possible, forcibly if necessary"At least in most countries, we believe that by using the electoral process, violence will not be required to bring about the changes we seek. Marx did argue that under certain conditions (control of the government by an elected parliament) a socialist-minded working class would be able to gain control of political power peaceably via elections. As he said in a speech in The Hague in Holland in 1872: "You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries — such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland — where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means…"But like yourself Marx thought we would meet with "a pro-slavery rebellion to this peaceful and legal revolution." However, our position does not rest on what Marx said (since we don't slavishly accept him as an infallible authority, merely a guide) but on our own analysis and we are more confident of a non-violent revolution.From or website

Quote:

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. Governments exist solely to administer the society as it exists, in the interests of the ruling (capitalist) class, so governments will not end the privilege. Capitalism will continue as long as the working class accepts it. The working class will have to force the capitalist class to give up its position of privilege.Socialism will be the result of workers democratically choosing a new, classless society based upon the satisfaction of human needs. And since capitalism is a global system of society, it must be replaced globally.It is dangerous and futile to follow those who support violence by workers against the armed force of the state. Violent revolution has sometimes meant different faces in the capitalist class, always meant dead workers, and never meant the liberation of the working class. Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.Political democracy is the greatest tool (next to its labour-power) that the working class has at its disposal. When the majority of workers support socialism, so-called "revolutionary" war will not be required. The real revolution is for workers to stop following leaders, to start understanding why society functions as it does and to start thinking for themselves.

 

[alanjjohnstone]

An interesting article on urbanisation and how unsustainable it is and will be.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/16/are-modern-cities-sustainable/" Tokyo requires an area twice the size of Japan to maintain it."The fact that the author highlights Tokyo shows that immigration is not the root cause of the problemOur case is that following the arguments of Marx and Engels, socialism cn only solve the town/country dilemma

[alanjjohnstone]

kenax , you ask, "what do you think of anarchism? sort of socialism?"The World Socialist Movement does not consider itself an anarchist organisation but we acknowledge that we share some things in common with anarcho-communists of the Kropotkin and Berkman type, those anarchists that stand for a class-free, state-free, money-free, wage-free world community  based on common ownership, rather than those who stand for the self-management of a market economy.Engels to Cuno in 1872 “And since the state is the chief evil [for Bakunin], the state above all must be abolished; then capital will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Abolish capital, the appropriation of all the means of production by the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: the abolition of the state is nonsense without a social revolution beforehand; the abolition of capital is the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production.”Engels to Bebel in March, 1875, "Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve itself and disappear" . "the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable" – Marx, "The King of Prussia and Social Reform" 1844In 1875, Marx wrote: "To all socialists anarchy means this: the aim of the proletarian movement–that is to say the abolition of social classes–once achieved, the power of the state, which now serves only to keep the vast majority of producers under the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will vanish, and the functions of government become purely administrative" Joseph Dietzgen (who greatly influenced the council communist Pannekoek). "The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference."…."While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason I care as much for one as the other."… The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time."- April 20, 1886Can i recommend that you read this link on the question of voting and democracyhttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/02/democratic-organisation_13.html

[alanjjohnstone]

Yo seem genuinely interested in learning, keenax, therefore we should give you the respect of full answers about your.doubts.Marxists have always understood that nationalisation – stateownership – is misrepresented as socialism. Unfortunately, some writers reinforced this by describing it as state-socialism and not what it really is – state capitalism.Can i refer you to Engels, who writes about how capitalism evolves. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as, by itself, not doing away with capitalism, including the process of capital accumulation and structure of wage labor. Engels argued that state ownership owould represent a stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and manufacture by the state where he also describes the rise of corporations (joint-stock companies and trusts)

Quote:

…the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army. But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers…

In the footnote, he writes:

Quote:

But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism. If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.

 

[alanjjohnstone]

What do the capitalists think of Bitcoinhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/15/bitcoin-is-noxious-poison-says-warren-buffett-investment-chiefCharles Munger , the vice-chairman of Warren Buffett’s investment firm Berkshire Hathaway, said he considered the bitcoin craze to be “totally asinine”. Munger said: “I never considered for one second having anything to do with it. I detested it the moment it was raised. It’s just disgusting. Bitcoin is noxious poison.”

[alanjjohnstone]

In this period of heightened and polarised racism and xenophobia, the man who came up with the phrase "Great White Hope" may well have switched to the right-wing anti-migrant movements.As an aside "White Fang" was the first book i read that didn't have pictures and i am presently reading "People of the Abyss" on my Kindle 

[alanjjohnstone]

Is there any way you can find out how many actually commented on your responses, Brian. The more informative exchanges on Quora you engage in i think the more positive it is.

[Author]

Posts