alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
YMS , I can only quote from a quote in a review you described as solid http://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.htmlA global tax on capital is a utopian idea. It is hard to imagine the nations of the world agreeing on any such thing anytime soon. To achieve this goal, they would have to establish a tax schedule applicable to all wealth around the world and then decide how to apportion the revenues. But if the idea is utopian, it is nevertheless useful, for several reasons. First, even if nothing resembling this ideal is put into practice in the foreseeable future, it can serve as a worthwhile reference point, a standard against which alternative proposals can be measured. Admittedly, a global tax on capital would require a very high and no doubt unrealistic level of international cooperation. But countries wishing to move in this direction could very well do so incrementally, starting at the regional level (in Europe, for instance). Unless something like this happens, a defensive reaction of a nationalist stripe would very likely occur. For example, one might see a return to various forms of protectionism coupled with imposition of capital controls. Because such policies are seldom effective, however, they would very likely lead to frustration and increase international tensions." There are lots of reasons for this to be controversial. First, as Piketty admits, it's impractical. Getting all the countries of the world to agree to this scheme is implausible. But, he says, we don't need everyone to cooperate to realize some immediate benefit:"To reject the global tax on capital out of hand would be all the more regrettable because it is perfectly possible to move toward this ideal solution step by step, first at the continental or regional level and then by arranging for closer cooperation among regions. One can see a model for this sort of approach in the recent discussions on automatic sharing of bank data between the United States and the European Union. Furthermore, various forms of capital taxation already exist in most countries, especially in North America and Europe, and these could obviously serve as starting points."……..Piketty, in Naidu's view, is limited by his unwillingness to challenge capitalism itself……..Piketty wants desperately to salvage capitalism, even if that means proposing something that every capitalist will hate: a global wealth tax. ………I can only go by what i read and the above is fairly clear. Maybe the review is wrong…and it is not quite as solid as you first claimed.
Ahhhh…i see that it is okay to suggest that i am a giggling school-boy in the back of the class room. Although i prefer to see myself as the boy who pointed at the emperor with no clothes on.The point i keep expressing is Piketty is proposing reforms that he himself has not much hope in but which are readily being advocated by his audience. Some may call that intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the author. I described it as neo-trotskyism in one post. You should have interceded then and accused me of sectarianism!The fact that i alluded to your own organisation's tax reform proposals may well account for your own enthusiasm is seen as sectarian but it was an observation more aimed at my own comrades since you have all the reason to promote the book's conclusion, whereas i think we should be much more critical of the book for the reasons i have offered – that it indeed has useful data but as a political work it is serving as a diversion, suggesting a tax reform campaign as a strategy to adopt. And that its actual importance is over-valued in the battle of ideas which i moreorless stated from my earliest post.
YMS, you use the same argument as Adam did earlier.
Quote:“we used to quote the findings on the distribution of wealth of Sir Leo Chiozza Money and Sir Arthur Bowley despite their politics”But yet again i must repeat since it keeps getting overlooked that i am perfectly happy with using any information that strengthen our case. Nothing is sweeter than refuting our critics by quoting them back at themselves. We have over the years acquired a plethora of facts from a plethora of sources. Piketty is simply the latest to our library. I'm placing him in a proper perspective.I went through this thread and nothing was said about how Piketty interprets his data to conclude that inequality can be lessened by legislation which is what he proposes, although again he views it himself as utopian (as did Mattick's review) that such a global tax and progressive taxation can be implemented but nevertheless his readers are interpreting it as a feasible objective as i cited. His facts (as LBird keeps telling us) are being used ideologically to support theories that are against the party case.i can understand Stuart's enthusiasm for the conclusions of Piketty which serve to support and justifies his own political party's taxation policy.But my position is reforms stop short of overthrowing capitalism, become co-opted and turned to the advantage of the system, not necessarily,of course, to the advantage of some capitalists. Do we declare it is possible to have a more equal capitalism and that this is worth struggling for? Spirit Level which YMS earlier approvingly referred to has us establishing a Nordic welfare state. Perhaps i should heed Piketty's own sceptism and doubts more and not heed all his interpreters adoption of his supposed palliatives.
Where have you been? A few weeks ago i posted this link particularly for yourself, LBird.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/economics-not-scienceI guess you agree that confirmation bias that Stuart threw at me is the only logical outcome…that we seek facts that fit into your own already existing particular view. But perhaps i am mistaken on that too.
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htmAnother review of the book by Gideon Polya to add to everybody's reading list.Inscribe upon your banner, YMS, "First Law of Capitalism is a = r x ß where a is the share in national income from capital, r is the average annual return on capital and ß is the capital to income ratio. Piketty's Second Law of Capitalism is ß = s/g (or rather ß asymptotes to s/g in the longterm) where ß is the capital to income ratio, s is the savings rate and g is the rate of growth of the economy " As i said, what people will take away from this book is not the need for socialist revolution but "his must-read book makes a strong case that expanding wealth inequity must be controlled for economic sustainability and democracy reasons and proposes an annual global wealth tax … and support an effective annual wealth tax for democracy and economic justice…"
I do love to rattle cages.Did i say i do not appreciate facts? I often quote Burns that facts are chiels that dinnae ding. I have several times agreed that Piketty (and Marx…) provided a more grounded critique for us to use as tools in our case for socialism. But these are not decisive in the class struggle. Just where have i said he is wrong in what he wrote. What i have been saying is that in many regards it is all superfluous to the real issue at hand. It is not the lack of facts or statistical proof that hinder the progress of socialism. It is the lack of a consciousness against the strength of our opposing ideology which has no need to rely on facts and has never done, despite all those philosophical/intellectual justifications of the system that have been produced by the academic apologists of capitalism in the last century or so. I already stated that formulation r>g is a weaker than the 1% v 99% despite the lack of accuracy on the figure as it reinforces peoples own experience without the requirement of translation. Piketty has given us the proof that we can say the rich get richer and money makes money and now we can say "We told you so and said so all along" But what makes you believe that now coming from Piketty will have more validity than previously a soap-box orator? I am minded that no matter how scientific we can be such as exposing racism or whatever, workers have to learn for themselves and from one another. (YMS did make a earlier point that Marx wrote as a part of our class ..the IWMA) You accuse me of confirmation bias…and then challenge my presence on a thread because all i am doing is questioning why Piketty stops well short of the conclusion for the abolition of capitalism as a system (which Adam and those well respected authorities you cite seems to say the findings lean towards))…I am emphasising that our core questions that determines our political actions and approach are in no way answered in this book. It is much an ado about nothing. Worse still, the book offers credibility to all the tax reformers of the world for Robin Hood/Tobin tax systems, that inequality can be reduced by government action at a global level.Yet Piketty himself doubts it could ever succeed, but lets give the proles something they might believe is achievable. This is not very far away from a Trotskyist transitional demand policy. Too harsh a criticism? Maybe it is.But once again, i have to re-iterate my own conclusion …the philosophers have interpreted the world (and Piketty joins that well revered club), BUT the point is to change it. It takes a mass movement of our class to do this and it has not been waiting all this time for some book to give it reason and cause to change it. The big question which i keep asking myself is why it has not acted except only in self-defence. Can Piketty give more confidence to the working class, yes, a bit …but i doubt it will change things that much.r > g needs a movement behind it, 1% v 99% had the beginnings of that movement but has dissipated…Just how can we re-build that movement and make it better? All answers on a postcard, please (or inscribed upon your banners)
"Today an equal amount comes from the "salaries" that "supermanagers" pay themselves."And i thought that the most important part of their remuneration was the various and regular share options they were provided as part of their contract and could cash in if they so desired when the share price was right, Adam, and if it is only salary , just where do they place it…under the bed…or in stocks and shares and perhaps a trust or few. Again not a great discovery and one that has been highlighted previously. But i do note the " " around salary. During the 60s/70s the Scottish radical theatre group called themselves 7-84 so i wonder where they got that figure from. But i am i grant being rather ungenerous to Piketty … simply because as i say it is the class that will remove capitalism not the intellectual and the most …the MOST. ..important question is what will motivate it to act.
I always thought that people will come to realise and understand the need for socialism from their own experiences of employee/employer conflict and also on a more generally from their personal perception of the profit motive versus environmental sustainability. Capitalism is full of real situations that demonstrate its inability to provide for the well-being of the majority and presents ample reasons for its overthrow.Its not about rejecting scientific argument and accepting religious preaching but self-discovery, self-education and self-emancipation. If we required Marx to prove how we are robbed at work, if we need Piketty to demonstate how inequality is built into the system, just what is the point of having our own eyes and ears for evidence? We have always rejected the legitimacy claims of the ideologues of capitalism whether they be professors or priests. I don't dismiss being provided the bullets by Marx or Piketty but if we fail to understand for ourselves who to fire at and why we are shooting, no amount of scientific peer reviewed work can substitute.I may well be charged with anti-intellectualism but all i am saying is that the academic's contribution, no matter how worthy and valuable, is not essential but merely additional or complementary to the consciousness we gain from our interaction with this social system and our fellows within our communities. Alas, this awareness still hasn't grown or spread sufficiently in strength to overcome capitalism. I hoped Piketty removed one more veil hiding reality but then he goes and adds another veil of his own. C'est la vie as Piketty might say in his native tongue
Has our problem really been that we have not had academic or scientific credibility and that the working class have previously accepted the prevailing view that the rich deserved to be rich because the rich said so? And is his conclusion that increased progressive taxation is the solution given legitimacy, too, by being peer reviewed?That added to the research of the Spirit Level our aspiration is simply to lessen inequality to a non-threat to the system so it can still offer wage slavery and alienated labour as a way of life?I'm simply following Marx's advice ….doubt everything, Stuart
"We have the same problem. And that is, the ruling class."It is often the very same ruling class we work for eg Mittal's global steel holdings.
I've admitted my economic ignorance but i still can't see whats so ground-breaking about discovering that the rich get richer and money makes money. Nor can i help but think that taxing the wealthy isn't such a new idea either and not always successful and even Piketty says there is something still utopian about his global tax hope.As for discovering there are extremes of inequality a read of Marxist Archive will produce plenty of references to "America's 60 Families" (or sometimes 90) from the 30s as shorthand for the inequality. And the 40s produce, of course, the war profiteers.So one era we have the Robber Barons and then the next it is the Banksters…seems as if the name changes, perhaps even the sphere of capital they operate in, but still the same old same. It is still in the end our labour that is creating all this wealth…well, perhaps not mine personally, but my doppelganger's in one of Apple's China tech-cities. Must be the cynical philistine in me that i'm not really impressed although it is additional ammunition to use , rather than some new secret weapon.1% v 99% became famous and readily understood when i have used the phrase in conversation, not so sure r > g will be talked about much in the pubs. As for having it on banners, there are better slogans that are better understood.
Can i also second that suggestion that you continue your dialogue either with ourselves or with our Indian comrades in Kolkata.http://www.worldsocialistpartyindia.org/Many of the reforms you seek will only be possible with a socialist society as envidaged by ourselves. Capitalism, either in its 'free enterprise'. 'neo-liberal' form advocated by Modi or the state-owned/interventionalist model of the CPI(M) simply cannot deliver what you ask. Why do your demands such as free education , free health care , free public utilities, abruptly turn to affordable food…sure this basic necessity of life should also be free, as should free housing and everything else that is produced by the collective labour of our class.Your demand #16 could easily be re-phrased as production for use. Many of your demands we could also support as part of the trade union class struggle but the struggle for socialism is not economic but political. We can of course also sympathise with the many weaknesses in the Indian political life that you seek to remedy but the basic democratic rights which can change the political battle field already exists in the vote and elections, for all their failings and flaws.What is always missing is the will of the people who keep on supporting false promises and that requires political education and India is well experienced in mass movements mobilising and reaching out to the masses even to grass-root village level.
Now he is appealing to his pay-mastersLabour will be "pro-business but not business as usual", he will say, arguing that the party's plan to crack down on energy companies and banks is ultimately good for companies as it will help restore faith in an open-market economy…the CBI reacted positively to the proposals put forward by Balls, saying a competitive business tax system is "crucial for future growth"http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/29/labour-olive-branch-business-corporation-tax-investment
"But SPGB members can be union members (and officials) and their political beliefs may well be known within the union."As the Communist Manifesto puts it "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims."Yes i think it is very likely that it is a misunderstanding….Socialist Party of Great Britain for Socialist Party of England and Wales. But we should make the most of the mistake to follow up to have a correction made and if possible include part of our attitude toward trade unionism. I would make no mention of SPEW but take the claim at face-value to deny. Let them explain their own reason for the error.
