ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, some people are taking delight in the situation that sanctions has largely brought about. “Sanctions” are an act of war, legalised by the UN charter. They have replaced gunboat diplomacy but their effect on the population of the country attacked is worse.
Here’s what the Report says in its own words:
“We conclude, on balance, that the evidence shows quantitative easing has had limited impact on growth and aggregate demand over the last decade. To stimulate economic growth and aggregate demand, quantitative easing is reliant on a series of transmission mechanisms that operate primarily in and through financial markets. There is limited evidence to suggest that these increase bank lending or investment, or boost consumer spending by wealthy asset holders. (Paragraph 50)
Quantitative easing is an imperfect policy tool. Its use in 2009, in conjunction with expansionary fiscal policy, prevented a recurrence of the Great Depression and in so doing mitigated the growth of inequalities that evidence shows are exacerbated and deepened during economic downturns. (Paragraph 67)
However, the mechanisms through which quantitative easing effectively stabilised the financial system following the global financial crisis have benefited wealthy asset holders disproportionately by artificially inflating asset prices. On balance, we conclude that the evidence shows that quantitative easing has exacerbated wealth inequalities. (Paragraph 68)”
The report in today’s Times is ever more damning. It says the report says that the only thing QE has done is to increase “asset” price (ie the price of bonds and shares on the stock exchange”) but “has done little for growth, consumer spending and investment during the past decade”
Another failed attempt to control capitalism and one that has in fact made matters worse. The original idea was to make it easier for firms to invest by supplying them with cheap money. That didn’t work (because it’s the prospect of making a profit not cheap money that moves firms to invest). They brought the horse to water but it didn’t drink.
Predictably, causing “asset” prices to rise was going to benefit those who own them and the more the more stocks and shares they owned. This has increased inequality (even though the increase in “asset” prices is only a paper increase in wealth not an increase in the real things that make up wealth).
Why is it assumed that “American workers” are only “white”? What about the others? They would seem to have turned “left”.
More detail on this latest poll, bringing out what is considered to be “socialism”. Still, it appears that quite a few people under 35 don’t like what they consider to be capitalism.
“A Forefront Market Research poll commissioned by the IEA of just under 2,000 people aged between 16 and 34 in the UK, carried out between February and March 2021, found that:
67 per cent say they would like to live in a socialist economic system.
75 per cent agree with the assertion that climate change is a specifically capitalist problem.
78 per cent blame capitalism for Britain’s housing crisis.
72 per cent support the (re)nationalisation of various industries such as energy, water and the railways.
72 per cent believe that private sector involvement would put the NHS at risk.
75 per cent agree with the statement that ‘socialism is a good idea, but it has failed in the past because it has been badly done’.”
No wonder the mad marketeers are having a fit. On the other hand, Publishing scare stories (as far as private corporations are concerned) like this — two in the sane week from two different conservative think tanks — may just be a ploy on their part to drum up more funding from business.
This poll, by the sane Niemietz, claims to show that 67% of young people in Britain would want to live “under a socialist economic system”. Unfortunately, when he explains what “socialism” means, it seems they would prefer to live under state capitalism rather than private capitalism. Anyway here he is being interviewed on GB News:
“Propertarian” would be too wide as it would include feudalism and ancient slave society which were also based on private property.
Here’s what he found (but remember that in these polls the answers are often shaped by the questions):
“Voters are almost as fed up with business as with politicians – presenting a huge challenge for supporters of capitalism and enterprise.
When asked to choose the biggest divide was in society, by far the most popular answer was rich vs poor (39%), twice as many as those who chose Brexit or North vs South.
When asked what words or phrases they thought of first when thinking about British companies, the top answers were ‘Profit over people’ (chosen by 47%), ‘They put shareholders first, not ordinary people’ (44%), ‘Excessive CEO/executive compensation’ (41%) and ‘Avoids paying taxes’ (34%). ‘Creates jobs’ was chosen as one of their top four options by 32% of voters – but was beaten by the first three even among Tory voters.”
He didn’t come up with an alternative name for capitalism. But how about ‘the profit system” as a lot of people seem to recognise?
The SWP was part of Respect (until Galloway kicked them out). It was part of their “turn” to try to attract unreformed Muslims. This involved no longer meeting in pubs.
I remember two of us distributing a leaflet at an SWP front meeting held at the TUC headquarters. The leaflet was on some other subject (racism I think) but happened to mention our attitude to religion. An officious SWPer came out and told us to stop as it was islamophobic. We didn’t of course.
Galloway’s votes are obtained on the same basis and so are quite useless for getting some reforms let alone socialism.
We were on to how the Trots had nothing to offer from the start, as this article from the Socialist Standard from 1944 shows:
Here is a video of him campaigning. I see from their site that his party does claim to be socialist. It looks like the Respect Party resuscitated.
Yes, Galloway’s “Workers Party” got 8,264 votes, or 22% of the votes cast. No doubt nearly all of them will have been from former Labour-voting Muslims dissatisfied with Starmer’s strident pro-Zionist stance.
The Workers Party, so- called, has strong link with the “Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)” which is a party that supports Stalin, Mao, Enver Hodja, Kim Il Sung, etc. But I don’t suppose they are under any illusion that the votes cast for Galloway were votes for their programme for national(ist) state capitalism in Britain. Here’s what they stand for from their own site.
I don’t suppose either that Galloway even mentioned the word socialism (or even capitalism) in his campaign. I hope not. But does anyone know?
From today’s Times confirmation as to why we should discourage the use of the term “white privilege”. Didn’t those who bandy it about realise that it was inevitably going to put to this use?
“Elsewhere falsified leaflets proclaiming that Labour ‘believes it is high time white people acknowledged their privilege and gave something to people of colour’ have been posted in mainly white areas.”
The paper went on to blame supporters of Galloway. I doubt that. There are other ant-Labour candidates standing. It could even be the Tories. Remember Smethwuck and the “if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour” leaflets? Politics is a dirty business.
Not bad. Makes the same point that worker cooperatives can only operate on the margins of the capitalist economy and, as businesses producing for the market, are subject to same pressures to keep costs down and accumulate capital to innovate so as to stay competitive as any other business. And that workers already cooperate to run industry and services from top to bottom, only not in their own interest and so have no need to learn how to do this.
But the article offers no alternative to capitalist production for the market by wage workers, just that unions are needed to resist downward pressures exerted by capital on wages and conditions. No doubt unions are better than coops, but they have their limitations too and are fighting a permanent defensive battle.
I thought that the IWW was committed to the abolition of the wages system. In that case they missed an opportunity to spell out that this is only possible on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
I doubt if many people will ! Personally I’m not prepared to spend one hour reading through such pretentious piffle. At one time Camatte had some interest and relevance for publicising Bordiga’s idea about future communist society. That was nearly two decades ago. He went completely nutty when he became a fruitarian and began propagating the weird ideas discussed in this article. I would cross him off your list of people to search mentions of, Alan.
