ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I'd have thought that Marx's and academic economics's view as to how prices are fixed is more or less the same, i.e.Marx: cost of production + going rate of profit.Academic economics: cost of production, including profit as (supposed) cost of entrepreneurship.Both allow for variation up or down depending on short-term market conditions but neither bring in subjective utility. In fact, doesn't conventional academic economics claim that it can explain everything without needing the concept of "value" (as opposed to price) and so these days doesn't have anything theory of value?
I thought that even followers of the view that use-value entered into economic value (the theory HM Hyndman described as "the final futility of final utility") had abandoned the view that subjective utility can be measured (as it differs from person to person, eg Tim) in favour a more "objective" approach based on averages. In other words, they think in terms of more and less (relative) than of an absolute figure. Or maybe there are still a few backwoodsmen around who think you can measure use-value?
The London Elects site has now published the results by borough (and ward). Here are our results by borough:Lambeth 729 (0.74%)Southwark 604 (0.69)Hounslow 504 (0.65)Waltham Forest 496 (0.64)Hackney 464 (0.60)Kingston 293 (0.50)Islington 333 (0.45)Richmond 268 (0.35)This confirms past experience that we do better in Labour areas than elsewhere, though it is not clear why this doesn't seem to be the case in Islington, especially as we have contested many elections there over the years. Or has it become gentrified but by Labour-voting gentry, so giving the false impression that it's still a traditional Labour area (both its MPs are Labour, including Jeremy himself)?
If "God" is dropped from his theory, it becomes "phenomenalism" which is a species of materialism but you know where this thread is bound to lead, don't you?
Spiked, a publication of former members of the now defunct RCP, places itself in the Leave camp on the specious ground that this would enhance "popular sovereignity" and "democracy in one country":http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/love-democracy-then-leave-the-eu#comment-2590440065The referendum debate, if nothing else, is bringing all sorts of things out of the woodwork.Even if it was the case, what difference would a slightly enhanced political democracy in Britain make? The traditional leftwing/Social Democrat policy of "reformism in one country" has always failed, one reason being, precisely, the international nature of capitalism. Which would remain the case and in the end force any breakaway UK government to put profits before people to maintain or enhance British capitalism PLC's competitiveness on world markets, which has been the fate and experience of all Labour governments here.
That shows that some people for whom English is only their second language have a wider vocabularly than some native English-speakers ! I'd too hadn't seen it used before but it's obvious what it means but then I had to study Latin in school. If it's not obvious see here for instance:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridicalMight be a parliamentary way of accusing someone of not telling the truth.
I hope not because West London branch has booked a stall there on the Saturday:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/levellers-day-burford-oxon-1030amMembers from West Midlands branch will be there too.
Have you looked at this section of the website as well as the one on pamphlets as such?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education
You beat me to it, JohnD ! That's the definitive article on it. Its analysis is also referred to here.
Here's one, rare, point for the Leave side (from a capitalist point of view of course). In one of its leaflets the "Britain Stronger in Europe" group claims that British capitalism being in the EU is:
Quote:GREAT FOR FAMILIES with lower prices in our shops thanks to free trade.This is not true as there is ‘free trade’ only within the EU. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the EU is a customs union which imposes tariffs on goods from outside it, in particular agricultural products. This means higher food prices; which was one reason why some were opposed to British capitalism joining the EEC (as the EU was then called, more accurately) in the first place in 1973.This is still the case, as Gerard Lyons, of Economists for Brexit, pointed out in an article in the Times (6 May):
Quote:There is a tariff wall around the EU that protects agriculture, largely for the benefit of France, and parts of manufacturing, because of Germany. In these protected areas, people pay higher prices than in world markets. Caribbean sugar producers, for instance, or African agricultural exporters have frequently complained about the difficulty of selling their cheaper produce into the EU market.So, if British capitalism left (and if it is decided not to protect UK farmers – a big If) there would be lower food prices. But this would not benefit workers. Lower food prices by reducing the cost of living would lead to lower wages, leaving workers in the same position as before. So, while this might earn them a point against the Remain camp, it cuts no ice from the working class point of view.
A review of Mason's book by a one time/sometime contributor to this forum:http://moneyweek.com/book-review-postcapitalism-a-guide-to-our-future-paul-mason/
Now that the election is over I've had the time to read this. While I'm sure Ticktin has always argued against so-called "market socialism" in favour of some sort of planning I don't think he was arguing this in 1997:
Quote:A distinguishing mark of socialism is that distribution would operate according to need, rather than inputQuote:people will be able to walk into a distribution point and pick up what they need. Obviously there will be no such thing as finance, and whole sections of economic activity will no longer exist because they are completely wasteful and unnecessary. There will be no arms production, no advertising and, of course, no City of London – you can go through the different wasteful forms that will cease to exist. It is quite clear that the standard of living could very quickly be raised if such waste is removed.Quote:In a socialist society you would expect workers to work in the way that they judge is correct. Since a worker’s incentive under socialism is not money, they work as best they can in order that they not only fulfil what they are doing for the collectivity, but for themselves. You would expect that they would work as well as they can, without any need for discipline from outside.Quote:Under a situation of relative abundance, there will be a high level of production without shortages. In that case growth rates will be relatively low. The green demand for lower growth will be realised, because there will be no need to go on producing and producing for its own sake. The bourgeois concept of the human being having infinite needs is ridiculous, but it is the basis of bourgeois economics. Since they say there are infinite needs, growth could reach any level. In fact there is a limited amount that needs to be produced for a given society and consequently under socialism we will be able to identify the limited areas in which increased production is needed.I find in hard to believe that he has not been influenced in some way by what we have consistently and persistently said over the years that socialism involves.
ALB wrote:Respect seem to have done rather well here but then they were standing as "Respect (George Galloway)" and so this would be largely a vote for this leader. I imagine he has now set his eyes on the by-election in Tooting now that its MP has been elected mayor of London.The two of us who went to the count for the London elections at Olympia met two counting agents from Respect. The one we talked to was a decent enough person though evidently a follower of "George" as he called him. He seemed a typical leftwinger: anti-EU, anti-corporations, anti-US and said he'd cast his second preference vote for Mayor (after George of course) for the Green candidate.A bit worrying that leftwing parties with a well-known leader such as Respect (Galloway) and SLP (Scargill) do better at elections than those with a more "it's the case not the face approach", e.g. SWP, SPEW, TUSC (even though their leader is an ex-Labour MP, Dave Nellist). I suppose it's a general protest vote against the system.
