ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Revealing insight into the mind of the petty nationalist. They really do seem to think that a change of venue where decisions to put profit before needs are made (or rather imposed by the workings of capitalism) will make a difference. And what about the really naive one who thinks that a separate Scottish state could end the need for food banks.
The Irish article is about the distribution of income whereas, for us, the key factor is the distribution of wealth. To a large extent the distribution of income (which is less unequal than the distribution of wealth, which itself is less unequal than the distribution of income-yielding assets) is a consequence of the distribution of wealth, with a big chunk going as property income to the property owners.
That's not just any old article but one by the man himself, Jeremy Rifkind. It would be nice if this really was "the invading socialist society" but it isn't even if it makes our case more plausible.
I agree that it's a fair point to say that Piketty's has provided a theoretical justification for reforms that the Left were advocating anyway just as Keynes did in the 1930s. Whether his intention is to "save capitalism" by diverting attention and activity from campaigning for socialism is more debatable. I doubt it but it doesn't really matter. In any event, he doesn't appear to think that realistically capitalism can be saved from itself.
LBird wrote:YMS, I'm a Communist, not a Liberal.Why you continue to engage me with individualist ideas, I'll never know.Why not start a thread named 'Science for Individualists', and leave this one to the self-professed Communists?Ironically, it is your view that gives some standing to "individualist" ideas in that it makes any individual's "bias" (the new word here for "ideology") as good or as bad as the next while YMS's view says that it is possible for humans to share the same "bias", over non-social science today and over most things in socialism/communism, so that a common understanding/interpretation can be reached and acted on. He could claim to be more "common-ist" than thou. In the end of course It's relativism v universalism again (and again).
A contemporary reference to Grayson in the Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1908/no-43-march-1908/graysonss-gratitude-sdf
LBird wrote:Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?No. It's better to find some alternative term since, in the Marxian tradition, "ideology" is a prejorative word.
LBird wrote:It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.Totally agree with the first part, but not the way the second is expressed (because it uses the word "ideology"). Better to say something like "which is required if the brain/mind produces a simple photograph (or 3-D picture) of the world". Which of course it doesn't.
I wasn't saying Marx was right or wrong, merely what I thought was Marx's use of the term. I don't think, either, that
Quote:Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideasbut that he didn't use the term "ideology" in this context.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically. First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason). To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).I agree that is how Marx used the term "ideology" and that therefore, for him, to talk of a "communist ideology" would be an oxymoron.
The discussion about the latest figures for GDP in the UK, which show that they have reached (after 6-7 years) their pre-crisis level, brings out what Piketty means by g (growth) in his formula r (rate of return on capital) > growth. He means not crude GDP but GDP per capita (per head of population). This makes a difference.UK GDP has indeed reached its pre-2008 level but, as has been pointed out, GDP per head of population is not expected to reach its pre-crisis level for another three years (because of course the population has increased since then).By defining g as GDP per capita rather than simple GDP (which would be more logical and what most people might understand by it) Piketty makes "growth" slower, which suits his argument better about the slower the growth the more the inequality of wealth ownership.It is as well to be aware of the two different meanings of "growth".
Piketty is a reformist but at least he's not an underconsumptionist like Hilton and, apparently, Larry Summers:
Quote:The problem is that it is not at all easy to see how this is going to change, which is why some of the more far-sighted economists — like Larry Summers, the one-time US Treasury Secretary — talk a lot about the threat of secular stagnation. In essence he sees decades of slow growth because there will not be enough money in the pockets of the mass of the people to buy what the world could produce if it was operating at its full potential. Operating below capacity in human terms means huge persistent unemployment for the really unfortunate and under-employment and low pay for very many more.Denouncing or at least describing inequality seems to be the flavour of the month. Here's an extract from yesterday's London Evening Standard by their economics editor Anthony Hilton headed "Inequality is the real challenge for the economy" and subtitled "The next set of output figures should top pre-recession levels — but it is good news only for a privileged few" and "We now live in an economy where the rewards from growth or globalisation go to an ever narrower elite":
Quote:the defining feature of the age is the return of inequality. Most of the last century saw a steady narrowing of the gap between the rich and poor in society. This century has seen it widening again. Executives who in the 1990s were content to earn 20 times the wage of their lowest-paid employees now expect to earn 200 times — and pay a lower rate of tax into the bargain. And they are not alone.The full article can be read here (Piketty is not mentioned):http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/anthony-hilton-inequality-is-the-real-challenge-for-the-economy-9625535.htmlHe doesn't seem to think much is likely to be done about it either.
I don't know if this is the right place to post it, but here's another example of (particularly stupid) anti-socialist propaganda that might influence people sent to us by a sympathiser in the US:http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study
LBird wrote:I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.I agree there is plenty of evidence that, when in government, reformist politicians end up running capitalism on its terms, i.e giving priority to profits and conditions for profit-making even if this involves holding back wages and opposing strikes erven calling out the military to break them. But I thought you mean rather more than this by "repression", i.e. something like dictatorship and/or armed suppression of the workers movement.Quite apart from the fact that socialism has never really been on the agenda, so that the choice you posit (socialism or repression) has never really arisen historically, doesn't the evidence show rather that, faced with the prospect of repression reformists choose to opt to try and keep the reform option open, eg the Republicans in Spain, the Social Democrats in Austria and Germany? I don't think many went over to fascism did they.
