ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
We can guess what was on the 'menu'. If I donate a lot of money will that earn me points to be given a knighthood or a seat in the House of Lords or some other favourable treatment.
I thought I'd explained that I was not talking about top-level reformist politicians and ideologues but about lower level grass roots ones (such as many Socialisr Party members might once have been or, for that matter yourself, when you were in the SWP). The fact that they call themselves "socialists" must show that they have some criticism of "capitalism" and want to see it replaced eventually even if only as a vague ideal or far-away ultimate aim. I don't see them necessarily siding with Repression if real socialism was on the agenda. If they were, then us real socialists/communists are doomed to fail.By the way, Edouard Bernstein doesn't illustrate your point. Even though he was an open and self-proclaimed reformist (the archetypal one) he was one of the German Social Democrats who came round to opposing the WW1 and joined the breakaway Independent Social Democratic Party rather than stay with the pro-war Majority Social Democrats who did choose Repression. You never can tell.
I agree that reformists in one sense are elitists in that they want to do something for people instead of people acting for themselves, but I was thinking of it in a wider sense that most of the working class today have a "reformist consciousness", i.e they don't see any alternative to capitalism either and just seek the best they can within the system. Which is why they vote for and follow reformists in the narrower sense.I still don't think it necessarily follows that, given a choice between socialism and an openly repressive capitalism, reformists in the narrower sense would necessarily choose repression rather than revolution. After all, many of themselves consider themselves to be "socialists" (including Piketty as a member of the French PS).
LBird wrote:The real conundrum is whether there is an internal dynamic to capitalism which compels a choice from between only Regression or Revolution.Piketty wants reform, but fears the ‘compulsive dynamic’ does exist. I think if he’s pushed in the direction he fears, he will choose regression.I don't think that there is much point in debating which way Piketty would jump confronted with a choice between Revolution or Regression, but it could be of interest to speculate which way reformists in general might.If we're talking about a democratic, majority revolution (rather than some minority-led insurrection) I don't see why they would want to opt for regression/repression. After all, mosr of them will be reformists today not because they want to "save capitalism" but because they want to improve things for people but don't see any alternative to capitalism. I would have thought (would like to think) that, with socialism/communism as the only remaining way to do this, that they'd opt for this. In fact, won't the future socialist majority inevitably have to be made up of former reformists?
LBird wrote:Leaving aside the nonsense about ‘American strengths’, it shows that even supporters of capitalism are, in effect, saying ‘Marx was right’.The real issue, then, for both them and us, is whether political action (ie. either peaceful reforms or destructive wars, separately or together) can overcome the tendencies of the system to do what it says on the tin: markets transfer wealth to the rich.Piketty is arguing ‘yes’. A judicious mixture of war and reform worked last time, and his book displays the ‘facts’ to support his argument. How will the 'market reformists' within the socialist movement react to this prescription for 'war socialism'?LBird wrote:I’d suggest that the only thing that compels the ruling class to divest itself of its wealth is ‘FEAR’. Both fear of other ruling classes (actual war) and fear of its own exploited classes (potential revolutions produced post-war by war).It’s not democracy, decency or enlightened self-preservation that drives the ruling class, but fear.And… just in case any comrades think that Piketty actually believes in his own ‘peaceful’ solutions of ‘world reformism’:Now we are getting somewhere. Having read the book you have been able to confirm (a) that Piketty regards the 'natural or spontaneous' tendency of capitalism is for the rich to get richer proportionately as well as absolutely; (b) that he thinks that this tendency can be, and has been, stopped or reversed by certain outside events at least temporarily (c) that he himself doesn't think that the political interventions he proposes to try to do this are likely to be implemented.In other words, he is being inconsistent. He ought to draw the conclusion that we do — that the only way out is to replace capitalism with socialism (or communism, the same thing).I don't think (b) invalidates the socialist argument. Yes, the tendency can be temporarily slowed down (even you concede this) but the point is that this will always only be temporary; in due course the 'natural or spontaneous' tendency will begin to win out again.I would also add that we don't necessarily have to be committed to (a) in full, i.e we only need accept that the tendency under capitalism is for the rich to get richer absolutely, i.e that they don't necessarily have to get richer relatively to the rest of the population. That depends on the specific property and inheritance laws in force at a particular time and place. It didn't apply to the sort of state capitalism in the old USSR where the ruling class collectively monopolised the means of production without individual private property rights and where being a member of the exploiting class was not handed down through inheritance. The point is that, as Marx explained, the logic of capitalism is the accumulation of more and more capital out of surplus value extracted from the wage working class, irrespective of who owns or benefits from the accumulated capital.Finally, there are of course no 'market socialists' nor advocates of 'war socialism' here, though there are plenty around elsewhere, e.g amongst the Leninists and Trotskyists.
Just read the rather disturbing news that Ofcom is branching out into censorship and is investigating Russia Today TV for broadcasting "slanted" news about this incident and events in the Ukraine generally. Yes, we know that RT is controlled by the Russian government and so is interpreting events from the point of view of its interests. But then the BBC and the whole of the British media are putting over the point of view of the Western capitalist bloc which has a strategic interest in bringing the Ukraine into its sphere of influence that directly comes up against Russian capitalism's interest to have it in its sphere. Both sides are propaganda.The call has gone out to take RT off freeview, etc so that only Western propaganda is easily accessible but the advantage of world tv is that people can listen to both sides and make up their own mind. If Ofcom is going to ban propaganda it doesnot like it should change its name to f-ofcom.
You've got to admit, L. Bird, that you can be infuriating and also that you dish it out too as, for instance, accusing those who disagree with you of being religious. Perhaps you don't realise what an insult this is in the SPGB.PS I still refuse to accept that the Sun went round the Earth until it came to be generally accepted that it was the other way round. For me this conclusion of yours is a sufficient refutation of your theory on the grounds of reductio ad absurdum.
I think you've missed the point. YMS wants to know if it is a fact that you are a communist. I think it is, but do you/can you?
We all know that Piketty is a reformist who wants to try and regulate capitalism to benefit the majority, which can't be done. But you've still not, L. Bird, given your opinion on the statistics produced by Piketty in chapter 10 on the 'Inequality of Capital Ownership'. Are they underestimates, overestimates, biased, complete fabrications or what? Are you saying that we can't use them to back up our case that capitalism is based on the ownership and control of the means of production by a tiny minority?
I agree that we should be wary of seeing these things as an upper class or Establishment 'vice' as certain populists are (a couple of members came across a demonstration outside parliament on Friday which they described as a 'lynch mob' chanting "Kick the pedos out of parliament"). After all, this was what some on the left traditionally saw homosexuality as.
