ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here's another example I just remembered about which shows that at one time there was general agreement as to what socialism meant. It's from, of all people, Stalin in 1907:
Quote:Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed— there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists—there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.From here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
As one of the papers pointed out yesterday this event is going to provide material for conspiracy theorists for years to come. On a more serious level, I recall the US shooting down an Iranian airliner in (I've just checked) 1988:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655What I don't recall is the media's concern at the time for the innocent travellers who were killed, eg no stories about the 66 children who perished, but then of course Iran was the enemy of the West whereas Russia is becoming again particularly over into whose sphere of influence Ukraine falls. And of course I don't think any Europeans were among the victims.
The other side of the coin, illustrating another way capitalism distorts things but is quite normal under it:http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/jul/16/karl-marx-das-kapital-sold-for-40000-dollarsNot that this disproves the labour theory of value as this is about the value of something that can be reproduced whereas a first edition of Das Kapital, like unique works of art, can't be. So their price (they have virtually no labour-time value) reflects only the demand for them, as Marx explained in Das Kapital (if the purchaser bothers to read it).
There's chapter 3 of this 1967 pamphlet of ours which argues that at one time there was more or less agreement amongst those calling themselves socialists as to what the aim was (even if only the "ultimate" aim for some and there was much disagreement over how to get there) but that later on, in the 20th century, there came to be disagreement not only over means but also over the aim:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917-1967-socialist-analysis
Apparently our press release gets a mention in today's Independent in "Andy McSmith's Diary" on page 20, if someone wants to check.
Jamie Rose wrote:you really deny that opposing it would have meant accepting the rule of the Kaiser at some point down the line? His plans to move into the rest of Europe after Austro Hungary and Belgium are, by now, well documented.Germany invaded Austro-Hungary in 1914? Is he a joker or an ignoramus? The second, I think.
ALB wrote:"Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolved cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end. I'm opposed to it on the ground that it encourages identity politics instead of class politics. As was well explained in an article from Class War in 2007 which can be found by typing "cowley club" + "class war" + "multiculturalism" into a search engine (perhaps someone can find an easier way of accessing it. It's from the Summer 2007 and entitled "Multiculturalism — The Newspeak of the Left Cop".)Did you also have a hand in this article too?
Incidentally, one illusion Piketty does not share is to imagine that banks can create credit by the stroke of a pen. In fact he takes a similar position to ours:
Quote:What in fact do central banks do? For present purposes, it is important to realize that central banks do not create wealth as such; they redistribute it. More precisely, when the Fed or the ECB decides to create a billion additional dollars or euros, US or European capital is not augmented by that amount. In fact, national capital does not change by a single dollar or euro, because the operations in which central banks engage are always loans. They therefore result in the creation of financial assets and liabilities, which, at the moment they are created, exactly balance each other. For example, the Fed might lend $1 billion to Lehman Brothers or General Motors (or the US government) and these entities contract an equivalent debt. The net wealth of the Fed and Lehman Brothers (or General Motors) does not change at all, nor, a fortiori, does that of the United States or the planet. Indeed, it would be astonishing if central banks could simply by the stroke of a pen increase the capital of their nation or the world.(p. 550)I can think of various things we could do:1. Publish an article length review in the Socialist Standard2. Maybe also a shorter piece on where he gets Marx wrong.3. A meeting entitled "Have You Read Piketty?"4. Use his figures to update Chapter 7 of our The Market System Must Go! Why Reformism Doesn't Work pamphlet:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/market-system-must-go
LBird wrote:I'm quite happy to play Cassius to your Brutus, Alan,Interesting alliance between a Know Nothing and a Can't Know Anything ! Anyway, L.Bird, have you reached chapter 10 yet on "The Inequality of Capital Ownership"? If so, I'd be interested in what you think of it.
You really should read the book and then you would see that Mason and Piketty share the same "prognosis" of slow growth and rising inequality this century. This could even be said to be the main theme of Piketty's book. It seems that the OECD too shares one of Piketty's imagined solutions of a tax on wealth (as no doubt would Mason). I can't remember if Paul Mason's has been one of the reviews you've recommended:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestsellerI really don't understand your picking on him in particular. OK, his solutions are pathetic and he gets Marx wrong. Ironically, though, as you will discover when you get round to reading the book, he too posits a tendency for his rate of return on capital to fall but says that this can be offset by counteracting tendencies so that it is not possible to say what the outcome will be.I think we need to be careful about joining in the state-capitalist chorus against him. Some mentioned Benjamin Kunkel's review. Here's his criticism of Piketty's proposed 'solution' of a global tax on capital:
Quote:Piketty’s proposal entails the possibility of the democratic restraint of capital not just in one or two countries but in such a preponderance of them that governments everywhere will submit their wealthiest and thus most powerful citizens to a measure bound to repel them. Yet in his account of the 20th century ‘it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return on capital’; redistribution was mainly an after-effect of hostilities. If the democratic control of capital has such scant precedent, how plausible can it be in the future? Citizens in the capitalist democracies of the mid-20th century felt strong identifications with starkly different political parties. Depoliticisation over the past generation is understandable, as parties of left and right converge towards the same vacant centre. (Piketty himself stoically supports a French Socialist Party even more cringing and feckless than others in Europe.) A recent study calculated that in the US the top 10 per cent of the income distribution enjoys an effect on political outcomes 15 times that of the remaining 90 per cent. Other countries are plutocratic to similar degrees. How are the executive committees of the ruling class in countries across the world to act in concert to impose Piketty’s tax on just this class?Socialist revolution frankly seems more likely.Ah yes, but what sort of 'socialist revolution'?:
Quote:Suppose a revolution in an advanced country gradually or suddenly transferred to the public all shares of corporations currently in private hands. Investment could thereafter be directed by publicly held mutual funds competing with one another for long-term returns, all of which revenue would flow to the general population or the administration carrying out its will. The size of the capital stock would be unaffected by the change in ownership. A far narrower wage schedule within and among enterprises would be one likely result.Who's for a witch-hunt against Kunkel?
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:A serious question from me now to those who have read the book.I’ve got one, too, for those further into the mire than me, so far. I’ve read to the end of chapter one, where I found:
Piketty, Capital, p. 71, wrote:…the principle mechanism for convergence…is the diffusion of knowledge. In other words, the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill, and education…I’m baffled by this conclusion by Piketty. I can’t find any evidence in the chapter for this assertion.Within the UK, the proletariat is better formally-educated than ever before, and yet they haven’t ‘caught up with the rich’.
Isn't he talking here about poor countries (rather than poor people within countries) and trying to explain the high rate of growth of a country like China and why it will eventually slow down too?
LBird wrote:From what I’ve already read in reviews, Piketty argues that the world wars were the context of ‘convergence’ (ie, the rich paid more in money than the poor (who paid in lives, though), and so there was ‘convergence’), so what does he mean by this strange assertion, above?The interesting thing here is that he offers an argument that should appeal to the likes of the ICC (though I don't suppose they'll be any more recognisant of him than Alan or you!): that in the period 1910-1950 the rate of growth was more rapid in Europe to make up for the destruction of capital in the world wars and the devaluation through inflation of capital invested in national debts. According to his basic thesis, a higher rate of growth means a lower share of income from capital in total income and so a slowing down in the concentration of wealth ownership.He is in fact saying that this period was exceptional and that the normal course of ownership concentration was that up to 1910 and which he says we are seeing in operation again. He writes:
Quote:In the twentieth century it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return on capital, thereby creating the illusion that the fundamental structural contradiction of capital (r > g) had been overcome.This is on page 572 so, if you've only reached page 71, you've another 500 pages to read before you get to this.
