[ALB]

rodshaw wrote:

But has the party, or any sympathisers, even tried to get in touch with him?

Yes, he has been given a copy of the article (also used for a leaflet) on him in the Socialist Standard via a member who knows his father:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1312-december-2013/russell-brand-attacks-capitalism

[ALB]

Thanks, YMS, for his appendix on Marx. Actually, his "first fundamental law of capitalism" (page 52)  α = r x ß, or share of income from capital in national income = rate of return on capital x stock of capital/national income, can be  translated into crude Marxian categories (s = profit; v = wages, C = stock of capital).In crude Marxian categories his first law is s/(s + v) = s/C x C/(s + v)As this is an identity it can be turned round to get:rate of return =  share of income from capital in national income x national income/stock of capitalor s/C = s/(s + v) x (s + v)/CThe (s + v)s cancel each other out, leaving s/C = s/CHis "second fundamental law of capitalism" (page 166), ß = s/g, or capital income ratio = rate of saving divided by rate of growth of national income per head, is more tricky but it would be something like: percentage of (s + v) accumulated as new capital divided by rate of increase of (s + v) per head. This is not an identity but depends on what s and g happen to be at any time in any country.I know he's going to end up concluding that where r (rate of return on capital) is larger than g (rate of increase of national income per head) then α (share of income from capital in national income) will increase and the rich will get richer compared to the rest of the population whose income comes from work, but I haven't reached there yet and am waiting to see the steps he takes to arrive at this (though it does seem to be intuitive).Then, of course, he's got to show that there is in practice a tendency under capitalism for r to larger than g (and that this tendency isn't be nullified by any counter-tendencies).

[ALB]

To be more scientific, he defines Occupy's top 1% as the first centile. Now that's a slogan: Down with the First Centile !

[ALB]

Stuart, pgb and anyone else reading or who has read Piketty's Capital, I have just finished reading chapter 6 but I can't understand the criticism of Marx he makes in the section "Back to Marx and the Falling Rate of Profit" (which I've read three times).He seems to be attributing to Marx the view that there is no growth of national income per head under capitalism or at least of not taking this into account. I can understand why Piketty might want to discuss an interesting limiting case where there is no such growth, but not why he would want to attribute this view to Marx (and Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, etc). Perhaps because he seems to think that Marx held the rate of profit will fall "inexorably" as capital accumulation proceeds.Anyway, what do others think he is trying to get at or of what he says?The ironic thing is that in this chapter Piketty argues that there is a tendency for the rate of profit (as the rate on return on capital as he defines it) to fall, though for different reasons than Marx or Ricardo, but that this can, has been and is offset by counter tendencies. Which of course was Marx's view too.Despite what he is reported to have said, Piketty clearly has read some of Marx as he discusses what Marx wrote in part of Volume I of Capital and in Value, Price and Profit. In fact, in footnote 33 on pages 600-1 he says he has done a detailed analysis of what Marx wrote in these places about profits' share and the rate of exploitation and that this is in the "online technical appendix". I can't find this part of the appendix online if anyone can help.

[ALB]

Actually, when Greenpeace were carrying out a campaign against nuclear power stations I always wondered whether or not they were funded one way or another by the coal industry because, under capitalism, that's who would benefit if they won.I still say there's nothing wrong with fracking in principle and that it is not implausible that some anti-fracking groups are being funded by Russian gold. Why not? That makes sense from the Russian government's point of view. We shouldn't jump on this bandwagon and, insofar as some members seem to have, they should jump off now.

[ALB]

NATO is claiming that the Russian government is secretly funding anti-fracking groups with the aim of furthering its own economic interest:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.htmlI don't know whether or not this is true but presumably NATO has information from its own secret agents. In any event, it is not implausible and a warning against us getting involved in campaigns to put pressure on capitalist governments to adopt one energy source rather than another.

[ALB]

Thanks. That's a useful summary of this school of economic thought's point of view, but it looks as if for once students of economics are generally being taught the accurate thing:

Quote:

Endogenous money is the idea that rather than the central bank determining the amount of money in the economy – exogenously, the amount of money is instead determined by the supply and demand of loans. In shorthand, MMTers (and Post Keynesians in general) would say, “Loans create deposits”. That is to say that banks create money by extending loans to customers, while at the same time creating a corresponding deposit. This runs contrary to what is generally taught to students of economics – that savings are loaned out with banks acting purely as intermediaries, or at best leveraging an initial injection of government money by a predetermined ratio.

Meanwhile in China the view that early goldsmiths issued more receipts for gold than they actually had and that this was the origin, and still the practise, of modern banking is being refuted by events. If they had done this (and any that did) this would have been exposed sooner or later and could not be the basis for a viable and stable banking system:http://qz.com/216059/chinas-investigation-into-missing-metal-could-spark-a-much-bigger-crisis/and this from the Financial Times of 12 June:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85f594a8-f210-11e3-9015-00144feabdc0.html#axzz354iGvZZ7

[ALB]

My copy arrived yesterday. Going to start reading it tomorrow. Don't know when I'll finish it as i's 670 pages.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The mountain won't come to the Mohammed so perhaps we should go to the mountain.

He's one person we should definitely have nothing to do with, so good idea to leave him behind or even drop the mountain on him.

[ALB]

And doesn't the Debs quote go back to Tom Paine (who also took part in the French Revolution)?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

“The great appear great to us, only because we are on our knees: Let us rise" – James Connolly  

Although Connolly used the slogan I don't think he invented it or even claimed to. I think it goes back to the French Revolution which Connolly would have found when reading about it.It seems also to have been appropriated by Irish Nationalists (to whom the Debs quote would be anathema):http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/

[ALB]

"Community-Wealth" sounds like a possible alternative name for "socialism" (if we need one), but "World-Community-Wealth" would be better as "community" has become associated with local communities rather than a world community. Anyway, workers coops (or even co-ops) are a dead-end.

[ALB]

We're already on to this. South London branch will be covering it as it's only 3 tube stops from Head Office (i'ts in SW11 not SW1).

[ALB]

Steve, YMS is not talking about the particular case in question but about the general principle of it being legitimate to take into account what any ex-member applying to rejoin said while a previous member exercising their right to criticise the party, a principle which Socialist Punk has challenged as undemocratic. This is a discussion about this general principle.  I don't think this general principle can be challenged, even if its application in a particular case could be.Other reasons to reject an application from an ex-member applying to rejoin that might be invoked would be: not being convinced that their behaviour wouldn't be repeated in the future or that the re-application was premature.Personally I don't think this is really the place to discuss individual cases but it is unrealistic to expect unanimity either way in controversial cases and that it is out of order to challenge the motives or integrity of those who vote one way or the other. Challenging the wisdom of a particular fairly-reached decision is another matter.

[ALB]

I've had a look at the site of Nouvelle Donne and I'm afraid it's not very impressive. As a way of getting out of the slump they advocate giving everybody a monthly payment of €150 (about £120), something that's been tried in Taiwan and Japan.I don't think much of their logo either. It's too like the "flash in the pan" logo of the old British Union of Fascists and its successor the Union Movement.

[Author]

Posts