ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with Alan that this is hypocrisy coming from a Labourite even though I can easily believe anything the Green Party tried would be a shambles. Glad to see, though, that the Greens are having trouble pushing through the 20mph limit. I've been arguing against the local LibDem councillors in my ward who want to impose it everywhere, including on the nearby main A road. It's crazy on a main road. Anybody ever tried driving a modern car at 20mph for any length of time?
I'm not sure Kliman or the MHI would describe themselves as "disequilibium theorists" (except insofar as every crisis is a reflection of a disequilibium; we ourselves have preferred "disproportionality"). They are more into the falling rate of profit. But all will be revealed when our long-discussed interview with Kliman appears in the March Socialist Standard, though there will be a taster in the February issue out on Friday on this debate in New York.
Jusr listened for an hour to the film version of this at:http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr-cut/PMYKQ105/DAP is right. It's basically just an ad for the Money Week magazine aimed at people who've got a bob or two, the message being The End of the World is Nigh but if you subscribe to our magazine and follow up on our financial tips you and your wealth will survive. Like all ads just worthless boasting and lying,in this case also trying to scare people into subscribing and pretending to want to help them when all they want is to make a profit from selling their particular commodity.Don't recommend watching it unless you want to see the depth of cynicism of some people in their pursuit of profit.
Here's Owen Jones being an open reformist, deliberately as he knows his Marx and that Marx described "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work" as a "conservative motto":
Quote:A statutory living wage, with immediate effect, for large businesses and the public sector, and phased in for small and medium businesses over a five-year Parliament. This would save billions spent on social security each year by reducing subsidies to low-paying bosses, as well as stimulating the economy, creating jobs because of higher demand, stopping pay being undercut by cheap labour, and tackling the scandal of most of Britain’s poor being in work. An honest days’ pay for an honest days’ work would finally be enshrined in law.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-joness-agenda-for-hope-we-want-a-fairer-society–and-heres-how-we-can-achieve-it-9086440.htmlAt least he's not as bad as Harold Wilson who, when Labour Prime Minister in the 60s, called on workers to increase productivity by doing "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay"
Here's SPEW's local branch's official statement opposing the referendum:http://brightonhovesocialistparty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/oppose-green-partys-cuts-budget.htmlI wouldn't have thought that the alternative policy they propose is any more realistic or likely to defeat the cuts than what the Greens are proposing.They do, however, seem to be right on one point when they say that recalcitrant councillors can no longer be surcharged:
Quote:[In the 1980s]… 47 [Liverpool] Labour councillors were surcharged and banned from office. The draconian laws which allowed this to happen no longer apply. The worst which Brighton Councillors defying Pickles’s cuts today would face is being forced to face a new election at which they could defend their strategy …See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surcharge_%28sanction%29I'm not sure they are right that recalcitrant councillors can no longer be banned from office for up to 5 years. And the central government retains the right to appoint "intervention commissioners" to run failing councils.In any event, we need to be up-to-date with the current law and no longer say (as we have been doing) that any councillors doing what TUSC propose would be surcharged. .
This passage from the current issue (23-29 January) of their paper, the so-called "Socialist", confirms that they are "underconsumptionists" (workers-can't-buy-back-ists):
Quote:Even in boom times the working class cannot afford to buy back the full product of its labour power. In periods of growth capitalism can temporarily overcome this problem by ploughing part of its profits into developing the means of production. This in turn creates new factories, workplaces – the organisation of science and technique – but at a certain stage all the same contradictions reappear.Of course even in the state capitalism they envisage the income of the working class won't be (and couldn't be) enough to purchase the "full product" of their labour.
I think you are right. He is merely elaborating a theoretical defence of a reformist practice.His defence of the obvious criticism that he is saying "finance capital, bad; industrial capital good" is pretty weak, i.e that non-financial capitalist enterprises engage in financial speculations too. Of course they do. If they've accumulated a cash mountain of non-reinvested profits they're not going to leave them in a current account but are going to try to get what income they can from them. But their main activity remains production and it is only there that surplus value, that later takes the form of profit, interest and rent, originates.Actually, he admits that the profits from finance are not created there but must come out of the surplus value produced in productive industry. Thus he describes financial transactions as a "zero-sum game":
Quote:The remarkable thing about finance, however, is that it is not simply inefficient but also exploitative in ways that industrial capital cannot be. It is a primordial capitalist activity that long predates the establishment of industrial capitalism and has retained its ancient predatory outlook. Finance can extract profits from any money income and stock of money – its profits are not limited to the fresh flows of value produced annually. During the past four decades, it has become expert at making zero-sum profits that involve transfers from one economic agent to another.Exactly and what we've always said, that all that happens on the stock exchange, etc is that profits already extracted from the working class are shuffled around. What one speculator gains someone else loses. No new profits are created.HIs proposal to end the "predatory" activity of finance on productive industry is state capitalism:
Quote:If interest and exchange rates were controlled, a body blow would be delivered to financial markets, particularly derivatives markets. It is apparent, however, that this kind of intervention would be impossible without also expanding public ownership in the economy, including among financial institutions.Given the worldwide nature of the capitalist economic system, this would be a return to the "siege economy" of war-time and immediate post-war times and, worse, of the old USSR. That's not the way to go. We've seen the past and it doesn't work. Nor has it anything to do with socialism as he imagines. People like him have nothing to offer.
Just received a reply from the local SPEW branch:
Quote:Essentially we see the referendum as another move by the Greens to try and find a way to lessen the impact of the cuts locally, in this case by raising taxes. However we don't see that as much of a choice for people, higher taxes – or worse cuts? If they really wanted to stop cuts, then the best way would be to fight the government for more funding.This could be done by setting a "needs budget", working out what money the city needs for its services and jobs and then demanding that from local government by waging a massive campaign.They may be out of line with their key target group here, i.e workers in the public sector. In any event, as we've always said, if people are not prepared to vote for something they won't be prepared to strike or take "direct action" for it. Not that the government is likely to provide more funding given the need to give priority to profits and profit-making by cutting government spending to reduce taxes on capitalist enterprises.
In any event, the gold reserves held by central banks has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking properly so-called nor with backing the currency the government or the central bank issues. That was abandoned a long time ago.The term "fractional reserve banking" was originally coined to describe the policy, pursued by governments in the 1950s and 1960s, of trying to control the amount of bank lending by varying the proportion ("fraction") of their assets that they were required to hold as cash and/or some other liquid asset ("reserves"). This was later abandoned in favour of trying to control bank lending by manipulating interest rates instead. Now they are trying to control it by imposing limits on what banks can lend by only allowing them to borrow money to re-lend up to a proportion of their own capital. Which of course is a recognition of the fact that this is what banks do — borrow money to relend, not create it out of nothing as the currency cranks claim
It looks as if TUSC will be opposed to holding the referendum and to campaigning, if it takes place (which is far from certain), for a No vote. This, from their draft programme for May's local council elections:
Quote:Reject increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts.The Greens are claiming to have the support of the local GMB and Unison branch secretaries:http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/news/social-care-budget-referendum-proposal-gains-strength-with-support-from-union-leaders.htmlThey've also got the support of this lot (whoever they are).
If they contest Streatham which is next door to Vauxhall there will probably be a joint hustings for these two constituencies and a third, Dulwich & West Norwood, as there was last time (for some reason the centre of Brixton is divided between these three constituencies, all solid Labour). They would also be up against Labour shadow business secretary Chucky Obama who recently told the Financial Times:
Quote:The big difference between 1979 and 2013 is that we are all capitalists now. The question is what sort of capitalism do we want? We endorse free markets but we want competitive and free markets and more responsible capitalism.We're not and we don't endorse markets, whether supposedly "free" or not, and we don't want any kind of capitalism.
Latest: they have now withdrawn their candidate to give us a free run ….http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/#comments
Going beyond a joke if they really are going to stand against us in Vauxhall:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/This would be a contest between their reformism (merely "Bash the Rich" within existing capitalist society) and the revolutionary position put forward by us of a classless society, with neither rich nor poor, based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with production for use not profit and distribution in accordance with the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
