[ALB]

I'm not sure that SPEW can be accused of "underconsumptionism"(that crises are caused by a relative decline in working-class consumption) just because they reject a crude version of the falling-rate-of-profit theory of capitalist economic crises. SPEW leader, Peter Taaffe, states their position in this reply to a letter:http://www.socialismtoday.org/157/profits.htmlThere is an argument going on about whether or not profit's share of new production has gone up (and therefore that labour's share has gone down). Kliman's argument is that labour's share has not gone down, so a reduced working class consumption cannot be an explanation for the crisis. As far as I can see Taaffe doesn't enter into this argument. His point is that the mass of profits has gone up (which could of course happen without labour's share going down). He also makes a similar point to us when he says that they are counter-tendencies to the fall in the rate of profit so that this would only manifest itself over a long period.SPEW's view of how to get out of a crisis is based on this view that the money is there but that the capitalists just won't spend it productively. So, it must be taken from them by the government and invested (the same as Keynes said):

Quote:

Exact a 50% levy on the hoarded billions of the super-rich to invest in public services such as health, care and education and in manufacturing of socially useful products and services.

I can't believe that the SPEW leaders really believe this would work, but it's an attractive bait with which to catch the trade union leaders and activists they are targetting (and who are tempted by underconsumption theories of crisis). After all, they are Leninists who believe that the mass of workers can only understand populist slogans (only the vanguard can understand and discuss economic theory).

[ALB]

Amusing series of tweets here:https://twitter.com/langrabbie/status/352175689698521089Something else to amuse One Eye Grey.

[ALB]

Here's Farage's reply to the CBI (a letter it today's Times) in which he confirms that UKIP wants Britain to have the same relationship to the EU as Norway:

Quote:

Sir,John Cridland (Opinion, July 4) is trying to frighten people with dark warnings for when Britain finally leaves the EU.Claims that Norwegian authorities sit around the fax machine impotent, waiting for their latest instruction from Brussels, are risible: 90 per cent of Single Market rules are covered by UN and other international bodies. Norway acts in its own interest on those bodies, which is more than can be said for the UK where our place is taken by the EU. In reality Norway has more influence on EU rules, from outside, than we do from within. It has access to the market but sets its own rules.NIGEL FARAGE, MEP. Leader of UKIP

The leaders of British capitalist business must regard him as an ignorant fool. The problem for them is that he has some popular support and is at present able to wag the Tory dog. 

[ALB]

I see that the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is called Mohammed Badie.

[ALB]

As for the by-election in January Lambeth Council are planning to put a photo of the candidates in Tulse Hill ward on their website and also a link to the candidates' websites. This, in a bid to increase interest and turnout.We have managed to get them to accept not a photo of the candidate ("the face") but of Head Office (the nearest we can get to "the case").                                                              As to website, we have revamped and un-named "Vaux Populi" and inserted a prominent link to our main website. Here's the link (the URL hasn't changed):http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/Even though they say it's a one-off which they won't be able to repeat at next May's full council elections it's a pity other Councils are not as enterprising as Lambeth.

[ALB]

Yes, it is. It brings out all the issues, as in this extract;

Quote:

To put it in economese, is the persistently high level of unemployment a result of cyclical factors (the traditional ups and downs of economic growth) or structural factors (new game-changing technologies, dramatic shifts in the global economy)? (…)From one decades-long leading student of the American economy came a succinct one-liner in favor of cyclicality: "This isn't a jobless economic recovery as everyone insists on calling it; it's simply just not yet a recovery."In other words, as painful as the waiting certainly is, the economy will heal — and once again, create jobs — in time."Brace yourselves," countered Eric Brynjolfsson, from MIT's Sloan School, co-author of "Race Against the Machine," a much-talked-about recent book which argues that the introduction of new transformative technologies has only just begun, and that we're dangerously unable to perceive what's actually going to happen.  He added:"Many of our intuitions about what's coming next are going to fail us. All the disruptions we've been talking about today about the past 10 years, the past 20 years — as important as they've been and as hard-hitting as they've been for so many people — are just a small glimmer of the much bigger disruptions that we think are in store for us in the next 10 and 20 years, at least the ones that are related to technology."Princeton University economist Alan Blinder, who served in the 1990s as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, took a more measured view. He believes that both cyclical problems and disruptive technological change are at play, along with the changing face of the global economy:"In terms of the number of jobs, it looks like an awful lot of the problem is cyclical. That's the first problem."The second problem is the lagging average wage. Until a few decades ago, India, China, and the former Soviet Union were isolated and not really participating in the world economy. But now they have roughly doubled the world's labor force, in a couple of decades."What did they bring to the table? Capital? No. They had almost none. But they had a lot of labor. So, if you double the amount of world labor and you don't change the amount of world capital much, then loosely speaking, the returns to labor are going to go down while the returns to capital go up. And this is about to end. And it's not mainly about technology."But then there is the third problem: what's behind the trend toward greater wage inequality? The non-economist in me wants to think about institutions and social norms. Some of the increase in inequality has to stem from changing attitudes in our society. I just don't believe that it's only technology."

[ALB]

Listen to John Humphrys get his come-uppance when he tried to argue down an eloquent opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 earlier this morning:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23176860

[ALB]

Here's another (rather long) one here:http://mustwesuccumb.wordpress.com/The first part about "anti-austerity" not being an alternative or even a programme is ok, but the later bit about needing leaders is not.

[ALB]

I thought this was going to be about Sigmund Freud's book Civilisation and Its Discontents in which he advances the human nature argument against socialism in no uncertain terms, but it turns out to be about his great grandson Lord Freud who is the Tory minister for "welfare".More on this hypocrite here:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-tory-lord-freud-1545677Mind you, it runs in the family as his great grandfather was a fraud whose theories are now generally debunked and discredited.

[ALB]

What's sad about all this enthusiasm is that is that it's for a movement that won't even get off the ground let alone "win". For three main reasons:1. The Trotskyist sects are not going to stop their suabbling, entryism, manipulation and generally playing student politics.2. This niche on the political spectrum is already covered more or less by the Green Party (who were represented at the Assembly).3. The first-past-the-post electoral system.in any event, the policies they are advocating (basically, Bring Back Keynes) won't work even if they did "win".

[ALB]

As hundreds of thousands of people in Egypt demonstrate against the rule of President Morsi and his islamising Muslim Brotherhood, let's recall that this time last year the SWP called on workers in Egypt to "Vote Muslim Brotherhood" (without illusions of course)http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28611

[ALB]

Quote:

First, there was a need to deal with what Graf describes as the party's "bureaucratic rather than a relational culture". A new member coming into their first meeting should expect more than bureaucracy and hierarchy.Second, the party had to stop treating members as drones rather than leaders. Many of the party members Graf visited in the regions seemed to think that if there were genuine leaders in the party, they were all in London. Most orders came from the capital. It was in London that the leaflets were designed, the timetables set and the marching orders given.Thirdly, the party was too closed: Labour gatherings were often suspicious of outsiders, particularly people who were Labour sympathisers but not prepared to be members. It seemed hard for newcomers to break in.Finally, the party offered little inspiration to its members. Graf blew open a complacent consensus that branch meetings had to be boring. He could see that they could offer more, and dared them to be so: "We grow up and get meaning from relationships … politics should provide that."

Do you think he went to some of our branch meetings too.

[ALB]

The first part ends by noting that some used to refer to us as "Tony Turner's party". This still lives on. We received a cut-off form back from an enquirer on 23 May who said that she had come into contact with us "Many many years ago in the days of Tony Turner — things haven't got any better in fact they are worse!"

[ALB]

I had to look up what a "Takfiri" is. Now I know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TakfiriIt seems to be the word used by the present rulers of Iran to refer to extremist Sunni Muslims. After all, they could hardly call them "Islamists" or "JIhadists".

[ALB]

I'm still not convinced but I suppose you could use the data used to calculate "total factor productivity" to calculate a rate of profit, e.g. the total stock of capital, but this assumes that GDP less capital's contribution to productivity less labour's contribution = total surplus value. But does it? I've not thought this through myself yet, because I've not found exactly how they calculate "capital's contribution" (it seems to the amount by which the value of the stock of capital increases, but I could be wrong). In any event, this rate of profit would not be TFP but TFP/Value of stock of capital.Most of those who have tried to calculate the rate of profit (mostly those in the Marxist tradition) have used the figure for profits (and interest and rent) in National Income and compared these with the total value of capital stock (the total value of capitalist firms). This seems a more direct measure.

[Author]

Posts