ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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!"
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".
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.
It's Andy Newman, ex-Trotskyist (and ex-Respect Party member) and aspiring Labour councillor, who is wrong here. He's afraid that the stance of fellow Labourite, Anne-Marie Waters, will lose the Labour Party votes from Muslims. It might well but that doesn't make it wrong. It just shows what unprincipled vote-catchers Andy Newman and the Labour Party are. Newman is getting a well-deserved bollocking for this on Urban 75 and elsewhere.
Just read it. You're right it contains some interesting stuff, eg that in the period 1830 to 1913, the average length of the trade cycle was 8 or so years and that fluctuations in investment were an important "driver" of the cycle while changes in consumption were an effect (so much for consumption-led recoveries). Also, that the period of downturn was longer in the period 1871 to 1913 (4.2 years) and the upturn shorter (4.2 years) than in the period 1830 to 1871 (2.6 years and 5.4 years). Crises in the 18th century don't seem to have been due to the workings of the economy itself but to the outside factors of bad harvests and wars.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I find the chart 17 (page 286 (10th page of this article)) on Total Factor Productivity intriguing, as this would represent a chart of rate of profit in the UK since 1857 (or thereabouts).It's not supposed to measure this. In fact it's not clear what it's measuring. It's intended to be a measure of the difference between the rate of growth of GDP per capita and the rate of growth of the stock of capital, which is taken as a measure of technological progress. The figures show that this goes up in a period of upturn and down in a downturn (though the article warns that this latter could also be partly due to companies "hoarding" labour when output falls rather than immediately laying workers off).The chart defines "Total Factor Productivity" as
Quote:GDP growth minus the contributions of labour and capital weighted by their shares in output. The labour share includes the income of the self-employed.Capital is defined "as the non-housing whole economy capital stock" and labour as "the whole-economy total hours worked". Profit doesn't seem to enter into it, at least not directly.
More on the now correctly-named Free Pass Movement here.Meanwhile, in response to the unrest, the President of Brazil has been promising reforms, a factor to be taken into account when guessing how the last capitalist government might respond to a growing socialist movement.
The Emir of Qatar, who seized power from his father in 1995, has graciously handed over power to one of his sons. That's how things work in this dynastic state. Along with Saudi Arabia (where things are even worse), Qatar is the main supplier of finance and arms to the anti-government forces in Syria. And we are supposed to believe the propaganda put out by Cameron that the rebels in Syria are fighting for a liberal democracy. Pull the other one.
jondwhite wrote:Good work. I think there were a couple of other left events which clashed (AWL's Ideas for Freedom, ICC day of discussion) but this sounds like the best attended.Actually, two other members (and one ex-member) went to the ICC event, so proving that we have enough members to engage in two different political activities in the same town on the same day….Here's Ian Bone's confirmation of the number of anarchists who turned up for his People's Assembly Against Hot Air (can you spot the two Party members in the second photo?). Apparently, no anarchists attended the ICC thing. Meanwhile some wit has suggested that the other People's Assembly should be called the People's Ass for short.
I think the link you meant to give is this, Janet:http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/revolution/brazil.htmlWhile I'm writing, I'd just add re the point Ed raised about rigging elections that the reaction of the Brazil government in offering reforms to try to allay the discontent suggests that this is the more likely scenario that the last capitalist government will follow in the event of powerful and growing socialist movement.
I see the media have now corrected their translation of the "Movimento Passe Livre" to "Free Pass Movement", but it's still interesting, and intriguing, that someone should have initially thought of translating it as "Free Access Movement". Why? Perhaps because this was a familiar idea, even as a result of our own efforts at popularising the term? In any event, this shows how an idea can spread.
