[ALB]

Here’s an example, from a talk by David Harvey, of the sort of “underconsumptionist” explanation of the present crisis (fall in working class effective demand) that Kliman criticises.

[ALB]

The talk by Macnair against Keynesianism sounded interesting, but from the written version published in the last two issues of the Weekly Worker (here and here) turned out to be an argument for not basing a reform programme on Keynes’s theories but on some other basis. Basically, he was just criticising other leftwing groups for proposing that the State should take steps to increase spending (as recommended by Keynes should be done in a slump), as many do. But he wasn’t against putting forward reformist slogans to try to attract working class support for the vanguard, but only that the proposed reforms should be based on some other justification than Keynes.

[ALB]

Yes, he is very good on why a “transitional society” between capitalism and socialism is an impossible contradiction in terms, but I see he comes out in favour of the “labour-time voucher” system mentioned once by Marx as one way of allocating consumer goods in a “first phase of communist society ” (had it been established in 1875).”Labour-time vouchers” seems to be an American disease. What with the SLP, Parecon and now Kliman and the Marxist-Humanists all favouring it. Still, it could have been worse. At least they accept that socialism does involve the end of commodity-production as production for the market and the end of money as the medium of market exchanges. Not that a labour-time voucher scheme could have lasted for any length of time before collapsing back into commodity-production, despite Marx’s tepid blessing for the conditions that obtained in 1875.Having said this, there is one who has moved beyond this — Paul Mattick (father). This is what he wrote in 1970,ie after a further 100 years development of the forces of production:

Quote:

In the advanced capitalist countries, that is, in the countries where a socialist revolution is possible, the social forces of production are sufficiently developed to produce means of consumption in overabundance. More than half of all capitalist production as well as the unproductive activities associated with it (totally disregarding the productive forces which are not exploited) surely have nothing to do with real human consumption, but only make sense in the irrational economy of capitalist society. It is clear, then, that under the conditions of a communist economy, so many consumption goods could be produced that any calculation of their individual shares of average socially necessary labor time would be superfluous.

That’s more like it. Mind you the Marxist-Humanists are not likely to think too much of Mattick after his hatchet job on their founder, Raya Dunayevskaya (that first appeared in the Western Socialist, then the journal of our companion parties in the US and Canada).

[ALB]

I see from the Events section here that Andrew Kliman is coming to England next month. There’s a shorter video of him here speaking a couple of years ago.You’re right he is good on explaining why the current (and past) crises have not been caused by a fall in consumer demand (as “underconsumptionists” claim) but rather by a fall in investment demand caused by a fall in profitability (though not necessarily for the reasons he gives, which in the first part of this video seem a bit schematic: can productivity increase that fast in a relatively short period?).He’s also good in explaining  (as in the second part of this video from 2009)why , therefore, an increase in consumer demand (as asked for sincerely by trade unionists and insincerely by Trotskyist groups) is not the way out of the slump, but would in fact tend to prolong it. In fact, in the second part of this video, he is pretty insistent in saying that, although of course workers should try to apply the brakes to the downward pressures on their living standards, measures aimed at countering “underconsumption” won’t work and should not be put forward and that only socialism and production for use is the solution.But does anyone know what he means by socialism? Is it the same as us?

[ALB]

Picked up a copy of Socialist Worker yesterday, literally, from a dustbin and see that they have now made the change from the old version:

Quote:

The workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan production and distribution.

(I imagine they put “collectively” in to avoid giving the impression that they were in favour of individual workers seizing it. back)to the new:

Quote:

Under capitalism workers’ labour creates all profit. A socialist society can only be constructed when the working class seizes control of the means of production and democratically plans how they are used.

That makes them sound like old-fashioned syndicalists who used to talk about the working class “taking and holding” the means of production. But if you read on to the end, you will see that they consider a “revolutionary party” is needed to seize political control.Even so, the front page proclaims “Strikes can beat the Government”. Not true, the most strikes can do is slow down the rate at which things are getting worse — not that workers shouldn’t try to do this, ie they should strike but “without illusions”. Also, article after article blames the Tories not capitalism, so they are playing the old (and Old) Labour card too. I’m just waiting for their announcement that workers should vote for Ken Livingstone as mayor of London ….

[ALB]

Has anyone else noticed the irony (or is it hypocrisy) of the whole affair? Terry is accused of making a racist comment and is sacked as captain for this. Capello resigns for criticising this and the whole sports press (including the broadsheets) unleashes a tirade of abuse against him … for being a foreigner.

[ALB]

Some probably are. Personally I’ve never been a fan of Chomsky (though I know some Socialist Party members are), especially not his stuff on US foreign policy, which is just boring and apparently (according to the link you give) not always accurate and does lend comfort to kneejerk anti-Americanism and its devotees.Having said this, I can’t deny that his stuff on the media, manufacturing consent is useful.There’s an assessment of Chomsky from the August 1998 Socialist Standard here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1128-august-1998/chomskys-weakness

[ALB]

I see what you’re getting at but it’s a cross we have had to bear over the years. Fifty or so years ago the journalists at the Daily Express were instructed to always refer to the Labour Party as “the Socialist Party”. Of course there’s no point in Tory papers doing that now as everybody can see that Labour has nothing to do with socialism.

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Unlike the SPGB I can imagine myself supporting a reform but I would never call it socialsm. It would be a desprate struggle for a few more crumbs or a bit more freedom under capitalism

We’re not against either a few more crumbs or a bit more freedom. It’s just that, as a party, we campaign only for socialism. What we are against is the policy of reformism not necessarily against all reforms as such. And of course like you we’d never call any reform, however desirable or welcome, “socialism” or “socialist”.

[ALB]

There’s no copyright on what a political party calls itself. All there is is a degree of protection for the name that can be put on the ballot paper where we are “The Socialist Party of Great Britain” (and various variations of this, including “The Socialist Party (GB”)) and they are “Socialist Alliance” (and various variations of that, including “Socialist Alternative – Save Our Baby Unit”).But that’s not the real problem which is political rather than legal. I’ve just checked with the site of the Electoral Commission and here’s a list of registered parties calling themselves socialist:Socialist AllianceSocialist AlternativeSocialist Equality PartySocialist Labour PartySocialist People’s PartyScottish Socialist PartyRepublican Socialist PartySocialist Party (NI)There’s also the Socialist Workers Party (which is not registered).You could send the same email/letter to all of them as their programmes are more or less the same as that of SPEW (keep a society divided into rich and poor but tax the rich to provide jobs and benefits for the poor). You can find their addresses on the Election Commission’s site. It would be interesting to see if they any reply and what they say.

[ALB]

Yes, the Olympics are a Feast of Nationalism and a Festival of Freaks. I’m glad it’s taking place in East London not West London.

[ALB]

That reminds me of Trotsky’s last words — “Why are they picking on me?”

[ALB]

Another interesting analaysis of the present slump (“The First Depression of the 21st Century) here, by Anwar Shaikh. The text of this talk (which is not quite the same) can be found here.What is interesting, apart from his emphasising that capitalism is not geared to meeting effective demand and bringing out the relationship between the rate of interest and the rate of “profit of enterprise”, is that he concludes by saying that eventually world capitalism will recover from the present depression (even if not for ten years) and that this puts him in a tiny dwindling minority. Not quite of course because we say this too even if it is a bit of a downer for all those who think capitalism is collapsing or about to collapse soon. To tell the truth, I sometimes find myself reluctant to express this view when discussing with people who believe this as it could demotivate them and makes us appear less anti-capitalist than them. Still, the truth must be told.

[ALB]

You’ve got to read Chris Harman’s brilliant reply here to the somewhat eccentric views of Chris Knight. OK, I know he was an SWPer but Knight is in the Labour Party.

[ALB]

I think I just said that it was probably a fair picture and that I thought those in Cincinatti (pop 330,000) came over best.

[ALB]

Poor ex-Sir Fred having to be a scapegoat for the sins of capitalism. Hopefully we’ve come far enough from the days of the Ancient Hebrews for people to see through this attempt to let capitalism off its sins by piling them on to one man.

[Author]

Posts