Forum Replies Created
November 7, 2022 at 5:39 pm in reply to: Human Liberation Ought To Be The True Goal Of Socialists #235840
“It is the idea that socialism can simply be abolished, it does not have to be struggled for, and possibly it cannot be struggled for, and any such struggle is futile and always leads back to capitalism or some similar system. In other words, socialism can only be achieved by democratic means in the sense of people voting for it.”
This isn’t the Socialist Party case at all, more like a caricature version of it. Of course socialism has to be struggled for! The capitalists aren’t just going to hand it over, this means action outside of parliament will be just as important as that inside it, if not more. This is why majority understanding is crucial; if the parliamentary route is blocked (I have no doubts that there would be attempts to do this) the effect would be a further loss in the legitimacy of the capitalist class and a further empowerment of the socialist majority who wouldn’t just be sat about passively.November 4, 2022 at 1:50 pm in reply to: New translation of Julius Martov’s ‘World Bolshevism’ available #235639
7pm UK time. I might pop in.
Not sure which part of the book you’re talking about, you could be right, but seems a bit of a vain criticism to me. I don’t think the SPGB is particularly relevant to the development of anarchism in Britain, or elsewhere. The SLP was mentioned in relation to Syndicalism and Guy Aldred, no?
The Heath book is a history of anarchism, so why would you need to mention the SPGB? The WSM is briefly mentioned in the book BTW. It’s just hard to find where since the book is let down by there being no index (or proper references). The Nick Heath book is worth looking at, in fact it’s right up there with the best on the topic. The Morris one is not bad, but it’s just a large pamphlet really.
Yes, that’s him. Standing in elections makes you a statist according to him, and most anarchists
FWIW the SPGB get a mention in the Morris book. But only to say that they are ‘statist’
Well, I guess if you set your expectations low enough anything can seem like a major victory.
“Oh, the irony. Remind me, how long has your little band of ‘brothers’ been pushing your “well-meaning” pipe dream? 🙂”
Pretty much for exactly as long as the “well-meaning” reformists have been pushing theirs!
- This reply was modified 3 months ago by DJP.
“I agree with YMS, it should always be a return to class struggle.”
Despite their apparent esoteric appeal discussions about how finance, money creation and inflation work are of importance to the class struggle. They form part of the answer to the question “Why not reformism?”
“Can someone please explain how it is affecting the present cost of living crisis in the simplest of language?”
I don’t think the current cost of living crisis is actually caused by the kind of “inflation” we are talking about here (a fall in the value of money) but by something else, namely rises in the international price of gas and oil and basic foodstuffs which has been caused by various geo-political conflicts.
In common parlance “inflation” is used to describe any rise in prices, but we are talking about something more specific here.
- This reply was modified 3 months ago by DJP.
FWIW The latest Michael Roberts blog post is on this topic too. It has a graph of US M2 and CPI growth compared. A lot of it seems to be talking about ‘inflation’ in terms of general price rises, rather than a loss in the value of money though – which may not necessarily be the same thing. But I guess as you cannot observe the value of money directly, we are stuck with using things like the CPI as a metric.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by DJP. Reason: URL added
In one of my previous posts I said “Eventually, the total sums of credits and debits will have to match each other.” – On reflection, this ‘eventually’ is only a theoretical reference. In reality, the process never ends the ‘eventually’ never comes. New deposits and loans are continually being made and paid off.
All that a credit does is move a date of payment into the future. And, ‘in the end’ (which may not ever come) payments cannot be put off by seeking further credit indefinitely. Credit money speeds the circulation of commodities, so isn’t what we are dealing with here an increase in the velocity of money rather than a decrease in the value of it? Or is there some relation between the two?
If purchasing power (the ability to circulate commodities) is something created by banks issuing credit (possibly it is), how is this different to value and what is the relationship between the two?
“This quote from the Bundesbank paper is not stating that banks must immediately seek to cover the full value of a loan”
Maybe I’ve been missing the point, but I never thought that any of the SPGB texts suggested that banks must *immediately* do this? Nobody has been claiming this, or that banks must have 100% reserves. Have they?
Is the confusion because a process that happens across time, has been described using words that make it seem like it is something that happens in an instant?
“You are assuming throughout that all ability to pay or spending power is money, by which you mean central bank money.”
I don’t think that’s a correct reading of what is being said. Purchasing power is the ability to purchase something – it could be represented by either central bank money or credit money (i.e a deposit created by a loan). The important thing to think about is what can cause an increase in the aggregate total of it.
As far as I understand it, deposits created by loans do not represent an increase in the total amount of purchasing power in an economy – since all credits and all debits cannot be spent at the same time. The fact that there is more than one commercial bank and banks can and do borrow from each other doesn’t change this.
“promises to pay create ability to pay.” I wonder if “create” is the right word here? A debt is a promise to pay. And money I receive as credit can be spent – this is true, but it is not something that can expand infinitely. Eventually, the total sums of credits and debits will have to match each other. In the end, it is the deposits of central bank money that create the ability.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by DJP.
“Thus, an increase in credit volumes does not directly translate to a proportional devaluation of money, in the sense of a simple quantity mismatch: more money confronting the same heap of commodities, but this increased credit volume may be the fundamental reason for an increased heap of commodities.”
So they are saying that “more money confronting the same heap of commodities” does not directly lead to a fall in the value of money? What about indirectly, whatever that may mean?
“The rate of inflation is thus explained by the motley competition of capitals for solvent demand and credit and how quickly they turn this credit into additional commodities.”
So quick turning of credit into more commodities produces more or less inflation than a slow one? I can’t make sense of this in light of the first claim.
Edit: Seems to me they are subscribing to two things at once, what is called the “Bank-deposit Theory of Prices” and “Marx’s quantity” theory. But I could be misunderstanding. http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1983/marxmonetarist.htm