robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m sure that is a big part of it but I would also say that the scale of the unproductive sector has swollen to the extent it has precisely because of decadence. The productive forces have so long ago outgrown the social relations that capitalism needs to invent this globalised unproductiveness to keep the whole mad cycle going.
isiahahblake
Yeah I would basically along with that. The only slight quibble would be that productive/unprpductive distinction, while it might be relevant to the question of the rate of profit in capitalism (as Moseley argues) might not be entirely relevant to the question of to what extent the productive forces have outgrown the social relations of capitalism.
There are, for example, certain categories of unproductive labour in capitalism that we will continue to need in a post capitalist society. An immediate example that springs to mind is an NHS nurse. There are also examples of productive labour in capitalism that we will definitely not want to continue with such as armaments producers.
A more useful distinction would be between socially useless and socially useless work. However, this is only apparent from a standpoint external to capitalism itself so data relating to this is not that easy to come by. Most estimates seem to settle around the 50-60% mark (that is, the percentage of jobs currently in the formal sector of the economy that would not be needed in a post capitalist society) Some estimates are excessive in my opinion – up to 90% in Ken Smith´s book, “Free is Cheaper” (a figure similar to that cited by Buckminster Fuller).
Are you aware of any detailed studies recently that might throw more light on this? Has the ICC published anything on it?
A bit OTT and vague as to what exactly is to be done. But it makes some interesting points
The question of whether debt ever has to be paid is interesting but ultimately I think its a false question. The fact is capitalism is running into basic realities of nature, in the form of the climate crisis and the raw questions of power and war
This is plausible – though it is difficult to say whether capitalism would collapse (implode) or merely shrink as a result of factors such as climate change or war coming to manifest themselves. These are exogenous factors, however, and the argument that the SPGB makes is that there are no endogenous factors – internal to the economic system itself – that would cause capitalism to collapse (such as the falling rate of profit). Obviously in the event of a nuclear war, say, there will be not much left of human society let alone capitalism.
The more important question with regard to debt is, I think, the reason for its explosion since the 70s/80s onwards. There is clearly something different about the current crisis to previous ones in this regard. The degree to which companies more and more don’t ‘make profit’, whole economies like Japan’s are basically giving up on basic aspects of ‘growth’ etc…it is clearly not just business as usual
The dichotomy of the productive versus unproductive sector of the capitalist economy might be relevant here. People like Fred Moseley have charted the relative growth of the unproductive sector – the non-profit-producing or non-commodity-producing sector of the American economy (in his case). Unproductive labour might not generate profits but is still functional – even vital – to the needs of capitalism. It is financed out of surplus value generated by the productive sector but that, in itself, imposes limits on the extent of this sector vis-a-vis the productive sector. It is significant that we have seen cutbacks in jobs in the unproductive sector in recent years which might be interpreted as an attempt to get the balance right and ensure a healthy flow of profits on which the system depends
LOL Not content to annex Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada, the Orange One (and his sidekick) seems to want to claim Mars. Time to get the popcorn out, methinks
As I said I think it’s clear that the recourse to debt as a solution to the debt crisis would suggest there must be a cumulative aspect to the crisis. Whether this means it will be “deeper” than the 30s is very difficult to judge but it does seem likely to be more universal/international than 2008 or the 30s.
________________________IsiahahBlake
I am curious about this argument about the role of debt. Public (government) debt for the US is about $33 trillion (there is also of course, household debt which is different), as I understand it. Actually, it is somewhat less since part of this is debt is money the government owes itself and the real figure is about $26 trillion . This supposedly represents a ratio of debt to GDP of about 98%.
It is a huge sum of money and apparently even just the interest repayments now exceeds what the American regime spends on its military.
I read somewhere that the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to grow to about 160 per cent in the next decade and that there is an absolute upper limit of 200% beyond which it cannot grow without the system imploding. There are already countries that have a ratio in excess of 200% like Japan for example but there are offsetting factors in this case like a much higher rate of household savings
My question is – can it really be that there is some such upper limit as far as debt is concerned or is it a case of just endlessly kicking the can down the road?
My understanding is that Marx saw financial crises involving fictitious capital could have a disruptive or triggering effect as real crises are concerned but the latter are ultimately rooted in the real economy, for all the talk of “Minsky moments” and financially crashing the economy. Capitalism could survive a cataclysmic financial crash in other words. What do you think?
Rosa Luxembourg was mistaken and trying to question Marx she created more problems for herself, and it has been proven that the collapse theory is completely wrong and the main cause of the capitalist crisis is not the fall of the rate of profits, it is overproduction
==========================As I understand it, Luxemburg did not think capitalism would collapse as a result of the falling rate of profit. That would have been Henryk Grossman, I think, whose views she opposed. Nevertheless, she did believe capitalism would collapse but from a quite different standpoint of underconsumptionist theory or a particular version of it based on the idea of the non-capitalist world being incorporated capitalism via imperialism and so providing the system no more room for expansion
This is simply unbelievable. That pathetic excuse for a human being, Michael Gove, suggesting that a state terrorist entity like the IDF should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize….
One does not have to have the slightest sympathy whatsoever for a reactionary nationalist outfit like Hamas to appreciate this has got to be some kind of sick joke
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/the-idf-should-be-nominated-for-the-nobel-peace-prize-xmppkld8
´A “peace prize” for killing 17,400 little kids. Yeah right. You couldnt make this up if you tried
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/11/20/an-a-z-of-the-children-israel-killed-in-gaza
And apparently, the numbers murdered by the IDF have been underestimated….
It seems that the Venezuelan regime might be running into what is called a “legitimation crisis”. It is very curious that Machado was briefly arrested and then released after addressing a huge protest rally on the eve of Maduro’s inauguration. Caracas has been militarised apparently with the aid of some amongst the “collectivos” (others have come out against Maduro) but just lately the approach of the regime to protest seems to have softened slightly. I wonder why?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv3vlz01g3o
The top brass in the military have sworn allegiance to Maduro but there is apparent discontent among those lower down the hierarchy. Is there the possibility of a “junior offices revolt” – a coup – and the regime is aware of this? Or is Maduro looking for some face-saving formula whereby he and his gangster capìtalist cronies could keep their millions and maybe relocate to some safe haven in exchange for relinquishing power and handing it over to the opposition who clearly won the election by a huge majority?
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few days….
Now Russia is taking an interest in Trump´s imperialist ambitions re Greenland. Maybe Denmark can call on the services of a few Russian brigades when the US marines move in LOL LOL
“French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said “there is obviously no question that the European Union would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders”.
LOL. Its war brewing up – against the Yankee imperialists!
Jeezua. Talk about blatant, unabashed imperialism …
“President-elect Donald Trump declined on Monday to rule out military or economic action as part of his avowed desire to have the U.S. take back control of the Panama Canal and acquire Danish-controlled Greenland.”
There is also this: Greenland´s response.
Alf
How is the election of Trump a “clear product of the advancing decomposition of capitalism”? I mean, I wish it was but it strikes me that if millions of American workers are willing to put their trust in a snake oil salesman cum billionaire charlatan like Trump, capitalism still has a got some mileage to look forward to.
It’s the same with the so-called revolutionary wave in the 1920s in Germany and elsewhere inspired by the Bolshevik bourgeois revolution. The vast majority had no inkling of, or desire for, socialism. Capitalism in some form remained the only possibility at the time
Sadly, I cannot see much that is different today…
It looks like the (Anti)Labour Party is heading for the doldrums
“I think it is fair to say that Trotsky didn’t really understand what socialism was”
__________________________________________But the quote from Terrorism and Communism written by Trotsky indicates that he, at least, understood that socialism would be a stateless society. There is another quote from him (which I will try to track down) where he talks about the feasibility of a system of purely voluntary labour (which corresponds to our definition of socialism).
My reason for saying that he must have known about this definition of socialism is because it was so widely circulated at the time. For example, before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split the Russian social democrats published a text in 1897 called A Short Course of Economic Science, written by A Bogdanoff, that talked of socialism being “the highest stage of society we can conceive”, in which such institutions as taxation and profits will be non-existent and in which “there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution”. A revised edition, published in August 1919, was used as a textbook in study circles of the Russian Communist Party.
I would be inclined to say not that Trotsky – or Lenin or Stalin for that matter – were unaware of the Marxian definition of socialism but rather, that they sought instead to displace it with their own essentially state-capitalist definition of “socialism”. Their goal was state capitalism – and their view of socialism was purely academic, meaning they were not really interested in it as a goal. Nevertheless, as a goal it was endorsed at the time by the various social democratic parties (the maximum programme of the German SDP) and so it suited them to opportunistically pay lip service to socialism as we understand the term but only as some ultimate long-term goal that they were not really interested in realising themselves (Lenin talked about socialism in our sense being 500 years into the future)
Lenin saw state capitalism as a kind of preparation for socialism to the point where he saw it as being part of the very definition of “socialism”. It was just a dishonest way of trying to elicit support for his own programme of state capitalism.
Perhaps, one can say that while Lenin and Trotsky were aware of the formal definition of socialism as we understand the term, they were not aware of what it entails or in what way it is flatly incompatible with the state capitalism they advocated. In that sense, perhaps, we can say they did not really understand socialism….
