[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

You can disagree all you want Robbo203 but economic crisis are cause by shiftING power-relations. Think chaos theory…a shift in a power-relation in China can resonate into an explosive economic crash in Britain, which can then move on to Cuba or Argentina etc., all we can know with any accuracy is that economic crisis begin with a shift in a power-relation. 

 Once again, I have asked you HOW a shift in power relations can cause an economic crisis and once again you have failed to come up with an answer.  Part of the problem is that you fail to explain what you mean by terms like  a "shift in power relations". Power relations between whom or what?  Economic classes?  Nation states? or what? Of course modern socialised production is all interconnected and it is this quality of interconnectedness that allows us to see phenomena in terms of chaos theory – small changes occurng somewhere that accumulate in intensity and  and strength and express themselves in a wider spatial context.  But what you dont appear to understand is that that the Marxian disproportionality theory of economic crises  is in a sense precisely a description of this very process in an economic form.   I suggest you read the link I prpvded in an earlier post

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

Robbo203, 1. Power-relations consists the sum of society, not just workers and capitalists. Due to this, economic crisis can have a variety of causes.

 OK I can go along with the first sentence  to a degree. Power manifests itself in multiple forms in contemporary society not just in the assymetrical relationship between workers and capitalists.   For example, there is the parent-child relationship.  But my question to you is how do these assymetries in power relationships result in or express themselves in specifically "economic crises".  You havent answered the question at all  only asserted that a one way causal connection obtains between them.  In any case as I pointed out , the relationship between power and the economy is NOT one way.  In a depression , the bargaining power of workers vis-a-vis the capitalists is undermined; in an economic boom, it is conversely enhanced 

MBellemare wrote:

 2. There are no independent economic laws, or tendential laws, if that was the case, all societies since the dawn of the time would have been subject to these independent economic laws. For instance, caveman society would have been subject to the independent economic laws like the tendential law of the falling rate of profit as it is independent. 

 No, this doesnt follow at all.  Nobody is saying that economic laws, so called , are independent of society.  In a strict sense all it means is that they operate independently of the wills of particular agents constituting society.   For example nobody had intentionally engineeered an economic crisis yet economic crises happen.  They happen despite, and not becuase of, the will of economic agents Your reference to caveman society also demonstrates that you totally misunderstand what Marxian theory is about.  Marx was very explicit on  this matter – that different socio-economic formations  have different modes of operation and hence "economic laws" or tendencies corresponding to each.  It was simply not possible for paleolithic society to expereince "economic crises" in this uniquely capitalist sense of economic gluts giving rising to the economic misery of mass unemployment etc.  Apart from anything else there was  no such thing as separate realm of reality  called the "economy".in hunter gatherer society.   Nor anything like "employment", "wage labour" and "profit" – let alone a "falling rate of profit"! 

MBellemare wrote:

 3. Countries go to war not because of the falling rate of profit, they go to war because of shifts in relations of power. A falling rate of profit will be an illusory effect of war, due to dead workers and the destruction of vast amounts of constant capital.

 As explained, the SPGB does not subscribe to the falling rate of profit theory as an explanation for ecnomic crises.  Its view of crises is based on disproportionality theory – a view which Marx also held.   There is something about crises here which you might find of interest http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/study-guide-economic-crises This does not mean there does not exist a tendency for the rate of profit to fall but as an explanation for economic crises it seem questionable for the reasons cited.  The changing organic composition of capital would be too slow to account for such crises.Neither I nor the SPGB suggest that countries go to war because of the falling rate of profit as such.  They go to war fundamentally because of economic conflicts over such things as markets, resoruces, trade routes and the like even though such conflicts are dressed up in ,or mediated by, ideological rationalisations 

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

 The destruction of thousands of commodities and huge unemployment, in my estimation, according to anarchism-economic-theory, if I would be so inclined to venture, is due the adjusting power-relations. 

 Could you explain how this happens in concrete terms?  How does the shift in power between workers and capitalists cause economic crises.  I would have thought it was the other way round.  Mass unemployment brought on by crises undermines the bargaining power of workers in the labour market. Incidentally, the traditional explanation for crises put forward by the SPGB is based on disproportionality theory – a few held also by Marx – rather than those other main explanations for crises – underconsumptionism and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.  It is because of the "anarchy of the market" that businesses strive to produce without regard to the output of their competitiors resulting in instances of overproduction or overshoot in one or two  sectors, to begin with,  which then has ripple effects which spread out to engulf the whole economy I fail to see how "adjusting power relations " fits into this picture at all.   In general , capitalists want working class consumers to buy thier products.  The problem is some of those workers are in their employ and the wages of these workers represent a cost of production which they need to reduce.  That, however, depends upon the state of the market.  In boom conditions  it is a lot more difficult for capitalists to do this Capitalists are not the demigods strutting the economic stage that you make out.  They too, as much as workers, are at the mercy of economic forces over which they have no control.  Unless you take the view that crises are deliberately engineered with some ulterior purpose in mind which, to me, makes no sense

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? 

 The short answer is NO THEY DONT.  All we have ever had from you is a  dreary repetition of the same old endlessly repeated and continually unsupported, dogma of yours about some supposed "irreconcilable contradiction"  between communism and the communist principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs '.  That, along with your own puffed-up sense of your importance and your all too obvious contempt for anyone who dares criticise you as "silly" and "immature" is probably why most folk here doubtless think there is  little point in trying engage in rational discussion with you.  Just saying, mind.

[robbo203]

Wez wrote:

There's no reason to believe that Leninists are any closer to socialist consciousness than your average liberal or conservative.

 Indeed,  Wez,  On the aforementioned FB forum – Socialist Economics – in response to a point I made  that Marx's conception of the "lower phase of communist society" did not possess " those fundamental structural features that pertain to capitalism and class society in general – such as wage labour, class property and the existence of a state",  one of their leading lights, a Leninist, blurted out  "Literally utopianism. Will not happen".   This same individual was enthusiastically endorsing the price mechanism as the best way of registering human wants You have to wonder why do these individuals even bother to pay lip service to the idea of a communist society at all

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Tankies (CPGB) peaked at 50,000 in the 1950s.Trots (SWP) peaked at 10,000 in the mid 1990s.The tankies suffered the most dramatic fall off in 1988 but both are irreversibly downhill.CPB claimed 1,000 a decade or so ago, but its likely they are closer to us now (<500), likewise the SWP since the Delta scandal in 2011.

 What about other tankies outside of what was the CPGB? Any ideas? What groups comprise the tankie movement in the UK?  Also what about the US?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Not sure about that at least as far as the tankies are concerned.Those are the battles of yesterday and we won. More than ever before, it's now accepted that Marx's views and Lenin's were not the same. What's the point in flogging a dead horse except perhaps for training or amusement. 

  I am not too sure to what extent the tankies are a spent force though,  Adam, even if the view is gaining ground that Marx's views and Lenin's were not the same. What in your opinionwould be a rough figure for the size of the movement in the UK for example, juat out of interest?  That aside,  there are certain commonalities between trots and tankies that need addressing not necessarily with anything Marx might have said in mind but in their own right as questionable ideas  (we dont ourselves agree with everything Marx wrote anyway) Yes Dave "Trots and Tankies" is a catchy title for a pamphlet.   This is just an idea that popped into my head but I will have to put it to the Publications Committee first.  Potentially it could be quite a popular little publication particularly with a bit of humour thrown in for good measure

[robbo203]

Perhaps the time has come for a special issue of the Standard on the theme of "Trots and Tankies" looking in detail at their arguments and misconceptions.  Come to think of it, why not a new pamphlet? This is another issue which is not going to fade away from the political scene all that soon

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but I personally think it might be a good idea for the SPGB Twitter account to upload pictures of Lenin with his quotes about State Capitalism (with sources of course).I don't think a lot of leninists have read those quotes and it might make them rethink their views a bit

 You may well have a point Sympo.  Particularly the Lenin quote on big banks "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).  Given the current animus towards banks and bankers by the Left – the industrial capitalists dont seem too bad by comparsion according to  them – this quote might well raise a few eyebrows

[robbo203]

Everything you ever wanted to know about tankies, but were afraid to ask  https://libcom.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-tankies-were-afraid-ask-08032018 &nbsp;

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Yes, I remember Cameron Woodford (nasty piece of work); he and his henchmen had Marco Procaccino and others tankie opponents, including myself, banned from another FB group, the name of which escapes me for the moment.  They didn't like being referred to as goose-stepping, boss worshippers, etc.  You'll probably remember, though.

 I too vaguely remember him.  This was the guy who sneeringly suggested ""Never try arguing with an SPGBot" in a bid to portray SPGBers as inflexible dogmatists.  When I then challenged his claims about Lenin and socialism  (in the form of above post) he then had the nerve to say " I refer you to my earlier comment in the thread. I have no intention of banging my head against a wall. Good day to you, sir".   Talk about inflexible dogmatism! Tankies have developed that down to a fine art.  

[robbo203]

In response to one of the critiques above provided by Cameron Woodford  –  https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/ &#8211; I posted this on the Socialist Economics forum   (slightly amded to remove grammatical errors).   I wondered if folk here can add any further observations.   To me the evdience seems pretty overwhelming that Lenin did identity socialism as a form of state capitalism but why are the Tankies so embarrassed by having this pointed out to them?  Cameron Woodford I read your blog peice and with the greatest of respect I think you are talking crap. There is no “dishonest distortion” in saying Lenin equated socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly. It is there in black and white and there is no way of getting around that except by dishonestly distorting Lenin yourself. As he put it, “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people” How is that NOT equating socialism with a form of state capitalism. eh?Yes I know Lenin also referred to another kind of state capitalism- what you might call the "non-socialist "version of state capitalism from a Leninist standpoint – the kind you referred to in your blog which had profit making capitalists and “operated primarily through lease concessions to foreign industrialists, made by the proletarian state” according to you. Sort of like Germany's state capitalist model which so impressed Lenin that he wanted Russia to imitate it . When Lenin differentiated between “socialism “and state capitalism he was talking about this form of state capitalism. He was NOT saying that socialism was not ALSO a form of state capitalism – how could he when we have the above quote stating in a black and white that “socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people”?It is YOU who have misunderstood Lenin , not your critics, who have you also misunderstood. We know very well that Lenin had two different notions of state capitalism in mind equating one with socialism and a so called proletarian state, and the other with a capitalist state. He said as much in 1921: “But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it”.If there is any doubt on what Lenin imagined socialism would look like consider these words : "Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;… A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, 1917).Again in State and Revolution Lenin talked of socialism in terms of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state"So according to Lenin “socialism” would consist of banks, wage labour, and the state. This has absolutely nothing to do, and is completely at variance, with the Marxian concept of socialismIn fact Lenin was a complete muddleheaded and very poor theorist. The excerpt from Left Wing Childishness which you quote to try to prove your point that Lenin distinguished between state capitalism and socialism (when what it was really between one form of state capitalism and another form he dubbed “socialism”) ironically demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt what a muddlehead Lenin was. According to him the various socio-economic structures that existed in Russia at the time were:"1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain)) private capitalism;4) state capitalism;5) socialism.”So pray do tell – if socialism denotes the common or social ownership of all the means of production – the Marxian conception of socialism – how in god’s name can it coexist with forms of ownership that are sectional and class based? The one thing of necessity precludes the other 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 Quite an achievement for the Party to get so many mentions with links given to the website and to specific articles.  As a matter of interest the so-called 'Socialist Economics' FB group was set up by one Babbu Patel, a regular contributor to the 'Ultras vs Tankies' FB group.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1060132960785805/

 The Socialist Economics website itself is pretty dire. steeped as it is in the usual tankie BS.  Im not too sure how much longer I will stick it out but some of the posts and links have collected a few likes

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The US could soon recognise the disputed Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory, a senior minister in the country has suggested.Intelligence minister Israel Katz said that the subject was “topping the agenda” in talks with the Trump administration.He suggested that such a move would bolster US efforts to confront Iran, “The most painful response you can give the Iranians is to recognise Israel’s Golan sovereignty – with an American statement, a presidential proclamation”, Mr Katz said.Adding to the push, an Israeli legislator wrote to America’s ambassador to Israel requesting that America recognise Israel’s claim to the disputed area, according to the Jerusalem Post.100,000 Syrian refugees fled as a result of the war. Israel has not allowed former residents to return, citing security reasons.In 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, that extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law effectively annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out the formal annexation. The area has since been administered as Golan sub-district part of Israel's Northern District. The Golan Heights Law is not recognized internationally.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-golan-heights-sovereignty-trump-administration-syria-iran-a8366451.html

 It would be interesting to how the American regime might try to square recognition of the annexed territory of the Golan Heights by Israel with its condemanation of Russia's "amnnexation" of the Crimea

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I am crap at language and always have been.

I don't think that's true. I just think most foreign language teaching is bad. Have a look at the Language Transfer Spanish course in the link I posted above. They use a very effective method, one that you wont really come across in other places. It's an entirely free, voluntary project ran by a guy that is now living in Barcelona. Here's a video of him teach Spaniards English: https://www.facebook.com/languagetransfer/videos/10153047250840431/

Thanks DJP.   I'll give it a go although Im not too optimistic about the chances of a significant breakthrough.  Mind you if it does work the missus will be pleased.  She's Spanish and has had to put up with Spanish subtitles for films on the telly all these years.  Her english is a lot better than my spanish even though she's not quite fluent in it

[Author]

Posts