Andrew Kliman in London

[alanjjohnstone]

Shame Robin won't make it to the meeting, Darren,  otherwise Andrew Kliman could have happily sat back and watched an entertaining argument take place before him. Which brings me to raising this aspect of our public meetings. Because of the internet and email, we could have written prepred questions and not just from the those attending from the floor. Andrew could see them beforehand and perhaps either deal with it separately or refer to it in his talk. Or Robin and others could place their questions in advance and the chair could read them out for speakers to reply to. Not too complicated to do and advances our internet interaction just that one more step forward. One day we may have meetings shown on Skype and questions and answers via video…but it won't be tomorrow, will it so this improvement may be a temporary fix?

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Shame Robin won't make it to the meeting, Darren,  otherwise Andrew Kliman could have happily sat back and watched an entertaining argument take place before him. Which brings me to raising this aspect of our public meetings. Because of the internet and email, we could have written prepred questions and not just from the those attending from the floor. Andrew could see them beforehand and perhaps either deal with it separately or refer to it in his talk. Or Robin and others could place their questions in advance and the chair could read them out for speakers to reply to. Not too complicated to do and advances our internet interaction just that one more step forward. One day we may have meetings shown on Skype and questions and answers via video…but it won't be tomorrow, will it so this improvement may be a temporary fix?

 The CPUSA is already performing many activities through the internet,  including conferences and conventions

[Anonymous]

The Socialist Party should also have a discussion with  Peter Hudis of the Marxist Humanist Movement.  http://www.internationalmarxisthumanist.org/authors/hudis-peter/page/3

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Profits can fall for reasons other than a change in the organic composition of capital and the latter is too slow a process to account for a crisis anyway –  at least as I understand it.

Seems to me that you've understood Kliman too simplistically. See the interview in the Standard and this exchange with David Harvey:http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/harvey-versus-marx-on-capitalisms-crises.html

 Interesting article but it does not dispel the argument that essentially, for Kliman, crises are linked to the falling rate of profit though he does argue that financial crisis – the credit system – can operate as a "triggering" factor.  I still have this problem with the advocates of the "falling rate of profit" theses as an explanation for crisis in that they don't really explain how the one thing translates into the other.  Disprorportionality  theory, it seems to me at any rate, is the unacknowledged and missing piece of the jigsaw that would permit such an explanation .  However, disproportionality theory has had a bad press because of its early association with reformist advocates of "organised capitalism" like Tugan-Baranowsky and Rudolph Hilferding who believed that the "anarchy of the market" could be overcome by planning, but also because it has been misunderstood to apply solely to imbalances on the demand side  whereas it also applies to the supply side-  the uneven development of the forces of production ,  The result is that commonly we find the debate on the question of "what causes crises?"as being presented as one of underconsumption theory versus the falling rate of profit thesis:  disproportionality theory as a paradigm in its own right tends to be pushed out of the picture. But no explanation of crises would be adequate without a reference to the in built tendency towards disproportional growth.  I think Marx said somewhere – I forget where – that all crises commence as partial crises before becoming generalised. The question is how or why the beginnings of a generalised  crisis can always be traced back to one or two sectors of the economy at the outset. That said, Kliman is not an advocate of what someone called the "naive version" of  the falling rate of profit theses.  He gives due weight to the counteracting tendencies to the falling rate of profit caused by a rise in the organic composition of capital  – such as the destruction or writing off of capital which tends to restore the rate of profit and allow economic growth to commence again.  As I understand it his position is that economic growth since the 1970s has been comparatively feeble in historic terms partly because there has not been enough in the way of capital being destroyed or written off. He is however very good when it comes to exposing the futility of the reformist or neo Keynesian agenda of the underconsumptionists!

[alanjjohnstone]

The practical real-world consequence of the under-consumptionists is that adopting of the theory leads to what we would consider reformist solutions to the economic crisis problem, the platforms of SPEW  etc. and the invitation to have government intervene with high spending policies to stimulate the economy. Can it be explained to me what the actual practical consequences be of accepting Kliman's version of Falling Rate of Profit be for the workers/trade union/socialist movement. What political policies or approaches do they lead to? If there is an impact – is it positive on the class struggle or a negative influence?If there in little or no effect  –  would Andrew Kliman's analysis still mean he would have to forego it to join the WSM and ascribe fully to our accepted disproportionality theory or that we would refuse his membership if he applied to join for holding his view?How different is his from the Paul Mattick's interpretation which inferred the falling rate of profit creates a situation where capitalism collapses offering a window of opportunity of intensified class struggle the working class can take advantage of to establish socialism…. (or so i may mistakenly believe to be the revolutionary conclusion of it to be)Also This 1971 review says about Mattick's argument (dare say also his son's)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/books-and-pamphlets-marxian-economics

Quote:

" It would presuppose, for a start, a fantastically high degree of capital accumulation, automation and labour productivity (which would mean, as Marx once pointed out, that the price system would break down because commodities would be so cheap that they ought to be given away free)."

Isn't that exactly a stage we are either approaching or on the verge of approaching with all that Singularity debate and Zero Marginal Cost discussions going on.Same article the SPGB counter Mattick by saying 

Quote:

Second, government spending has been undertaken not so much as to avoid slumps as to provide essential services for the capitalist class as a whole (education, health, defence), though this has incidentally affected the overall level of production and employment and has been financed out of profits and by inflation.

Hasn't recent spending been to bail-out capitalism (QE etc) to avoid the continuation of a slump and the cuts have been to the essential services. Isn't Mattick proved empirically right on this (albeit not on the defence budget) We say "Mattick [and i assume by association Kliman too] is undoubtedly right in stating that “Marx’s theory is not a theory of underconsumption” and in placing profits rather than markets as capitalism’s big problem. "I'm stumbling about blindly here, never having read in any depth and only superficially skimmed economic theory just raising a few question i have from this thread so would appreciate where i am going wrong. I could do with someone clarifying things for me in a simpler way. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Can i ask a very obvious but as yet unclarified question…What is his talk going to be about? What's the topic?What's the title?

This will be the title of Andrew Kliman's talk:'The Failure of Capitalist Production: Political Implications of the Great Recession' http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/talk-andrew-kliman-head-office-3pm

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Can i ask a very obvious but as yet unclarified question…What is his talk going to be about? What's the topic?What's the title?

This will be the title of Andrew Kliman's talk:'The Failure of Capitalist Production: Political Implications of the Great Recession' http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/talk-andrew-kliman-head-office-3pm

 Nothing new, the Socialist Party has covered that topic several times already. I hope  he does not come with the same argument of Dunayeskaya,  that during the great recession state capitalism saved the collapse of the capitalist society

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I hope  he does not come with the same argument of Dunayeskaya,  that during the great recession state capitalism saved the collapse of the capitalist society

Wouldn't some say that it did with the extensive bank bail-outs (and in the UK bank nationalisations) and then QE intervention from the Fed (and the Bank of England)

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

I hope  he does not come with the same argument of Dunayeskaya,  that during the great recession state capitalism saved the collapse of the capitalist society

Wouldn't some say that it did with the extensive bank bail-outs (and in the UK bank nationalisations) and then QE intervention from the Fed (and the Bank of England)

Then, we must accpet that capitalism will collapse by itself, which it is not true. During 1930 capitalism did not collapse  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/why-capitalism-will-not-collapse

[alanjjohnstone]

If you look back to message #20, Marcos, you'll see my confession of ignorance concerning economics, specificall the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the implications of Kliman's views on this theory I posed a few questions and wait the answers from the more knowledgeable members of the Party. An earlier exchange on this thread indicates Kliman in NOT a collapsistMy comment was merely to indicate that government action did mitigate the effects of the recession and in a sense "saved" it from itself…Who knows what would have happened if the "free market" didn't actually intervene through government fiscal and financial policies…if banks folded and money lost value…maybe the streets of America may have run with blood in either a left or right wing backlash. Normal functioning of society may have collapsed in what Marx also pondered about …the mutual ruination of all classes. 

[robbo203]

Coincidentally. I came across this article in the Socialist Studies journal while surfing the Web http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/article%20record%20straight.shtml#collapse It touches on the question of the falling rate of profit and makes some interesting claims about the SPGB and Dave Perrin's book on the Party which I had never heard of before (the claims I mean).  I wondered if a response had been issued. The relevant para in the article is this one: Marx goes on to point out that the effect of over-production of capital would simply mean that some part of the capital “would lie fallow completely or partially…while the active portion would produce values at a lower rate of profit, owing to the pressure of the unemployed or but partly employed capital” (ibid). Could capitalism recover? “Yes”, said Marx, since among the consequences of this is the “slaughtering of the values of capitals”, a fall in wage-rates and a rise in the rate of profit due to the fall in prices of the elements of constant capital itself:  As I understand it, Kliman's argument is in part  that the  “slaughtering of the values of capitals”, has not been sufficient to offset the fall in the rate of profit since the 1970s and this is why economic growth has been comparatively weak, historically speaking, despite the ending of recession   

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

As I understand it, Kliman's argument is in part  that the  “slaughtering of the values of capitals”, has not been sufficient to offset the fall in the rate of profit since the 1970s and this is why economic growth has been comparatively weak, historically speaking, despite the ending of recession

Yes, I think that's about right he sees these conditions as an underlying factor contributing to the great recession..

[alanjjohnstone]

WhiLe you are both online maybe someone will answer my questions, back on the thread. Might be naive but i am genuinely curious about the political implications of holding to the tendency explanation has in the real world and not the theoretical mathematic models of who's right and who's wrongI read the Socialist Studies article and they seem to believe it is all about the workers being passive…and i think they raise a straw man argument when they challenge the supposed point of difference. 

Quote:

This means they reject the SPGB’s case that capitalism can only be ended through the class struggle, by the revolutionary political action of the working class.

Won't the working class be  giving tottering capitalism its final push so that we do not degenerate into Luxemburg's barbarism scenario…that our class will act to preserve civilisation and community by dismantling capitalism, the cause…. All this i believe returns to our holy grail that socialist keep searching for…how will workers achieve socialist consciousness on a mass scale  to be strong enough to overthrow the social and economic system…and we know who haven't got the answer but who the hell does have the answer, is what we all want to know and keep asking…All my time in the party i have never encountered anybody who does not accept the importance of ideology/education  in class consciousness but we do need a receptive fertile soil to sow the seeds…an a farmer like yourself, Robbo, knows you have to turn a field up before you can spread the seed …

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

All my time in the party i have never encountered anybody who does not accept the importance of ideology/education  in class consciousness but we do need a receptive fertile soil to sow the seeds…an a farmer like yourself, Robbo, knows you have to turn a field up before you can spread the seed …

 LOL. Not quite a "farmer", Alan – I keep chickens and grow some veggies – but around here people swear by goats manure if you want to have a "receptive fertile soil" to sow your seeds in! But to be serious – yes, you are quite right regarding the importance of ideology/education and I think Socialist Studies are raising  a straw argument in thinking  that anyone in the SPGB thinks otherwise.  Even Rosa Luxemburg who held a collapsist view of capitalism maintained that workers had to come to a revolutionary perspective before you could move on to establish a socialist society.  She too in other words emphasised the importance of  education or "propaganda" but thought it would be assisted by the prospect of capitalist collapse. I don't think that follows necessarily and there are plenty of counterexamples to make us wary – in particular, the rise of fascism out of conditions of severe economic depression.  Conversely, the 1960s when the political climate was changing in a relatively "progressive" direction,  was also a time of economic boom. Which brings us back to Kliman. His arguments seems to be that the Keynesians bought into the folly that capitalist crises could be staved off or at least moderated thought the policies of deficit financing . boosting consumption etc That didn't happen but the measures that have been more recently implemented have had the effect of somewhat cushioning the destruction of capital values and thereby, as I said earlier, of ensuring that the restoration of economic growth has been somewhat more feeble than might have been expected. His position is fundamentally critical of the underlying reformist perspective of the underconsumptionost theorists grouped around the Monthly Review Press.  What they are advocating could actually make matters worse for the working class in the long run. He seems to be saying that we need to grasp the nettle or grab the bull by the horns and realise that the problem is capitalism itself and that you cannot reform capitalism out of its boom/bust cycle.   He does not seem to hold a collapsist position but does seem to think that things could get worse – economically and politically  – as a result of a misguided attempt to reform capitalism through some kind of revamped neo-Keynesian approach.  We should learn from the failure of the Keynesian experiment  and get back to what the socialist movement was supposed to be about – bringing about a fundamental change in society Though I am somewhat sceptical of the emphasis he places on the centrality of the falling rate of profit as the underlying cause of economic crises – I think disproportionality theory is a more convincing explanation because, as I say, profits can fall for reasons other than the "rising organic composition of capital"-  I think a lot of the political conclusions he draws from his analysis are sound But the question of how to make workers more receptive to socialist ideas still remains unanswered.  Personally I think the most important proximate reason why the socialist movement remains so small is quite simply because of what I call the  "small party syndrome".  It tends to be a self perpetuating conation.  Because you are a small you are not considered credible and that deters interest and involvement and so  keeps you small.  Its only when you break through a certain critical threshold numerically speaking that you will be able to overcome this condition and experience exponential growth such as certain reformist political outfits like Podemos here in Spain have been experiencing lately. That incidentally is a compelling argument for simplifying or relaxing conditions for membership of the SPGB – some of which are quite redundant, superfluous and potentially offputting,  in my view – and retaining only what is absolutely essential to ensure the socialist integrity of the organisation.  The quicker you can get more people into the organisation the sooner you will reach that critical threshold.  But thats for another thread I guess…

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If you look back to message #20, Marcos, you'll see my confession of ignorance concerning economics, specificall the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the implications of Kliman's views on this theory I posed a few questions and wait the answers from the more knowledgeable members of the Party. An earlier exchange on this thread indicates Kliman in NOT a collapsistMy comment was merely to indicate that government action did mitigate the effects of the recession and in a sense "saved" it from itself…Who knows what would have happened if the "free market" didn't actually intervene through government fiscal and financial policies…if banks folded and money lost value…maybe the streets of America may have run with blood in either a left or right wing backlash. Normal functioning of society may have collapsed in what Marx also pondered about …the mutual ruination of all classes. 

 AlanI do not have time to read all the messages of this forum. I just participate when I have some free timeI was part of that movement , and I knew all the original founders including Dunayeskaya, and I read all her works too, and she was holding herself to the the theory of the rate of profit, some of her works in economics are fine, but her works in philosophy are wrongs, and I do not think that Paul Mattick was mistaken on his analysis about her.Most of them spin around her works,  and most of them are holding themselves to the theory of the fall of the rate of profits. The thing is that Marx did not consider it as an iron law, but as a tendency, and i personally,  do not think that the increase of fixed capital is the only factor that would make profits to  fall in a long process, there are others factors that intervene too. The law is not the cause of the crisis eitherI think that  Marx should not  have gotten involved with that theory inherited from David Ricardo, because it has created too much confusion within the so called Marxist movement, as well, I think he should not have developed the so called dictatorship of the proletariat,

[Author]

Posts