Piketty’s data
- This topic has 319 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_Brown
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_BrownNo.Was he a Communist or a "Socialist" (of ALB's reformist variety)?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,not that I know of.So… your point, regarding Piketty's book, its allegation that capitalism has a destructive dynamic, and that this affects the whole notion of 'reform', especially regarding the "socialists" that ALB described, is… ?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,I dunno. You started asking me if I had heard of random people, so i thought I'd do the same.You're on a Communist site, refer to 'ends and means', and yet don't recognise the significance of 'Eduard Bernstein', to the discussion?Boy, this site just gets better and better…Please come back to the thread, alanjjohnstone or ALB. There has to be someone related to the SPGB that I can have a grown up conversation with.
I thought I'd explained that I was not talking about top-level reformist politicians and ideologues but about lower level grass roots ones (such as many Socialisr Party members might once have been or, for that matter yourself, when you were in the SWP). The fact that they call themselves "socialists" must show that they have some criticism of "capitalism" and want to see it replaced eventually even if only as a vague ideal or far-away ultimate aim. I don't see them necessarily siding with Repression if real socialism was on the agenda. If they were, then us real socialists/communists are doomed to fail.By the way, Edouard Bernstein doesn't illustrate your point. Even though he was an open and self-proclaimed reformist (the archetypal one) he was one of the German Social Democrats who came round to opposing the WW1 and joined the breakaway Independent Social Democratic Party rather than stay with the pro-war Majority Social Democrats who did choose Repression. You never can tell.
LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.You could have thrown a hundred or so people at me who had something to say about means and ends, including Stalin.As things stand I didn't think your definition of reformist actually covered reformists, since it could include pro-capitalists and conservatives, reformists, at least in our context, are people who either think capitalism can be formed into something different. That doesn't necessarilly imply elitism.
ALB wrote:The fact that they call themselves "socialists" must show that they have some criticism of "capitalism" and want to see it replaced eventually even if only as a vague ideal or far-away ultimate aim. I don't see them necessarily siding with Repression if real socialism was on the agenda.[my bold]I still think that the issues of 'ends and means' is relevant, here. 'Vague ideals' and 'far-away ulimate aims' have been shown as 'never to come in this world with the means at our disposal'.I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.
ALB wrote:If they were, then us real socialists/communists are doomed to fail.This has crossed my mind.
ALB wrote:By the way, Edouard Bernstein doesn't illustrate your point. Even though he was an open and self-proclaimed reformist (the archetypal one) he was one of the German Social Democrats who came round to opposing the WW1 and joined the breakaway Independent Social Democratic Party rather than stay with the pro-war Majority Social Democrats who did choose Repression.I think he does illustrate my point. Being 'anti-war' is not being 'pro-socialist' (in our meaning). And being 'pro-parliamentary democracy' does not make one 'pro-economic democracy'.
ALB wrote:You never can tell.If I couldn't tell, I wouldn't be a Communist.I'm satisfied, at the moment, that both Marx and Piketty are correct, and that capitalism has a self-destructive dynamic. Hopefully, my loved ones and I will all be long dead before humanity finds out.If I come to change my mind about this dynamic, it's headfirst into the trough of 'bread and circuses', and let the reformists get on with their good works. Peel me a grape, Piketty!
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.Not with you it isn't.
Not sure if i have got this right but this FT article (with a terrible title btw) seems to confirm what i have read in the Standard. The returns from "real" industry has been at historic low levels so the capitlist rather than investing in production diverted his finance to speculating on the money market where profits to be gained were higher.It also mentions how much cash hoarding (saving) is taking place, another symptom of lack of profit expectation from industry. Does Piketty confirm this switch of investment policy as contributory to inequality. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/54411224-132c-11e4-8244-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38RO7Q941I'm just wondering if this analysis is anyway accurate then it suggests the trend towards inequality is reversible if profits return to the "real" economy but i think that think this takes us into how can restoring profitablility by wage cuts or cuts in taxation share of business with its knock-on effect on welfare services alleviate inequality.Maybe it touches on the the Tendency of Law of Declining Profits argument, too. Not very clued up on that…another topic to add to my know nothing. It seems i just get these feelings about stuff …the sense that i'm missing something important that's not getting talked about.
LBird wrote:I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.I agree there is plenty of evidence that, when in government, reformist politicians end up running capitalism on its terms, i.e giving priority to profits and conditions for profit-making even if this involves holding back wages and opposing strikes erven calling out the military to break them. But I thought you mean rather more than this by "repression", i.e. something like dictatorship and/or armed suppression of the workers movement.Quite apart from the fact that socialism has never really been on the agenda, so that the choice you posit (socialism or repression) has never really arisen historically, doesn't the evidence show rather that, faced with the prospect of repression reformists choose to opt to try and keep the reform option open, eg the Republicans in Spain, the Social Democrats in Austria and Germany? I don't think many went over to fascism did they.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:I think that there is plenty of evidence that 'reformists' will side with repression.I agree there is plenty of evidence that, when in government, reformist politicians end up running capitalism on its terms, i.e giving priority to profits and conditions for profit-making even if this involves holding back wages and opposing strikes erven calling out the military to break them. But I thought you mean rather more than this by "repression", i.e. something like dictatorship and/or armed suppression of the workers movement.
I think this difference (British military breaking strikes in a socio-economic context where they have yet needed to open fire, as compared with foreign military breaking strikes in a socio-economic context where they have needed to open fire) is one of quantity rather then quality. I have no doubt whatsoever that British troops under a reformist goverment would open fire (they have abroad, in colonial situations).I think that it's disingenuous to pretend that 'reformists' won't shoot workers, and so draw a distinction between 'good reformers' and 'nasty repressors'.
ALB wrote:Quite apart from the fact that socialism has never really been on the agenda, so that the choice you posit (socialism or repression) has never really arisen historically, doesn't the evidence show rather that, faced with the prospect of repression reformists choose to opt to try and keep the reform option open, eg the Republicans in Spain, the Social Democrats in Austria and Germany? I don't think many went over to fascism did they.I agree with this overall strategical analysis by the SPGB, that 'socialism has never been on the agenda'. I don't regard 1917/19/23/26/36 as displaying that possibility. This is part of why I'm not a Leninist/Bolshevik.On the issue of 'Fascism', 'reformists' can happily live under short-lived openly repessive regimes: isn't this what South American reformists did during the military dictatorships of the 1970s-80s? They'll await their chance to return to reform. They certainly won't become Communists because of repression.I think people become Communists because they can see that capitalism is not working for them and they come across alternative Communist ideas that make sense of their experience of capitalism.That's why the SPGB's 'propaganda/education' methods appeal to me. I don't think that workers going on strike or fighting bosses necessarily leads to Communist ideas. One can fight bosses all day, and lose, and still think that capitalism is the only game in town, and that it just needs 'reform' to level up the playing field of industrial struggle. The idea that 'failure educates' is mistaken, I think.To me, Piketty is just one more diversion away from Communist ideas, and he bolsters the 'reformist' illusion. If one is a reformist, the mirage seems real. The notion that, having read Piketty and then experiencing him being wrong will make reformists into Communists, sounds like 'Third period Stalinism' to me."After the Nazis, Us!"Dachau shattered that Communist illusion. To me, recommending Piketty to Communists is a mistake, and I think any comrades wishing to understand capitalism would be better advised to read something with more Communist content.Perhaps "The Alternative to Capitalism", by Adam Buick and John Crump?And it's a damn sight shorter…
And here's why we need to understand Piketty:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28459473
BBC wrote:A wealth tax on people with assets of more than £3m should be imposed, the Green Party says.Setting the tax at 1% to 2% would raise between £21.5bn and £43bn annually from the wealthiest 1% people in the UK, the party, which has one MP, says.Expect Piketty's name to be used in support. Mind, a wealth tax was what Adam Smith advocated, so it's not the most radical thing under the sun. Still, an interesting shift.
Indeed the Greens do cite him as support and i said before, he is the hook now that everybody wants to hang their coat from, Elizbeth Warren to Ed Milliband. The real validity of his research is simply ignored as LBird suggests, the politicians will fill in their own facts to Piketty. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/24/green-party-calls-wealth-tax-assets-multimillionaires
Quote:It also cites the work of French economist Thomas PikettyMore the reason to expose the weak policy that Piketty advocates, his inconsistency as ALB pointed out, and perhaps we could call it what it is, political cowardice, that he won't take his own findings to their logical conclusion and condemn capitalism per se.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.