Piketty’s data
- This topic has 319 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Piketty, in Naidu's view, is limited by his unwillingness to challenge capitalism itself……..Piketty wants desperately to salvage capitalism, even if that means proposing something that every capitalist will hate: a global wealth tax. ………
I don't know if this is your view or Naidu's but I don't think it's fair or true to say that Piketty "wants desperately to salvage capitalism". It's more that he doesn't see any practical alternative to it and therefore settles for trying to make the best of it.But to return to "the facts", The first clause of our declaration of principles starts:
Quote:That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e. land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class …It clearly strengthens our case if we can produce evidence to back this up, as provided in the early years by statisticians such as in Britain Chiozza Money and Bowley. Since the last world war we now have official government statistics which researchers like Piketty can analyse. In fact, as far as I know, his book is the first to examine the inequality of wealth ownership in different countries and over time (couple of centuries). Just as significant as was (Liberal MP as well as historian) Thorold Rogers' Six Centuries of Work and Wages in its time.
Adam, I could be wrong, but when I saw Piketty on the BBC HardTalk program I got the distinct impression that he did indeed want to salvage capitalism from itself.However I haven't read the book and I don't fancy watching the interview again, so if anyone has seen it recently, (I beleive YMS posted a link earlier in this thread) they could shed some light on this.
"Piketty, in Naidu's view, is limited by his unwillingness to challenge capitalism itself……..Piketty wants desperately to salvage capitalism, even if that means proposing something that every capitalist will hate: a global wealth tax"These are quotes from the cited review, not my opinion, Adam. YMS, all i can sy is then let us start highighting the ineffective solutions. As i pointed out, this thread has been rather much cheer-leading because of the abundance of data provided as Adam and even i have conceded. He adds meat to the bones of what we already knew and that does not give reason to onsider it as the break-through book some seem to think it might be. As soon as i began casting doubts on that, the defence begins.Let's back-track before Stuart's and my accusation and counter accusation takes off again.This thread, began by yourself YMS, before anybody had read the book. I am not sure if you have even begun to read it still, YMS, Adam hadn't and Stuart was barely through the opening chapters and already writing enthusiastically about it on his blog. Myself, i simply cannot visit the High St Watersons and pick up a copy from the shelf and i do not have a Kindle to download. So i rely on what i read online using the links provided to the many reviews and for that crime i am depicted as some sort of book-burning philistine by Stuart. I am not embarrassed to admit a weakness and early expressed one of which the example wasn't long in coming in Adam's message #48 but was counselled by yourself and Stuart to soldier on which i did, reading what i could.But a nagging doubt grew in my mind. The book wasn't answering any of my own questions that i consider vital. Sure it was providing us with more ammunition (and despite repeatedly acknowledging that fact everybody still reminds me of it) . i began to wonder how it will be received. So i posted a bit imprecisely that i somehow think its impact on the drinking classes will not be as big as it has been for the thinking classes.To put it in Marxist terms:"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." (my emphasis).I suggested that Occupy's theory if less scientific put was more valid because it was part of a physical mass movement with facts (truisms, if you prefer) that were obvious to many people by their own observation and experience and therefore more an material influence upon consciousness than Piketty will be. My position then began to evolve further on more reading.That if indeed the book's contents does become a material force, the conclusions of the author will become the focus and a negative effect on the politics for socialism if it is "gripped by the masses." . Another needless diversion.Nothing profound or original since the reformism was what some of the reviewers were saying and what Stuart himself said on this thread itself [Piketty] "therefore proposes radical (utopian) reforms to save it [capitalism] from itself."It is the politics of the book and its author i am challenging, not the fact that he has marshalled enormous amounts of information and presents them in a more digestible way that we can cherry-pick and use in our own literature. Which Adam has pointed out we have always done. (but i have to say my first reaction to the names he gave was Who?)So my crime of being a Doubting Thomas on the actual political effect of the book on the working class and the consequence of the authors message has Stuart denying any right to question on a thread devoted to it …a rather odd position and a bit sycophantic, which indeed is one of my reasons for posting.I have no doubt that we will be more critical of his proposed solutions especially the more they are picked up by the many receptive political parties that already advocate them and now view the book as their justification and authority, YMS, but as yet they have not come to the fore-front of our response to Piketty. I suggest we may have a lot of interpreting to do , YMSI also know,of course, that any criticism of Piketty's politics by ourselves will automatically result in the usual refrain of sectarianism.I hope this clarifies my approach before Stuart and i recommence our exchanges and distract from what is the real issue, IMHO.
SocialistPunk wrote:Adam, I could be wrong, but when I saw Piketty on the BBC HardTalk program I got the distinct impression that he did indeed want to salvage capitalism from itself.Actually, according to a few throwaway lines in the book, insofar as he wants to save caitalism, it is from populist nationalist movements or "various forms of retreat into national and other identities" (p. 471) which are of course another form of capitalism. Since this (eg protectionism, controls on the movement of capital, withdrawal and break-up of EU, etc) is proposed by the state-capitalist left (as well as by the right) it is no wonder they are gunning for him.I wouldn't have thought that he would want to save capitalism from socialism as we understand it if he thought it was a realistic proposition. I think he is or was a supporter of the French "Socialist" Party. His parents were members of the French Trotskyist group Lutte Ouvrière.Having said that, his ideal solution of a "global wealth tax" is completely unrealistic and is not going to happen. It seems more likely that there will be moves in the opposite direction, as evidenced by the rise of UKIP in Britain and of the Front National in France and which could be triggered by Britain withdrawing from the EU (not that I think that's going to happen but it could).I've reached page 550 and so should finish reading it today.
I’ve just got my copy of Piketty’s Capital last night, and I’m only still reading the introduction. But one thing stands out already: he’s talking about ‘income’, its disparities and the inequality that it produces.To me, this is immediately ideologically suspect. To give an example to try to explain about my unease:If ten serf farmers each produce 100 tons of wheat, and the baronial landlord takes 50% from each serf, the result is that each serf is left with 50 tons, and the landlord is left with 500 tons of wheat.Thus, speaking of ‘income’, the landlord has ten times the income of each serf.This ‘disparity’ can be addressed by some policy action (either forced on the baron or by his choice) which reduces the disparity to, say, 9:1, 8:1 or even only 3:1.In political terms, a rearrangement of political action can produce a much ‘fairer’ distribution, and a more ‘equal’ society.For Piketty, as for many supporters of markets, this is a completely acceptable outcome.But… my big problem is that the ideological notion of ‘income’ actually hides the economic mechanism which is at work. That is, in plain language, theft.The serfs are being exploited by the baron. There is a relationship of exploitation between them, which is a systematic relationship not amenable to removal by gradual political action. The ‘income’ inequality, even if reduced to 1:1 (that is, the baron has the same ‘income’ as a serf) and so ‘inequality’ actually disappears, still doesn’t address the fundamental factor of the relationship: the non-productive baron now has the same ‘income’ as a productive serf.The core, fundamental problem is not ‘income’ (and the possible attempt to reduce its inequalities), but the exploitative CLASS relationship.As I’ve already said, I’m only at the start of the book, but I have a funny feeling that when I get to the end, I’ll be wondering why so many revolutionaries (ie. Socialists/Communists) seem to praise Piketty so highly.It seems to me that, given what other comrades here have already said, and the reviews that they’ve recommended, that all Piketty will achieve is backing for reformist political action. To me, this is not enough. Even if it were possible for Bill Gates to end up on the same ‘income’ as his Microsoft workers, the point is, they do the work and he doesn’t!The point of our politics, surely, is to smash the systematic exploitative class relationships within our society, not merely tinker with ‘income’ differences.They say ‘income’, we say ‘theft’. And Piketty's book doesn't expose this relationship, with its focus on 'income' and 'inequality'.
I’ve literally just read this:
Piketty, Capital, p. 20, wrote:The history of the distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms[my bold]This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.At the fundamental level, in a class society ‘the distribution of wealth’ CAN ‘be reduced to purely economic mechanisms’. That’s what CLASS EXPLOITATION is all about, a systematic ‘economic mechanism’.Of course, social, cultural, political and ideological factors also play their roles, but to analytically hide or ignore this ‘economic mechanism’ is an ideological step. To pretend that social, cultural, political or ideological factors can be amended or reformed, in the absence of ‘economic mechanisms’ being destroyed, is a myth.And Piketty is clearly propagating this myth. Capitalism is a harmful ‘economic mechanism’ which must be destroyed, not a neutral system of production that can be tinkered with to reduce ‘income inequalities’.
More guff from Piketty, I’m afraid.All academics pay lip service to the notion of ‘the theory-ladenness of observation’. That is, we can’t understand ‘data’ outside of a pre-existing ‘theoretical’ (and we’d argue ‘ideological’) framework. Theories, models, concepts and frameworks are an inescapable part of selecting and interpreting data.But, here we have an academic, a professor, no less:
Piketty, Capital, p. 33, wrote:…I sometimes appeal to theory and to abstract models and concepts, but I try to do so sparingly, and only to the extent that theory enhances our understanding of the changes we observe….I try to show that this minimal theoretical framework is sufficient…Sometimes…sparingly…only to the extent…minimal…He’s bullshitting, comrades.In fact, like any other human, Piketty is “always…constantly…extensively…maximal” employing theory and ideology. When he denies this, it’s because he’s hiding it.Don’t fall for the bourgeois myth of passive observation of ‘data’, comrades, or the erroneous notion of the conservative method of induction that ‘theory emerges from data’.Einstein had it right, a century ago: “It’s the theory that determines what we observe’.Be aware of your own theory, comrades, and try to glean Piketty’s (unspoken) ideology from between his words.
I'm sure Alan is a good trade unionist and nice to his dog and all, but while reading the book again today I was angered yet again by his attitude – all too common in the party and the culture generally sadly. As I read the book, I realise that actually I have not yet been nearly "sycophantic" enough – Piketty's book is such a colossal achievement – as YMS says, it's as if someone had provided a book demonstrating once and for all and beyond much debating that climate change is real and deadly and we'd better do something about it quick. I'd go as far as to say that, of all the tons of stuff I've read over the years on economics, I could have just saved myself the bother and waited for this wonderful book.I was also reading the other day that this is much the view of the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, published in one of the world's premier intellectual journals. But I expect Alan will see through such fraud in a flash.As for LBird, what could be more tedious and pointless than going through the book with a fine-tooth comb pointing out that Piketty's ideological assumptions aren't exactly yours? Write your own damn book!By the way, if anyone's on Twitter, I've been summarising the book as best I can while I read, which might be of interest to anyone who feels they might possibly have anything left to learn in this life. I'm at @leftunityleam.Cheers
Quote:This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.
stuartw2112 wrote:As for LBird, what could be more tedious and pointless than going through the book with a fine-tooth comb…Some would call it 'reading closely and critically', stuart.Surely you don't merely accept anything written by academics? You imply you're not 'sycophantic'.
stuartw2112 wrote:…angered…colossal achievement…wonderful book…Sounds suspiciously like 'love' to me, stuart, never mind 'sycophancy'!Perhaps you need a bit of training in 'tedium and pointlessness'… otherwise known as 'critical thinking'.But… if you're happy with Piketty, good luck comrade. We've just drawn differing conclusions from his work.
PS Not the forum for it, but since it was raised, Alan was wrong that I wanted to give party funds to Occupy London. I proposed a motion, seconded by another member, that we donate branch funds to our local Occupy camp, ie, the one in Birmingham. To the enormous credit of some branch members, this was only narrowly defeated. If you want to pick up the witch hunt, you might like to talk to current Birmingham branch members.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.
Not to the exclusion of the exploitative mechanism, though, YMS, which was my point. It's not the factors you quote, as does Piketty, and with with I agree, but his ignoring of exploitation.An act of omission on his part, rather than commission. Sometimes, it's what they don't say!
LBird: that's not critical thinking, it's blockheadedness. You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.
One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFN
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.