ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ed wrote:is there any more of that peoples century video? It looked like Harry Young had more to say on the subject.
There will have been but it wasn’t used. I saw the raw material for an earlier interview for TV and what was interesting was how the producers coached him to say what they wanted to broadcast. Harry kept mentioning the famine conditions then prevailing in Russia and how in these conditions socialism wasn’t possible, but all they wanted to hear was that he had heard Lenin speaking at a meeting of the Comintern. In the version I saw he said that Lenin spoke in German with a heavy Russian accent.Incidentally, Harry claimed to have been present in person when both Trotsky and Stalin spoke. Which is quite possible as he lived in Russia for 8 or 9 years in the 1920s when he was an employee of the Communist Youth International.
Just come across a video on Youtube by the Richard Werner who wrote that article with Green MP Caroline Lucas:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDHSUgA29LsIt’s quite a clear statement of the case for saying that banks can create money out of nothing, but since this is so divorced from reality, how did he ever get to be a professor of banking? Typical of the Green Party to give credence to such views.
jondwhite wrote:Am I correct in thinking the limit of central banks creating money after which the currency devalues is the national growth rate of the economy?More or less, at least in the short run. The currency shouldn’t devalue if the rate at which it is increased is not more than the rate of increase in economic transactions for which it is used.
jondwhite wrote:As long as the economy is growing, central banks can issue more currency?Central banks can of course issue more currency whenever they want, but if the economy is growing they can (and probably should) safely issue more (within limits).But the official government policy in most countries these days is not to maintain a stable price level and currency value (the same thing from a different angle) but to achieve a slowly increasing price level by means of a slowly depreciating currency of about 2 percent a year.
Found another article accepting the myth that banks can create money out of nothing. This time endorsed by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. The incriminating passage reads:
Quote:central banks only create 3% of the money supply. Normally, 97% is created by banks through their extension of bank credit. If you wonder how this works: banks simply pretend that borrowers have deposited the money that they lend them, and thus create it out of nothing when they credit their deposit accounts, adding to the money supply.This is to misinterpret double-entry book-keeping. Under this the “liability” (the loan) has to be matched by a corresponding “asset” (the borrower’s debt to the bank). No extra money (purchasing power) is created. It’s just a book entry and of course the bank has to already have the money to make the loan.Note that the article contradicts itself by talking about the Bank of England creating £275bn extra money apart from the 3% mentioned (which are notes and coins).Two points. First, central banks can create more money (additional nominal purchasing power) out of nothing (though if they create too much this will devalue previously existing money). But individual banks can’t (they have to have the money first before they can make a loan, even if they get it from the central bank as in the recently announced scheme to get banks to relend money to small businesses). Second, if you define “bank loans” as “money” then by definition banks create money (but not out of nothing).The Green Party obviously doesn’t mind making a laughing stock of itself. Their way out of the crisis? The Bank of England financing cycle paths in every city ….
HollyHead wrote:I’m tempted to say “Told you so” … but apart from propagating socialist ideas and analysis not very much.Glad you resisted the temptation (though it would be appropriate for those workers who voted for the new government in the recent general election) !I’d say the only thing that workers can do is to try to apply the brake, through collective action, to things getting worse without the illusion that they can stop this. Maybe it’s better to go down fighting like the miners and the P&O workers did in Britain rather than just passively accept the unavoidable.In any case, it strengthens the case for Revolution when the alternative is not even Reform but slowing down Regression.PS Just noticed this from our blog today.
steve colborn wrote:It’s true ! He stood for election in the 1999 European elections, I looked it up.Our numpty missed these results:http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2007/188/ {scroll down to Deneside)That’s how it will be in the last days of capitalism. No Tories. A straight fight between us and the Labour Party!
You’re right. Steve Ross has in his hands the September and October 1986 issues of the Standard. If the person who filmed them wants to suppress this fact he’s not just a cheeky sod but a dishonest one. Still, it’s a good video.
It’s from Part VII of “Fictitious Splits in the International” drafted by Marx and Engels in 1872 which
can be found here.Here’s the quote:
Quote:All socialists see anarchy as the following program:Once the aim of the proletarian movement — i.e., abolition of classes — is
attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority
of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears,
and the functions of government become simple administrative functions.alanjjohnstone wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxismWho Ranciere is and why he deserves special mention by the author, i have no idea. I may investigate him later.I wouldn’t bother if I were you. Jacques Rancière is an ex-maoist and ex-devotee of Althusser and so never did know anything about Marxism. In the 1970s he did write some interesting stuff on mid-19th French auto-didact workers, but later became a “philosopher”, which in France means someone who can speculate without having to base their conclusions on any empirical research.If true, this Guardian report would be rather disturbing as it suggests that Leninism as well as Marxism is enjoying a revival. That would be terrible.Ironically since I don’t think he claims to be a Marxist, the only person interviewed to talk some sense was Owen Jones when he said:
Quote:“There isn’t going to be a bloody revolution in Britain, but there is hope for a society by working people and for working people,” he counsels. Indeed, he says, in the 1860s the later Marx imagined such a post-capitalist society as being won by means other than violent revolution. “He did look at expanding the suffrage and other peaceful means of achieving socialist society. Today not even the Trotskyist left call for armed revolution. The radical left would say that the break with capitalism could only be achieved by democracy and organisation of working people to establish and hold on to that just society against forces that would destroy it.”The trouble is that he’s a leftwing Labourite and, while it’s true that the Trotskyists don’t actually call for an armed revolution (or engage in weapon training), they are still committed to it in theory and do argue against Marx and us on the possibility of an essentially peaceful capture of political power for socialism via mass democratic organisation and the ballot box.
Paul Dyson, of Positive Money, has just replied agreeing to a debate some time in September. Watch this space for details.
There’s another whole thread on this lot’s mistaken ideas here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/100-reserve-bankingIt’s being used to record news items which refute the basic view of groups like Positive Money about banks creating money to loan out of thin air. No doubt they’ll be using the current LIBOR fixing scandal to bash the banks, without realising that if banks really could just create money out of thin air why would they need to borrow money from each other? There wouldn’t be a need for LIBOR.”Positive Money” of course falls into the same category as Square Circle and Military Intelligence as a good example of a contradiction in terms.After Paul Dyson, the head of Positive Money, was seen lurking around Occupy St Pauls in January, we did write to him challenging him to debate the issue. He replied:
Quote:At the moment we’re tied up with other things but we could consider a debate at some point in the future, say April onwards.A reminder email to him will go off later today proposing a date in September.
The Trotskyists of the SWP will be pleased as they said Vote Muslim Brotherhood:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28611As “the lesser evil” and “without illusions”, of course.
jondwhite wrote:I think this is the same day as Durham Miners Gala.It’s on the Saturday, the 14th, but we won’t have a stand there this year. Anyway, it’s at the other end of the country. Maybe some local members will turn up with some leaflets and Standards anyway.As to Tolpuddle, the EC will be discussing arrangements this Saturday and South West Regional Branch the following Saturday.
The theme of July Standard, out tomorrow or Friday, is irrational ideas, conspiracy theories and the paranormal rather than religion. I think, these days in times of stress and uncertainty, more people tend to turn to these (conspiracy theories, astrology, gambling, etc) rather than to religion.
Quote:I am a scientist, not a theologian. As a university student in Poland from 1949 to 1957, I was an aggressive atheist and subsequently became a member of the communist party. I am now a theist, believing in God and attending a synagogue.Ok, but what about the endless feuds that go on between theologians? How, for instance, can they settle this one: Was Jesus (if he existed) (a) the son of a god, (b) merely a prophet or (c) the son of a Roman centurion? There’s no way. These are, however, rival hypotheses that can be tested using the scientific method.
