ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What a joke. A treaty that supposed to apply for a 100 years. I wonder who thought that one up.
100 years is a long time during which conditions change a lot. Imagine if Britain had signed a 100-year treaty with some country in 1925 how long would it have lasted? And then think what might happen in the next 100 years up to 2125.
This stupid stunt won’t be remembered even in 5 years.
Decadence means an end to the progressive role of capitalism. Once capitalism is a world system it A) has nothing to be progressive in opposition to B) no longer has a useful role in laying the foundations for communism.
That’s fair enough. But “Decadence” and “Decomposition”, with their connotations of decline, rotting or falling apart, seem over the top as a descriptions of this situation.
Despite having already laid the material conditions for world socialism and so no longer being historically “progressive”, capitalism has continued to grow not decline. At one time the ICC used to deny this, arguing that what appeared to be growth was in fact just replacing what had been destroyed in a world war. I don’t know if they still do.
The fact that capital has continued to accumulate since capitalism became a world system (whether this dates from 1914 or a couple of decades earlier) does not mean that it has not ceased to be historically progressive. It no longer is and hasn’t been for well over a hundred years. What it means is that socialism is now on the historical agenda, irrespective of whether capital accumulation has continued or not, and that this is what socialists say the working class should be striving for as an immediate aim.
I see from other stuff in their site that the Marxist-Humanists are still going on about “Yrumpism” being a “fascist thread”:
Did they call on workers to vote for Harris in November?
I was thinking also of Soren Mau’s Mute Compulsion which argues that not just workers but capitalist corporations (and governments) are subject to the impersonal laws of the capitalist economic system identified by Marx to which they must comply or fail. This has long been the basis of our case, derived from Marxian economics, that capitalism cannot be reformed so as to work in the interest of the working class.
In his article “Marx, Theoretician of Anarchism”, Maximilian Rubel’s point was that Marx was arguing for the abolition of the state before the likes of Proudhon (an unpleasant joke, I agree), Bakunin and Kropotkin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm
What is interesting is that academia is catching up with what we have been saying, in polemics against the Bolsheviks and their descendants, for over a hundred years — that Marx stood for winning control of the state and democratising it before using it to end capitalism and bring in socialism as the common ownership and democratic control of the means by which society survives.
Nothing wrong with that. Nobody here is arguing that a socialist/communist society can be be created “solely” through the ballot box. Obviously workers will need to organise outside parliament too to be ready to keep production going while and after capitalist control is ended.
As far as I can work out, the IP writer opposes some species of “communitarianism” to democracy (seen as a posited on individualism — the “counting of noses” as Bordiga and Mussolini put it). At least that is what I understand from this passage:
“Here we want to oppose communitarian to democratic, one seeks to establish or defend the organic bonds of community and the other seeks political domination with the assistance of an ideology that has it roots in class division and ultimately in the capitalist value-form itself.”
It’s seems to be anti-democracy rather than pro anything. As he says:
“This text does not pretend to offer “practical” solutions to the collective organization necessary for self-liberation but rather to orient future discussion and experimentation in collective action. But, we will assert that democracy, even in its “pure” form, is not a step towards liberation but rather the principle mode through which capital keeps resistance contained within the political.”
He seems to have been influenced by the ideas of Jacques Camette that communism is a new form of community, as set out in this article:
Anyway, as you say, it has nothing to do with “what Marx actually wrote” as well as being practically incomprehensible in parts.
One in the eye, then, for those “left communists” like Internationalist Perspective who reject the whole concept of democracy as capitalist.
They throw out the baby of democracy as an organisational and decision-making form along with the bathwater of democracy as a form of the capitalist state. See:
https://libcom.org/article/towards-critique-democratic-form-draft-b-york
The title tells it all but work your way through the text if you have the time.
But IP are not the only ones to come out with this sort of stuff.
It looks as if the war in Ukraine has a control of important raw materials aspect too:
Confirmation from a non-Russian-media source:
More on key waterways. Control over which is probably the second most reason (after control over sources of raw materials) as to why states go to war.
The Canadian Tory party leader Pierre Poilievre seems to be confusing overissuing cash with quantitative easing.
Overissuing “cash” (the word he uses) in the generally accepted meaning of the term (of notes and coins) would cause the general price level to rise as he says. But QE was designed to cause only asset prices to rise. It didn’t affect the price of apples (his example).
But it did have the effect he says of making the rich richer. That was the intention. The authorities thought that if the rich and corporations had more money they would invest more. It didn’t work as, in the absence of profitable markets, they didn’t.
Whether the have-yatchs who tend to support his party appreciate him criticising their feeding trough can be open to doubt, but they will understand the need to dupe the workers into supporting a party that supports them.
In any event, QE was not used to finance government spending as he seems to be suggesting.
I was replying to this you posted last month:
“ A lifelong lover of printed books, like William Morris btw, were I a teenager or in my twenties I would be distraught at their disappearance (which doesn’t bother people on this forum). Fortunately, I’ll be dead before books disappear, and I have hundreds, and can still obtain those I want.
If done properly the USA would not be able to digest Canada. If each province became a state (with Newfoundland as the 61st state) then the Senate would be increased by another 20 Senators. The Electoral College would also be increased.
Since, generally speaking, Canada is more European and civilised than the US Trump should be careful about what he wishes. If Canada had already been part of the USA he would never have been elected President.
Who here has said they are not bothered about printed books disappearing? In fact what is the evidence that they will disappear completely? Why should they?
Most people here will have books too but are not elitist and snobbish about it.I was around at the time but wasn’t living in Britain so didn’t experience what went on there. But I am not sure the comparison of today with the 1970s is that valid. This was certainly a period of “stagflation” ie stagnation plus a continuously rising price level. But then the rate of increase was in double digits (just checked, in 1976 it was 16.5%). Today it is between 2 and 3% and unlikely to increase to double figures.
What is a parallel, though, is that attempts of the governments — Tory as well as Labour — of the decade to end stagnation and bring about “growth” failed. Hardy wrote a good article about this in the August 1975 Socialist Standard in which he noted:
“Any serious student of capitalism knows that the capitalist is in business to make a profit and therefore will not invest more to expand production at those times when there is no prospect of selling the product profitably. Yet in the last recession, in 1971-2, Heath and Barber complained bitterly that though for months on end they pleaded and threatened and offered inducements for increased investment, “nobody would listen”. Healey, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present government, confesses to having been equally ignorant of the facts of economic life. “One thing I have learnt from my experience in the past seven months [as Chancellor]: there is no chance of investment if business expects a general and prolonged recession, however generous the tax incentives” (Report of speech, The Times, 5th October 1974).”
In imagining that they can get business to expand production when capitalist firms don’t see the prospect of making a profit, the present government is showing the same ignorance of how capitalism works as the Tory and Labour ministers of the 1970s. Maybe at some point we will hear a similar confession to Healey’s from Reeves.
I don’t think we can say that the present Labour government’s policies are responsible for the comparatively stagnant date of the British economy. That’s due to the working of capitalism over which governments have no control.
On the other hand, the double digit inflation of the 1970s was the result of what governments did by inflating the currency, as Hardy’s article explained. The present government is not pursuing the same policy (they want to keep inflation at only 2%).
Hardy’s article can be found here:
The Crisis: Capitalism’s Stranglehold on the Labour Government
