Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
colinskelly wrote:Mattick Jr. supports the SPGB view of taxation as utimately a burden on profits: "The underlying problem is that government-financed production does not produce a profit… Tax money appears to be paid by everyone. But …only business actually pays taxes. … So when the government buys goods or services from a corporation … it is just giving a portion of its cut of profits back to business, collecting from all and giving it to some."(p.81)
Which goes some way to explaining the reason for 'white elephants' and the low price for state sell offs like Llyods Bank.
ALB wrote:I think he is talkimg about the 'uneven development' of different industries within a capitalist economy with some expanding faster or slower than others, not about the uneven development of capitalism in different parts of the world.Wow. Plenty of examples there to get our teeth into!
steve colborn wrote:Brian wrote:" Although, "the multitude of productive forces accessible to men determines the nature of society" suggests a corresponding overlap between market forces and the growth of capitalism imo making a distinction between the two will help in drawing out any impact the nuances may have on clarifiying a cause for crisis.".I read the above and wondered if I had gone to hell! on reflection, however, I wished I had. I understand the need to use this kind of language but with respect to spreading "our" case, or more properly put, the case for we, "workers", is this the kind of prose that would, or will, appeal to our fellow workers? Somehow, I think not!
Dammit! Its just my lazy way of probing whether or not there's any mileage between the uneven development of market forces and capitalism in general. According to Adam apparently not.
Please read on to where Marx describes "…… ….. this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself." The use of the term "nursery tale" is clearly a rebuttal to the capitalist branding all opposition as communistic besides cleverly inferring that they lack political sophistication and are immature in recognising and identifying their real enemy whose time has come.In short, the whole of the manifesto sets out to put the historical record straight.
Correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be saying that 'disproportionality' is due to the contradiction of the uneven development of market forces and the uneven development of the conditions of production for capitalism."The uneven development of the various branches of production is determinedprimarily by the uneven development of the conditions of production, rather thanby the dierent rates of growth of the market for their products. Thus the tendencyto overproduction, which is the driving force of capitalist accumulation, does notappear in the form of a tendency to the general overproduction of commodities, butin the form of the disproportional development of the various branches of production.There is noa priorireason why such uneven development should take the particularform of the overproduction of the means of subsistence, so that crises should appearas underconsumption crises.There is no doubt that the primary motivation of the development of the forcesof production is to economise on living labour, so that, other things being equal, themarket for the workers' means of subsistence might be expected to grow less rapidlythan that for the elements of constant capital. However, even if this tendency is notmodied by other circumstances, such as economy in the production and use of theelements of constant capital, this is by no means sucient to establish a tendencyto the overproduction of the means of subsistence, because the tendency to overpro-duction is not derived from a consideration of the static relationship between supplyand demand, but from the dynamic relationship between the various branches ofproduction. Thus the specic form of disproportionality is not determined primarilyby the disproportional growth of demand for particular commodities, but by the dis-proportional growth of supply, determined by the uneven development of the forcesof production." (p.15)
robbo203 wrote:As he puts it, the "disproportionalities, which Tugan- Baranowski correctly identified as the source of general crises, are not merely the contingent result of the `anarchy of the market', but are the necessary result of the social form of capitalist production, the expression of the tendency to the overproduction of commodities" (ibid). The accumulation process is inevitably subject to uneven development which is the outcome of objective factors and express itself not in the form of general overproduction but, rather, disproportional growth. So for example, technical, social. labour supply or natural barriers may – and, indeed, inevitably will – affect different lines of production differentially, holding back growth in one branch of industry vis a vis others and so resulting in an overshoot situation from the standpoint of other branches, particularly those closely associated with the former. Overshoot then initiates a "knock on" process that can spiral into a generalised recession. Or to put it differently , "the specific form of disproportionality is not determined primarily by the disproportional growth of demand for particular commodities, but by the disproportional growth of supply, determined by the uneven development of the forces of production" (ibid). I think Clarke's essay is a very useful addition to the arsenal of revolutionary socialist theoryLooks very interesting, especially the link to the uneven development of the forces of production."Because humans produce their own means of life the means available to them to do so determines their level of existence. These are what Marx called the "productive forces" of society. The productive forces consist of means of production, and labour power. Means of production include tools, machinery, premises and infrastructure ("the means of labour"-what humans work with) and raw material ("the objects of labour"-what humans work on). Labour power (which enables them to work with means of production) includes strength, skill, knowledge and inventiveness.It is the level of development of productive forces, and the way in which society organises their operation, which marks out the different stages of human development. It is "the multitude of productive forces accessible to men" which, Marx says, "determines the nature of society" (The German Ideology)."However, it would help if you could substantiate if Clarke means by "uneven development" the global market forces or the (uneven) growth of the capitalist mode of production. Although, "the multitude of productive forces accessible to men determines the nature of society" suggests a corresponding overlap between market forces and the growth of capitalism imo making a distinction between the two will help in drawing out any impact the nuances may have on clarifiying a cause for crisis.Good stuff.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps you are rght …PTA a very poor example, very middle classish !! and showed my age too, Robin…. But the point i was trying to put across was people like John Bisset combined his socialist propaganda and being active in his community on local issues. Brian Johnson too is deeply involved in claimants and welfare issues. I could go on. Neither presents it as an either or question , working for reforms to improve your or another persons life is not an anathema for socialists.Not wishing to go off topic but to keep the record straight. Currently, I'm a member of the local PTA; a tenant board member of RCT Homes the largest housing association in Wales; a board director of Homeforce who are a subsidary of RCT Homes and service their gas and electricity requirements; and the Project Coordinator for a Community Garden & Art Project at my local welsh speaking primary.Throughout, my entire experience of working with the people in these entities I have never come across the so called 'middle class' attitude/expression that they are not members of the working class. Indeed, whenever I've brought up the subject of wage slavery even the head teacher and the CEO grudgingly admit that the penalty for a comfortable salary is becoming a slave to their occupation. Which means like the rest of us they are locked into the system of capitalist exploitation.
The potential profits depends on the cost of extraction not exceeding the energy return, according to these two guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWfQuuXQN14
Vin Maratty wrote:twc wrote:That being the case, Steve, I’ll bow out of the forum.That would be catastrophic. Your grasp of the MCH in relation to the SPGB's case is indespensable as far as I am concerned
Wow! Powerful statement that but anti-materialist all the same. What is it Marx said? I'm no Marxist.In short I would have thought that we are all indispensable when it comes to understanding the MCH.
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:Message from the author, Peter Critchley, that he posted to the Socialist Party email address today -Monday 24th March:Just to say that I am the author of The Proletarian Public, the book being discussed by Alan Johnstone.The book was never published in hard copy form. It was written up from notes I made early in my doctoral research. I wanted to write a thesis on the proletarian transformation of politics and the tradition of 'socialism from below'.So no hardcopy in book form or on Kindle. It means the only way around this is to print it off – bugger! Unless the party seeks permission from the author to publish The Proletarian Public in booklet form?
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:But surely its this reaction on the economic basis which determines what happens next?I'll now leave the pub and join Alan!But was this reaction determined by the base? For example government policies to remove war and poverty? Get the pints in
I'm not sure, but I'm determined to find out!
DJP wrote:The point is..Hardy wrote:[…] that whilst it is the economic conditions which ultimately condition historical development, it should not be overlooked that all the derivative factors, political, juridical, philosophical, religious and artistic, not only interact with each other but also “react upon the economic basis”.But surely its this reaction on the economic basis which determines what happens next?I'll now leave the pub and join Alan!
Just had a quick scan through the contents and am impressed by its detail of analysis and discussion on the various theories and political disagreement on what actually constitutes a political challenge to capitalism. Shall have to get a hardcopy so I can digest at my leisure.
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:There is more than is more than one way of skinning a cat and it appears that PJ is successfully illustrating how to go about it.Exactly what is Peter Joseph "successfully illustrating"?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/147039565328926/720247108008166/
There is more than is more than one way of skinning a cat and it appears that PJ is successfully illustrating how to go about it. There is room for both linguistic cultural styles in the class struggle even though it can be hard going on times.And if I remember correctly in the intro to Das Capital Marx apologies to the reader for his style of language used.
