Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[brogdale]

I don't know that it challenges that in a useful way though, and it seems instead to mythologise a different kind of deeply ideological and anti working class set of policies (leaving aside their viability).

Though not socialism, there's nothing inherently anti working class about counter-cyclical demand management. Indeed, let's not forget that was the macro-economic context for the "Les Trente Glorieuses" during in which capital did actually make concessions to the working class.

 

[inva]

Though not socialism, there's nothing inherently anti working class about counter-cyclical demand management. Indeed, let's not forget that was the macro-economic context for the "Les Trente Glorieuses" during in which capital did actually make concessions to the working class.

there is under capitalism.
the working class can win concessions under laissez faire and under neoliberalism too. Keynesianism/social democracy was constructed in a time of working class offensives and a need for stability - if its measures to suppress working class struggle and ensure profitability were more conciliatory then that was our victory, yet they still sent in the soldiers to break strikes.

 

[brogdale]

there is under capitalism.
the working class can win concessions under laissez faire and under neoliberalism too. Keynesianism/social democracy was constructed in a time of working class offensives and a need for stability - if its measures to suppress working class struggle and ensure profitability were more conciliatory then that was our victory, yet they still sent in the soldiers to break strikes.

I don't think what I was saying disputed any of that. It's plain as day though, if the party of capital governing the capitalist economy ideologically chooses to pursue pro-cyclical macro-economic policies, that has the effect of generating more working class immiserisation than counter-cyclical management would.

 

[nuffsaid]

Public debt is, historically, fairly low and has only risen in the last decade as a result of two main drivers. One, the specific instance of the state using our £ to bail the failed financial capitalists. And two, the secular increasing fiscal divergence between revenue and expenditure created by lowering the tax burden on corporations and the rich. Both of these processes suit the City and afford fincap even more scope to accumulate at the expense of workers paying tax. If this situation didn't suit capital it would not persist; the bond markets would worsen to a point where the administrators of the state would be compelled to change it.

The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk

 

[brogdale]

The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk

Your point being?

 

[nuffsaid]

Your point being?

It's quite high isn't it....

 

[nuffsaid]

What never seems to get asked, which I think is the more important question. Why does the govt. get charged interest on it's borrowing? Who benefits? The BofE, so we should be considering where the real power lies and consider overturning that, rather than just perpetually dealing with the shop window of power, Parliament.

 

[inva]

I don't think what I was saying disputed any of that. It's plain as day though, if the party of capital governing the capitalist economy ideologically chooses to pursue pro-cyclical macro-economic policies, that has the effect of generating more working class immiserisation than counter-cyclical management would.

why do they 'choose' one or the other, though? is it a matter of being more or less anti working class, or a matter of where struggle has forced them? to cast it as simply a matter of state planning that they select one or the other, acting on a blank canvas, is not a helpful position. (not saying this is your view, but the liberal left)

let's not forget that if keynesianism can ever be said to have worked then we broke it. not willing to tolerate shit work, shit wages, shit housing - wars, looting the third world/colonies. rejecting the contract by which we were meant to have been bought off.

if we're in a position where social democracy becomes attractive to capital, then social democracy is reactionary.

(edited for clarity)

 

[teqniq]

But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than pro something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.
Brown: "No more boom and bust"...oh really. I saw it coming in 2007 when people were queuing of the East Croydon branch of Northern Rock to close their accounts. Gordon Brown couldn't see that! Idiot!

Not this tired broken fucking record shit again which is actually a lie, but I see that others have already addressed this misinformation.

 

[brogdale]

What never seems to get asked, which I think is the more important question. Why does the govt. get charged interest on it's borrowing? Who benefits? The BofE, so we should be considering where the real power lies and consider overturning that, rather than just perpetually dealing with the shop window of power, Parliament.

Nation states get charged interest on what they borrow by those that lend them the £; it's not a difficult concept. Financialised capital would rather lend to the state than pay it taxes; that way it gets to keep the principle wealth, earn interest from the usury and, conveniently for them, re-distribute wealth regressively. The real power or actual sovereignty lies with the bond markets that control the supply of that debt.

 

[brogdale]

why do they 'choose' one or the other, though? is it a matter of being more or less anti working class, or a matter of where struggle has forced them? to cast it as simply a matter of state planning that they select one or the other, acting on a blank canvas, is not a helpful position. (not saying this is your view, but the liberal left)

let's not forget that if keynesianism can ever be said to have worked then we broke it. not willing to tolerate shit work, shit wages, shit housing - wars, looting the third world/colonies. rejecting the contract by which we were meant to have been bought off.

if we're in a position where social democracy becomes attractive to capital, then social democracy is reactionary.

(edited for clarity)

The working class certainly did not 'break' the post-war 'social contract'. It's demise was a deliberate goal of (neoliberal) capital set when it became obvious that ("communist") system competition was in terminal decline. The divergence between the return to capital and that to labour can be plotted very clearly.

 

[inva]

The working class certainly did not 'break' the post-war 'social contract'. It's demise was a deliberate goal of (neoliberal) capital set when it became obvious that ("communist") system competition was in terminal decline. The divergence between the return to capital and that to labour can be plotted very clearly.

yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.

neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.

 

[Pickman's model]

yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.

neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.

neoliberalism not "forced" on capital, but a deliberate choice.

 

[inva]

neoliberalism not "forced" on capital, but a deliberate choice.

it had to react in some way - social democracy became untenable, neoliberalism was the response. there may have been other strategies. Paul Mattick's book on Keynesianism suggests it might have gone the 'state capitalism' route in response to its profitability crisis, but as that was shortly to collapse as well I think it may not have been viable.

 

[mikey mikey]

 

[inva]

yes it did. look at Kliman's work on the rate of profit for example
look at the waves of strikes and the difficulty of the unions to control them. look at fears over productivity and moves toward greater automation.
the stability and profitability of capital managed via those methods was undermined by working class struggle and capitalism entered a major crisis.

neoliberalism was a response forced on capital - of course it tries to transform defense into attack as we have seen through neoliberalism. as leftists/Marxists we are trying to see the self activity of the working class aren't we? how we as an active agent shape society and how capital is made to react to us.

to add to this post

the interesting bit to me is in terms of the neoliberal era and where we are now - how we might break neoliberalism or how it is already being broken.

it seems as though it might be less through the more obvious offensive measures we have as working class, but more through defensive means. capital has struggled to bring down the social wage and sufficiently increase productivity and it remains even this long after the 2008 crisis in a sickly state. maybe just our efforts to hold the line against attacks on living standards etc are enough to bring about neoliberalism's collapse. If the capitalist golden age and the social democratic state's methods couldn't nullify the forces that destroyed laissez-faire then in spite of its triumphalism neoliberalism has looked an even shakier solution.

 

[nuffsaid]

Not this tired broken fucking record shit again which is actually a lie, but I see that others have already addressed this misinformation.

What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.

 

[nuffsaid]

Nation states get charged interest on what they borrow by those that lend them the £; it's not a difficult concept. Financialised capital would rather lend to the state than pay it taxes; that way it gets to keep the principle wealth, earn interest from the usury and, conveniently for them, re-distribute wealth regressively. The real power or actual sovereignty lies with the bond markets that control the supply of that debt.

Quite, so why not deal with that system?

 

[teqniq]

What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.

No, I am not absolving Brown, merely pointing out that your claim that Labour were the architects of the 2008 crash is bullshit. As has already been demonstrated.

 

[nuffsaid]

No, I am not absolving Brown, merely pointing out that your claim that Labour were the architects of the 2008 crash is bullshit. As has already been demonstrated.

I didn't say the architects but they were blatantly culpable.

 

[teqniq]

You certainly implied it, by completely failing to mention the preceding tory policies that prepared the ground for what was to come. Brown's failure was to do nothing to remedy the situation.

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system

 

[mikey mikey]

Yep. Bog standard buck passing. No doubt Brexit will be Labour's fault too.

 

[nuffsaid]

You certainly implied it, by completely failing to mention the preceding tory policies that prepared the ground for what was to come. Brown's failure was to do nothing to remedy the situation.

Good grief! Labour had over a decade to hep mitigate the crisis, a bit more regulation would have helped. I won't say they are the architects because I'd argue that the whole system we live under is obviously pro-business and elitist at it's core it's not a level playing field and we'd need a total revolution to make it so. But they had over a decade to make it more equitable..........and they didn't. "No more boom and bust".

I still have a copy of the Guardian from the day after Blair won in '97. I've been waiting for a Labour canvasser to darken my door since March 2003 - Whenever one does they are so gonna get a rocket up their arse while I wave it in their face.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good grief! Labour had over a decade to hep mitigate the crisis, a bit more regulation would have helped. I won't say they are the architects because I'd argue that the whole system we live under is obviously pro-business and elitist at it's core it's not a level playing field and we'd need a total revolution to make it so. But they had over a decade to make it more equitable..........and they didn't. "No more boom and bust".

I still have a copy of the Guardian from the day after Blair won in '97. I've been waiting for a Labour canvasser to darken my door since March 2003 - Whenever one does they are so gonna get a rocket up their arse while I wave it in their face.

How many other auld newspapers do you have?

 

[gosub]

What? You think it was ok then for Brown to say 'No more boom and bust'. He did, he was wrong, obviously he was just at the shittiest end of a decades old stick but Labour had over a decade to deal with a failed system and all they did was add to it.

The actual idea of an end to the economic cycle was a bad one.

 

[nuffsaid]

How many other auld newspapers do you have?

None.. Just that one. After growing up under Thatcher I so wanted Labour to win and May '97 was the beginning of hope, it was amazing. I was living in Brighton at the time and I'd vandalised bus stops by posting a colour copy of the front page of the then Tory manifesto over the ad for the film 'Liar, Liar', that poster had a head and shoulders image of Jim Carey that I perfectly covered by the face of John Major with the name of the film 'Liar, Liar' nicely emblazoned below..... Some people obviously took offence and ripped them off, I put another on, they ripped it off again, I put another on....and so on.

That memory of hope is what I will ram down a canvasser's throat......and how they destroyed it.

 

[Pickman's model]

None.. Just that one. After growing up under Thatcher I so wanted Labour to win and May '97 was the beginning of hope, it was amazing. I was living in Brighton at the time and I'd vandalised bus stops by posting a colour copy of the front page of the then Tory manifesto over the ad for the film 'Liar, Liar', that poster had a head and shoulders image of Jim Carey that I perfectly covered by the face of John Major with the name of the film 'Liar, Liar' nicely emblazoned below..... Some people obviously took offence and ripped them off, I put another on, they ripped it off again, I put another on....and so on.

That memory of hope is what I will ram down a canvasser's throat......and how they destroyed it.

If 97 was the beginning of hope what did you feel during the election campaigns of 87 and 92?

 

[nuffsaid]

If 97 was the beginning of hope what did you feel during the election campaigns of 87 and 92?

There was no chance of a Labour win in 87 and 92 was hugely disappointing, how on earth did we give them another 4 years, even the Tories couldn't believe it.

 

[Pickman's model]

There was no chance of a Labour win in 87 and 92 was hugely disappointing, how on earth did we give them another 4 years, even the Tories couldn't believe it.

92 to 97 traditionally 5 years

 

[nuffsaid]

92 to 97 traditionally 5 years

haha - indeed. I've been watching so much American news coverage recently.............4 MORE YEARS!