World economy fundamentally unsound?
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
I guess I am putting PR's analysis in a box. Because it uses the same methods as all Trotskyist/Leninist/Marxist (whatever you want to call it ) analyses. Unless you think PR's method of analysis is completely, fundamentally different to other Marxist analyses?
Cleaver, in his book that Blagsta mentioned above, talks through the history of Marxist economists ranging from the social-democrats, to the Communists (Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin) and the council communists (Mattick). These are obviously three quite different currents within Marxism. He admitted that "The particular arguments of these debating authors varied considerably, either refuting, developing, or taking new directions from those who came earlier."
However, they all shared something in common: "they analyzed capitalist growth and accumulation independently of working-class initiative. Because of this it is of secondary importance that some of these authors endorsed social democracy and/or collaborated with capitalist governments (e.g., Bernstein, Kautsky, Hilferding, Bauer, Sternberg), while others endorsed a "revolutionary" perspective (e.g., Luxemburg, Lenin, Pannekoek, Mattick). You could accuse him of putting people into boxes, but I think it's a valid comment by him.
Random has hit the nail on the head.
EDIT: You say "it is absurd to say that capital is doing what is now because of workers power, when in fact there have been two decades of defeats." Which surely proves Cleaver's view? Why did neo-liberalism come about? Why did capital find the need to restructure in such a way?
cockneyrebel
New Member
What does having a fixation on political action by the working class mean? Sorry that's gone over my head!
And I don't get the second bit. Of course the actions of the working class are still central, but that doens't mean that capital still doesn't work towards "profit maximisation", but of course the working class can stop this from happening and make capital work in different ways.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Actually random has totally missed the point. I've already said that there is dialectical relationship between capital and the working class. It's ridiculously simplistic to say one or the other controls how things happen. But capital will push towards profit maximisation.
And no I don't think PRs analysis is completely different but we're not saying that the working class simply react to capital or that "capitalist growth and accumulation are independent of working-class initiatives", which is the box you're trying to put us in.
Of course, but that the dialectical bit. Initally neo-liberalism came out because of the weakness of capitalism and the need to smash the organised working class. But the situation we are in now has gone beyond that. The organised working class has been severely weakened and the stalinist states have been opened up to capitalism (although state capitalists would make the ridiculous suggestion that nothing has changed in this respect). So while that's why neo-liberalism might have developed in the first place, that doesn't explain why capital is acting the way it is now. There has just been a huge boom over the past few years, and capital isn't reacting to a crisis, it is continuing to attack the working class, even in a time of boom, because the organised working class and far left generally are so so weak.
However what the boom has done is enable reformism to stengthen again in certain places - Chavez, Morales, Lula etc and it has enabled even neo-liberal regimes like Blairs to pay off certain sections of workers with pay increases.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Of course not. I can't say exactly what is and what isn't "political". Indeed I don't agree with the false division that some leftists have over economic and political struggle.
In terms of working forces stopping capital, that could come in several forms, but obviously the organised working class is a key conponent in that i.e. trade unions and organised workplace resistance against capital.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Of course, but when organised labour and the working class generally is weak then capital will be much better position to go on the attack. So that's my point, while neo-liberalism might have intially been a reaction to capitalism being in a weak position, the attacks now come from a position of strength, not because capitalism is in crisis or because of workiing class power.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make then.
As far as I can see you think orthodox marxists say that capital governs the way the working class acts.
I'm saying that it's a dialectical relationship and the two forces react off each other.
Maybe you're saying that the working class governs the way the working class acts. If so I think that's as one dimensional as the first approach.
But if all you're saying Random is that capitalists take account of working class activity when making their investment decisions, you're not really saying very much at all.
Who doesn't think that?
All of the Marxists who you claim are allegedly against this idea all propose it at various points and not just Marxists bourgeois economists say it as well. Who doesn't think that the reason that General Motors are re-locating out of the US is because high pension payments payable to UAW members?
I mean where's the revelation?
PR's analysis of globalisation is in fact predicated on the impact of working class action - or rather inaction - as a result of the savage defeats of the 1970s/80s early 1990s. These defeats paved the way for globalisation and allowed the capitalists to reshape the world to create globalisation.
Capital operates in a political world.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...0E6-6D99-46C8-AE52-1610E36B7900}&siteid=yhoof
Who doesn't think that?
All of the Marxists who you claim are allegedly against this idea all propose it at various points and not just Marxists bourgeois economists say it as well. Who doesn't think that the reason that General Motors are re-locating out of the US is because high pension payments payable to UAW members?
I mean where's the revelation?
PR's analysis of globalisation is in fact predicated on the impact of working class action - or rather inaction - as a result of the savage defeats of the 1970s/80s early 1990s. These defeats paved the way for globalisation and allowed the capitalists to reshape the world to create globalisation.
Capital operates in a political world.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...0E6-6D99-46C8-AE52-1610E36B7900}&siteid=yhoof
urbanrevolt
New Member
mk12 said:
I'm not misunderstanding Cleaver- i already said I haven't read him.
If anything it seems to me you're misuderstanding what we are saying- there's no argument that the actions of workers make a huge difference to capitalist behaviour and investment patterns. That's not the point the article was making at all- it was about how best can we revitalise working class class consciousness and action and criticising the way certain Trotskyist groups- in this case the Socialist Party- peddle a view that capitalism is about to collapse- if not now then tomorrow or at least soon or some time anyway.
I'd argue- and you nowhere seem to engage with this- that there's no point putting forward such a simplistic analysis and that it telescopes the real work working activists have to do to realise the power of the working class which at the moment is laregely unrealised.
Capitalists of course respond to workers' actions and struggles- but their bottom line is still making a fast buck - it's just us workers have a big influence on that.
We are not at all arguing workers should just respond to capitalist decisions- far from it. We want to get rid of the capitalists altogether and encourage working class self-rule not just in some distant future but in running our own struggle now. But this will require conscious poilitics, discussion, debate, practical action not waiting on some mythical good times or bad times always just around the corner as SP, SWP, WP and others seem to argue.
I'll check out the Cleaver link sure. But I think you'll find you've missed the point of our article. http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1620
Just skimming the article it explains that;
"Far from being a passive object of capitalist designs, the worker is the active subject of production, the well-spring of the skills, innovation, and cooperation on which capital must draw. Moreover, the labouring subject is not only active, but antagonistic. Capital attempts to maximise exploitation either ‘absolutely’ (by extending the working day) or ‘relatively’ (by raising the intensity or productivity of labour). But workers, both in daily practice and organised struggle, persistently initiate their own, very different project. Seeking a secure, full, plenitudinous life that escapes the reduction to mere labour-power, they set in motion a counter-logic that defies capital’s by either forcing up the wage level or lowering the duration and pace of the working day. These efforts by workers to reclaim the values they themselves have produced are not merely ‘economistic,’ but strike at capital’s intrinsically political command over labour-power."
No offence but this is supposed to be news?
"(The workers says to the capitalist) You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it."
Marx Capital Vol 1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S1
He clearly has no idea what economism means. It doesn't mean the abstension from economic struggles, it means that economic struggles need to be made conscious of the need to overthrow capitalism.
"Far from being a passive object of capitalist designs, the worker is the active subject of production, the well-spring of the skills, innovation, and cooperation on which capital must draw. Moreover, the labouring subject is not only active, but antagonistic. Capital attempts to maximise exploitation either ‘absolutely’ (by extending the working day) or ‘relatively’ (by raising the intensity or productivity of labour). But workers, both in daily practice and organised struggle, persistently initiate their own, very different project. Seeking a secure, full, plenitudinous life that escapes the reduction to mere labour-power, they set in motion a counter-logic that defies capital’s by either forcing up the wage level or lowering the duration and pace of the working day. These efforts by workers to reclaim the values they themselves have produced are not merely ‘economistic,’ but strike at capital’s intrinsically political command over labour-power."
No offence but this is supposed to be news?
"(The workers says to the capitalist) You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it."
Marx Capital Vol 1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S1
He clearly has no idea what economism means. It doesn't mean the abstension from economic struggles, it means that economic struggles need to be made conscious of the need to overthrow capitalism.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Well then why post on this thread? Then again why not I suppose but as the thread is about- loosely- the topic that started it it seems a fair enough assumption.
Fanciful puts it well- marxists argue for making the economic struggles explicityly and consciously political- not just waiting passively on an economic process to do it for us. That point seems relevant to both the article that started the thread and the discussion you started.
Fanciful puts it well- marxists argue for making the economic struggles explicityly and consciously political- not just waiting passively on an economic process to do it for us. That point seems relevant to both the article that started the thread and the discussion you started.
urbanrevolt
New Member
well to some extent much of the left- if you keep saying like a broken record that crisis is round the corner we just have to keep saying our message again and again because soon workers will flock to our ranks because they'll see we're right.
OK no one says it in quite those bald terms but that is I'd argue basically the message of SWP, SP, etc, Not to deny that there are many good activists who do a lot but there's not much of an attempt to interrogate the real problems of a declining and increasingly irrelevant left, of a resurgent capitalism which despite setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere is still largely triumphant over the working class
If we want workers to act for themselves and encourage more working class militancy and links between the struggles we need to confront the very real problems and have a full ranging discussion about how to overcome them.
That's the point of this discussion I think (granted there may well be several overlapping discussions going on in this thread)
OK no one says it in quite those bald terms but that is I'd argue basically the message of SWP, SP, etc, Not to deny that there are many good activists who do a lot but there's not much of an attempt to interrogate the real problems of a declining and increasingly irrelevant left, of a resurgent capitalism which despite setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere is still largely triumphant over the working class
If we want workers to act for themselves and encourage more working class militancy and links between the struggles we need to confront the very real problems and have a full ranging discussion about how to overcome them.
That's the point of this discussion I think (granted there may well be several overlapping discussions going on in this thread)
urbanrevolt
New Member
well probably not i guess- it will be on its work, its honesty, its democracy, its commitment to the struggle, its commitment to learn etc
however any party or group that promotes its own views as amantra, a dogma, an inflexible orthodoxy is guaranteed to fail- that's why the argument over the economy has some importance
however any party or group that promotes its own views as amantra, a dogma, an inflexible orthodoxy is guaranteed to fail- that's why the argument over the economy has some importance
They're online these days, so there's no need to buy them.
But leaving that to one side, the assessment of world capitalism, reveals a common method uniting the left...don't worry everything'll be alright all we've got to do is wait long enough and capitalism will collapse of its own accord.
That method is rubbish and needs criticising.
But leaving that to one side, the assessment of world capitalism, reveals a common method uniting the left...don't worry everything'll be alright all we've got to do is wait long enough and capitalism will collapse of its own accord.
That method is rubbish and needs criticising.
urbanrevolt
New Member
it is parly/ perhaps mainly aimed at sp and swp members but it is I think part of a broader debate about marxist economics and marxism itself
most marxists since the second world war have had a marxism based on a schema, a schema that has to be questioned and it is partly because of this schema I'd suggest that many ordinary workers have been put off and as marxism has become to be seen as less and less a guide to action and more and more a dogma it has declined
Of cousre the decline is also to do with a defeats imposed by the class enemy but to think through those defeats and think anew our ways of dealing with them is a subject potentially far wider than a debate between tiny trotskyist groups (tho I take your point!)
most marxists since the second world war have had a marxism based on a schema, a schema that has to be questioned and it is partly because of this schema I'd suggest that many ordinary workers have been put off and as marxism has become to be seen as less and less a guide to action and more and more a dogma it has declined
Of cousre the decline is also to do with a defeats imposed by the class enemy but to think through those defeats and think anew our ways of dealing with them is a subject potentially far wider than a debate between tiny trotskyist groups (tho I take your point!)
To me, from what you've said, PR are not as 'different' to any other group on the left as you'd like to think though. You say things like "we want workers to act for themselves and encourage more working class militancy" and "we want workers to act for themselves and encourage more working class militancy " etc etc.
I doubt any member of the SWP or SP would disagree with that. It seems from here that you want
a) leftist groups to have discussions amongst yourselves more
b) more 'action' alongside those who disagree with you.
If that's right, it's hardly a fundamental break from what marxists have been doing "since the second world war". [im willing to be told differently though]
I doubt any member of the SWP or SP would disagree with that. It seems from here that you want
a) leftist groups to have discussions amongst yourselves more
b) more 'action' alongside those who disagree with you.
If that's right, it's hardly a fundamental break from what marxists have been doing "since the second world war". [im willing to be told differently though]
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
What I'm wondering is:
When 'Global Capitalism' finally does 'collapse' (which it appears to be doing right at this very moment), are you cunts still going to be sitting around arguing over who's interpretation of stale Marxist dogma is 'best', or have you any real world solutions to fill the void?
Any of you read this: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION By Antony C. Sutton?
When 'Global Capitalism' finally does 'collapse' (which it appears to be doing right at this very moment), are you cunts still going to be sitting around arguing over who's interpretation of stale Marxist dogma is 'best', or have you any real world solutions to fill the void?
Any of you read this: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION By Antony C. Sutton?
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
fanciful said:
So you haven't read it, yet you can dismiss it as 'an anti-semitic load of shit'.
Can you point out exactly which passage or statement within it you deem to be 'anti-semitic'?
Or are you just being a fucktard?
'What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?'
If another jolt to the captialist system does come ,there are some bad signs at the moment it will seem to come out of the blue like black wednesday.the main reason is that commentators tend to bury their heads in the sand believeing that the system is robust enough to survive.The god of consumerism can't be substained .look whats happening now people have spent money they have not got .the economy as boomed but now they have got to pay it back at an higher interest level
urbanrevolt
New Member
May be if you want to put it like that.mk12 said:
It's not a fundamental break from what a lot of marxists have said since the
2nd world war in that sense.
It may well be quite a fundamental break from what a lot have done though. However as we're only a tiny group of less than 100 world wide we're not making grand claims about anything we've done either. I think we're just identifying a problem and suggesting some possible routes for exploration of potential answers.
Where it is different also is that we are beginning to reject the idea that many postwar trots have had that capitalism is in terminal crisis right now. There are lots of things wrong with it - eg. the majority of humanity leading lives of poverty etc. etc.- but it isn't a case of being in its death throes. We have to relate to capitalist recuperation.
I think we're also beginning to break from the hold of dogmatism that stalinism bequethed to most of the trotskyist movement as well.
I guess we're only at the beginning of such a project. We certainly don't think we have all the answers,
What more fundamental break do you want? Any ideas welcome
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
shagnasty said:
'Out of the blue'? WTF? I mean, really - WTF?? Am I on a different planet from everyone else? (Yeah, don't answer that).
You're right to speak of it in quasi-religious terms, though...
Most of these 'commentators' fulfil the function of a 'priesthood' - it's a 'faith-based' system, alright. The US$, for example, is backed only by jobless (or soon-to-be), impoverished people who simply don't have the means to meet the repayments. The UK's not much better. The US$ role as 'Global Petro-currency' has been somewhat undermined.
We can probably forecast which day of the week 'the big crash' will come this time, as we've already had a 'Black Monday' (1987), a Black Tuesday (1929), 'Black Wednesday' (1992) and 'Black Thursday' (1929 again).
We haven't had a 'Black Friday' in the financial world since September 24, 1869... so I reckon that's the best bet. Either that, or we'll have to start trading over the weekends...
Similar threads
