nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Are you sure about that? 1869?
ETA: The US had 3 depressions in the 19t century and all of them were caused by over-speculation or by placing faith in something that didn't actually exist.
World economy fundamentally unsound?
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
Are you sure about that? 1869?
ETA: The US had 3 depressions in the 19t century and all of them were caused by over-speculation or by placing faith in something that didn't actually exist.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Backatcha Bandit said: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?
Reformed Theology? Wtf?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Really?Backatcha Bandit said:
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
No - I'm not sure... I was thinking of the 'Fisk / Gould Scandal':
That article is dated 1928... so 49 years before that would be 1879.
But then plenty of other sources say 1869:
Whatever... we could use 'Thursday', as it seems a little unfair that 1929 gets two 'Black' days for the same crash.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,928310-1,00.html
That article is dated 1928... so 49 years before that would be 1879.
But then plenty of other sources say 1869:
Whatever... we could use 'Thursday', as it seems a little unfair that 1929 gets two 'Black' days for the same crash.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Donna Ferentes said:
Well, you'll notice I put the word 'collapse' in inverted commas, as it's a term employed in the common vernacular.
If pressed, I'd probably go for the term 'controlled demolition'.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
US bank panics 19th C
1819
1837
1857
1869
1873
1893
Then
1907
1929
So what is the difference between a "Panic" and a "Depression"?
1819
1837
1857
1869
1873
1893
Then
1907
1929
So what is the difference between a "Panic" and a "Depression"?
cockneyrebel
New Member
It depends what you mean, I doubt anything that anyone comes up with is unique in terms of political history, but I suppose the left does tend to frame things in comparison to the rest of the far left.
Take the organisation/method you support, the IWCA, I have seen their supporters claim what they're doing is new, but actually, agree with it or not, that method has been tried and tested countless times not just internationally, but even in the UK.
But the debate seems to be about you and random saying that PR is using a method where capital dictates what the working class does in terms of political action. You then say that this isn't the case and actually working class action reflects what capital does. I guess fanciful is then saying, not to sound rude, that this is hardly a revelation.
I'm guessing you're not saying that capital can't have any influence on working class struggle. So in a nutshell we all seem to agree that it's a dialectical relationship, but you seem to want to insist that we are still disagreeing on this point.
What I disagree with is the author that you put up suggesting that capitalism is in its current phase because of the crisis of capitalism and because working class action is forcing this change. When in fact while obviously working class struggle always has an affect and neo liberalism came out of struggle with the organised working class the current period actually stems from working class defeats not working class power.
urbanrevolt
New Member
And what we're saying is that the left has to get out of the habit of continually predicting capitalism's demise as being around the corner and presenting marxism or the program as ready made answers to which the working class must flock (only problem is they never do!)
The tasks ahead are at a rough suggestion-
-rebuilding working class organisations at the base; unions in workplaces; union associations; trades councils and or cross union committees; tenants' assocaitions; estate based campaigns etc
- wining arguments for working class politics by results, campaigns based on mobilising working class people and asking us what we want and how we want to get there
- building an organisation of revolutionaries committed to the class struggle and revolutionary politics as a resource for the wider working class movement not as a doctrine or dogma or attempt to control the wider movement (which actually never works and can wreck campaigns). Revolutionaries however do have a distinct message about how the only way to overcome class society and capitalism is for the working class to organise itself, take power, defend its revolution against capitalist attack and run and manage society. Such arguments when honestly put and when they do not block the action necessary to win in particular campaigns do not put people off in my experience.
In all of this I am not claiming that PR has some 'new' shining path that has never been trod before. I am not particularly claiming the ideas as such are new- and may be if I fell into that trap before I apologise.
However, it is I think something of a break from the practice of much of the post-war left (even if lots of people have said these ideas before)
Those of us in groups, or those in no groups, should also be open to working together, not just slagging someone off because they're in the swp or sp or pr or whatever
If a few- perhaps only a few hundred- people seriously committed themselves to such a project and showed in practice in some high profile national campaigns that such an approach works it could make a real difference.
That's what we're arguing for and new or not I think it's worth a go.
The tasks ahead are at a rough suggestion-
-rebuilding working class organisations at the base; unions in workplaces; union associations; trades councils and or cross union committees; tenants' assocaitions; estate based campaigns etc
- wining arguments for working class politics by results, campaigns based on mobilising working class people and asking us what we want and how we want to get there
- building an organisation of revolutionaries committed to the class struggle and revolutionary politics as a resource for the wider working class movement not as a doctrine or dogma or attempt to control the wider movement (which actually never works and can wreck campaigns). Revolutionaries however do have a distinct message about how the only way to overcome class society and capitalism is for the working class to organise itself, take power, defend its revolution against capitalist attack and run and manage society. Such arguments when honestly put and when they do not block the action necessary to win in particular campaigns do not put people off in my experience.
In all of this I am not claiming that PR has some 'new' shining path that has never been trod before. I am not particularly claiming the ideas as such are new- and may be if I fell into that trap before I apologise.
However, it is I think something of a break from the practice of much of the post-war left (even if lots of people have said these ideas before)
Those of us in groups, or those in no groups, should also be open to working together, not just slagging someone off because they're in the swp or sp or pr or whatever
If a few- perhaps only a few hundred- people seriously committed themselves to such a project and showed in practice in some high profile national campaigns that such an approach works it could make a real difference.
That's what we're arguing for and new or not I think it's worth a go.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Fair enough, but as said I don't think it's really relevant to what PR have said in this piece. Indeed although we've gone round and round in circles we don't appear to disagree that the way capital acts is a two way relationship with the working class.
Where we might disagree, if you agree with the post you put up, is that capital is reacting to working class power and capitalism in crisis.
Of course it is. The restructuring which began in the 1970s was as a response to working class power. It's a counter-attack. This has led to:
"Keynesian guarantees are dismantled in favour of discipline by restraint; unions hamstrung by changes in labour law; monetary policies exercised to drive real wages down and unemployment up; and welfare programs brought
under attack. At the same time, corporate managers take aim at the industrial centres of turbulence, decimating the factory base of the mass worker by the automation and globalisation of manufacturing."
cockneyrebel
New Member
But as I've said above might have explained the 1970s/80s it doesn't explain now. The neo-liberal attacks came out of the need to smash the organised working class but the boom that we've seen in the last few years has come out of working class defeats - both the neo liberal attacks on the organised working class and the capitalist restoration in the ex stalinist states.
So yeah, it might have started four decades ago as a reaction to working class power and falling profits (a combination of the two) but now the attacks are from a position of working class weakness and defeats . Also capitalism is not in crisis as the quoted post suggested. Surely you have to make a different analysis according to the current period otherwise I might as well go back to the 1800s and say that capital is reacting to working clas struggles from then.
Backatcha Bandit said: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?
I was thinking something like that. The thing is, the world economy may or may not collapse, but, even if it does, that won't be the end of capitalism, because capitalism is created by the laws that constitute it, and their enforcement by governments. Collapse of the world economy won't mean the end of capitalism, unless people decide to take control of their governments and do something different.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Workers of course have a lot of power but much of it is disorganised and latent- resulting in a world of war, environmental destruction and poverty.
I'm not quite sure what mk12 is saying as such and I still haven't got around to reading much of Harry Cleaver- though his website says
"When economists or other social scientists work for the state or for private corporations developing analyses and making recommendations about what is to be done to solve given problems or achieve given ends, they are usually called policy analysts. Those of us who work outside the state/corporate system and contribute analysis to those struggling against it are more likely to be known as activists. My research and writing has always, quite consciously, been aimed at supporting those struggling against exploitation and for better lives, especially those whose efforts seem to have moved in the direction of the transcendence of capitalism. "
Fair enough, though a little vague. What does transendance mean for example? Does it mean overthrow or destruction? If so why not say so?
From what I can tell e.g. from Wikipedia autonomist marxists don't say much else beyond that the working class must emancipate itself- fair enough again but doesn't take us far.
"Unlike other forms of Marxism, autonomist Marxism emphasises the ability of the working class to force changes to the organisation of the capitalist system independent of the state, trade unions or political parties. Autonomists are less concerned with party political organisation than other Marxists, focusing instead on self-organised action outside of traditional organisational structures. Autonomist Marxism is thus a "bottom up" theory: it draws attention to activities that autonomists see as everyday working class resistance to capitalism, for example absenteeism, slow working, and socialisation in the workplace.
Again can't see how this is much of an advance- absenteeism may be a part of ressitance but it is much better when organised collectively- sometimes known as a strike. Of course we should organise resistance independent of the state- not much of a resistance otherwise- but why seperate from trade unions? If he means organised democratically by the rank and file independent of the bureacracy then fine. And what's wrong with having a party- a collective bottom-up organisation that can debate, discuss and plan and co-ordinate common action? Sounds pretty essential to me.
As far as I can tell in my so far limited attempts to look at these points it may be useful but is frustratingly vague and ambiguous on mnay points. Indeed
"Those who describe themselves as autonomists now vary from workerist Marxists to post-structuralists and (some) anarchists."
The point is we should make a break from the kind of dogmatic top-down stalinist or stalinist influenced troskyist distortions of marxism. Some autonomist writings may have something of value to say here but in my opinion it's only a part of it and needs far more clarity. I think we should have a far ranging and deep debate across the whole left, a debate taking place alongside and as integral part of , and therefore shaped by, activism in the class struggle.
Permanent Revolution as far as I can tell are not offering ready made answers or saying simply join us but wanting to open up a debate and make links between different forms of struggle. I'm not claiming they're the only group saying that but I think we are genuine in this attempt and want to engage with others in struggle or in solidairty with struggles who want to join in the action and the debate
I'm not quite sure what mk12 is saying as such and I still haven't got around to reading much of Harry Cleaver- though his website says
"When economists or other social scientists work for the state or for private corporations developing analyses and making recommendations about what is to be done to solve given problems or achieve given ends, they are usually called policy analysts. Those of us who work outside the state/corporate system and contribute analysis to those struggling against it are more likely to be known as activists. My research and writing has always, quite consciously, been aimed at supporting those struggling against exploitation and for better lives, especially those whose efforts seem to have moved in the direction of the transcendence of capitalism. "
Fair enough, though a little vague. What does transendance mean for example? Does it mean overthrow or destruction? If so why not say so?
From what I can tell e.g. from Wikipedia autonomist marxists don't say much else beyond that the working class must emancipate itself- fair enough again but doesn't take us far.
"Unlike other forms of Marxism, autonomist Marxism emphasises the ability of the working class to force changes to the organisation of the capitalist system independent of the state, trade unions or political parties. Autonomists are less concerned with party political organisation than other Marxists, focusing instead on self-organised action outside of traditional organisational structures. Autonomist Marxism is thus a "bottom up" theory: it draws attention to activities that autonomists see as everyday working class resistance to capitalism, for example absenteeism, slow working, and socialisation in the workplace.
Again can't see how this is much of an advance- absenteeism may be a part of ressitance but it is much better when organised collectively- sometimes known as a strike. Of course we should organise resistance independent of the state- not much of a resistance otherwise- but why seperate from trade unions? If he means organised democratically by the rank and file independent of the bureacracy then fine. And what's wrong with having a party- a collective bottom-up organisation that can debate, discuss and plan and co-ordinate common action? Sounds pretty essential to me.
As far as I can tell in my so far limited attempts to look at these points it may be useful but is frustratingly vague and ambiguous on mnay points. Indeed
"Those who describe themselves as autonomists now vary from workerist Marxists to post-structuralists and (some) anarchists."
The point is we should make a break from the kind of dogmatic top-down stalinist or stalinist influenced troskyist distortions of marxism. Some autonomist writings may have something of value to say here but in my opinion it's only a part of it and needs far more clarity. I think we should have a far ranging and deep debate across the whole left, a debate taking place alongside and as integral part of , and therefore shaped by, activism in the class struggle.
Permanent Revolution as far as I can tell are not offering ready made answers or saying simply join us but wanting to open up a debate and make links between different forms of struggle. I'm not claiming they're the only group saying that but I think we are genuine in this attempt and want to engage with others in struggle or in solidairty with struggles who want to join in the action and the debate
!
I would really suggest reading the original texts, not wikipedia or skimming his website. The Introduction to Reading Capital Politically is a good starting place:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~hmcleave/rcp1.html
Or Dyer-Witherford's brief overview here:
http://libcom.org/files/Chapter4.pdf
urbanrevolt
New Member
That's a fair point- though I would have thought his website could have had a succinct statement on its front page but that's a very minor point really.
What do you think of my points in general? I'll check out the links
What do you think of my points in general? I'll check out the links
It seems to be summed up in this sentence;
"In elaborating this account, however, most Western Marxisms have tended to emphasise only the dominant and inexorable logic of capital, to a degree such that its accumulative logic, unfolding according to ineluctable (even if finally self -destructive) laws, figures as the unilateral force shaping the contemporary world."
It's a slovenly polemic. "Most Western Marxisms etc.etc." it says, which ones we might ask? I can't think of a single Trotskyist one, even amongst the ones I disagree with who say anything of the sort.
Which leaves the Stalinists and who cares about them these days?
"In elaborating this account, however, most Western Marxisms have tended to emphasise only the dominant and inexorable logic of capital, to a degree such that its accumulative logic, unfolding according to ineluctable (even if finally self -destructive) laws, figures as the unilateral force shaping the contemporary world."
It's a slovenly polemic. "Most Western Marxisms etc.etc." it says, which ones we might ask? I can't think of a single Trotskyist one, even amongst the ones I disagree with who say anything of the sort.
Which leaves the Stalinists and who cares about them these days?
urbanrevolt
New Member
Having now read Chapter 4 Cycles The Red thread that mk12 linked I can't see how it takes us much further really. It takes an awful ot of words to say new technology means you can film the cops being racist and in the next chapter how silicon valley used e-mail campaigns to share information, out scabs and give each other updates. All fair enough but how is this meant to add something really fundamental to the class struggle- and it really is very wordy. I'm sure it could be written far more accessibly, imaginatively and punchier.
That chapter says an awful lot more than that. Did you miss the bit where he explained the core ideas behind autonomist marxism (which is what i thought you were interested in?).
Did you miss the bit where it said: "Extending this analysis Tronti, writing in the 1960s, argued that capital's growing resort to
state intervention and technocratic control had created a situation where "the entire society
now functions as a moment of production."
I'm pretty sure you'd see that as a controversial statement.
Did you miss the bit where it said: "Extending this analysis Tronti, writing in the 1960s, argued that capital's growing resort to
state intervention and technocratic control had created a situation where "the entire society
now functions as a moment of production."
I'm pretty sure you'd see that as a controversial statement.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Well, I'm not ashamed to admit, I didn't actually understand what it means.
I mean if it just means that Marxism is about liberation in all sorts of spheres not just the facotry or the office floor- sure, OK, good point but why not just say that? And it has been said plenty enough.
Trotnti's point about workers' struggles providing impetus for capitalist innovation is interesting, though overstated, I think. Sure, capitalists respond both technologically and politically to workers' struggles- indeed war technology is driven by capitalists both competing against each other- interimperialist rivalry- but also imperialist domination- smashing any independence from the working class, or even signs of anything or anyone threatening their interests
but while capitlaists may well have been inspired to introduce technology to beat back workers' struggles competition between capitlaists is as mcuh a part of it.
It doesn't change the fundamental truth that the working class must organise itself- at the poin t of production and beyond- to liberate ourselves and smash the capitalist mode of production and class sytem
I mean if it just means that Marxism is about liberation in all sorts of spheres not just the facotry or the office floor- sure, OK, good point but why not just say that? And it has been said plenty enough.
Trotnti's point about workers' struggles providing impetus for capitalist innovation is interesting, though overstated, I think. Sure, capitalists respond both technologically and politically to workers' struggles- indeed war technology is driven by capitalists both competing against each other- interimperialist rivalry- but also imperialist domination- smashing any independence from the working class, or even signs of anything or anyone threatening their interests
but while capitlaists may well have been inspired to introduce technology to beat back workers' struggles competition between capitlaists is as mcuh a part of it.
It doesn't change the fundamental truth that the working class must organise itself- at the poin t of production and beyond- to liberate ourselves and smash the capitalist mode of production and class sytem
Mmmm...I think the amount of literature from influential people after the 'troubles' of the 1960s and 1970s gives us a good idea of what the reasoning behind coming up with new strategies was. People like Brzezinski and Daniel Bell (this is in that chapter I linked to).
urbanrevolt
New Member
I guess random is being sarcastic or implying that I keep saying the same thing and indeed saying something and actually doing it is quite different
still it is true I think
to mk12 it porbably is worth reading some of these people as long as we're actually doing things at the same time
still it is true I think
to mk12 it porbably is worth reading some of these people as long as we're actually doing things at the same time
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Interesting read.Bernie Gunther said:
Starter for 10: What do all of these 'progressive forces' have in common?
(Clue: 'Sausages').
urbanrevolt
New Member
It does look like an interesting read.
Oiil? Or proximity to oil or major sources of?
I'm not sure most of the people above could be described as 'progressive' in any way- at a pinch Chavez in the sense he heads a leftish social reformist government- most of the rest are reactionary movements, though the 'resistance' in Iraq is not so homogenous as sometimes made out. Of course they have all come into conflict with imperialism at one time or another and indeed socialists in all of these cases would be anti an imperialist war manouvre towards these groups but it seems a lazy logic to jump from that to say the forces are somehow 'progressive' or that all of the left hail them as such
Anyway, I haven't read it properly yet and will make time to do so.
To mk12 thinking about the couple of chapters I read yesterday from the book you recommended (Dyer-Witherford) on digital capitalism I idn't mean to be quite so dismissive. There may be interesting things in it. It's just at first read many of its claims did seem somewhat overblown and thin on evidence. It is though definitley worth reading different sources and ideas.
At some point over next few days I'll try and read properly the article Bernie Gunther linked to
Oiil? Or proximity to oil or major sources of?
I'm not sure most of the people above could be described as 'progressive' in any way- at a pinch Chavez in the sense he heads a leftish social reformist government- most of the rest are reactionary movements, though the 'resistance' in Iraq is not so homogenous as sometimes made out. Of course they have all come into conflict with imperialism at one time or another and indeed socialists in all of these cases would be anti an imperialist war manouvre towards these groups but it seems a lazy logic to jump from that to say the forces are somehow 'progressive' or that all of the left hail them as such
Anyway, I haven't read it properly yet and will make time to do so.
To mk12 thinking about the couple of chapters I read yesterday from the book you recommended (Dyer-Witherford) on digital capitalism I idn't mean to be quite so dismissive. There may be interesting things in it. It's just at first read many of its claims did seem somewhat overblown and thin on evidence. It is though definitley worth reading different sources and ideas.
At some point over next few days I'll try and read properly the article Bernie Gunther linked to
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
urbanrevolt said:
Nope.
You could say the entire society functions as a moment of production, but then you'd be wrong wouldn't you? Production under capitalism means production of surplus value and not all activities of society produces surplus value by a long shot.
So if it means that then its wrong.
What's more you could also say that this is an anachronism of the sixties, which saw the extension of the Keynesian state to be a parallel with the so called "state capitalism" of the Stalinist states. Since then of course there's been a massive reduction in the size of the state with neo-liberalism.
So if it means that then its wrong.
What's more you could also say that this is an anachronism of the sixties, which saw the extension of the Keynesian state to be a parallel with the so called "state capitalism" of the Stalinist states. Since then of course there's been a massive reduction in the size of the state with neo-liberalism.
Similar threads
