Capitalism in crisis?

[Groucho]

.....I meant that capitalism is not in the kind of crisis that will lead to a global depression like the late 1920s/30s which is what a lot of the left is saying......

I am not sure that anyone on the left is actually saying that we are about to see a 1920s/30s style crash and depression. However, there is plenty of evidence that the World economy in large part is heading for recession. Recession is not the same as terminable crisis. However, the likelihood is that a recession will bring misery

We have seen over 15 years of stability resting on low level growth, expansion of (most especially) China and mounting debt. The signs are that is over.

The clowds gathering on the horizon indicate rain, the flashes in the clowds indicate lightning. A storm is brewing. Oh, and if you think the last period has been glorious summer than you have a short memory...

 

[Urbanblues]

"Stentorian" - I love it! You mean he was loud!

So Ted Knight is an elderly shouty Trot!

He is or was a Healyite, though, wasn't he? I remember an ex-member of the WRP describing Knight as a 'stalking horse' for the WRP, though I never really understood exactly what Knight's relationship to the horrible Healy was.



(Notes for those too young to remember Healy: Gerry Healy was an ugly, neckless rapist, a keen spouter of 'dialectical materialism', a greedy paid-fingerer of Commies to Middle Eastern dictators and leader of a long-running Trot sect called the Workers' Revolutionary Party. The WRP was famous for having Vanessa Redgrave as a member, for buying Trotsky's death-mask and for perennial predictions of revolution/counter-revolution.)

No; you mean he was loud. I mean he can project his voice; he can make himself heard at the back of a large room without shouting. There is a difference; and, it’s not particularly subtle, either.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I was discussing whether this was the "biggie" crisis tonight in the pub with a couple of Respect Renewal folk.

I think it is a big crisis comming up, rather than "the" big crisis.

Capitalism has a way of morphing and adapting to crisis rather than being totally defeated. Nonetheless, things are going to get interesting and rather ugly it must be said.

 

[Urbanblues]

Capitalism has a way of morphing and adapting to crisis rather than being totally defeated. Nonetheless, things are going to get interesting and rather ugly it must be said.

I suppose capitalism has thrived, even capitalised on crises – wars and natural disasters being examples. And now that they’ve pretty much hoovered and carved up the worlds natural resources; they’re sniffing around our once sacred cows of public services and the voluntary sector.

Do you suppose once they’re gone; they’ll discover some other avenue to exploit? It must be getting close to melt-down for this cancerous growth in our midst. How much more can they extract from an empty husk? I know the world is not enough for them; but, when it’s all gone, surely it’s all gone?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Were Knight to stand for a position in Lambeth, and if I was able to, I’d vote for him. When he was in charge of Lambeth his progressive policies on disability meant that the then Green Card was properly policed. His administration made sure that the all Council Departments employed, at least, the minimum % of disabled people, as stated in the 1948 Employment Act. This was at a time that virtually every employer, either in the public or private sector, ignored the quota system.

Were you at the LRC meeting? Were you one of the speakers? If so I thought all the speakers were good and made interesting points. Is Ted Knight likely to stand again?

Also I think the point about him being a crook should be backed up by durutti, it's a serious thing to say.

I am not sure that anyone on the left is actually saying that we are about to see a 1920s/30s style crash and depression. However, there is plenty of evidence that the World economy in large part is heading for recession. Recession is not the same as terminable crisis. However, the likelihood is that a recession will bring misery

We have seen over 15 years of stability resting on low level growth, expansion of (most especially) China and mounting debt. The signs are that is over.

The clowds gathering on the horizon indicate rain, the flashes in the clowds indicate lightning. A storm is brewing. Oh, and if you think the last period has been glorious summer than you have a short memory...

Where people are talking about a big crisis I think they're really missing the point that the collapse of stalinism had a massive boost for capitalism. It took profit rates back up to rates not seen since the 1970s/80s and production of steel, oil, coal etc and manufacturing goods has gone through the roof. Because of the weakness of the organised working class this has nearly all gone into lining the pockets of the rich, but in places like China there has been some improvements in standards of living in certain sectors of the working class (it would be staggering if this wasn't the case given how much China's economy has boomed). That's why it's ridiculous for the SWP to claim that we are on the end of 30 years of stagnation. I think it's so out of touch with reality that it verges on stuff that the WRP came out with but less melodramatic. But even global recession, where is the evidence for this? Just saying the US is in trouble isn't enough.

Of course when these markets reach their limits it will be hard to see where capitalism can go, but this hasn't happened yet. However global crisis through global warming could start kicking in at the same time.

I am not sure that anyone on the left is actually saying that we are about to see a 1920s/30s style crash and depression.

What does this suggest?

However, the CWI maintained, in the face of extreme scepticism (sometimes echoed within our ranks), that the looming crisis would be deeper and would last longer than anything experienced in the previous period since 1945.

If things are going to be worse than the recessions and crisis in the 1970s and 1980s then it has to be pretty close to what happened in the 20s/30s.

We have seen over 15 years of stability resting on low level growth, expansion of (most especially) China and mounting debt. The signs are that is over.

Sorry but where is the evidence for these statements? There hasn't been low levels of growth. Profit rates and growth rates over the last seven years have reached levels not seen since the 1950s/60s. What you're saying is just not reality.

Oh, and if you think the last period has been glorious summer than you have a short memory...

For the working class it certainly hasn't, it's been mostly misery as usual. For the ruling class it certainly has. Look at the city bonuses, the lavish life styles and massive profit rates.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I suppose capitalism has thrived, even capitalised on crises – wars and natural disasters being examples. And now that they’ve pretty much hoovered and carved up the worlds natural resources; they’re sniffing around our once sacred cows of public services and the voluntary sector.

Do you suppose once they’re gone; they’ll discover some other avenue to exploit? It must be getting close to melt-down for this cancerous growth in our midst. How much more can they extract from an empty husk? I know the world is not enough for them; but, when it’s all gone, surely it’s all gone?

the last big factor that kept it going was globalisation and concurrent dutch auction in wage levels, assisted by tyranny in China.

Capitalism can survive a crisis by further screwing down on labour conditions and will need to increase tyranny and mind control to do so. The mind control in the west is pretty strong and effective. The potential for tyranny elsewhere (including the US actually) is pretty strong too.

In the end we cant run away from reality "when its all gone, surely its all gone" as you say. But I dont think we are at that point just yet

 

[Urbanblues]

Were you at the LRC meeting?

Yes.

Were you one of the speakers?

Yes.

If so I thought all the speakers were good and made interesting points.

Thank you.

Is Ted Knight likely to stand again?

You'd need to ask Ted that. He's currently the Chair of the London AUG; sits on Amicus' London Regional Council, and is, of course, a member of the LRC's national executive - and, I'm sure Ted has fingers in a few other campaigning pies.

Also I think the point about him being a crook should be backed up by durutti, it's a serious thing to say.

I agree. Even his bitterest political opponents, and they are legion, would not accuse him of being crooked.

 

[cockneyrebel]

In fact durutti if you haven't got something to back up your claims I think that is bang out of order.

In terms of Lambeth I don't know what the union rules are but I'd like to see UNISON stand a candidate on a socialist/pro-working class platform. At the very least we could support a candidate, even if it was unofficially.

By the way urbanblues I was the housing steward who spoke from the floor. I was going on about how bad nearly all the general secretaries were!

 

[Urbanblues]

Yes, I remember you, Cockneyrebel. Some of what you said struck home; not only about the GSs, but also the stuff about Lambeth Housing. I’m a Lambeth tenant; and so, can see the state of things from the other side of the equation.

Which part of housing are you working in?

CR, remember when Lambeth SOS marched on the town hall last year? We were protesting over the Labour regime’s plan to strip hundreds of disabled people of life enhancing care packages. At that time I was speaking to Pav Akhtar, trying to elicit his support. Akhtar’s a Unison full time official; and, I spoke to unison people in Lambeth, pointing out that if Pav supported Lambeth’s care cuts, he’d be going against his own union’s policy.

Afraid to say, the feeling is, that union fulltime officials who become Labour councillors are first answerable to the Labour group. So, if we are to stand Socialist trade unionists for local elections, we’d need assurances, maybe written in blood, that they’d follow a Socialist agenda.

 

[treelover]

I don't think it is relevant what the SWP think, but incisive economic journalists like Larry Elliot are predicting very choppy waters indeed as are some wall st commentators, i have to say I don't now think this the 'biggie though.

 

[audiotech]

Ted Knight???? that crook??? i thought he was dead????

dear, dear.

 

[butchersapron]

It's come to something when the rotten timber of the WRP is being held out to us once again as a potemntial way forward.

Fuck Ted Knnght and any cunts sailing in this rapist apologists ship. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Urbanblues]

It's come to something when the rotten timber of the WRP is being held out to us once again as a potemntial way forward.

Fuck Ted Knnght and any cunts sailing in this rapist apologists ship. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

NURSE! He's out of bed again!!!!!

 

[cockneyrebel]

It's come to something when the rotten timber of the WRP is being held out to us once again as a potemntial way forward.

Fuck Ted Knnght and any cunts sailing in this rapist apologists ship. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What are you talking about? Firstly as far I was concerned I knew nothing about Ted Knight's affiliation to the WRP and if that is true it does make me look at him in a different light. But I would add that not everyone who was in the WRP should just automatically be tarred with what Healy did, as many probably knew nothing about what was going on. As long as they totally condemned it when they found out and said what scum Healy was then they shouldn't automatically be written off. I haven't got a clue what Ted Knight thinks of Healy, do you?

I also think durutti should back up his claims that he was a crook.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Capitalism is a crisis-ridden system though as profits are at historic levels then I think it unlikely that the current financial instability will lead to full-blown crisis some time soon. However, none of us has a crystal ball.

The important thing is to repair working class combativity whether there is a massive crisis or not.

 

[glenquagmire]

I generally like butchersapron's postings.

But could you clarify here:
- in what way Knight is an apologist for the rapist?
- whether you think that agreeing with Healy's political analysis (which I don't, btw) makes you an apologise for his sexual crimes?
- whether you think that all political organisations should ask potential members to state their position on Gerry Healy on the membership form?
- why you describe an organisation of 1,500+ members (and half a million affiliates) as Ted Knight's 'ship'?

 

[audiotech]

I also think durutti should back up his claims that he was a crook.

The dozy mare is probably confusing him with T Dan Smith?

 

[poster342002]

Do you suppose once they’re gone; they’ll discover some other avenue to exploit? It must be getting close to melt-down for this cancerous growth in our midst. How much more can they extract from an empty husk? I know the world is not enough for them; but, when it’s all gone, surely it’s all gone?

I reckon we'll see a huge advance in space exploration as capital seeks out new resources to exploit. There's already been quite resurgence on that front, I think (probes sending back footage of Saturn's moon, Titan, which show large seas of a black tar-like substance. Gee - wonder if it's burnable like oil? ).

 

[treelover]

@BA, simple question, can't people change? just look at N/l, many from left to right...

 

[Das Uberdog]

I suppose capitalism has thrived, even capitalised on crises – wars and natural disasters being examples. And now that they’ve pretty much hoovered and carved up the worlds natural resources; they’re sniffing around our once sacred cows of public services and the voluntary sector.

I can't remember who said it, but the quote "money cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred' is a nice adaptation of the basic law of matter. It's true, too - though in a depression actual productivity may decrease, the amount of capital in the market never changes. SOMEONE is benefitting from the movement of capital around the market at any given time; whether it be in retracting that capital, or investing it widely across all sectors.

Sorry but where is the evidence for these statements? There hasn't been low levels of growth. Profit rates and growth rates over the last seven years have reached levels not seen since the 1950s/60s. What you're saying is just not reality.

There've been [REALLY[/i] low levels of growth - low but stable. By historical standards maintaining 5% GDP growth per annum, regularly, with levels of inflation at roughly the same level is nothing to shout home about. The issue is that recent capitalist economists (since Thatcher) claim to have found an economic equilibrium - a claim which has little grounding in reality. And what GDP growth doesn't take in to account is the effect of inflation - you wanna look at the real rates of growth (in terms of actual, material wealth) over the past 30 years then we've seen a significant shift in the global share of the market, away from the West. In terms of its proportional value, our spending power per £ has been decreasing faster than our wage packets have been increasing since the 70s. It's stagnation which has been disguised by massive borrowing to cover up the patches, with economists frantically trying to balance insane equasions to enable them to operate in a state of continual debt. Obviously, this situation is untenable...

 

[cockneyrebel]

There've been [REALLY[/i] low levels of growth - low but stable. By historical standards maintaining 5% GDP growth per annum, regularly, with levels of inflation at roughly the same level is nothing to shout home about. The issue is that recent capitalist economists (since Thatcher) claim to have found an economic equilibrium - a claim which has little grounding in reality. And what GDP growth doesn't take in to account is the effect of inflation - you wanna look at the real rates of growth (in terms of actual, material wealth) over the past 30 years then we've seen a significant shift in the global share of the market, away from the West. In terms of its proportional value, our spending power per £ has been decreasing faster than our wage packets have been increasing since the 70s. It's stagnation which has been disguised by massive borrowing to cover up the patches, with economists frantically trying to balance insane equasions to enable them to operate in a state of continual debt. Obviously, this situation is untenable...

Sorry DU but this is just the stuff that Chris Harman comes out with and doesn't back up with any emperical evidence. Look at the links I've give to the PR site, profit rates are at rates not seen since the 1950s and 1960s, this is not dispute. Not by anyone who actually looks at the figures anyway. And it goes hand in hand with massive rises in steel, coal, oil, gas and manufacturing production. Again look at the figures.

Stating that capitalism is untenable in the long term and can't reach an equilibrium is kind of stating the obvious, unless you actually believe in capitalism as a viable economic system for the working class. But to say we've been in one long stagnation since the 1970s (as the SWP do) is not far off the WRP stuff to be honest.

 

[Das Uberdog]

It's the truth - you can't simply contradict it. 5% rates of growth in the 60s and 70s were seen as low then, because traditionally capitalist markets fluctuate wildly from growth in the 10-20% region to recessions - usually over 10-15 year cycles.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes DU, the collapse is round the corner. Man the barricades now.

Do you know anything about what you're talking about?

 

[Das Uberdog]

My God Cocko, you seem to have fabricated an entire argument I haven't had out of thin air! What other marvelous tricks of magicianry have you hidden up your sleeves?

In my own opinion, the workings of the modern capitalist economy are too complicated for economic theoreticians to adequately understand; Capital lays out the fundamental basis of a truly capitalistic economy, but unfortunately such clear rules no longer apply so readily to the complicatedly mixed economies of the Western world. We need a revisionist (and more linear) Marxist update on the actual processes of Capital in western markets before anyone can make any real predictions.

But the reason they're shitting their pants is because they know that too - and although this crash may not be the big one they all know it could. It could because we have no way of knowing how things are going to pan out... it's worrying for them.

 

[cockneyrebel]

My God Cocko, you seem to have fabricated an entire argument I haven't had out of thin air! What other marvelous tricks of magicianry have you hidden up your sleeves?

What you actually thought that comment was a serious one? I think you've been hanging around the left too long. It was just a light hearted ribbing.....

In my own opinion, the workings of the modern capitalist economy are too complicated for economic theoreticians to adequately understand

Indeed Harman seems to be of the same opinion and just plucks out of thin air the fact that capitalism is on the end of 30 years of stagnation.....mind you, you wouldn't exactly have to be a marxist economist to work out what a load of crock that theory is.....

 

[Das Uberdog]

Apart from whining about growth rates I've already explained don't contradict the fact that Western capitalism has been in stagnation for donkey's yonks, you haven't actually provided any analysis explaining how the statements I've made are untrue.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I have, just look at the links provided in the OP. But if you'd still prefer to say that "the workings of the modern capitalist economy are too complicated for economic theoreticians to adequately understand" and go along with the ramblings of Chris Harman then go ahead.....(and by the way you haven't "explained" anything you just spouted out something about growth rates which clearly showed you have no understanding of what you are going on about).

I'm off out now, hopefully the current crisis won't have led to all the bars being closed down.

 

[Das Uberdog]

If you dispute what I've said about growth rates your understanding of economics is laughable. It's only been since the Wars that our economic system has been altered domestically to a quasi-capitalistic welfare system, increasingly dependant upon cheap foreign labour. It's only since then that growth (or recessive) rates of 5% can be seen as anything like the norm, never mind as 'good'. You had any experience with reading Marx and Engels correspondance with one another, commenting on the fluctuating capitalist market of the latter 1800s? That is historical capitalism - the growth and recession rates we see in other countries in the world are what true capitalistic markets do. Massive upsurges followed by rapid declines on a regular basis. Deny it if you will;- it only makes you a further idiot. The economists of Western governments have been surpressing the true nature of capitalism in their own countries for the last 60 years. That's why this crisis so worries them.

 

[cockneyrebel]

If you dispute what I've said about growth rates your understanding of economics is laughable.

Yes DU, of course.....as you seem to know nothing at all about the subject I won't really take that as much of an insult. But you might want to look at the links I gave as they'd show you what rubbish you're talking.....

 

[Das Uberdog]

I've read your links - they provide a good analysis - yet nothing which actually contradicts my points.

Edit; apart from, obviously, my conclusions