SWP says we're in a pre-revolutionary period?

[Plato1983]

I would not call this period in time a pre-revolutionary one, for the following reasons:

1.) The ruling class is not divided along major faultlines (in terms of ideology, policy and methodology) and there is no paralysis within the ruling class at present.

2.) The economy, whilst not all that secure or stable (in global terms) is not in the middle of a major crash or crises either.

3.) In Britain, the radical left is very weak, the working class and the trade unions are at present unable to counter the power of the bourgeois and the chance for revolutionary change at the moment is very remote.

It would be nice to have a pre-revolutionary situation in Britain, but alas it is not the case.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I really don't know how bad marxist economics has become in the UK, I mean Harman's methodology and use of statisitics is so bad it's unbelievable. And now the CWI come out with this:

The twin pillars - more like chicken's legs - which have propped up the world economy are an investment boom in China and the colossal consumer market in the US, which could judder to a halt this year.

I mean what serious analysis of the global economy would lead you to this conclusion?

 

[rekil]

The revolutions will come when the oil starts running out, the deep water aquifers start running out, the coastal cities flood, and all the fertile soil is filled with chemicals and washed into the sea. What fun!

On the bright side, the cost of employing servants will drop significantly.

 

[mutley]

So the impact of the restoration of capitalism is "not massive". Try going shopping without buying something that wasn't made in China.
Reasonable estimates conclude that the restoration of capitalism in the former Stalinist states increased the size of the world market by around 20%. The test of whether that is or is not "massive" is whether it has enabled profitability across the world to recover. And basically it has, profitability "the most important law in political economy" according to Karl Marx, is at its highest levels since the mid 1960s and there have been 15 successive quarters of 10+ profit growth in the USA. In the UK profits are even higher - the rate of return is at its highest level since 1963.
The reason Harman uses four year old statistics (when its just as easy to use the uptodate ones) is quite simply because his argument - that the world economy is in deeper crisis today than it was during the 1970s/80s - simply doesn't stand up based on the current data. It's a quite concious attempt to mislead the reader.
Are large sections of the world economy overinflated? Well it depends what you mean - since globalisation the world economy has become more stable notwithstanding the huge increase in speculation and financial flows. In fact price/earnings ratios on equitities have declined over the last three years, even as stock markets have risen, because profitability has risen even faster.
Certainly the collapse of the US housing market, probably worth around 0.25% of global GDP, did cause a slowing of the US economy in the third quarter of 06, but figures for the last quarter showed that this was not going to lead to a recession in the USA.
What's even more remarkable about Harman's piece is in spite of his economic catastrophism (what else can you call a theory which asserts that the world economy is stagnant at present) is his equivocation and uncertainty. Why doesn't he think the world's in a world revolutionary situation (never mind pre-revolutionary) if the world economy is in such dire straits?
It's a common feature of all the catastrophists - SWP, the Socialist Party - who predict an economic ressession - "this year" - Workers Power - etc. that rather than trying to assess the effect of the restoration of capitalism on the world economy, they simply want to deny it. Ultimately it shows they have no faith in the working class - its as if an admission capitalism was capable of recovery means that socialism's off the agenda - this is absolutely not the case of course, but is the flip side of their desperate and increasingly feeble attempts to deny reality. (John Rees does it as well in Imperialism and Resistance.)
Ultimately its the abandonment of Marxism as a science and personally I was never religious.

OK, well I've just spent 20 fruitless minutes delving into the world bank's web site and I'm none the wiser.

I've got one absolutely genuine question for Fanciful (or anyone else).

In Harmans article, the very first table shows the World GDP per capita growth. Since 1990, this has only gone over 2% once, whereas in the earlier decades it was frequently higher than 2% (or 3% or 4%). That graph shows (or appears to show) a world economy whose expansion has slowed over the last 4 decades.
Fancifuls argument is that Harman is wilfully using 4 year old data, in order to present a misleading picture. This first table does indeed end in 2003. Can you supply us with a link or a reference for this more recent data in this case?

If not, can you give us concrete examples where Harman does what you say, and links to the alternative sources? (Although I'll find data on individual countries less convincing - that first table seems to show a clear trend)

 

[fanciful]

indeed I can there's the world bank
GEP 2006
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EX...67689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:1026804,00.html
also
World Bank GEP 2007
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EX...67689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:3016125,00.html

or if you prefer the IMF
world economic outlook autumn 2006
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/index.htm

what's good about the IMF is that you can actually download the data set
if you scroll to the bottom of the page they give you all the data for the appropriate graphs, the one you want is "global indicators" this gives you spreadsheet with GDP growth and GDP per capita in it, its a simple matter to work out the averages from these stats.

(This of course leaves out of the question the mismeasure of the restoration of capitalism - however if you look at the same data set you will see that they do not differentiate between the output of the capitalist economies and the former planned economies of the Stalinist states - before capitalist restoration in 1989/91 and therefore they do not measure the expansion of the capitalist market with the restoration of capitalism in these states but rather measure the collapse of the planned economy between around 1990-1995, as a collapse of capitalism rather than the creation of it. This has the effect of causing the 1990s figures to seriously underestimate capitalist growth rates in the 1990s.)

There is also the IMF WEO database which has got all the country detail in it

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/index.aspx

which confirms the above point, some of the former planned economies are measured but the majority are classed as n/a before 1990. When they are included in the figures however, they are simply aggregated together, rather than added to the size of the world market. As a result the expansion of the world market with their inclusion is never measured in the figures, but then the change is and as a result the transition period from planning to capitalism, which is in fact the creation of capitalism, appears as its stagnation and collapse. In other words the figures for the 1990s invert the real process.
With the integration of these economies into world capitalism during the 1990s, after around 2000 the effect of their positive impact on capitalism becomes apparent and the stagnant trend of the 1970s/80s is decisively reversed.
The World Bank figures do the same thing, but you have to subscribe to that database so I can't give you the link.

 

[mutley]

Hmm...

Well the IMF chart that is most similar to Harmans has significant differences. Its figures are higher in the 70's and 80's, so there must be some difference in methodology. It also starts in 1970, so we are given a comparison between the recessions of those decades, with the current modest recovery. Harman is comparing the current modest recovery with the 'golden years' of the 50's and 60's.

The world bank links lead to big chunky publications, that i'll have to look at over a longer period. Pc didn't seem to want to download them in a reasonable time right now.

 

[mutley]

Well bugger this...

The best i could find on the world bank site was a table that gave gdp figures for each country until 2004, that's just 1 year later than Harman who has, we are told, been using 4 year old figures in order to 'wilfully deceive' us and back up a 'catastrophist' line.

How you would combine the figures for each country to give a world avarage, and be sure to have the same methodology as Harman I'm not sure. Just averaging each country so that Afghanisatn and China get the same weighting doesn't seem very sensible to me.

Not convinced.

 

[fanciful]

if you look here
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/extern...0051114174928/Rendered/PDF/343200GEP02006.pdf

page 30
GDP per capita annual average percentage change
World Total

1980s 1990s 2001–06
1.3 1.2 1.5

so not one year later but up to 2006 and of course the economy grew stronger than expected in that year so this was if anything an underestimate. This is repeated in the GEP 2007.

I don't think Harman does anything else than use the world bank/UNCTAD figures pretty straight. All the agencies use essentially the same dataset, the differences arise in how they weight for the effect of PPP (purchasing power parity).

And of course its not only on GDP that Harman uses out of date figures, its on his estimates of profits as well, where he chops between dumenil and levy and Brenner to try to show profit rates are falling and makes sure he uses a table which ends in the year 2000, i.e. the first year of a recession, to make sure that the recovery in profitability since 2003 is not apparent.
The fact is that the truth will out in the next couple of years. Harman and the other catastrophists (Workers Power, Socialist Party etc.) won't be able to use out of date figures forever. Tho to be fair to the socialist party from what I've read of their stuff, they don't really use figures very much anyway.

 

[Azrael]

Representatives of Her Majesty's loyal Home Office, having read P&P.

After all the recent talk of changing the world gradually through "positive action" in your "local area", it's heartening to see a return to the good old days.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

I can't believe there are still people who talk and think like this.

The rest of the world is getting on with their lives, going to work, taking their holidays, paying their mortgates, visiting their parents. Then there are these social inadequates meeting in university buildings discussing a "bubbling pre-revolutiuonary situation".

Believe me, fuckwits, it's not going to happen.

 

[Spion]

I can't believe there are still people who talk and think like this.

The rest of the world is getting on with their lives, going to work, taking their holidays, paying their mortgates, visiting their parents. Then there are these social inadequates meeting in university buildings discussing a "bubbling pre-revolutiuonary situation".

That's right, little Kenny. Now go to sleep, there's a good boy.

 

[mutley]

I can't believe there are still people who talk and think like this.

The rest of the world is getting on with their lives, going to work, taking their holidays, paying their mortgates, visiting their parents. Then there are these social inadequates meeting in university buildings discussing a "bubbling pre-revolutiuonary situation".

Believe me, fuckwits, it's not going to happen.

Kenny i think that one of the points of this thread is that no-one actually does think that (although some are being accused of thinking it).

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

That's right, little Kenny. Now go to sleep, there's a good boy.

Yes, student, you live in the real world with your revolution and discussions about class struggle, and I don't.

 

[Spion]

Yes, student, you live in the real world with your revolution and discussions about class struggle, and I don't.

Haha, it's a long time since I was a student, pal. I think your desire to portray your world as oh-so-grown-up indicates you are a lot closer to studentdom than you like to let on.

 

[Jografer]

I can't believe there are still people who talk and think like this.

The rest of the world is getting on with their lives, going to work, taking their holidays, paying their mortgates, visiting their parents. Then there are these social inadequates meeting in university buildings discussing a "bubbling pre-revolutiuonary situation".

Believe me, fuckwits, it's not going to happen.

Yup, I'm with you on this.... lost track of the number of lefties over the years who are promising the revolution tomorrow, then tomorrow, then, umm, definitely... tomorrow......

... I'm afraid it hasn't happened yet, it isn't happening at the moment, and it's not going to happen tomorrow... no matter how many times you check with the World bank site...

 

[Spion]

Yup, I'm with you on this.... lost track of the number of lefties over the years who are promising the revolution tomorrow, then tomorrow, then, umm, definitely... tomorrow......

... I'm afraid it hasn't happened yet, it isn't happening at the moment, and it's not going to happen tomorrow... no matter how many times you check with the World bank site...

So, they were all wrong. But it would be equally as ludicrous to suggest the world will always remain as it is.

 

[Jografer]

So, they were all wrong. But it would be equally as ludicrous to suggest the world will always remain as it is.

Agreed, but I'm not saying that. I just think that the idea that change will come through class war, where a vanguard leadership will lead the working class to the promised land is not only daft, but dangerously distracting.

 

[Spion]

Well, yeah, the idea of a 'promised land' is a bit silly.

And 'dangerously distracting' from what exactly?

 

[Jografer]

And 'dangerously distracting' from what exactly?

I was thinking of this bonkers alliance between SWP & islamic zealots...

 

[Spion]

I was thinking of this bonkers alliance between SWP & islamic zealots...

First of all you said that the idea of class struggle and a vanguard leadership was a bad idea. Now it's the SWP/Respect alliance. I'm having trouble figuring out what you are getting at, apart from 'it's all a bad idea'

 

[Jografer]

First of all you said that the idea of class struggle and a vanguard leadership was a bad idea. Now it's the SWP/Respect alliance. I'm having trouble figuring out what you are getting at, apart from 'it's all a bad idea'

Isn't the Respect/SWP thing based on the SWP's analysis that 'muslim workers' are the most politicised, and therefore have to be 'worked with' (their jargon not mine.. ), so all part of the same 'bad idea'.

I just think that when Labour seems to be imploding, after shifting way to the right, there is a huge electoral gap to the left, with no-one looking likely to fill it. I don't think I'm that unusual in wanting a choice to the left, but I won't touch Respect et al with a bargepole....

 

[Spion]

Isn't the Respect/SWP thing based on the SWP's analysis that 'muslim workers' are the most politicised, and therefore have to be 'worked with' (their jargon not mine.. ), so all part of the same 'bad idea'.

I've no idea, chief.

I just think that when Labour seems to be imploding, after shifting way to the right, there is a huge electoral gap to the left, with no-one looking likely to fill it. I don't think I'm that unusual in wanting a choice to the left, but I won't touch Respect et al with a bargepole....

I agree there is a big gap on the left.

There doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong in working with Respect or anyone else as long as you're clear what you can jointly argue for and where you disagree with them.

 

[Jografer]

There doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong in working with Respect or anyone else as long as you're clear what you can jointly argue for and where you disagree with them.

Hmm, I'm afraid you could apply that to Tories, LibDems or ayone else....

Too much to disagree with I'm afraid, not least of being shouted at by some swp hack/ette if you dare to have a thought of your own.... leave 'em too it, and leave politics alone at the moment , life's too short...

 

[Spion]

Hmm, I'm afraid you could apply that to Tories, LibDems or ayone else....

If you found such people on the kind of campaigns/issues that would be of interest to a left organisation, then yes

Too much to disagree with I'm afraid, not least of being shouted at by some swp hack/ette if you dare to have a thought of your own.... leave 'em too it, and leave politics alone at the moment , life's too short...

You sounds a little jaded. You need to learn to shout back