What the Left says about the financial crisis..

[ItWillNeverWork]

"funny how it just keeps on happening"

There's nothing funny about it, your just just jumping to your preferred conclusion based on a superficial correlation of two events (capitalism exists, so do crises, therefor capitalism is the cause of crises), you may as well be putting forward some theory of the business cycle based on its relationship to particular haircuts coming back into fasion (I blame those shitty mullets that came back in a couple of years ago).

It's predictable that the business cycle will continue making large swings as long as central banks set artificial interest rates. Leave the market to set interest rates naturally and the missalocation of loans that triggered this crunch would never have been possible.

 

[Zachor]

Nah, that was a direct consequence of totalitarianism with socialist garb. I'm talking about social changes, changes to the way people think, cos everyone on the left only ever decribes or talks about the upside of it all - equality, shared resources and the rest of it - but no one thinks 'Hmm, how would the kind of changes we're predicting will happen affect things badly'

There is no 'all upside' thing ever when it comes to humanity, there's always a downside, and given that when you've got the best you also tend to get the worst...

Good point. Totalitarianism with a socialist coat of paint.

You are right about the need to consider the downside of social changes.

Its the same thing with the welfare state. There are untintended consequences. It was set up to provide support for those who couldn't support themselves what it has morphed into is a system where it encourages people NOT to support themselves cos they get more on the suck than working.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

"It was set up to provide support for those who couldn't support themselves what it has morphed into is a system where it encourages people NOT to support themselves cos they get more on the suck than working."

And into a system that breeds nationalism through giving the appearance that immigrants are taking out more than they've put in.

 

[Zachor]

And into a system that breeds nationalism through giving the appearance that immigrants are taking out more than they've put in.

Some immigrants put in more than they take and some take the piss without putting anything in. The same as for native born people.

What bothers me is we are approaching a time when jobs are going to be scarce and the govt doesn't seem to be seriious about stopping the flood of cheap labour imports. This appearance of unfairness to those who do pay in is going to cause a backlash and will benefit the extreme right.

If cheap labour imports were stopped not only would it free up jobs for British people but would also mean that we could accept more refugees from oppression as a more comfortable society woudl be more willing to accept the oppressed. it is impossible to sell an expanded and fairer asylum system without stopping the import of cheap labour which is hurting the working classes in the UK.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

"Some immigrants put in more than they take and some take the piss without putting anything in. The same as for native born people"

I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunatley nationalism is more to do with perception than reality.

As for restricting 'labour imports' as you call them, I think it is maybe nessesary for those countries that do not have an economy that is on a par to ours. However, I'm in favour of completley free movement of people within areas that are not drastically out of sync. If capital has the right to piss off where it wants then labour (that's me) should have the right to go where It wants as well.

 

[Zachor]

"Some immigrants put in more than they take and some take the piss without putting anything in. The same as for native born people"

I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunatley nationalism is more to do with perception than reality.

As for restricting 'labour imports' as you call them, I think it is maybe nessesary for those countries that do not have an economy that is on a par to ours. However, I'm in favour of completley free movement of people within areas that are not drastically out of sync. If capital has the right to piss off where it wants then labour (that's me) should have the right to go where It wants as well.

I can certainly see your point of view about allowing free movement where there isn't an economic disparity. However, becuase of Govt mismanagement of the economy people are going to be hurt economically and the far right is going to exploit this and nothing more than a complete stop to imported cheap labour is going to block that far right rise.

If people are comfortable they are less likely to gravitate towards extremism.

 

[mk12]

Good point. Totalitarianism with a socialist coat of paint.

Yes, but it developed out of a socialist revolution. The rise of Stalinism was an unintended consequences of socialism (state control of the economy, Leninist party in power).

 

[dennisr]

Yes, but it developed out of a socialist revolution. The rise of Stalinism was an unintended consequences of socialism (state control of the economy, Leninist party in power).

You won't find the 'causes' of totalitarianism in any ideas or words - weather 'socialism', communism', 'capitalism' or 'fascism' - you find it in concrete conditions and the responses to those conditions.

stalinism was a style of totlitarianism modelled on the language of socialism and nicking some formal strutures it could have nicked from any 'system' (a result of what it was a reaction to and therefore had to hoodwink) but rooted in the isolation of a revolution in an economically (without fully 'ripe' conditions for socialist economic development) and therefore socially (without ripe conditions for the taking of power by the majority of the people who's experiance let alone time available for democratic control was limiting) backward country.

How do you 'abolish the state'? - with proclomations??

Can you blame the working class and poor peasants who could not sit around and wait for a more developed capitalist ecomomy? Would you blame them for taking that risk? Should they have waited so as not to give people like you the excuse to sit around saying 'well, look what happens when you try that - its inevitable' and therefore doing nowt.

For someone who would condemn the 'big theorists' who's theories treat 'the people' as bit part players in their plans - you seem to have quite a bit in common - you also see 'the people' as 'bit part players' in your theories. I think it is the essence of marxism you missed and thats the reason you are running away from your caricatured version of the same

 

[Idaho]

Seemed that Sheila Rowbotham was the only one that came close to a decent analysis:

The problem now - unlike in the 1880s, when people discovered the ideas of socialism, and in the 1930s, when it seemed that communism was the solution - is that the left doesn't have a coherent alternative vision.

The 90s marked the end of left ideology (end of eastern block, rise of new labour), the 00s marked the end of right ideology (credit crunch, disaster of Neo-con foreign policy). What does that leave us with? Day-at-a-time pragmatism?

 

[mk12]

You won't find the 'causes' of totalitarianism in any ideas or words - weather 'socialism', communism', 'capitalism' or 'fascism' - you find it in concrete conditions and the responses to those conditions.

stalinism was a style of totlitarianism modelled on the language of socialism and nicking some formal strutures it could have nicked from any 'system' (a result of what it was a reaction to and therefore had to hoodwink) but rooted in the isolation of a revolution in an economically (without fully 'ripe' conditions for socialist economic development) and therefore socially (without ripe conditions for the taking of power by the majority of the people who's experiance let alone time available for democratic control was limiting) backward country.

How do you 'abolish the state'? - with proclomations??

Can you blame the working class and poor peasants who could not sit around and wait for a more developed capitalist ecomomy? Would you blame them for taking that risk? Should they have waited so as not to give people like you the excuse to sit around saying 'well, look what happens when you try that - its inevitable' and therefore doing nowt.

For someone who would condemn the 'big theorists' who's theories treat 'the people' as bit part players in their plans - you seem to have quite a bit in common - you also see 'the people' as 'bit part players' in your theories. I think it is the essence of marxism you missed and thats the reason you are running away from your caricatured version of the same

Another topic I think! But I will respond here if you want?

 

[Das Uberdog]

PR members have gone very quiet on here lately...

Their assertion that the Western economy is going from strength to strength is obviously based on a linear economic analysis and a parochial worldview. However, I wouldn't disagree with them in saying that chatter about a return to the 1930s is completely shortsighted.

In reality, no-one has been taking the economy seriously enough over the past 20 years to have really been monitoring and compiling the necessary information we need to truly see the root cause of this crisis.

We need an updated Capital ;P

 

[dennisr]

Another topic I think! But I will respond here if you want?

yep, another topic is probably best on this thread but more than happy to explain further my points with you, on another thread, if you like

 

[mk12]

Ok go for it.

 

[dennisr]

Their assertion that the Western economy is going from strength to strength is obviously based on a linear economic analysis and a parochial worldview. However, I wouldn't disagree with them in saying that chatter about a return to the 1930s is completely shortsighted.

Unfortunately, an integral part of their theory is to maintain that everyone else on the left does think it is some catastrophic and inevitable immediate crisis - they can even 'qoute' you to 'prove' it. its their raison d'etre - their 'difference'.

 

[dennisr]

Ok go for it.

i'll leave that to you - your call, you raised it it simply replied (but leave it until next week if you want me to expand on my reply - some of us have to work)

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Just out of interest, how would people on here define 'capitalism' exactly? Do you all view it as synonomous with a 'free market'? What are your definitions of a free market and do we really have one?

 

[kyser_soze]

Just out of interest, how would people on here define 'capitalism' exactly? Do you all view it as synonomous with a 'free market'? What are your definitions of a free market and do we really have one?

I rather suspect everyone will point you to a certain Mr Marx on defining capitalism...as to the others, no and no.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"It is the replacement of capitalism by socialism is the solution"

I'm yet to hear anyone explain to me how this current crisis signifies an inherent problem with capitalism as opposed to just a badly managed string of events.

I think that the explanation is alluded to in your statement when you say "badly managed", because "bad management" (as in "bad practice") is more likely to occur in a lightly regulated laissez faire economic system than in a system that is policed more strictly.

Isn't all this talk of an immanent socialist resurgence just wishful thinking?

Immanent socialism. Now there's an interesting concept!
I'm sure you mean "imminent", though, and I suspect that a resurgence is wishful tinking, at least until people manage to over-write the programming of the last 25 years that has told them how vile socialism is.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think that the explanation is alluded to in your statement when you say "badly managed", because "bad management" (as in "bad practice") is more likely to occur in a lightly regulated laissez faire economic system than in a system that is policed more strictly.

I think that's bollocks VP - bad management will happen if those in charge aren't competent to manage whatever they're in charge of, and if anything in a strictly managed system poor management creates more problems a lot faster because such a system is usually unable to absorb and adapt to crises when they arise.

 

[Squatticus]

A PR member speaks...

PR members have gone very quiet on here lately...

http://permanentrevolution.net/entry/2311

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think that's bollocks VP - bad management will happen if those in charge aren't competent to manage whatever they're in charge of, and if anything in a strictly managed system poor management creates more problems a lot faster because such a system is usually unable to absorb and adapt to crises when they arise.

I think that's bollocks, kyser p) - tighter management could mean that mistakes/bad practices could be found and "defused" earlier, "toxic" financial products might not get created so readily, and a minimum standard of good management might actually be required by companies, rather than them just hiring the latest darling of the financial pages.
What I'd really like to see of course, given that better management won't happen, is a Tobin-type tax imposed on the markets so that next time something goes wrong big-style, there's a pot of money to bail out the basket cases that doesn't ultimately come out of the individual tax-payer's pocket.

 

[kyser_soze]

No issues there with your 2nd para, but if you have tighter management, you need super competent managers to ensure that things work - if you have useless managers, they won't spot something until it's too late, and in closed and restrictive systems the damage can be even more severe.

In this case you've got NO management AND useless managers riding the same cart.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I think that the explanation is alluded to in your statement when you say "badly managed", because "bad management" (as in "bad practice") is more likely to occur in a lightly regulated laissez faire economic system than in a system that is policed more strictly.

I'm not so sure. I don't believe that bankers would be able to get away with as much bad practice if it wasn't for the policies adopted by central bankers and the effect this has on the behaviour of lenders. It appears to me that it is too much meddling in the economy by the state that has led to this situation.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any regulation at all, just that the regulation needs to be confined to breaking up and preventing monopolies, enforcing advertising standards and openness etc (and possibly banning the practice of fractional reserve banking). The rest will fall into place by itself. I guess I'd take a semi Austrian economic approach with a slightly more interventionist slant regarding monopoly.

I'm sure you mean "imminent", though

Yes, well spotted. I spell checked that post as well. I guess even the mighty spellcheck.net can't account for carelessness (or a state education for that matter)

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I rather suspect everyone will point you to a certain Mr Marx on defining capitalism...as to the others, no and no.

Yeah, I suspected that myself. It's always good to give people the opportunity to show their political colours though.

By the way, have you ever heard of Kevin Carson?

 

[brasicritique]

Gulags? Secret police? Totalitarianism?

its the way the worlds going still at least vp can dust of his gulag specials

 

[brasicritique]

What the Left says about the financial crisis..

cut down on the lattes
moan
big up billy bragg
delve into outdated out of touch idealoigcal abstractions
sink further into oblivion

 

[kyser_soze]

By the way, have you ever heard of Kevin Carson?

I have now!!

 

[Darios]

I rather suspect everyone will point you to a certain Mr Marx on defining capitalism.

Is Marx's conception useful or even relevant in the 21st century? It's like a russian doll of ever decreasing abstractions.

 

[brasicritique]

seconded

 

[Squatticus]

Is Marx's conception useful or even relevant in the 21st century?

More than ever presumably; the industrial working class is bigger than it's ever been.

(It wasn't until last year that the urban population of the world finally surpassed its peasants.)