[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Jolly Red Giant]

Brilliant. You tell trigaar that he should broaden his discussions and then write this:

You do get the point I was trying to make - or maybe I need to explain it to you -

Trrigaaar claimed that I was like a religious fundamentalist - stuck in a particular mindset and unwilling to change. The debate was about the current political situation and the need to adapt to it - I (and others) looked at the evidence and re-evaluated our outlook based on that evidence - the people we broke with refused to do that - they insisted that nothing had changed and that we could keep trundling along without recognising that things constantly change.

 

[peterward]

Labour's next choice of leader is humungously important, possibly to the country.

If they go with another Momentum-endorse candidate, they will 100% not be the 2nd largest party at the next election.

Desperately needs a normal centre left leader. Blair is/was a sleazebag but where he positioned the party is pretty much where it needs to be. Totally agree about the need to bin off momentum, bunch of quacks and anachists who the country at large would never vote for...... Sensible, credible, mainstream. That's what they were for years as "New Labour"...... Hopefully it won't be Long Bailey, the Corbynista, McCluskey candidate (beardless Corbyn in a dress). The mainstream electorate are in the main camped in the middle ground, not the lunatic revolutionary fringes. We need a credible opposition ready to be a competent government.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Question for Labour: why's the loser leader from the last election allowed to linger like a bad smell?

 

[peterward]

Question for Labour: why's the loser leader from the last election allowed to linger like a bad smell?

To ensure the "democratic process" elects the correct chosen heir.

Can't be taking any chances with that real democracy stuff comrade

 

[Two Professors]

Still waiting for Chukka to announce the Second Coming from whoever/whatever he's in this week.

 

[Triggaaar]

Trying to cut through the nonsense - I will start here

You're trying to claim that you challenge you political views every day, and debate politics with a wide variety of people, yet you just reply to someone you disagree with like that

And let's see what wisdom you can impart...

Well - to start with - it wasn't called the 'dark ages' - it was called the medieval period - in fact the term 'dark ages' hasn't been used by historians since the nineteenth century.

Seriously? That's what you've got? I'm not a historian, I'm not claiming to be a historian, and I'm not writing a historical piece on life during the dark ages/middle ages. You know when the dark ages referred to, so it's fine to call it that.

You are correct - the world has changed beyond all recognition - but you are incorrect in stating that 'capitalism is part of that' - in fact capitalism is exclusively responsible for the changes.

Exclusively? I disagree. The Romans made strides forward and (despite the setbacks), places like China were also able to advance before they adopted capitalism. The world was going to advance to some degree with or without capitalism. Capitalism has helped though.

I will give you this point - capitalism has been incredibly successful - in the past when it did advance society. These days it is in decline and has been since the 1950s. There has been a general decline in the rate of profit on a global capitalist basis for the past 60 odd years - a decline that capitalism is incapable of dragging itself out of and, ultimately, it is the reason why modern capitalism fluctuates between bubbles and crashes as it has been doing since the 1980s.

I am being serious here - if you have never met someone who supports the idea of socialism then you need to get out more - hell, even in the bastion of world capitalism, the USA, 40% of the population support socialism.

No, not your version of socialism they don't. I know people who consider themselves socialists, but they don't share the views you've written here.

With all due respect - you were the one who came onto the thread with both guns blazing making all sorts of claims without any evidence to back it up.

No, you had already made claims here before I posted at all. My first comment was in response to your claim that 'capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'.' That is a claim without any evidence to back it up (as was your claim that the revolutionary upheaval in Hong Kong is a symptom of capitalism), so no, I'm not the one who came onto the thread making all sorts of claims without evidence, you are.

After that I would require extensive explanation to outline it to you. I am willing to do this - but to make it worth the effort you would have to be willing to engage in a positive fashion with an open mind. Can you do that?

I am open minded, but I don't think you're the ideal person to spread your message. You probably know others who have similar views to you, who are better at getting others onside?

You live in a capitalist democracy - most of the world lives in a capitalist dictatorship (some of which passes itself off as democracy). To start with - a capitalist democracy is a mechanism for the 1% to control society while giving the pretense that the majority actually makes decisions. Voting once every five years and having no control what your government does in the intervening period is not democracy

I disagree with you. I'm ok with how things are, but I understand you are not. You can be unhappy about it, but resigned to it, or you can be unhappy and try and do something about it. If the latter, what are you doing about it?

The 'politicians' in Hong Kong are elected by less than 3% of the population - 97% of the 7million residents do not have a vote in the legislative elections - so much for capitalist democracy.

Yes, Hong Kong is not a great example of democracy. Regardless, it's not capitalism that's caused the problems there.

And you really need to make up your mind about China (which has its roots in world capitalism going back into the nineteenth century) - you need to decide if it is capitalist or is it what you consider to be socialist - because you have claimed both when it has suited your soundbite.

No I haven't. The People’s Republic of China was a socialist party (maybe not to your definition, but that's how others see it). They moved towards capitalism in the later part of the 20th century, but their problems (as I see them) are more to do with their one party state and lack of human rights.

Can you please demonstrate when capitalism has ever existed without inequality?

I didn't say it did, you misread the post.

Evidence

My comment is about the comparison between a capitalist society and a socialist one. Given that you're stating there has never been a socialist society, then in your view it would be impossible to prove the case one way or the other.

I will give you a big opportunity to disprove my claims here - instead of taking my view of what a socialist society would be like - lets take Soviet Russia - now can you produce evidence to show that the poorest members of the population of the Soviet Union were worse off than the poorest members of the capitalist world - lets say - from the post war period up to the collapse of Stalinism. Remember - I am making a major concession here - so you should have little difficulty producing evidence to make you case.

Ok. What sort of data would you accept? Quality of life, life expectancy etc?

 

[Titanic]

The dream ticket is almost definitely considering being a real thing...

https://news.sky.com/story/richard-...Z4-fMMZMw_P6nvtxNp_jbA0PU8X4A6E-LyUjuTnqsVQO4

 

[peterward]

The dream ticket is almost definitely considering being a real thing...

https://news.sky.com/story/richard-...Z4-fMMZMw_P6nvtxNp_jbA0PU8X4A6E-LyUjuTnqsVQO4

Bull$hit bumbling Burgon, who should've resigned for his caught on camera lies, is half of a dream ticket?

If only Billy Paynter would come back and partner Chris Holroyd, what a dream ticket that would be!

 

[Surf's Up]

You're trying to claim that you challenge you political views every day, and debate politics with a wide variety of people, yet you just reply to someone you disagree with like that

And let's see what wisdom you can impart...
Seriously? That's what you've got? I'm not a historian, I'm not claiming to be a historian, and I'm not writing a historical piece on life during the dark ages/middle ages. You know when the dark ages referred to, so it's fine to call it that.

Exclusively? I disagree. The Romans made strides forward and (despite the setbacks), places like China were also able to advance before they adopted capitalism. The world was going to advance to some degree with or without capitalism. Capitalism has helped though.

No, not your version of socialism they don't. I know people who consider themselves socialists, but they don't share the views you've written here.

No, you had already made claims here before I posted at all. My first comment was in response to your claim that 'capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'.' That is a claim without any evidence to back it up (as was your claim that the revolutionary upheaval in Hong Kong is a symptom of capitalism), so no, I'm not the one who came onto the thread making all sorts of claims without evidence, you are.

I am open minded, but I don't think you're the ideal person to spread your message. You probably know others who have similar views to you, who are better at getting others onside?

I disagree with you. I'm ok with how things are, but I understand you are not. You can be unhappy about it, but resigned to it, or you can be unhappy and try and do something about it. If the latter, what are you doing about it?

Yes, Hong Kong is not a great example of democracy. Regardless, it's not capitalism that's caused the problems there.

No I haven't. The People’s Republic of China was a socialist party (maybe not to your definition, but that's how others see it). They moved towards capitalism in the later part of the 20th century, but their problems (as I see them) are more to do with their one party state and lack of human rights.

I didn't say it did, you misread the post.

My comment is about the comparison between a capitalist society and a socialist one. Given that you're stating there has never been a socialist society, then in your view it would be impossible to prove the case one way or the other.

Ok. What sort of data would you accept? Quality of life, life expectancy etc?

Can't you two PM each other

 

[BLOCK F]

The dream ticket is almost definitely considering being a real thing...

https://news.sky.com/story/richard-...Z4-fMMZMw_P6nvtxNp_jbA0PU8X4A6E-LyUjuTnqsVQO4

Another deluded nutter!
It appears to me that The Labour Party never want to be elected as a Government again.
It also makes me shudder to think what they would have done to the country if this 'collective shitshow of a shambles' had actually won the General Election!

 

[Titanic]

Can't you two PM each other

Indeed... TL;DR.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can't you two PM each other

we're approaching peak sub-quoting!

 

[Lever]

Robust Democracy demands there be a strong opposition; otherwise, there will be insufficient checks and balances on our dissembling government. Such an opposition will need to be led by a charismatic Labour MP who offers an honest, viable and attractive alternative perspective. Of the politicians who are considering running, I think the person who best fits the bill is Sir Keir Starmer.... but I fear he is stymied by close association with the previous regime.

 

[Hastings gull]

You do get the point I was trying to make - or maybe I need to explain it to you -

Trrigaaar claimed that I was like a religious fundamentalist - stuck in a particular mindset and unwilling to change. The debate was about the current political situation and the need to adapt to it - I (and others) looked at the evidence and re-evaluated our outlook based on that evidence - the people we broke with refused to do that - they insisted that nothing had changed and that we could keep trundling along without recognising that things constantly change.

Now, fancy someone coming on here claiming such a thing -why would that be, I wonder. And yes, I did get the point - you were trying to evaluate matters and the people to whom you refer were basically on the same side, just not quite sharing your fanaticism. If you really want to evaluate your ideas, then surely consult a much broader spectrum, but that would be anathema to you, wouldn't it? But no, it has to be one shade of socialism as opposed to another, all in the name of open-mindedness.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Surf's up is right - so i will try and keep this short - and probably fail

You're trying to claim that you challenge you political views every day, and debate politics with a wide variety of people, yet you just reply to someone you disagree with like that

But you are not engaging in a debate - you haven't posted anything of substance other than 'capitalism-good' and 'socialism-bad'

And let's see what wisdom you can impart...
Seriously? That's what you've got? I'm not a historian, I'm not claiming to be a historian, and I'm not writing a historical piece on life during the dark ages/middle ages. You know when the dark ages referred to, so it's fine to call it that.

Exclusively? I disagree. The Romans made strides forward and (despite the setbacks), places like China were also able to advance before they adopted capitalism. The world was going to advance to some degree with or without capitalism. Capitalism has helped though.

Well I am a historian - and a damned good one (not a boast - I am a historian who has published scholarly works) - and you are way off base on everything here.

Calling the medieval period the dark ages went out with the nineteenth century - and - no - the society did not advance with the medieval period. Advancement in society does not occur without revolutionary change. Very quick history lesson for you here -

Slave society (i.e. Ancient Rome) hit a brick wall in the early fourth century and Europe in societal terms, was thrown backwards for the bulk of a thousand years. Society didn't advance until the early modern period with the Renaissance, so-called Exploration and the Reformation. This didn't occur until after the devastation wrought by the bubonic plague that destroyed most of the population of Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century. Despite the advances of the early modern period reaction still held sway and the political, social, scientific and cultural advances were pushed back until the end of the seventeenth century. Middle Eastern and Asian culture was significantly more advanced than Europe during this period, while still being based on the feudal order. The English Civil War was a symptom of the crisis faced by society in this period, but it wasn't until the French Revolution that the feudal order was overthrown in its entirety for the first time - and crucially, the basis of the economy was fundamentally altered from agrarianism to industrialisation - from control by the aristocracy to control by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism did not 'play a part in the change in society' - it was the key element - a revolutionary change in how the economy was organised.

Each stage of societal change is rooted in the previous form of society - slave society emerged from the establishment of private property in the neolithic period - the owners of property in the neolithic period needed slaves to work the land and create surplus value for trade. Slave society hit a brick wall because of its over-reliance on the military to maintain order - and soldiers had to be guaranteed land as a pension in order to get them to fight. When these farmers became a dominant force in slave society - the empires collapsed and society reverted to highly localised, largely subsistence farming dominated by an aristocracy that emerged from the officer corps of the army. The bubonic plague caused a revolutionary upheaval in medieval society in that the old feudal order broke down - there weren't enough people to work the land. The Peasant Revolt in England (one of many during this period) was in response to an attempt by the aristocracy to impose a maximum wage on the rural poor and the urban workers in response to the shortage of labour. Coupled with the dramatic advances in science by Muslim society, European society was forced to open up the fields of medicine and science to experimentation. Within medieval society the seeds of the new capitalist bourgeois class emerged - the bankers and merchants, the craft houses and traders. It was these sectors of society who constantly rose in opposition to the aristocratic order in an effort to shake off the shakles restricting economic development. Capitalism emerged and grew through the rapid expansion of colonialism, the raping of natural resources from the colonial world, the massive use of slavery in the most open of capitalist economies - the USA - and the crass exploitation of the working class. Capitalism advanced society - but it did so at huge human cost - a cost far more severe than any previous form of society.

No, you had already made claims here before I posted at all. My first comment was in response to your claim that 'capitalism has reached its limits and is in what could be called its 'death agony'.' That is a claim without any evidence to back it up (as was your claim that the revolutionary upheaval in Hong Kong is a symptom of capitalism), so no, I'm not the one who came onto the thread making all sorts of claims without evidence, you are.

Now - I am going to preface these comments by stating that I am a historian - not an economist. I have a basic understanding of economics and I rely on the commentary of others to provide evidence for these assertions (specifically - Michael Roberts, an economist who works in the City of London and Anders Axelsson, an economic analyst in Sweden).

The capitalist economic system, despite the philosophical basis for its existence (free market competition), strives for monopoly control - Over the past 250 years industrial production has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Capitalism cannot escape this contradiction. The drive for monopoly in all sectors of the economy and society is driven by the class conflict between the elites and the working class. Like in the medieval period - the working class are the sector of society pushing for advancement, the bourgeoisie attempting to resist this movement - and this class struggle has been a constant feature of capitalism for more than 200 years.

You say there is no evidence of the 'death agony' of capitalism - on the contrary - there is ample evidence for it. In the USA - the most advanced capitalist country on the planet - 51 million workers make less than $15.000 a year (many are part-time - and most of those who are part-time it is not by choice) - the average earned income of these 51 million workers is $6,000. The median wage in American society is the same today as it was in 1998 - this median wage (half of workers make more - half make less) is a little bit over $500 a week. A worker in America on $500 a week who is single with no kids pays all the money they earn on Monday and 40 minutes on Tuesday morning in federal taxes. In contrast - if you have an income of $1million a day - you pay the first six hours of your income on Monday in tax. A worker on $500 a week has a significantly higher tax burden than someone with an income of $1million a day. The average income of 90% of the population in America today is now below the level of income in 1966 (adjusted for inflation). The average American worker say their income rise between 1966 and 2012 (adjusted for inflation) but $59 - less than $5 per month. If you take this increase as 'one inch' on a chart - the income of the richest 1% rose by 187ft - the income of the richest 0.1% rose by 550 ft - and the income of the richest 33,000 people in the US (the 0.01%) rose by 5 miles. [Source - David Cay Johnson (Editor) Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality, (New York, 2015)]

The rate of profit in the American economy has been in a consistent decline since the end of WW2 (there has been fluctuations in this period - but the trend has been consistently downwards).

Source – Statistics from US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis – analysed using the methods of Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, (New York, 2011)

This decline has been demonstrated both for the historic cost measure for the rate of profit (i.e including the historical cost of fixed assets) and for the use of current costs for the value of fixed assets.

Source – same as above - and the reason for the slight rise in the CC analysis in the recent period is down to the massive printing of money by global central banks over the past 10 years - something that is now coming to a halt as global governmental debt is spiraling out of control.

If inflation is high, as it was between the 1960s and late 1980s, then the divergence between the changes in the HC measure and the CC measure is greater. When inflation drops, the difference in the changes between the two HC and CC measures narrows. However, the overall trend is clear and there is little divergence using both methods. There has been a secular decline in the US rate of profit since 1946 (27%) and since 1965 (31%). Since 1997, the US rate of profit has fallen around 5%, because the organic composition of capital has risen nearly 17%, outstripping the rise in the rate of surplus value (4%).

These trends have been confirmed by further analysis by Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Jonah Butovsky, Murray E.G. Smith, Peter Jones, Ben Green, Persefoni Tsaliki, José A. Tapia, Rolando Astarita, and others – all renowned scholars in this field.

The US stock market is currently hitting new record highs (Trump keeps boasting about it). However, corporate debt in the US is also at record highs. The price of bonds (the inverse of yields) are at record highs. So fictitious capital (capital not based on production in the real economy) is racing up again just as it did in the period 2002-06.

The global economy is facing a new, and potentially more devastating, economic crisis than 2007 – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/20/world-sleepwalking-to-another-financial-crisis-says-mervyn-king

More worryingly for working class people is the potential of a deflationary recession – similar to the Great Depression. From the above linked article - King said the world economy was stuck in a low growth trap and that the recovery from the slump of 2008-09 was weaker than that after the Great Depression.

One final demonstration of the nature of capitalist society - if you arrived in the the Americas on the Santa Maria with Columbus - and every single day since then you made $5,000 of income - that is 365 days multiplied by 527 years - you would still have less wealth than Jeff Bezos makes in a week.

Now – I have demonstrated the nature of my assertions – and backed them up with scholarly and economic references – I await your response.

I disagree with you. I'm ok with how things are, but I understand you are not. You can be unhappy about it, but resigned to it, or you can be unhappy and try and do something about it. If the latter, what are you doing about it?

Good for you that you are okay with how things are – unfortunately for me – I cannot turn my back on the poverty and deprivation that I see on a daily basis. I cannot turn my back on the children I see every day going to school without breakfast because their families cannot afford it – or the children going to school from a hostel for homeless people (homeless because the landlord has kicked them out so that the rent can be increased), or the people who suffer from mental health issues and commit suicide because the government has slashed mental health services etc etc etc.

We are facing a new economic recession in the near to medium term – a recession that is likely to be on the scale of the downturn 10 years ago and will affect at the very least 90% of the population, bringing unemployment, attacks on wages and working conditions, cuts to services and increased poverty and deprivation. I wish this was not the case and I do not want it to happen – but the evidence is clear – not from socialists – but from capitalist commentators. Capitalism is incapable of doing anything else – it is a system that is in its death agony and is doomed to repeated bubbles and slumps. On top of this we now have the global environmental crisis - a crisis that capitalism is incapable of dealing with - and this has been demonstrated by the fact that the G7, G8, G20 and every conference called has consistently kicked the can down the road and refused to address the crisis.

And what am I doing about it – for nearly 40 years I have worked to build the forces of socialism both in my own country and globally. I have assisted workers fighting for their rights - I have assisted oppressed people fighting for their rights – I have helped to build national movements to resist the attempts by the tories around the globe to dump the cost of the repeated crises in the economy onto the backs of working class people - and I will continue to do this (and i encourage others to do the same - the more who act the more impact it will have).

Ok. What sort of data would you accept? Quality of life, life expectancy etc?

You pick – I gave you free rein in what you wanted to do.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Surf's up is right - so i will try and keep this short - and probably fail


But you are not engaging in a debate - you haven't posted anything of substance other than 'capitalism-good' and 'socialism-bad'


Well I am a historian - and a damned good one (not a boast - I am a historian who has published scholarly works) - and you are way off base on everything here.

Calling the medieval period the dark ages went out with the nineteenth century - and - no - the society did not advance with the medieval period. Advancement in society does not occur without revolutionary change. Very quick history lesson for you here -

Slave society (i.e. Ancient Rome) hit a brick wall in the early fourth century and Europe in societal terms, was thrown backwards for the bulk of a thousand years. Society didn't advance until the early modern period with the Renaissance, so-called Exploration and the Reformation. This didn't occur until after the devastation wrought by the bubonic plague that destroyed most of the population of Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century. Despite the advances of the early modern period reaction still held sway and the political, social, scientific and cultural advances were pushed back until the end of the seventeenth century. Middle Eastern and Asian culture was significantly more advanced than Europe during this period, while still being based on the feudal order. The English Civil War was a symptom of the crisis faced by society in this period, but it wasn't until the French Revolution that the feudal order was overthrown in its entirety for the first time - and crucially, the basis of the economy was fundamentally altered from agrarianism to industrialisation - from control by the aristocracy to control by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism did not 'play a part in the change in society' - it was the key element - a revolutionary change in how the economy was organised.

Each stage of societal change is rooted in the previous form of society - slave society emerged from the establishment of private property in the neolithic period - the owners of property in the neolithic period needed slaves to work the land and create surplus value for trade. Slave society hit a brick wall because of its over-reliance on the military to maintain order - and soldiers had to be guaranteed land as a pension in order to get them to fight. When these farmers became a dominant force in slave society - the empires collapsed and society reverted to highly localised, largely subsistence farming dominated by an aristocracy that emerged from the officer corps of the army. The bubonic plague caused a revolutionary upheaval in medieval society in that the old feudal order broke down - there weren't enough people to work the land. The Peasant Revolt in England (one of many during this period) was in response to an attempt by the aristocracy to impose a maximum wage on the rural poor and the urban workers in response to the shortage of labour. Coupled with the dramatic advances in science by Muslim society, European society was forced to open up the fields of medicine and science to experimentation. Within medieval society the seeds of the new capitalist bourgeois class emerged - the bankers and merchants, the craft houses and traders. It was these sectors of society who constantly rose in opposition to the aristocratic order in an effort to shake off the shakles restricting economic development. Capitalism emerged and grew through the rapid expansion of colonialism, the raping of natural resources from the colonial world, the massive use of slavery in the most open of capitalist economies - the USA - and the crass exploitation of the working class. Capitalism advanced society - but it did so at huge human cost - a cost far more severe than any previous form of society.



Now - I am going to preface these comments by stating that I am a historian - not an economist. I have a basic understanding of economics and I rely on the commentary of others to provide evidence for these assertions (specifically - Michael Roberts, an economist who works in the City of London and Anders Axelsson, an economic analyst in Sweden).

The capitalist economic system, despite the philosophical basis for its existence (free market competition), strives for monopoly control - Over the past 250 years industrial production has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Capitalism cannot escape this contradiction. The drive for monopoly in all sectors of the economy and society is driven by the class conflict between the elites and the working class. Like in the medieval period - the working class are the sector of society pushing for advancement, the bourgeoisie attempting to resist this movement - and this class struggle has been a constant feature of capitalism for more than 200 years.

You say there is no evidence of the 'death agony' of capitalism - on the contrary - there is ample evidence for it. In the USA - the most advanced capitalist country on the planet - 51 million workers make less than $15.000 a year (many are part-time - and most of those who are part-time it is not by choice) - the average earned income of these 51 million workers is $6,000. The median wage in American society is the same today as it was in 1998 - this median wage (half of workers make more - half make less) is a little bit over $500 a week. A worker in America on $500 a week who is single with no kids pays all the money they earn on Monday and 40 minutes on Tuesday morning in federal taxes. In contrast - if you have an income of $1million a day - you pay the first six hours of your income on Monday in tax. A worker on $500 a week has a significantly higher tax burden than someone with an income of $1million a day. The average income of 90% of the population in America today is now below the level of income in 1966 (adjusted for inflation). The average American worker say their income rise between 1966 and 2012 (adjusted for inflation) but $59 - less than $5 per month. If you take this increase as 'one inch' on a chart - the income of the richest 1% rose by 187ft - the income of the richest 0.1% rose by 550 ft - and the income of the richest 33,000 people in the US (the 0.01%) rose by 5 miles. [Source - David Cay Johnson (Editor) Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality, (New York, 2015)]

The rate of profit in the American economy has been in a consistent decline since the end of WW2 (there has been fluctuations in this period - but the trend has been consistently downwards).

Source – Statistics from US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis – analysed using the methods of Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, (New York, 2011)

This decline has been demonstrated both for the historic cost measure for the rate of profit (i.e including the historical cost of fixed assets) and for the use of current costs for the value of fixed assets.

Source – same as above - and the reason for the slight rise in the CC analysis in the recent period is down to the massive printing of money by global central banks over the past 10 years - something that is now coming to a halt as global governmental debt is spiraling out of control.

If inflation is high, as it was between the 1960s and late 1980s, then the divergence between the changes in the HC measure and the CC measure is greater. When inflation drops, the difference in the changes between the two HC and CC measures narrows. However, the overall trend is clear and there is little divergence using both methods. There has been a secular decline in the US rate of profit since 1946 (27%) and since 1965 (31%). Since 1997, the US rate of profit has fallen around 5%, because the organic composition of capital has risen nearly 17%, outstripping the rise in the rate of surplus value (4%).

These trends have been confirmed by further analysis by Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Jonah Butovsky, Murray E.G. Smith, Peter Jones, Ben Green, Persefoni Tsaliki, José A. Tapia, Rolando Astarita, and others – all renowned scholars in this field.

The US stock market is currently hitting new record highs (Trump keeps boasting about it). However, corporate debt in the US is also at record highs. The price of bonds (the inverse of yields) are at record highs. So fictitious capital (capital not based on production in the real economy) is racing up again just as it did in the period 2002-06.

The global economy is facing a new, and potentially more devastating, economic crisis than 2007 – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/20/world-sleepwalking-to-another-financial-crisis-says-mervyn-king

More worryingly for working class people is the potential of a deflationary recession – similar to the Great Depression. From the above linked article - King said the world economy was stuck in a low growth trap and that the recovery from the slump of 2008-09 was weaker than that after the Great Depression.

One final demonstration of the nature of capitalist society - if you arrived in the the Americas on the Santa Maria with Columbus - and every single day since then you made $5,000 of income - that is 365 days multiplied by 527 years - you would still have less wealth than Jeff Bezos makes in a week.

Now – I have demonstrated the nature of my assertions – and backed them up with scholarly and economic references – I await your response.


Good for you that you are okay with how things are – unfortunately for me – I cannot turn my back on the poverty and deprivation that I see on a daily basis. I cannot turn my back on the children I see every day going to school without breakfast because their families cannot afford it – or the children going to school from a hostel for homeless people (homeless because the landlord has kicked them out so that the rent can be increased), or the people who suffer from mental health issues and commit suicide because the government has slashed mental health services etc etc etc.

We are facing a new economic recession in the near to medium term – a recession that is likely to be on the scale of the downturn 10 years ago and will affect at the very least 90% of the population, bringing unemployment, attacks on wages and working conditions, cuts to services and increased poverty and deprivation. I wish this was not the case and I do not want it to happen – but the evidence is clear – not from socialists – but from capitalist commentators. Capitalism is incapable of doing anything else – it is a system that is in its death agony and is doomed to repeated bubbles and slumps. On top of this we now have the global environmental crisis - a crisis that capitalism is incapable of dealing with - and this has been demonstrated by the fact that the G7, G8, G20 and every conference called has consistently kicked the can down the road and refused to address the crisis.

And what am I doing about it – for nearly 40 years I have worked to build the forces of socialism both in my own country and globally. I have assisted workers fighting for their rights - I have assisted oppressed people fighting for their rights – I have helped to build national movements to resist the attempts by the tories around the globe to dump the cost of the repeated crises in the economy onto the backs of working class people - and I will continue to do this (and i encourage others to do the same - the more who act the more impact it will have).


You pick – I gave you free rein in what you wanted to do.

That’s got to be the best post on NSC this year.

And I haven’t read any of it.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

That’s got to be the best post on NSC this year.

And I haven’t read any of it.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

it isnt. a awful lot of words to say how terrible capitialism is and how we're poorer, when anyone can speak to their parents or grandparents to understand how much better off we are than ever before.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

it isnt. a awful lot of words to say how terrible capitialism is and how we're poorer, when anyone can speak to their parents or grandparents to understand how much better off we are than ever before.

If my children or grandchildren ask me, I won't be able to tell them how much better off we are than we have ever been before. I have a wife (now retired), two daughters and their partners all working in the public sector, all suffering because of years of unnecessary austerity. I was astounded walking around Southampton City Centre yesterday at the number of rough sleepers. There are plenty of other things I could quote - child poverty, the ridiculousness of universal credit and so on.

 

[hitony]

Surf's up is right - so i will try and keep this short - and probably fail


But you are not engaging in a debate - you haven't posted anything of substance other than 'capitalism-good' and 'socialism-bad'


Well I am a historian - and a damned good one (not a boast - I am a historian who has published scholarly works) - and you are way off base on everything here.

Calling the medieval period the dark ages went out with the nineteenth century - and - no - the society did not advance with the medieval period. Advancement in society does not occur without revolutionary change. Very quick history lesson for you here -

Slave society (i.e. Ancient Rome) hit a brick wall in the early fourth century and Europe in societal terms, was thrown backwards for the bulk of a thousand years. Society didn't advance until the early modern period with the Renaissance, so-called Exploration and the Reformation. This didn't occur until after the devastation wrought by the bubonic plague that destroyed most of the population of Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century. Despite the advances of the early modern period reaction still held sway and the political, social, scientific and cultural advances were pushed back until the end of the seventeenth century. Middle Eastern and Asian culture was significantly more advanced than Europe during this period, while still being based on the feudal order. The English Civil War was a symptom of the crisis faced by society in this period, but it wasn't until the French Revolution that the feudal order was overthrown in its entirety for the first time - and crucially, the basis of the economy was fundamentally altered from agrarianism to industrialisation - from control by the aristocracy to control by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism did not 'play a part in the change in society' - it was the key element - a revolutionary change in how the economy was organised.

Each stage of societal change is rooted in the previous form of society - slave society emerged from the establishment of private property in the neolithic period - the owners of property in the neolithic period needed slaves to work the land and create surplus value for trade. Slave society hit a brick wall because of its over-reliance on the military to maintain order - and soldiers had to be guaranteed land as a pension in order to get them to fight. When these farmers became a dominant force in slave society - the empires collapsed and society reverted to highly localised, largely subsistence farming dominated by an aristocracy that emerged from the officer corps of the army. The bubonic plague caused a revolutionary upheaval in medieval society in that the old feudal order broke down - there weren't enough people to work the land. The Peasant Revolt in England (one of many during this period) was in response to an attempt by the aristocracy to impose a maximum wage on the rural poor and the urban workers in response to the shortage of labour. Coupled with the dramatic advances in science by Muslim society, European society was forced to open up the fields of medicine and science to experimentation. Within medieval society the seeds of the new capitalist bourgeois class emerged - the bankers and merchants, the craft houses and traders. It was these sectors of society who constantly rose in opposition to the aristocratic order in an effort to shake off the shakles restricting economic development. Capitalism emerged and grew through the rapid expansion of colonialism, the raping of natural resources from the colonial world, the massive use of slavery in the most open of capitalist economies - the USA - and the crass exploitation of the working class. Capitalism advanced society - but it did so at huge human cost - a cost far more severe than any previous form of society.



Now - I am going to preface these comments by stating that I am a historian - not an economist. I have a basic understanding of economics and I rely on the commentary of others to provide evidence for these assertions (specifically - Michael Roberts, an economist who works in the City of London and Anders Axelsson, an economic analyst in Sweden).

The capitalist economic system, despite the philosophical basis for its existence (free market competition), strives for monopoly control - Over the past 250 years industrial production has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Capitalism cannot escape this contradiction. The drive for monopoly in all sectors of the economy and society is driven by the class conflict between the elites and the working class. Like in the medieval period - the working class are the sector of society pushing for advancement, the bourgeoisie attempting to resist this movement - and this class struggle has been a constant feature of capitalism for more than 200 years.

You say there is no evidence of the 'death agony' of capitalism - on the contrary - there is ample evidence for it. In the USA - the most advanced capitalist country on the planet - 51 million workers make less than $15.000 a year (many are part-time - and most of those who are part-time it is not by choice) - the average earned income of these 51 million workers is $6,000. The median wage in American society is the same today as it was in 1998 - this median wage (half of workers make more - half make less) is a little bit over $500 a week. A worker in America on $500 a week who is single with no kids pays all the money they earn on Monday and 40 minutes on Tuesday morning in federal taxes. In contrast - if you have an income of $1million a day - you pay the first six hours of your income on Monday in tax. A worker on $500 a week has a significantly higher tax burden than someone with an income of $1million a day. The average income of 90% of the population in America today is now below the level of income in 1966 (adjusted for inflation). The average American worker say their income rise between 1966 and 2012 (adjusted for inflation) but $59 - less than $5 per month. If you take this increase as 'one inch' on a chart - the income of the richest 1% rose by 187ft - the income of the richest 0.1% rose by 550 ft - and the income of the richest 33,000 people in the US (the 0.01%) rose by 5 miles. [Source - David Cay Johnson (Editor) Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality, (New York, 2015)]

The rate of profit in the American economy has been in a consistent decline since the end of WW2 (there has been fluctuations in this period - but the trend has been consistently downwards).

Source – Statistics from US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis – analysed using the methods of Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, (New York, 2011)

This decline has been demonstrated both for the historic cost measure for the rate of profit (i.e including the historical cost of fixed assets) and for the use of current costs for the value of fixed assets.

Source – same as above - and the reason for the slight rise in the CC analysis in the recent period is down to the massive printing of money by global central banks over the past 10 years - something that is now coming to a halt as global governmental debt is spiraling out of control.

If inflation is high, as it was between the 1960s and late 1980s, then the divergence between the changes in the HC measure and the CC measure is greater. When inflation drops, the difference in the changes between the two HC and CC measures narrows. However, the overall trend is clear and there is little divergence using both methods. There has been a secular decline in the US rate of profit since 1946 (27%) and since 1965 (31%). Since 1997, the US rate of profit has fallen around 5%, because the organic composition of capital has risen nearly 17%, outstripping the rise in the rate of surplus value (4%).

These trends have been confirmed by further analysis by Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Jonah Butovsky, Murray E.G. Smith, Peter Jones, Ben Green, Persefoni Tsaliki, José A. Tapia, Rolando Astarita, and others – all renowned scholars in this field.

The US stock market is currently hitting new record highs (Trump keeps boasting about it). However, corporate debt in the US is also at record highs. The price of bonds (the inverse of yields) are at record highs. So fictitious capital (capital not based on production in the real economy) is racing up again just as it did in the period 2002-06.

The global economy is facing a new, and potentially more devastating, economic crisis than 2007 – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/20/world-sleepwalking-to-another-financial-crisis-says-mervyn-king

More worryingly for working class people is the potential of a deflationary recession – similar to the Great Depression. From the above linked article - King said the world economy was stuck in a low growth trap and that the recovery from the slump of 2008-09 was weaker than that after the Great Depression.

One final demonstration of the nature of capitalist society - if you arrived in the the Americas on the Santa Maria with Columbus - and every single day since then you made $5,000 of income - that is 365 days multiplied by 527 years - you would still have less wealth than Jeff Bezos makes in a week.

Now – I have demonstrated the nature of my assertions – and backed them up with scholarly and economic references – I await your response.


Good for you that you are okay with how things are – unfortunately for me – I cannot turn my back on the poverty and deprivation that I see on a daily basis. I cannot turn my back on the children I see every day going to school without breakfast because their families cannot afford it – or the children going to school from a hostel for homeless people (homeless because the landlord has kicked them out so that the rent can be increased), or the people who suffer from mental health issues and commit suicide because the government has slashed mental health services etc etc etc.

We are facing a new economic recession in the near to medium term – a recession that is likely to be on the scale of the downturn 10 years ago and will affect at the very least 90% of the population, bringing unemployment, attacks on wages and working conditions, cuts to services and increased poverty and deprivation. I wish this was not the case and I do not want it to happen – but the evidence is clear – not from socialists – but from capitalist commentators. Capitalism is incapable of doing anything else – it is a system that is in its death agony and is doomed to repeated bubbles and slumps. On top of this we now have the global environmental crisis - a crisis that capitalism is incapable of dealing with - and this has been demonstrated by the fact that the G7, G8, G20 and every conference called has consistently kicked the can down the road and refused to address the crisis.

And what am I doing about it – for nearly 40 years I have worked to build the forces of socialism both in my own country and globally. I have assisted workers fighting for their rights - I have assisted oppressed people fighting for their rights – I have helped to build national movements to resist the attempts by the tories around the globe to dump the cost of the repeated crises in the economy onto the backs of working class people - and I will continue to do this (and i encourage others to do the same - the more who act the more impact it will have).


You pick – I gave you free rein in what you wanted to do.

I'm sure this is interesting BUT!!! It is New Years Eve and I have a pint in my hand

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Can't you two PM each other

I am enjoying the exchange of views between [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33329]Jolly Red Giant[/MENTION]. It's what the politics threads are all about. Can't you just read the threads that interest you?