Permanent capitalist nationalizations: no negatives (Marx, Engels, and the EU)

[Die Neue Zeit]

In other threads, I wrote the following:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-nationalizes-gold-t159874/index.html?p=2210691


Seriously, Engels was of the position that, although nationalization may not necessarily be positive, it also cannot be negative from the perspective of the working class. The nationalizations of Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, the Belgian state, etc. were not negative from the perspective of the working class.

Why? Because "State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

[...]

Nationalizations by the capitalist state always have some sort of drive towards greater labour efficiency/productivity.

[...]

It took some time before the likes of Kalecki and Minsky developed the analytical and policy basis for Employer of Last Resort programs. Of course, that doesn't excuse even the most left of soc-dem reformists from preferring Bastard Keynesianism over such radical programs.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/top-down-unionism-t160110/index.html?p=2217914


Engels saw no negatives with capitalist nationalization from the perspective of the working class, apart from blatant bailouts ("nationalize" only to re-privatize shortly after).

[...]

Permanent capitalist nationalizations, even at their worst, are much bigger crumbs than the best of ever-cheap welfarism.

Now, let's examine what Marx himself wrote on the matter:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm


1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.

[...]

7. Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society.

8. Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax.

10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks.

This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates [...] Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.

11. All the means of transport, railways, canals, steamships, roads, the posts etc. shall be taken over by the state. They shall become the property of the state and shall be placed free at the disposal of the impecunious classes.

It's quite instructive for how we should approach things like the current EU crisis, and institutions such as the European Central Bank in relation to all of Europe's nation-based public and private financial institutions.

[Jose Gracchus]

You don't think that 2011 might have its own particularities that call for different shades of program from the nascent capitalism of Germany in the 1850s?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You don't think that 2011 might have its own particularities that call for different shades of program from the nascent capitalism of Germany in the 1850s?

Of course 2011 has its own particulars. What inspired this thread was my past and present advocacy of a public monopoly on all financial services in Europe by the European Central Bank, as opposed to even mere collections of nation-based public monopolies, or more populist nationalist planks (like démondialisation).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't really think that calling for mortagage to be paid to the state by peasants and an all encompassing ECB is something that Socialists should be calling for in the most advanced countries in 2011.

What do you want to achieve with your proposals? You KNOW we can't fix the Capitalist system, right?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You've also been very disingenuous with your quoting of the KPDs demands.

You've pretty much managed to just pick out the most statist, Socially Democratic ones and left off all talk of workers in Parliament, armed militias and so on, the package to which these nationalisations are bound, and without which, as you present, are just silly, Social Democratic reformism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't really think that calling for mortgage to be paid to the state by peasants and an all encompassing ECB is something that Socialists should be calling for in the most advanced countries in 2011.

What do you want to achieve with your proposals? You KNOW we can't fix the Capitalist system, right?

Capitalism has proven to be more dynamic than thought by those who scream "transitional demands" all the time. I'm erring on the side of caution. An ECB monopoly over all financial services would enhance public management over the European money supply.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism has proven to be more dynamic than thought by those who scream "transitional demands" all the time. I'm erring on the side of caution. An ECB monopoly over all financial services would enhance public management over the European money supply.

No it wouldn't. It would enhance bureaucratic, Capitalist management over the European money supply.

That you think the entirety of the European capitalist banking system can somehow be reformed in the interests of 'public management' betrays your negative, 'cautious', as you put it, attitude towards change.

You sound, in this thread, like you just want a return to the Keynesian Capitalism of the 50s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No it wouldn't. It would enhance bureaucratic, Capitalist management over the European money supply.

That you think the entirety of the European capitalist banking system can somehow be reformed in the interests of 'public management' betrays your negative, 'cautious', as you put it, attitude towards change.

You sound, in this thread, like you just want a return to the Keynesian Capitalism of the 50s.

Bastard Keynesianism didn't have a nationalized banking system, though. :confused:

Anyway, recognizing radical, structural, pro-labour reforms for what they are, as opposed to "transitional" phenomena, is what I'm trying to get at.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So you believe that cyclical unemployment can be eradicated by essentially government intervention: nationalisation? Then you're a Keynesian.

How is a nationalisation a pro-labour reform?

I'm thinking of the saying: if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Big nationalisations aren't somehow more radical or pro-labour at all than small nationalisations (aside from when the latter are obvious bailouts). You can talk of 'public management' all you want, but what you're advocating, policy-wise, is bureaucratic management.

[Q]

No it wouldn't. It would enhance bureaucratic, Capitalist management over the European money supply.

That is most certainly a danger, I agree. Left on its own, the state will use it in the interests of capital, i.e. a bureaucratic management of capitalist decline.

However, what I believe DNZ is getting at is to place these demands within the context of a mass workers party (which the 1848 KPD most certainly was not by the way). If the class is so organised that it is potentially able to seize power, we would certainly benefit from a European centralised financial system. I believe it to be a first step to start economic planning and therefore begin on the road of transcending money.

[ZeroNowhere]

Seriously, Engels was of the position that, although nationalization may not necessarily be positive, it also cannot be negative from the perspective of the working class. The nationalizations of Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, the Belgian state, etc. were not negative from the perspective of the working class.

Why? Because "State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production.* This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.
If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

* I say "have to". For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the state has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the state of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions.He was giving the Napoleon and Metternich examples as examples of state ownership not being inevitable, and not hence being part of a transitonal movement towards socialism, that is, not containing the technical elements of the problems' solutions, in the same way as the necessary tendency towards centralization does.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

However, what I believe DNZ is getting at is to place these demands within the context of a mass workers party (which the 1848 KPD most certainly was not by the way). If the class is so organised that it is potentially able to seize power, we would certainly benefit from a European centralised financial system. I believe it to be a first step to start economic planning and therefore begin on the road of transcending money.

That being said, it would of course be tomfoolery to strengthen the failing European economic system and its currency by implementing such a measure.

And we don't have a mass workers' party.

It's just not a good idea, even if your theory could make sense, given the right conditions.

[Dave B]

The reason why Fred thought that state capitalism, and joint stock companies for that matter, were ‘positive’ or progressive for that matter was given in the following;



…………..the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies and state property shows how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees. The capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital.

At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm


In other words it would result in the capitalist class being completely carved out of the production process and everything would be run by wage slaves, a situation we are in now.

Thus come the revolution and given that technical condition, it would just require a formal act of the transfer of ownership and control of the factories to the workers.

The capitalist class today ie share holders, who have portfolios managed theoretically by wage slaves, haven’t even got a clear idea of what they own never mind where it is or what or what it does.


The situation in the late 19th century was somewhat different with the capitalist class playing an essential part in the running of advanced industrial production with mill owners actually running the factories etc.

And the essential technical experts, like engineers and chemists were more often that not co-opted into the capitalist class itself, if they weren’t already.

These functions have subsequently been proletarianised by public education and the centralisation and concentration of capital.

Whereas Bukharin, a clever Bolshevik and by far intellectually superior to Lenin, and still not quite reconciled at the time to soviet state capitalism. had this to say;

30 State capitalism and the classes



We see that State capitalism, far from putting an end to exploitation, actually increases the power of the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the Scheidemannites in Germany, and social solidarians in other lands, have contended that this forced labour is socialism. As soon, they say, as everything is in the hands of the State, socialism will be realized. They fail to see that in such a system the State is not a proletarian State, since it is in the hands of those who are the malicious and deadly enemies of the proletariat.

State capitalism uniting and organizing the bourgeoisie, increasing the power of capitalism, has, of course, greatly weakened the working class. Under State capitalism the workers became the white slaves of the capitalist State. They were deprived of the right to strike; they were mobilized and militarized; everyone who raised his voice against the war was hauled before the courts and sentenced as a traitor. In many countries the workers were deprived of all freedom of movement, being forbidden to transfer from one enterprise to another. ' Free' wage workers were reduced to serfdom; they were doomed to perish on the battlefields, not on behalf of their own cause but on behalf of that of their enemies. They were doomed to work themselves to death, not for their own sake or for that of their comrades or their children, but for the sake of their oppressors.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/04.htm


Either prescience or someone living in a glass house throwing stones.



Karl and Fred had been interested in the idea of the nationalisation of the land in order to turn the reactionary petty bourgeoisie peasants into wage slaves. A condition they believed they would end up in anyway before realising, after being dispossessed of their own means of production, that communism was a good idea.

Thus fast tracking the process.

But perhaps that is a separate subject.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So you believe that cyclical unemployment can be eradicated by essentially government intervention: nationalisation? Then you're a Keynesian.

It was none other than the Marxist economist Michal Kalecki who posited that both structural and cyclical unemployment could be eliminated before the need for workers to seize ruling-class political power. However, while he stated that only fascism could do this, Hyman Minsky stated otherwise.

I have gone further to even suggest Fully Socialized Labour Markets (http://www.revleft.com/vb/supply-side-political-t152098/index.html).

Bastard Keynesianism is stuck with its bastardized "full employment," as opposed to the more explicit zero unemployment of the Post-Keynesian school. I err on the side of caution because the notion of something like a Progressive Income Tax being "transitional" has turned out to be flat out wrong.


How is a nationalisation a pro-labour reform?

I didn't say that at all. There's a difference between permanent capitalist nationalization and permanent-but-still-capitalist-implemented National-Democratization (Chapter 9). The former has no negatives, but shouldn't be called for, while the latter is very pro-labour, structural, and radical reform, since the other half of the term refers to Stakeholder Co-Management (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stakeholder-co-management-t145117/index.html).


You've pretty much managed to just pick out the most statist, Socially Democratic ones and left off all talk of workers in Parliament, armed militias and so on, the package to which these nationalisations are bound, and without which, as you present, are just silly, Social Democratic reformism.

"Workers in Parliament" has already been achieved. Today's legislators are paid something. The question of armed militias is not really relevant to permanent capitalist nationalizations, unless one discusses the necessity of having a fully socialized defense industry (http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-deficit-debate-t158896/index.html?p=2191824).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You're talking in degrees, not in terms of a revolutionary cut-off.

Post-Keynesians achieve (in theory, it's unlikely that they'd achieve actual zero, so you're stuck with the same problem, really) zero employment in theory whilst Keynesianism achieves 3% unemployment in theory. There's little to suggest that either were ever going to stick to unemployment targets. It's impossible to nationally manage unemployment. There will always, within the framework of such a managed economy, be those who are under-employed, economically inactive and between jobs. I would describe post-Keynesianism and Keynesianism more as political frameworks than sound economic frameworks, the latter they cannot be because, simply, their flawed economics has been exposed time and again. And with Keynesianism, we have historical examples to fall back on, so i'd rather not make the same tragic mistake twice, for the sake of 'official' zero employment (read 1, 2 or 3% unofficial employment) rather than 3% unemployment.

Workers' co-management has no place in a post-Capitalist society. Moreover, it could only be implemented in a currenct Capitalis society through a Keynesian political framework, which would thus lead us back to the mistakes of the post-war consensus: tried, tested, failed spectacularly.

Honestly, is workers' co-management and a few nationalisations the totality of your ambitions? When do you think such policies would be implemented? If a bourgeois government were ruling, then you and I (and anyone reading!) knows full well that the result of such policies would be simple Keynesianism. And if workers overthrew the state, then why would they implement such policies when they could have so much more?

So I conclude that you are advocating a Labourite/Social Democratic Party to come to power in bourgeois elections, with the specific aim of implementing these nationalisations, monopolising European banking in the hands of the big capitalists and implementing token workers' co-management. Am I right?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fully Socialised Labour Markets are a wholly CAPITALIST idea. Not only are we talking about classic Keynesianism, but it would strengthen the state to the point that workers' revolution would become something of a practical impossibility. Moreover, you've clearly not thought of the effect that this would have on the ability of the workforce to strike and demoratically effect changes in their working pay, conditions etc., if the same people who employ them also pay for their healthcare, childrens' education, social security etc.

A poorly thought out proposal, overall.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Workers' co-management has no place in a post-Capitalist society. Moreover, it could only be implemented in a currenct Capitalist society through a Keynesian political framework, which would thus lead us back to the mistakes of the post-war consensus: tried, tested, failed spectacularly.

I just sent you private messages on the matter.


Honestly, is workers' co-management and a few nationalisations the totality of your ambitions?

If you read the chapter, the "few" nationalizations aren't exactly either a few or non-monopolistic (finance, energy-industrial, industrial and urban food production a la sovkhozy, foreign trade, health-industrial, and pensions so far, plus transport-industrial, communication infrastructure, construction, etc. in the works).


Fully Socialised Labour Markets are a wholly CAPITALIST idea. Not only are we talking about classic Keynesianism, but it would strengthen the state to the point that workers' revolution would become something of a practical impossibility. Moreover, you've clearly not thought of the effect that this would have on the ability of the workforce to strike and demoratically effect changes in their working pay, conditions etc., if the same people who employ them also pay for their healthcare, childrens' education, social security etc.

A poorly thought out proposal, overall.

You're too hasty to judge; I'm sure you haven't read the material beyond the term. Historically speaking there have been more public-sector strikes and also political action initiated by public-sector workers, as opposed to their private-sector counterparts. Please post your criticism in that thread, but making "Big Government" the sole de jure employer and contractor of labour to the private sector (which was never considered by Keynesians and is viewed skeptically even by Post-Keynesians) has greater potential to link strike action with political action.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I read the material on your thread on Fully Socialised Labour Markets.

Instead of sending me stuff via PM that, quite frankly, I have neither the time nor inclination to read, can you not just answer my points (if you can) a bit more concisely in the thread?

Post-Keynesians have little to do with Keynesianism. To all intents and purpose, Post-Keynesianism is the left-wing of neo-liberalism, sort of neo-liberalism + some big government schemes.

Public sector workers often initiate political action when their jobs are cut, and when their pay and conditions worsen. What you are arguing is for, essentially, something that will turn out to be a bubble in public sector employment, as we saw in the post-war period.

Within the context of a Capitalist economy (As you seem to be advocating with the big government sole de jure employer thing), a government would have to raise taxation to enormous levels to support such a large contract of labour. Now, i'm no Capitalist, but in a globalised world it is the unfortunate truth that Capitalists who tax other Capitalists to extortionate levels (i'm not talking 50-60% here, i'm talking the 97.5% tax rate that existed in Britain in the post-war period) find that the taxed Capitalists will simply move offshore and will end up not paying any tax.

The only way this problem can be solved is by overthrowing the existing bourgeois order.

But what I really want you to answer, which you have neatly avoided, is thus: under what circumstances do you think your proposals would be implemented? Surely, in a post-revolutionary society they would have no place aside from in the trashcan of right-deviationism, so are you pinning your ambitions on a Social Democratic/left-of-Labour party getting elected to a bourgeois parliament an enacting reforms?

On the last question, could you give a simple, lamen-terms answer please. I'd appreciate that. I suspect, however, that i'll be disappointed.

[Kotze]

I find it quite curious how many Marxists manage to uphold both the idea that involuntary mass unemployment is inherent to capitalism and that a change towards full employment would be no big deal.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's not that it would be no big deal. I would celebrate such a victory.

The point is that the Capitalists would never voluntarily implement a change towards genuine full employment. Thus, I am curious as to what circumstances DNZ sees this sort of thing arising; he puts a suspicious amount of effort towards Keynesian full-employment, 'big government'-type schemes, when he could be theorising revolution instead, or heaven forbid, engaging with the working class rather than his computer.:thumbup1:

[Jose Gracchus]

I find it quite curious how many Marxists manage to uphold both the idea that involuntary mass unemployment is inherent to capitalism and that a change towards full employment would be no big deal.

Too bad DNZ's proposals are impossibilities in the real world known to lucid scholarship. No capitalist state and no workers' power would take on his managerial proposals without any plausible policy context.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not that it would be no big deal. I would celebrate such a victory.

The point is that the Capitalists would never voluntarily implement a change towards genuine full employment. Thus, I am curious as to what circumstances DNZ sees this sort of thing arising; he puts a suspicious amount of effort towards Keynesian full-employment, 'big government'-type schemes, when he could be theorising revolution instead, or heaven forbid, engaging with the working class rather than his computer.:thumbup1:

In my work, I always emphasize genuine class struggle, starting with genuine grassroots pressure that forces existing regimes to implement the measures. I never said that they would voluntarily implement them.


Too bad DNZ's proposals are impossibilities in the real world known to lucid scholarship. No capitalist state and no workers' power would take on his managerial proposals without any plausible policy context.

Define "plausible policy context." Because, if it's too restrictive, we're left with defensive struggles, perpetually failing councilist action, and lumpenized riots.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Post-Keynesians have little to do with Keynesianism. To all intents and purpose, Post-Keynesianism is the left-wing of neo-liberalism, sort of neo-liberalism + some big government schemes.

Have you even read any substantive Post-Keynesian literature at all? :confused:

If you did, you wouldn't be stating that it's "the left wing of neoliberalism."


Within the context of a Capitalist economy (As you seem to be advocating with the big government sole de jure employer thing), a government would have to raise taxation to enormous levels to support such a large contract of labour. Now, i'm no Capitalist, but in a globalised world it is the unfortunate truth that Capitalists who tax other Capitalists to extortionate levels (i'm not talking 50-60% here, i'm talking the 97.5% tax rate that existed in Britain in the post-war period) find that the taxed Capitalists will simply move offshore and will end up not paying any tax.

I don't trust L. Randall Wray's $300-400 billion figures. I recall that in earlier works the ELR would cost $600-800 billion. That, however, doesn't require WWII taxation levels like what you're exaggerating.


The only way this problem can be solved is by overthrowing the existing bourgeois order.

That's the problem I have with your "transitional" method. Like the 1848 proclammation of Progressive Income Taxation as "transitional," your statement doesn't err on the side of caution.

Genuine class struggle is necessary, but there's a very political spectrum in which overthrow is merely one of the later points.


But what I really want you to answer, which you have neatly avoided, is thus: under what circumstances do you think your proposals would be implemented? Surely, in a post-revolutionary society they would have no place aside from in the trashcan of right-deviationism

Really?

A minimum program for Europe (http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-program-europe-t153249/index.html)

That's for the most developed countries. For the others:


so are you pinning your ambitions on a Social Democratic/left-of-Labour party getting elected to a bourgeois parliament an enacting reforms?

Even for the Third World, I'm doing no such thing.

[RED DAVE]

Capitalism has proven to be more dynamic than thought by those who scream "transitional demands" all the time. I'm erring on the side of caution. An ECB monopoly over all financial services would enhance public management over the European money supply.(emph added)

Jeez, you really are a social democrat. There is no such thing as "public management." One class or the other manages.

RED DAVE

[piet11111]

And with ECB monopoly does that mean it include state budgets ?
If so its one hell of a stick to beat the working class into austerity with.


This to me seems what germany is going for by trying to hand over the sovereign finances of country's with too much debt on to the EU.

[Die Neue Zeit]

An ECB monopoly within the framework of a more tight-knit political union would mean European budgets.

[piet11111]

An ECB monopoly within the framework of a more tight-knit political union would mean European budgets.

That still makes me fear the worst for my health care plan and retirement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You cannot have European budgets, the countries within the EU are too varied in terms of their economic state of development. It would be a disaster.

[RED DAVE]

An ECB monopoly within the framework of a more tight-knit political union would mean European budgets.And why would anyone interested in revolutionary socialism be interested in European capitalist budgets?

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

DNZ thinks he can reform Capitalism, or achieve Socialism without a genuine worker-led revolution, Dave. That's the answer and I hope anyone who has read this thread and the one in Economics, will see that i've (without losing all my modesty) taken him properly to task on this point, which he cannot answer:

Other than via the election to bourgeois parliament of a Social Democratic Party, there is no way these sorts of policies will ever be implemented. It is Labourite fetishism at its worst.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ thinks he can reform Capitalism, or achieve Socialism without a genuine worker-led revolution, Dave. That's the answer and I hope anyone who has read this thread and the one in Economics, will see that i've (without losing all my modesty) taken him properly to task on this point, which he cannot answer:

Other than via the election to bourgeois parliament of a Social Democratic Party, there is no way these sorts of policies will ever be implemented. It is Labourite fetishism at its worst.

You're so wrong on all counts here. Post-capitalism can't be achieved within the current system. However, that doesn't mean the system is so sclerotic as to not be able to adapt with structural, radical, pro-labour reform.

BTW, MLK Jr. didn't need to be elected to a bourgeois parliament to get Civil Rights to be enacted.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You're so wrong on all counts here. Post-capitalism can't be achieved within the current system. However, that doesn't mean the system is so sclerotic as to not be able to adapt with structural, radical, pro-labour reform.

BTW, MLK Jr. didn't need to be elected to a bourgeois parliament to get Civil Rights to be enacted.

Civil Rights were social reforms that were supported by many whites. Nationalisation is an economic reform that is supported neither by Socialists nor by Capitalists.

So if the working class is strong enough, outside of Parliament, to force a change to the ECB on such a grand scale, why would they only aim for an ECB nationalisation? Surely they'd aim for the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie!

You've just not thought this one through, or you've spent too much time thinking this through, and not enough time doing something about it. I mean, is this theory of yours ever going to exist outside of your head? If you truly believe in it, why don't you get out there and partake in some activism to help achieve it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So if the working class is strong enough, outside of Parliament, to force a change to the ECB on such a grand scale, why would they only aim for an ECB nationalisation? Surely they'd aim for the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie!

Because such a movement may have left-populist and not more revolutionary thinking? :confused:

There's a reason for all this cross-populist discourse about finance capital vs. industrial capital. Even Keynes wrote of the "capitalist" vs. the "entrepreneur."

[piet11111]

I do not think capitalism is capable of reforms that benefit us.
The economic growth and with that the reforms of the post-WW2 era where a historic anomaly based on the combined ruin of europe and asia.

Obviously the money is there to enact those reforms but capitalism as a system has no interest in enacting them.

[Jose Gracchus]

Because such a movement may have left-populist and not more revolutionary thinking? :confused:

There's a reason for all this cross-populist discourse about finance capital vs. industrial capital. Even Keynes wrote of the "capitalist" vs. the "entrepreneur."

What no one understands is how the political opportunism of working with 'left-populists' is supposed to translated into eventual revolutionary gains by the dispossessed laborers, rather than bind them to the fate and star of 'left-populist' bourgeois forces.

[RED DAVE]

You're so wrong on all counts here. Post-capitalism can't be achieved within the current system. However, that doesn't mean the system is so sclerotic as to not be able to adapt with structural, radical, pro-labour reform.Unless you are presenting reforms in the context of a revolutionary program, which you never do, this is social democracy.


BTW, MLK Jr. didn't need to be elected to a bourgeois parliament to get Civil Rights to be enacted.This is true. But you are ignoring the extremely complex set of political relationships that simultaneously produced the civil rights acts, medicaid AND THE VIETNAM WAR.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Exactly. These sorts of reforms are not problematic as stand-alone policies; they are obvious improvements on the current lot. The point is that, they could only be implemented against the will of the Capitalists, i.e. they could only be forced through by a genuine working-class movement that is strong, class conscious, united etc. If we were at that point, then why would we waste our time trying to reform the capitalist banking system, when in reality it is everything we despise?

No, if we had that power across Europe we would surely, as a class, be heading towards revolution, not these limp-wristed reforms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What no one understands is how the political opportunism of working with 'left-populists' is supposed to translated into eventual revolutionary gains by the dispossessed laborers, rather than bind them to the fate and star of 'left-populist' bourgeois forces.

Really? I don't see many "left populist forces," let alone "left populist bourgeois forces," go beyond having some state financial institution as a competitor, usually to compete with the likes of credit unions along with the typical private-sector financial institutions. This is common in the US with regards to agitation for a public bank run at the state level.


Unless you are presenting reforms in the context of a revolutionary program, which you never do, this is social democracy.

Um, I've presented DOTP and Directional (genuinely transitional) measures before, along with Immediate, Intermediate, and Threshold measures.

That's hardly "social democracy."


This is true. But you are ignoring the extremely complex set of political relationships that simultaneously produced the civil rights acts, medicaid AND THE VIETNAM WAR.

Not at all. Political action against the Vietnam War started off purely political or "politico-political," and did not erupt from mere labour disputes.


Exactly. These sorts of reforms are not problematic as stand-alone policies; they are obvious improvements on the current lot. The point is that, they could only be implemented against the will of the Capitalists, i.e. they could only be forced through by a genuine working-class movement that is strong, class conscious, united etc. If we were at that point, then why would we waste our time trying to reform the capitalist banking system, when in reality it is everything we despise?

No, if we had that power across Europe we would surely, as a class, be heading towards revolution, not these limp-wristed reforms.

First, I'm not advocating stand-alone policies. That has been and is still the domain of unsuccessful policy academics. I see it as a personal imperative to shed light on all these presented-as-stand-alone policies, evaluate them, and integrate what needs to be integrated. That's the difference between a political program and the work of so many think tanks.

Public support for an ECB monopoly, ELR, and various other measures is not synonymous with public support for full recallability, average skilled workers wages, workers militias, etc.

[RED DAVE]

Unless you are presenting reforms in the context of a revolutionary program, which you never do, this is social democracy.
Um, I've presented DOTP and Directional (genuinely transitional) measures before, along with Immediate, Intermediate, and Threshold measures.This is impenetrable gobbledy-gook. You make up your own terminology or borrow terminology from others and use it in obscure ways. Your political writing, as demonstrated here, shows every mark of someone who has never been involved in revolutionary politics on a day-by-day basis.


That's hardly "social democracy."What-fucking-ever.


This is true. But you are ignoring the extremely complex set of political relationships that simultaneously produced the civil rights acts, medicaid AND THE VIETNAM WAR.
Not at all. Political action against the Vietnam War started off purely political or "politico-political," and did not erupt from mere labour disputes.First of all, where do you come off calling labor disputes "mere labor disputes"? Were you ever involved in one? Have you ever been in a strike? I think that if you were, you would be a bit more moderate in your rhetoric.

Secondly, while the protests against the Vietnam War did, indeed, start off politically, there was labor involvement from the start. And, as the war progressed, and the economy of the US began to tank, there was more and more of such involvement (and, of course, a right-wing backlash in the labor movement as well). There were also "mere labor disputes," such as the nation-wide Post Office wildcat strike, which can be imputed directly to the war.

Again, you are tossing around idiosyncratic terms like " purely political" or "politico-political,"which explain nothing. And you have no concept of what was happening in the 60s.


Exactly. These sorts of reforms are not problematic as stand-alone policies; they are obvious improvements on the current lot. The point is that, they could only be implemented against the will of the Capitalists, i.e. they could only be forced through by a genuine working-class movement that is strong, class conscious, united etc. If we were at that point, then why would we waste our time trying to reform the capitalist banking system, when in reality it is everything we despise?

No, if we had that power across Europe we would surely, as a class, be heading towards revolution, not these limp-wristed reforms.
First, I'm not advocating stand-alone policies. That has been and is still the domain of unsuccessful policy academics.What the fuck, as usual, are you talking about? No one talked about academics? One more time, you are introducing your own bizarre, idiosyncratic viewpoint. We are talking about the bases for revolutionary working class action, which you seem to be allergic to.


I see itYou see it. And what is the basis for this Olympian view point of yours? Where have you ever been involved in any working class action that informs your point of view?


as a personal imperativeA personal imperative. How about a Marxist imperative?


to shed light on all these presented-as-stand-alone policies, evaluate them, and integrate what needs to be integrated.Based on what besides your own ego and social-democrat-cum-stalinist politics?


That's the difference between a political program and the work of so many think tanks.You have about as much notion of what a left-wing political program is as the Cato Institute.


Public support for an ECB monopoly, ELR, and various other measures is not synonymous with public support for full recallability, average skilled workers wages, workers militias, etcPerfect social democracy. Who but a social democrat worries about "public support"? We are talking about working class support.

But, then, the working class really has no meaning for you.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is impenetrable gobbledy-gook. You make up your own terminology or borrow terminology from others and use it in obscure ways. Your political writing, as demonstrated here, shows every mark of someone who has never been involved in revolutionary politics on a day-by-day basis.

It's an adequate way to describe various types of demands. Every solid program historically has had a robust methodology, something quite lacking in the likes of Trotsky's mere agitational platforms.


First of all, where do you come off calling labor disputes "mere labor disputes"? Were you ever involved in one? Have you ever been in a strike? I think that if you were, you would be a bit more moderate in your rhetoric.

I was being explicitly moderate. I don't glorify strike action or illusions in growing political struggles out of them. That is why it fits into the broader framework of mere labour disputes, including more regular collective bargaining.


Secondly, while the protests against the Vietnam War did, indeed, start off politically, there was labor involvement from the start. And, as the war progressed, and the economy of the US began to tank, there was more and more of such involvement (and, of course, a right-wing backlash in the labor movement as well).

Yes, but the labour involvement was one of settling economic disputes within the broader political struggle, not the other way around.


Again, you are tossing around idiosyncratic terms like " purely political" or "politico-political,"which explain nothing. And you have no concept of what was happening in the 60s.

It's based on the three-part composition of the Program of the French Workers Party, the three-part composition of the Gotha and Erfurt Programs, etc. In each case, immediate political demands preceded immediate economic demands.


And what is the basis for this Olympian view point of yours?

More ad hominems.


You have about as much notion of what a left-wing political program is as the Cato Institute.

I take that as a compliment. Despite its right-wing orientation, unlike many think tanks the Cato Institute is informed by a bigger picture when presenting a number of specific policies simultaneously, and it doesn't resort to cheap sloganeering.


Who but a social democrat worries about "public support"? We are talking about working class support.

But, then, the working class really has no meaning for you.

I already responded to someone else about this. :glare: