articles that counter the idea that austerity measures are simply ideological

[ed miliband]

current/dominant left analysis of austerity in britain seems to be along the lines of 'the tories are horrible people so they are making cuts deliberately because it's what they believe in'

i've heard the most absurd variations of this from people - the worst perhaps being that tory ideology is anti-growth/business and that's reflected in austerity (just mental - and this was from a 'pragmatic'/'rational' labour type)

i think i saw an icc piece taking this analysis apart but idk haven't seen much - any pointers?

[ed miliband]

something akin to this maybe: http://libcom.org/library/who-blame-anselm-jappe

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

A Marxist perspectives of the world economic crisis that puts it on the economic and social system we live in, that is Capitalism.
Please watch the video and comment!

A World in Crisis

www.socialistworld (http://www.<b>socialistworld</b>).net, 18/02/2012
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Speech on the revolutionary developments in Egypt and the Middle east, the struggles in Greece and the rest of Europe, developments in China and elsewhere
Video of Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales) (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/) general secretary
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20120214Grafik3294339917469315951.jpg
Peter Taaffe, reporting on the discussions at the International Executive Committee of the Committee for a Workers’ International, the international organisation of which the Socialist Party is a part, to a national meeting of Socialist Party youth.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5585

[Ocean Seal]

current/dominant left analysis of austerity in britain seems to be along the lines of 'the tories are horrible people so they are making cuts deliberately because it's what they believe in'

i've heard the most absurd variations of this from people - the worst perhaps being that tory ideology is anti-growth/business and that's reflected in austerity (just mental - and this was from a 'pragmatic'/'rational' labour type)

i think i saw an icc piece taking this analysis apart but idk haven't seen much - any pointers?
You are imposing a high level of consciousness on people. The Tories go out and say fuck you to the poor, whos going to believe you when you tell them that they don't actually do it out of hate rather that there is a whole system mechanically working its way towards greater and greater austerity.

[ed miliband]

A Marxist perspectives of the world economic crisis that puts it on the economic and social system we live in, that is Capitalism.
Please watch the video and comment!

A World in Crisis

www.socialistworld (http://www.<b>socialistworld</b>).net, 18/02/2012
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Speech on the revolutionary developments in Egypt and the Middle east, the struggles in Greece and the rest of Europe, developments in China and elsewhere
Video of Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales) (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/) general secretary
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20120214Grafik3294339917469315951.jpg
Peter Taaffe, reporting on the discussions at the International Executive Committee of the Committee for a Workers’ International, the international organisation of which the Socialist Party is a part, to a national meeting of Socialist Party youth.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5585

most SPEW types i've met have a level of analysis that doesn't go any further than the one i've outlined in my first post

[ed miliband]

You are imposing a high level of consciousness on people. The Tories go out and say fuck you to the poor, whos going to believe you when you tell them that they don't actually do it out of hate rather that there is a whole system mechanically working its way towards greater and greater austerity.

people understanding crises and austerity in terms of 'oh this is happening because tories are nasty and evil' usually translates to people thinking that things with be ever so slightly better if only they vote labour

[Hit The North]

current/dominant left analysis of austerity in britain seems to be along the lines of 'the tories are horrible people so they are making cuts deliberately because it's what they believe in'


Oh dear. Apart from your alleged anecdotal evidence, you provide no actual evidence that this is the "dominant left analysis" in Britain.

Critique the left analysis by all means, but don't do it by erecting absurd strawmen.

[ed miliband]

Oh dear. Apart from your alleged anecdotal evidence, you provide no actual evidence that this is the "dominant left analysis" in Britain.

Critique the left analysis by all means, but don't do it by erecting absurd strawmen.

mate read a copy of the socialist worker or something similar, look on a large british forum like urban75, follow groups on facebook like 'nobody likes a tory' (the latter is particularly illuminating in this light)

[ed miliband]

i mean seriously it's hardly contentious to say that a lot of the focus on austerity measures is aimed almost solely at tories above all else

[dodger]

people understanding crises and austerity in terms of 'oh this is happening because tories are nasty and evil' usually translates to people thinking that things with be ever so slightly better if only they vote labour

You weren't expecting good news were you, Michel? GOOD.....as a sailor, not so much a safe pair of hands on the tiller as no hands.....

http://imarxman.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/can-the-beast-be-controlled/

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Michel Foubro ~~~“most SPEW types i've met have a level of analysis that doesn't go any further than the one i've outlined in my first post”


With all due respect and without sounding harsh your first comment on this thread is very superficial with no explanation to your denouement. You either have not watched the video I posted and/or not read any material from the CWI and/ or Socialist Party to make that comment; or you have an ultra-left ideological hostility to its analysis. I would suggest you go back and watch the video which clearly elucidates that the capitalist crisis it not based on the fact that the Tories are horrible people, (they are the political representatives of the ruling class, by the way, and by that fact in the present economic malaise cold and cruel individuals), but based on the structures of the capitalist system. Or read the following article below from the March edition of the SP theoretical journal, Socialism Today:


Striking back in austerity Britain
Arrogant, out-of-touch Con-Dem politicians actually believed they had defeated trade union opposition to their savage austerity measures after last year’s strikes. Yet a number of key unions are poised to strike-back on 28 March – and significant private-sector struggles continue. PETER TAAFFE writes.

"WHILE THE POLITICIANS and their advisers give the impression of being in charge, they are not really. The financial markets and the street: when aroused, these are our masters." (Andreas Whittam Smith, founder of the Independent, 16 February) The pensions’ battle, which has dominated the industrial and political scene in Britain for the last year, has now entered a decisive stage.

The Con-Dem government was triumphant at first when it believed that it had won the battle, with the willing compliance of right-wing trade union leaders like Dave Prentis of Unison. His union, by far the biggest involved in the present struggle, and other smaller unions capitulated by accepting the ‘heads of agreement’ with the government. Yet everything that they accepted had been on the table before the magnificent 30 November strike. The government proposed that public-sector workers should work longer, pay more in pension contributions and receive less in payouts. Government hatchet men, Francis Maude and Danny Alexander, were quick to point this out.

They were already basking in the afterglow of a major victory for their side – a new ‘Black Friday’ for the trade unions. Christina McAnea, Unison’s head of health, seemed to concur when she cynically admitted that the strike action was just a "damage limitation exercise", with 30 November designed to allow workers to let off steam.

But both the government and the sell-out trade union leaders have reckoned without the resistance front of other unions like PCS civil servants, NUT teachers, lecturers’ union UCU and the possible welcome addition of the fire-fighters’ union, FBU. The latter had not joined the 30 November strike but now, because of the employers’ intransigence, is ready to resist. A widespread consultation of workers in these unions and others is presently underway as we go to print. There is every likelihood that an estimated 750,000 workers will now be prepared to strike on 28 March.

This would represent, in effect, last year’s 30 June strike, Mark 2. In terms of the numbers involved, in a sense this is a retreat on 30 November, because of the desertion of Unison and others. Yet a wholesale retreat by the unions without further resistance would have seen the worst possible outcome, a rout of the trade unions. It would encourage David Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, to put the boot into the unions and embolden them in the further attacks that will be launched.

Endorsing economic destruction
AND THIS COMES at a time when the government has been further weakened, economically, socially and politically. Indeed, Osborne’s economic perspectives lie in ruins. Unemployment is at a 16-year high with female unemployment at 1.1 million, the worst in 23 years. Youth unemployment is the "highest ever on record" (Mark Serwotka, The Guardian). Scandalously, 860,000 people have now been unemployed for more than a year. In 2011, 300,000 claimed jobseekers’ allowance, and this was supposed to be a ‘temporary benefit’. In reality, we now have a permanent pool of unemployed, the product of ‘endless austerity’. The TUC estimates that the real unemployment figure is 6.3 million if part-time workers and those who have dropped out of looking for work completely are included. Osborne predicted growth of 2.3% last year which turned out to be only 0.3%!

This is even lower than in Italy, which is in such an economic meltdown that an unelected technocratic cabal, led by the former Goldman Sachs employee Mario Monti, rules instead of parliament. And how does the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, seek to explain the situation? This year, he informs us, will be a ‘zigzag’ of alternating ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ quarterly growth rates. In other words, Britain’s capitalist economy is unstable and in the grip of stagnation. There is no possibility of Osborne’s private sector – the famous phoenix arising from the ashes of the public sector – rescuing the situation. The ‘phoenix’ of a revived private manufacturing base is now reduced to ninth position in the world manufacturing league and has already flown to China and elsewhere, sadly never to return.

Despite all the pain and misery resulting from the cuts already inflicted, Osborne and his government are on ‘negative watch’ from the ratings agency Moody’s. The cherished AAA rating is in peril because the deficit has actually grown. Why? Because the Con-Dems’ policies have severely contracted the economy and unemployment has begun to climb. Osborne claims that this is a ringing endorsement of his destructive deflationary programme! Moreover, the injection of a huge £325 billion of quantitative easing by the Bank of England, while preventing an outright slump, has done nothing to fundamentally change the situation.

The level of national output is still 4% below where it was at the peak of the economic cycle. Larry Elliott of the Guardian writes: "At the current rate of progress it will take until the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the first world war before regaining the lost ground. Those seven lost years will have cost the UK economy around £200 billion in output". Truly capitalism is a ‘progressive’ system!

Indeed, it so ‘progressive’ that it is on a strike of capital, a refusal to invest. It is resting on a mountain of cash locked up in the vaults of big companies in Britain and the US: an eye-watering £120 billion in Britain and a colossal $2 trillion in the US. Even Will Hutton in the Observer and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, apostles of capitalism, frantically urge them to invest. In vain! The capitalists see no profitable outlets. The system is in the death grip of a huge debt overhang; zombie banks in zombie capitalism!

Cold cruelty of the ruling class
BUT IT IS the working class, as always, who will be called upon to pay the price for the crisis of capitalism – aggravated by the ruthless policies of Osborne, a practitioner par excellence of the cold cruelty of the British ruling class. In recent months, this has been on full display. The vilification and scapegoating of the poor, those compelled to exist on benefits, including the disabled, has reached new depths.

Cameron has shamelessly presented a picture of ‘benefit scroungers’ receiving as much as £26,000 a year, while hiding the fact that, in the very few cases where sums like this are paid out, 70-80% of the benefits are taken by rack-renting landlords. Some disabled people, the long-term sick, are now being forced to work unpaid for a limited amount of time or their benefits will be cut. Disabled people have been singled out in shopping malls and elsewhere for vilification, with some tipped out of wheelchairs by those whipped up by the demagogic campaign of Cameron and Osborne.

The witch-hunt of the poor and defenceless is destined to go on but will be resisted. And 94% of government cuts and 88% of benefit cuts have yet to be implemented. Already there is massive ‘social cleansing’ underway. Tens of thousands of families from inner-city areas have been effectively expelled to the outskirts, and there are plans for some to be ‘relocated’ from London to northern cities like Hull and elsewhere.

Cameron appears determined to carry through the government’s pro-business NHS ‘reforms’, despite defeats in the House of Lords and opposition from some Liberal Democrats. Pushing through the legislation is one thing, however, implementing changes on the ground another. Cuts and privatisation will be resisted by the health unions’ rank-and-file and by a wider anti-cuts campaign.



A mass political voice
IT IS THESE factors which emphasise the crucial importance of the pensions’ struggle, which will hopefully fuse with the battle against the cuts. There has been a sharp rise in industrial action in both the public and private sectors. More days were lost in strike action in 2011 than any time since 1990 (1.39 million days compared to 365,000 in 2010). Public-sector action accounted for over 90%, but days lost in the private sector doubled between 2010 and 2011, the highest number since 1994.

The victory of the Balfour Beatty electricians is proof, if proof were needed, of the effectiveness of leadership both from above and below in the class battles that impend in Britain. Such is the explosive social situation that it is inconceivable that struggle will be off the agenda. Even if generalised national strike action does not materialise on the pensions’ issue that will not be the end of the matter. While not the preferred option, rearguard struggles are inevitable by the PCS and others given the attacks which are planned by the government. Maude has openly threatened trade union facility time and rights gained in the past. He will be resisted ferociously, which will probably include partial and regional strike action.

Industrial action will also be accompanied by a political and electoral challenge from the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition on 3 May – beginning with the Greater London Assembly elections. Central is the need for a socialist answer to this devastating crisis of capitalism. This is cynically dismissed by Martin Kettle of The Guardian: "Socialism still has adherents, but it is a religion, not a programme… The failure of socialism has a lot to do with [conceptualising a plausible alternative]". (2 February) Not true, replies former Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price: "In December, a poll by the Pew Research Center found support for socialism now outweighs support for capitalism among a younger generation of Americans".

The baleful approach of Ed Miliband and New Labour has already provoked GMB members, through resolutions to their conference, to threaten to withhold £2 million from the Labour Party. Unite has also booked the biggest committee room in the Houses of Parliament for its general secretary, Lenny McCluskey, reportedly to read the riot act to Labour MPs.

The necessity for a new party – in this case, in the USA – is conceded by former advocate of ‘wild capitalism’, Jeffrey Sachs. He writes in the Financial Times: "The poorer half of the population does not interest the Washington status quo. A third political party, occupying the vast unattended terrain of the true centre and the left, will probably be needed to break the stranglehold of big money on American politics and society". (14 February) Such a third party would have to be a new mass radical party. In Britain, this would be a new mass workers’ party.

British society is on the edge of a volcano, of which the pensions’ struggle is just one expression. It can erupt at any time into a mass movement which could not only shake British capitalism but also the government itself, leading to its downfall.

[Ocean Seal]

people understanding crises and austerity in terms of 'oh this is happening because tories are nasty and evil' usually translates to people thinking that things with be ever so slightly better if only they vote labour
I agree with you and I think that it is a bad thing that they will do so but asking most people to change their worldview to materialism is quite hard and it isn't really a message that will resonate with the people easily.

[piet11111]

The crisis is an opportunity to turn the clock back a hundred years or more as far as labor conditions are concerned.

The more austerity that can be forced on the working masses the greater the super profits will be.
Obviously that they are totally destroying the consumption ability of the working people just means they need to be squeezed all the harder.

Is austerity measures ideological ?
Not really they are destroying Greece but they know what will be left is a country of sweatshop labor conditions in the EU and that is a mighty good excuse to make the rest of the EU more "competitive"

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not sure how things are specifically in the UK...

But in the US, we have a similar version of the same thing yet held only by most die-hard liberals/Democrats who than go on making excuses for Obama/the Democrats.

Many young people who aren't very political tend to see both parties "as same shit." However, considering the behavior of the current GOP presidential candidates; I wouldn't be surprised if their behavior is part of some kind of "conspiracy" to make the Democrats look "reasonable and better" (not that I believe this idea, I don't). Yet, the view of both party being "the party of rich people, et.al" among people is based off of the similarities in certain things between the Obama administration and the previous Bush administration.

[piet11111]

However, considering the behavior of the current GOP presidential candidates; I wouldn't be surprised if their behavior is part of some kind of "conspiracy" to make the Democrats look "reasonable and better" (not that I believe this idea, I don't).

I find it incredibly difficult to see the republican candidates as voicing a political program that they genuinely think will get them elected as president.

The only way i can explain this insanity on their part is that they try not to get elected and instead let the democrats take the poisoned chalice of taking the axe to all social security forms during the next presidential term.

[blake 3:17]

The only way i can explain this insanity on their part is that they try not to get elected and instead let the democrats take the poisoned chalice of taking the axe to all social security forms during the next presidential term.

I'm pretty sure Obama will be re-elected. The only base he needs to pander to is on the Right, and he could seal that deal with attacks on Iran.


current/dominant left analysis of austerity in britain seems to be along the lines of 'the tories are horrible people so they are making cuts deliberately because it's what they believe in'

i've heard the most absurd variations of this from people - the worst perhaps being that tory ideology is anti-growth/business and that's reflected in austerity (just mental - and this was from a 'pragmatic'/'rational' labour type)

One of the paradoxes of contemporary Toryism and populist Rightism is that it seems all about economic efficiency and costs savings, while in fact in practice it is generally inefficient and very very expensive.

In Toronto, Canada we have an extreme Right mayor, a centrist Liberal provincial premier and an extreme Right Prime Minister. Their talk is all about cost savings while wasting billions of dollars on police and military, screwing up health and education, subsidizing corporations. The ideological effect is to make people more scared, more stressed, more reliant on personal debt, more afraid to challenge the system.

[Hit The North]

mate read a copy of the socialist worker or something similar, look on a large british forum like urban75, follow groups on facebook like 'nobody likes a tory' (the latter is particularly illuminating in this light)

mate, why don't you link to those SW articles that you claim argue that the austerity package is purely an ideological reflex by the Tories and that workers should vote Labour, then we can all assess whether your interpretation is valid.

You're the one making the argument so you should be the one referencing the evidence.

[Hit The North]

Is austerity measures ideological ?
Not really they are destroying Greece but they know what will be left is a country of sweatshop labor conditions in the EU and that is a mighty good excuse to make the rest of the EU more "competitive"

But of course the austerity measures are ideological as well as a response to the real material crisis of capitalism. It's ideological because it's based on a set of choices that arise from a particular view of the crisis - from the point of view of finance capital. It is a point of view that arises from the class struggle. It is a point of view, moreover, that is shared by the Labour Party. Michel Foubro is completely wrong when he states that the SWP or the SPEW position is what he claims it to be.

[Proteus]

current/dominant left analysis of austerity in britain seems to be along the lines of 'the tories are horrible people so they are making cuts deliberately because it's what they believe in'

i've heard the most absurd variations of this from people - the worst perhaps being that tory ideology is anti-growth/business and that's reflected in austerity (just mental - and this was from a 'pragmatic'/'rational' labour type)

i think i saw an icc piece taking this analysis apart but idk haven't seen much - any pointers?

I would say the evidence supports that it is ideological. These austerity in the UK is being carried out to protect the rich and for no other reason. The UK is not in fiscal crisis. The rich made gambles on the roulette wheel and their losses are being paid by the people whose money they were gambling with in the first place. There are £120billions of uncollected taxes every year in the UK from the rich and the the hole is only supposed to be £170billion. As for growth, one must deduce the austerity is anti-growth. We could have substantial growth if the money was used, for example, on a massive house building programme or huge improvements to transport infrastructure or even something as wild as giving young people decent jobs. Growth could have been increased dramatically by addressing under-consumption.

[ed miliband]

mate, why don't you link to those SW articles that you claim argue that the austerity package is purely an ideological reflex by the Tories and that workers should vote Labour, then we can all assess whether your interpretation is valid.

You're the one making the argument so you should be the one referencing the evidence.

where in the op do i say the swp call on workers to vote labour? i mean i think they implicitly do but i never said that

anyway - quick one straight from the front of this week's sw:

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27835

i mean the title itself suggests some sort of kinship with the beveridge report / post-war settlement

statements like this:


The Tories claim they have to make cuts because of the budget deficit.

In truth they are determined to make ordinary people pay for the bosses’ crisis—while helping the rich get richer.

i mean it's not meant to be analytical and is deliberately emotive for obvious reasons (and i don't necessarily disagree with it at a very crude level) but i can't help but feel that the stress is on the fact that it's a tory attack on the poor rather than an attack by the capitalist class as a whole

look at the facebook page i mentioned as well - it's not swp or spew aligned - and there are hundreds of comments daily from people who see the austerity measures as simply the ideological actions of nasty tories. i understand why people would feel like that but i don't necessarily think it's constructive

(sorry btw - my full-stop and comma keys are broken and when i want to use them i have to copy and paste - makes it a) hard to construct any sort of coherent argument b) typing anything more than a few lines a very long process)

[ed miliband]

But of course the austerity measures are ideological as well as a response to the real material crisis of capitalism. It's ideological because it's based on a set of choices that arise from a particular view of the crisis - from the point of view of finance capital. It is a point of view that arises from the class struggle. It is a point of view, moreover, that is shared by the Labour Party. Michel Foubro is completely wrong when he states that the SWP or the SPEW position is what he claims it to be.

also i wasn't clear about spew - i meant spew activists i've met (on campus or on demos etc) seem to take a moralistic/'evil tory' etc approach to austerity - i can't comment for the organisation as a whole at all

[ed miliband]

i like this: http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201201/4650/austerity-won-t-save-capitalism-declining

[Hit The North]

where in the op do i say the swp call on workers to vote labour? i mean i think they implicitly do but i never said that



So you imply it :rolleyes:


anyway - quick one straight from the front of this week's sw:

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27835

i mean the title itself suggests some sort of kinship with the beveridge report / post-war settlement

statements like this:

The Tories claim they have to make cuts because of the budget deficit.

In truth they are determined to make ordinary people pay for the bosses’ crisis—while helping the rich get richer.


i mean it's not meant to be analytical and is deliberately emotive for obvious reasons (and i don't necessarily disagree with it at a very crude level) but i can't help but feel that the stress is on the fact that it's a tory attack on the poor rather than an attack by the capitalist class as a whole


Never mind "crude level" it is perfectly true. And when it is written that "they are determined to make ordinary people pay for the bosses’ crisis—while helping the rich get richer" how is that not drawing a connection between the Tory policy and the general interests of the capitalist class? It's not like you even have to be good at reading between the lines!

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Another recently published article by the Socialist Party to explain the capitalist crisis and how to end it and create a new, socialist, society.



Capitalism isn't working: Time to fight for socialist change


Unless you are part of the richest 1% then life under austerity is getting increasingly difficult. Here Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary, looks at the nature of capitalism - a system driven by the search for profit and riven by crisis - and the basis for building a socialist alternative.


"Now almost five years old, the economic crisis rumbles on. In order to assess how much economic progress it has undone, the Economist has constructed a measure of lost time for hard-hit countries.


"It shows that Greece's economic clock has been turned back furthest: it has been rewound by over 12 years.


"Elsewhere in the euro area, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have lost seven years or more. Britain, the first country forced to rescue a credit-crunched bank, has lost eight years. America, where the trouble started, has lost ten" (Economist, 25 February).


This is an astonishing admission of failure - "progress has [been] undone" - by a staunch defender of capitalism. It bears out the contention of the Socialist that today this system - based upon production for profit and not for social need - has become a colossal obsolete machine for the destruction of wealth and the lives of working people in Britain and worldwide. The Economist further estimates that the loss of property wealth from British households is £500 billion compared to its previous peak.


American households have lost "a whopping $9.2 trillion" (the total wealth produced in the year for the US is about $14 trillion). Portugal and Spain have been thrust back to 2008 on this measure and Ireland "was richer in 2006". Measured by real gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a third of the 184 countries the IMF collects data for are "poorer than they were in 2007." But absolutely no conclusions are drawn by this august journal other than to prescribe "more of the same", brutal and "endless austerity".


Capitalist economists are like witch doctors of old, incapable of rational explanation and therefore falling back on quackery. Why has society arrived at this impasse? Where is it written that millions of workers and youth must be thrown on the scrapheap, with millions more forced into impoverishment even when they have a job, often part-time? It is not down to an act of God or similar to a natural disaster. It is rooted in the very character of capitalism, explained very simply by Karl Marx more than 100 years ago.


Based on exploitation
Exploitation of the working class is at the heart of the system. Profit, which provides the driving force for capitalism is, in the words of Marx, "the unpaid labour of the working class". From this flows all the inequalities of capitalism, which have been underlined dramatically even during the current crisis. The share of wealth accruing to billionaires has increased exponentially while that of the working class quite obviously has diminished. The working class cannot buy back the full product of its labour power.

However, the system keeps going by ploughing part of the surplus extracted back into production. This in turn creates new factories, workplaces - the means of production, the organisation of science, technique, etc. - but at a certain stage all the same contradictions reappear. Hence the instability of capitalism, which oscillates between booms and slumps. This is akin to breathing in and exhaling. In older organisms, this becomes weaker. In the modern era, the booms have become weaker while the recessions or slumps have become deeper. This is reflected in the present crisis, the "worst ever", a "great stagnation". To maintain their profits, the bosses will shut down factories and workplaces, like opening and shutting a box of matches, if needs be.


However this crisis is not one of 'profitability'. The capitalists are literally drowning in profits. They are hoarding cash: "almost €2 trillion in the Eurozone, and £750 billion in the UK" (Financial Times - 12 March). They are thus betraying what Marx called their "mission" to develop the means of production. This was the only justification of capitalism in the past which, despite all the horrors in the Industrial Revolution, the slave trade, etc., at least drove society forward.

But now they refuse to invest in factories which would at least soak up the millions of unemployed. Why? Because there are few industries to invest in and no incentive to create more factories because of the weakened state of British capitalism, arising from the massive deindustrialisation of Britain in particular, but also in the advanced industrial countries as a whole. Germany's manufacturing base accounts for 20% of its economy but Britain's is just 10.5%! When the capitalists resorted to a massive orgy of investment in the financial sector, it resulted in a piling up of fictitious capital which finally collapsed in 2008, wreaking havoc in the lives of millions in the process.


George Osborne sought to justify the savaging of jobs in the public sector by claiming that the private sector would fill the gap, rising like the 'phoenix from the ashes'. We replied that 'the phoenix' had unfortunately already flown to China and parts of Eastern Europe, precisely because of the previous policies of deindustrialisation of Thatcher, reinforced by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.


NHS privatisation
It is the frenetic and restless search for a 'profitable outlet' for hitherto 'idle' capital which drives the ruinous and harmful programme of privatisation of the Con-Dem government. Working class people generally can go to hell in a handcart so long as the capitalist system finds a way out. This is why we say it puts profit before social need. Everyone agrees that the NHS is a great historical conquest. Even the butcher of the NHS, Andrew Lansley himself, is forced, hypocritically, to pay lip service to this. Yet it is still in the process of being privatised. The Tories deny that but, as Mandy Rice-Davies said, "they would say that wouldn't they?" When the present bill is finally bludgeoned through parliament against the wishes of the British people, 49% of the allocation of beds will be for private patients.

As sure as night follows day, following in its wake, as former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson openly admitted on Newsnight, will come charges for visiting doctors and going to hospital, increases in prescription charges, etc. In other words, we will be back to the situation of our fathers and forefathers in the 1930s when the poor and working-class did not call on the services of doctors because they could not afford to pay. Britain will be in the same position as the US where it is quite simply a question of "no job, no money, no doctor".


The craven capitulation of some of the Liberal Democrats - Shirley Williams and her supporters - on this issue, set alongside the actions of the Tory stooge Clegg, is likely to seal the historical fate of this party. Like the National Liberals in the 1930s, they will be absorbed by the Tories and what is left nationally will be a just a rump. Similarly, the doctors' representatives, after admirably opposing the government on this issue, have now shown a "flexibility" of their spines, but not principle, in agreeing to now collaborate in implementing the NHS bill. They will not bear the burden of the privatised NHS which will result from the Con-Dems' measures.

It will be up to the labour movement to resist this might and main. The poll tax was defeated after it became 'law'. Mass action - refusing to pay this hated tax - trumped 'respect' for an unjust law! The opposition to the government measures by the New Labour front bench is hypocritical. Every time the Tories are attacked on television by New Labour spokespersons on privatisation of the NHS and the rest, they simply reply "but you started this"! Who introduced 'foundation hospitals', the 'internal market', etc., to which they have no answer!

This is because they have swallowed hook line and sinker the dirge of George Osborne: "The British government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years." (Telegraph, 26 Feb 2012) Arrant nonsense! What about the £750 billion cash pile, mentioned above, which the greedy bosses are sitting on and refuse to invest? Then there is the £120 billion a year in tax avoidance by the rich, which the PCS trade union has highlighted. This is almost equal to the total government budget deficit of a £143 billion which they intend to eliminate in four years of eye-watering cuts. There is also the 'unused capacity' which is not utilised under capitalism for one reason: it does not pay the bosses to do so. Their press admits as much: "the cold reality... is the British economy has shrunk by more than 10%. It faces many more years of depressed living standards, high unemployment and public spending cuts. Those fabled sunlit uplands are a long way off " (Financial Times).

Cuts, cuts and more cuts
10% of the British economy - GDP stands at £1.75 trillion - probably amounts to the equivalent of the budget deficit of £143 billion. Therefore, if this 10% could be mobilised, brought back into production, the deficit would be eliminated at one fell swoop. The only thing that stands in the way is the capitalist system itself. If it cannot afford the basics of human existence, we cannot afford it. One thing is sure: further suffering is inevitable on a capitalist basis. Already, the average British household is £1,000 a year worse off as a result of this government's measures.

Even the middle-class will suffer through the loss of child benefit. The poor will suffer most. The welfare changes due to the merger of several benefits into universal credit will make 150,000 of the country's poorest single parents as much as £68 a week worse off, potentially pushing 250,000 children further into poverty, reports 'Save the Children'.

Public sector workers face five years of real pay cuts. Therefore, the ground is prepared for an uprising of public-sector workers and others - which will exceed the mighty pensions strikes of the past year - even if the pension struggle abates temporarily because of a lack of leadership of the trade unions.

And not just in Britain, as the events in Greece, the forthcoming social explosion in Spain, Portugal and the ongoing battle in Ireland indicate. Therefore, this is the best time to pose a clear socialist alternative when working people are in action and on the move. In housing, which is a disaster area for working people, particularly for young people, in 2010 only 95,000 properties were built and yet there is a crying need for a massively expanded house building and renovation programme.

In the 1930s, the number of new dwellings built each year averaged over 300,000, half a million in 1935 alone. How easy it would be to bring together the unemployed building workers and the 'idle' capital that would be generated by increased public expenditure? This, in turn, could be paid for by the increased tax income from those drawn back into the workforce on trade union rates of pay.

Lengthening dole queues
Then there is the obscene and contradictory spectacle of lengthening dole queues - enforced idleness - alongside massive overwork. Many workers are forced to work two or even three jobs in order to make ends meet. Young people, as we see, are forced to work for nothing, a modern form of slavery.The immediate introduction of a 35-hour week without loss in pay would begin to overcome this 'contradiction'.

"But it didn't work in France," claim the bosses. But it did; the 35-hour week created, according to the French Socialist Party, 400,000 extra jobs between 2000 and 2006. It was abolished by Sarkozy and with what result? A massive increase in unemployment, which in France is higher than in Britain, standing at more than 10% and climbing.

But while we demand reformist measures such as these, fighting for every improvement in the lives and conditions of working people, we realise that there is no such thing as permanent security, secure jobs, reasonable and rising living standards under capitalism. On the contrary, what was won today and yesterday can be taken back by the capitalists tomorrow.


Under this system, the workers are like Sisyphus in Greek mythology. He toiled to push a boulder up to the top of the hill only to see it roll back down again. He was compelled to repeat this task throughout eternity! This can only be changed by taking over the commanding heights of the economy. The centralisation and concentration of capital - the piling up of wealth and ownership into the hands of a tiny minority, of the 1%, or the 0.1%, has simplified the task of the workers' movement. Of the hundred largest economic entities in the world, 52 are corporations and 48 are countries. The top 500 companies - a handful of billionaires - control 70% of world trade. The top 200 companies have combined sales which are equal to 28% of world GDP but they employ only 0.82% of the world's workforce.


Goldman Sachs - "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity" - typifies the real face of capitalism of dog eat dog. Recent revelations by an ex-employee show that there is nothing 'moral' about Goldman Sachs and the other great firms that really rule the world, as David Cameron would have us believe. Goldman Sachs is "toxic", customers are "muppets". It helped to build the colossal debt mountain before 2007. It 'earned' revenues of $29 billion last year and distributed more than $12 billion to its staff in pay and bonuses, as much as the GDP of Albania!

Miliband's myth
Ed Miliband's "responsible capitalism" is also a myth. The system as a whole is responsible for mass unemployment and growing poverty. Here in Britain, 150 companies control 70 to 75% of the wealth. By taking them over - with compensation on the basis of proven need - we will begin to use all the idle capacity to get the unemployed back to work and initiate a socialist plan of production.

This, in turn, would generate increased wealth and lift millions out of poverty in Britain. Applied not just in Europe but throughout the world, it would result in undreamed of plenty. The nightmare of one billion people on the planet who go to bed hungry every night would evaporate. We will be able to generate extra resources through using the full potential of production but also by eliminating waste and advertising, etc., and use these for the benefit of society. The programme for the socialist transformation of society, the initiation of the discussion to prepare the basis for a real democratic socialist plan of production, must be at the heart of discussions in and around the industrial battles currently taking place.

[ed miliband]

Never mind "crude level" it is perfectly true. And when it is written that "they are determined to make ordinary people pay for the bosses’ crisis—while helping the rich get richer" how is that not drawing a connection between the Tory policy and the general interests of the capitalist class? It's not like you even have to be good at reading between the lines!

it's described as something the tories are simply "determined" to do which i think is very simplistic - why are they "determined" to do it? what is their relation to "the rich"? do they do it simply because the hate the "ordinary people"? capitalism is not mentioned once in the article and class is only touched upon in a very vague manner

[Thirsty Crow]

i think i saw an icc piece taking this analysis apart but idk haven't seen much - any pointers?
I think the ICC piece does a good job actually (if you're referring to "Austerity won't save capitalism from declining": http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201201/4650/austerity-won-t-save-capitalism-declining).

The crux of the issue is that the current austerity is precisely not an ideological move on behalf of the "bourgeois international" because of the aftermath of the near collapse of the banking system, which prompted national states to bail out the institutions seen as "too big to fail" (and certainly there is reason for such judgments), and on top of that you had debt as a significant instrument in capital accumulation from at least the end of the 70s.

So, the problem is rather complex, but to argue that the big bad Tories deliberately destroy working class living standards without them actually be compelled to do so for reasons related to the conditions of capital accumulation - that's just crazy and actually ignoring the history of the last 4 decades, globally.

[ed miliband]

yeah i like that icc piece and also this:

http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/wr349.pdf

but there was also another article that argued very coherently against the idea that austerity was ideological - can't find it now

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

I am NOT a SWP supporter here, but I think there is a mistaken belief on the role of an article that is agitational and informative, ( working class propaganda), and a theoretical article that goes far deeper than than just agitation and propaganda. The SWP article that is quoted is agitation and the Internationalism articles are theoretical with a touch agitation in it. The question here what is the role of a working class newspaper and who is it aimed at in this epoch. I offer an edition of the Socialist Party's newspaper, unusually called, the Socialist; and an edition of the theoretical journal of the Socialist Party called Socialism Today.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/709


http://www.socialismtoday.org/155/index.html

[Hit The North]

I think the ICC piece does a good job actually (if you're referring to "Austerity won't save capitalism from declining": http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201201/4650/austerity-won-t-save-capitalism-declining).



Yes, and austerity won't save capitalism precisely because it is an ideological response to the crisis. Unless, of course, you want to argue that cutting back public spending, laying off public sector workers, driving down wages and squeezing off investment to the private sector is a technically correct, rather than ideologically driven, approach to the crisis? But then that would be conceding wholly to the Tory agenda.


The crux of the issue is that the current austerity is precisely not an ideological move on behalf of the "bourgeois international" because of the aftermath of the near collapse of the banking system, which prompted national states to bail out the institutions seen as "too big to fail" (and certainly there is reason for such judgments), and on top of that you had debt as a significant instrument in capital accumulation from at least the end of the 70s.

So the attempt to pander to big finance capital and restore the basis for neo-liberalism is not an ideological agenda?


So, the problem is rather complex, but to argue that the big bad Tories deliberately destroy working class living standards without them actually be compelled to do so for reasons related to the conditions of capital accumulation - that's just crazy and actually ignoring the history of the last 4 decades, globally.

So you think that the Tories over the last four decades have not consistently attacked working class living standards? Are you serious? Perhaps you're just too young to remember the Thatcher governments of the 80s and the Major governments of the 90s who supervised over historic levels of unemployment, embarked on purposeful strategies of deindustrialisation, waged an implacable war against organised labour, constantly lectured the poor on how lazy and unfit they were whilst lionising champagne-swilling hurrah-fucking-henry's in the city, and sold off state owned utilities to any robber-baron who wanted them.

Maybe you're right and "the big bad Tories" didn't "deliberately destroy working class living standards"; maybe it was all accidental. Oops!

Or maybe it is you who needs to stop ignoring history.

[ed miliband]

So you think that the Tories over the last four decades have not consistently attacked working class living standards? Are you serious? Perhaps you're just too young to remember the Thatcher governments of the 80s and the Major governments of the 90s who supervised over historic levels of unemployment, embarked on purposeful strategies of deindustrialisation, waged an implacable war against organised labour, constantly lectured the poor on how lazy and unfit they were whilst lionising champagne-swilling hurrah-fucking-henry's in the city, and sold off state owned utilities to any robber-baron who wanted them.

Maybe you're right and "the big bad Tories" didn't "deliberately destroy working class living standards"; maybe it was all accidental. Oops!

Or maybe it is you who needs to stop ignoring history.

but the point is that the thatcher and major governments (and i'm 19 btw so you're right about me not remembering them) did not occur in isolation - similar measures were being taken across the globe by politicians of both the right and left; even here they begun under callaghan's labour government whilst in america they begun under carter

i don't know how you can conclude from what i've said that i don't think working class living standards have been under attack - my point is that i don't think they are being attacked because tories are evil and hate the working class (and even if they do - and i'm sure more than a few are that way inclined - i don't think that is an important factor in the analysis of austerity or neoliberalism)


Yes, and austerity won't save capitalism precisely because it is an ideological response to the crisis. Unless, of course, you want to argue that cutting back public spending, laying off public sector workers, driving down wages and squeezing off investment to the private sector is a technically correct, rather than ideologically driven, approach to the crisis? But then that would be conceding wholly to the Tory agenda

the point of the icc article is that austerity won't save capitalism because it cannot be saved - that would be my position

your position seems to be that capitalism can currently accommodate some form of keynesian reformism that could "save" it but that for ideological reasons the tories are rejecting that

if this was the case - if capitalism could be saved by keynesian measures - why would tories not abandon ideology for pragmatism? just as the labour party dropped keynesianism for monetarism in response to the crises of the 70s

[Hit The North]

but the point is that the thatcher and major governments (and i'm 19 btw so you're right about me not remembering them) did not occur in isolation - similar measures were being taken across the globe by politicians of both the right and left; even here they begun under callaghan's labour government whilst in america they begun under carter


But nothing happens in isolation. The Callaghan government cuts were taken reluctantly, under pressure from the IMF. To their right was the Thatcher right which extolled the virtue of cuts to the "Nanny state" alongside a commitment to a low tax, free market economy. This is a significant ideological difference - even between two parties (Labour and Tory) who were both nevertheless committed to the preservation of capitalist relations. This is an example of how the global shift you mention does not happen like an act of nature but depends upon conscious mobilisation of human forces, partly but not exclusively, on the basis of ideological appeal.


i don't know how you can conclude from what i've said that i don't think working class living standards have been under attack - my point is that i don't think they are being attacked because tories are evil and hate the working class (and even if they do - and i'm sure more than a few are that way inclined - i don't think that is an important factor in the analysis of austerity or neoliberalism)Firstly, my post was a response to Menocchio and I didn't claim he denied attacks on workers living standards, only that he appears to suggest the attacks were accidental. But, anyway, what then is the proper analysis of austerity and neoliberalism? Certainly not one that ignores the ideological factors that are required to mobilise both enthusiastic support and acquiescence towards particular policies, as well as necessary for mobilising resistance to the same policies.

Meanwhile, I note that a resort to motivations of "hatred towards the working class" by "evil Tories" is an invention of your straw man presentation of the SWP argument and not one that you provide textual evidence for.


the point of the icc article is that austerity won't save capitalism because it cannot be saved - that would be my position
Cannot be saved from what? The current crisis is certainly not a cataclysm that is insurmountable for capitalism - and as the SWP article points out, following impeccable socialist logic, the solution will be sought in policies that require the working class to pay for the bosses crisis.


your position seems to be that capitalism can currently accommodate some form of keynesian reformism that could "save" it but that for ideological reasons the tories are rejecting thatThis is not my position. My position in this thread is that whatever policies the bourgeoisie choose, neo-Keynsian or not, there is a strong ideological element to the decision. Otherwise we would need to concede that the bourgeoisie understand their own system and are able to take a dispassionate and scientifically correct approach to fixing it.


if this was the case - if capitalism could be saved by keynesian measures - why would tories not abandon ideology for pragmatism? just as the labour party dropped keynesianism for monetarism in response to the crises of the 70sKeynesian cannot "save" capitalism. Neither I, the SWP or SPEW claim this. However, the limitations or otherwise of Keynsianism is not the reason the Tories reject it. They reject it because they are ideologically committed to neoliberalism. Or, again, are we to assume that they reject it because they have a clear-sighted and scientifically valid understanding of the crisis?

Why do the Tories (along with Labour who differ only in slight degree from Cameron) not abandon ideology for pragmatism? Well, firstly we need to concede that all ideology is shaped partly by pragmatism (unless it is the product only of the imaginary and, therefore, politically useless). Secondly, we should observe that the bourgeoisie is trapped within the logic of their own remorseless system which demands a commitment to the ideology of neoliberalism and the politics of austerity and are not necessarily free to choose one path over another.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, and austerity won't save capitalism precisely because it is an ideological response to the crisis. Unless, of course, you want to argue that cutting back public spending, laying off public sector workers, driving down wages and squeezing off investment to the private sector is a technically correct, rather than ideologically driven, approach to the crisis? But then that would be conceding wholly to the Tory agenda.Yes, it surely is a technically correct set of measures but from the point of view of capital once boosting effective demand and other assorted Keynsian measures become unviable. This is the truth of world capitalism, that it can prop itself up only at a savage social cost, and this is what Marxists ought to be pointing out, and not, as you seem to be saying, arguing for the best technical way to restore profitability from the point of view of the working class. Honestly, I think you're doing just that, which is a terrible concession not to the Tories agenda (there is no "Tories" agenda as there is near consensus among different bourgeois political forces that ausiterity in one form or another - conditioned by debt - is necessary) but to the agenda of capital as a whole since you're basically arguing for a more fair crisis management, for a more fair accumulation, not for the destruction of the capitalist system. Also, I think that this approach is potentially catastrophic in terms of politics since it clearly leaves the option of rallying around socialdemocratic forces open. Indeed, I take it as indicative that nowhere in your post have you mentioned Labour or other socialdemocratic parties.


So the attempt to pander to big finance capital and restore the basis for neo-liberalism is not an ideological agenda? You should rather ask yourself what exact role does financial capital play in the process of accumulation.
But still, even if we concluded (wrongly) that this is utter ideology in no wy connected to material reality and the necessities of capitalist reproduction, even then you'd also have to conclude that all sorts of populist attacks on finance capital are also parts of an ideological agenda in the service of capital, though another of its factions. You're completely silent about that, unfortunately.


So you think that the Tories over the last four decades have not consistently attacked working class living standards? Are you serious? Perhaps you're just too young to remember the Thatcher governments of the 80s and the Major governments of the 90s who supervised over historic levels of unemployment, embarked on purposeful strategies of deindustrialisation, waged an implacable war against organised labour, constantly lectured the poor on how lazy and unfit they were whilst lionising champagne-swilling hurrah-fucking-henry's in the city, and sold off state owned utilities to any robber-baron who wanted them.

Maybe you're right and "the big bad Tories" didn't "deliberately destroy working class living standards"; maybe it was all accidental. Oops!This whole moralist outrage really misses the point: there were, and still are, concrete reasons arising from the dead end capital accumulation has gotten itself into. It's not that these actions were undertaken because of the hatred of the working class or because of some psychological drive, it's the concrete development of accumulation that presented the ruling class with necessities for action. It wasn't accidental, but your approach reeks of populism, as opposed to a solid materialist and class analysis of the accumulation process.

[Agathor]

people understanding crises and austerity in terms of 'oh this is happening because tories are nasty and evil' usually translates to people thinking that things with be ever so slightly better if only they vote labour

Labour responded to the financial crisis with expansionist Keynesian policies which kept the unemployment rate beneath 8 percent and the economy growing. It's clear that you know as little about economics as the average Sun reader but I expect you can at least grasp that that was a good thing, right?

The austerity is ideological. The Tories support the rich and the rich don't need a welfare state, so they're using the deficit as a pretext to get rid of the last remnants of the Atlee government.

[ed miliband]

Labour responded to the financial crisis with expansionist Keynesian policies which kept the unemployment rate beneath 8 percent and the economy growing. It's clear that you know as little about economics as the average Sun reader but I expect you can at least grasp that that was a good thing, right?

The austerity is ideological. The Tories support the rich and the rich don't need a welfare state, so they're using the deficit as a pretext to get rid of the last remnants of the Atlee government.

i don't think my argument rests on knowing anything about economics or not

in 2008 - 2008 most governments adopted neo-keynesian measures - it was pragmatic, a response to the financial crisis. do you think a tory government would have behaved differently when even the bush administration partly nationalised banks?

all governments must work within the logic of capital and as such must support the rich - it isn't a labour/tory issue. labour have dropped the keynesian policies of 2008/9 - why? because it wasn't ideological

your politics seem to be essentially social-democratic

[Thirsty Crow]

The austerity is ideological. The Tories support the rich and the rich don't need a welfare state, so they're using the deficit as a pretext to get rid of the last remnants of the Atlee government.
You really think that growing state expenditure and debt have no bearing on capital's profitability and possibilities for accumulation? Is that it, we're left with two simple options, both equally viable from the point of view of growth and development (which essentially means that the welfare state model of capitalist reproduction can go on ad infinitum) but always idelogically coloured?

And do you really think that there is any perspective for class struggle when the implied measure is to rally around Labour and other such formations in order to get them elected (which is what is implied, no matter you like it or not, in your take on this issue)?

[Agathor]

i don't think my argument rests on knowing anything about economics or not

in 2008 - 2008 most governments adopted neo-keynesian measures - it was pragmatic, a response to the financial crisis. do you think a tory government would have behaved differently when even the bush administration partly nationalised banks?

all governments must work within the logic of capital and as such must support the rich - it isn't a labour/tory issue. labour have dropped the keynesian policies of 2008/9 - why? because it wasn't ideological

your politics seem to be essentially social-democratic

Labour carried expansionist fiscal policy right up to the election, and when the Tories got in they reversed it. It wasn't that long ago, you should be able to remember. And don't call me a social democrat you smug, ignorant douche.

Your post is full of silly leftist dogma. So all governments support the rich equally because of some mystical bourgeois aura which hypnotises everyone who sits on the front bench? No difference between Thatcher and Callaghan, then? What's obvious to everyone who hasn't blindfolded themselves with marxish jargon is that Labour supported fiscal expansion until the Tory press turned the public opinion to austerity (about 75% believe the current policy is correct) and as good opportunists they are willing to agree in order to get back into office.

It's obvious that you have no idea what the word ideology means.

[Lynx]

Austerity has its supporters within mainstream economics. But these economists failed to predict the Great Financial Crisis and their credibility is shot. Mainstream economic models that bear no relation to reality are and always have been ideologically driven.

[ed miliband]

Labour carried expansionist fiscal policy right up to the election, and when the Tories got in they reversed it. It wasn't that long ago, you should be able to remember. And don't call me a social democrat you smug, ignorant douche.

Your post is full of silly leftist dogma. So all governments support the rich equally because of some mystical bourgeois aura which hypnotises everyone who sits on the front bench? No difference between Thatcher and Callaghan, then? What's obvious to everyone who hasn't blindfolded themselves with marxish jargon is that Labour supported fiscal expansion until the Tory press turned the public opinion to austerity (about 75% believe the current policy is correct) and as good opportunists they are willing to agree in order to get back into office.

It's obvious that you have no idea what the word ideology means.

lol man you're a laugh - you call me smug but you can't go a post without insulting my knowledge or lack thereof.

my understanding of ideology is pretty similar to prole art threat's statement that:


ideological factors are required to mobilise both enthusiastic support and acquiescence towards particular policies, as well as necessary for mobilising resistance to the same policies

labour adopted some keynesian measures yeah - but they always said these measures would be temporary, right from the nationalisation of northern rock to the introduction of the 50% tax rate. most governments reacted in a similar manner - it wasn't that long ago, don't you remember those meetings of global powers that discussed the right way out of crisis? the g-20 meeting in london called from greater fiscal stimulus and more regulation - now some of the very same ministers and government officials who proposed these measures there are instigating austerity in their own countries.

it's hardly "leftist dogma" to say that err those working within the capitalist state must act within the framework, logic and interests of capital

you didn't respond to Menocchio

and don't you make a remark in another thread that the rmt are bad because they demand higher wages when there's "no money left"? what's your game?

[Hit The North]

Yes, it surely is a technically correct set of measures but from the point of view of capital once boosting effective demand and other assorted Keynsian measures become unviable.

The point of view of capital is ideological. Read your Marx.


This is the truth of world capitalism, that it can prop itself up only at a savage social cost, and this is what Marxists ought to be pointing out, and not, as you seem to be saying, arguing for the best technical way to restore profitability from the point of view of the working class.Read my posts comrade. In this very thread I deny that keynsianism is a solution to capitalist crisis.


Also, I think that this approach is potentially catastrophic in terms of politics since it clearly leaves the option of rallying around socialdemocratic forces open.Sure, but it is not my position. Having said that, nodding sagely while the Tories use the crisis as an excuse to extend their ideologically aggressive and anti-working class politics to further push back the gains of organised labour, as if there is no alternative to handing tax cuts to the rich, opening up the NHS to the discipline of the market, marketising higher education and putting it out of the reach of young workers whilst forcing them into a variety of iniquitous workfare schemes (among other things) is far worse. It is worse because it means that socialists do not participate in the struggle against these things but sit on their hands awaiting the glorious day.


Indeed, I take it as indicative that nowhere in your post have you mentioned Labour or other socialdemocratic parties. There are lots of things I didn't mention in that single post. Are you serious?


But still, even if we concluded (wrongly) that this is utter ideology in no wy connected to material reality and the necessities of capitalist reproduction, even then you'd also have to conclude that all sorts of populist attacks on finance capital are also parts of an ideological agenda in the service of capital, though another of its factions. You're completely silent about that, unfortunately. I've never claimed it was "utter ideology in no way connected to material reality". But, yes, I agree that attacks on finance capital from other wings of capital serve other ideological purposes. Thanks for mentioning it. But this in no way supports the OP's opinion that the austerity agenda is not itself an ideological approach. I'm not clear what you are arguing here.


This whole moralist outrage really misses the point: there were, and still are, concrete reasons arising from the dead end capital accumulation has gotten itself into.Well I'm not going to apologise to you, on this website, for expressing my class hatred of the Tory scum. You might perceive it as moralism, but all I see from you is a dispassionate agreement with the austerity agenda and a refusal to attack the representatives of capital for pursuing it.

I'm on the side of those who want to resist the austerity programmes of bourgeois governments, whereas you appear to be in agreement with the austerity program as a technically correct application of economic policy whilst, at the same time, you decry those who resist it as "populists". Why would capital require friends when it has enemies like you!


It's not that these actions were undertaken because of the hatred of the working class or because of some psychological drive, it's the concrete development of accumulation that presented the ruling class with necessities for action. You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has denied the material roots of the crisis. But I note that you also seems to be operating with a non-Marxist conception of ideology as something that is imaginary and not rooted in material relations. Otherwise why would you polarise the debate in such a way?

[Hit The North]

labour adopted some keynesian measures yeah - but they always said these measures would be temporary, right from the nationalisation of northern rock to the introduction of the 50% tax rate. most governments reacted in a similar manner - it wasn't that long ago, don't you remember those meetings of global powers that discussed the right way out of crisis? the g-20 meeting in london called from greater fiscal stimulus and more regulation - now some of the very same ministers and government officials who proposed these measures there are instigating austerity in their own countries.


Apart from the fact that it is inaccurate to argue that Brown's government returned to Keynesian policy when it bailed out Northern Rock and RBS, it was true that for a brief while a return to neo-Keynesian approaches gained ground amongst the faux left of the economists. The question is why it immediately lost ground in its intellectual debate with right wing austerity models, mostly championed by economists who had lionised the collapsing orthodoxy?

Mennochio, when he writes
Yes, it surely is a technically correct set of measures but from the point of view of capital once boosting effective demand and other assorted Keynesian measures become unviable appears to suggest that capitalism has somehow developed to a place where Keynesian solutions have become "unviable". But what does this mean? He appears to suggest that the supporters of neo-Liberalism were correct in their argument that capitalism had transformed to the extent that the state could no longer be a major player in economic management and that, as a consequence, the neo-Keynesian policies were now historically defunct. But surely this gives too much ground to neo-liberalism as a rational response to structural changes in capital and forgets that economic policies are always ideological responses in that they embody the material interests of classes and are therefore imposed on the basis of the class struggle.

The capitalist welfare state as it emerges in Britain after the experiences of depression and war, is best seen as a class compromise, born from the real fears the bourgeoisie had regarding workers revolution and the determination a non-revolutionary working class had to get a better share of the pie. The fact that this was illusory and the gains of workers were often minimal does not disguise the fact that it was a small gain for workers and a limitation placed on capital. This was fought out ideologically with the Labour Party representing the orthodoxy of the class compromise and with the Tories fighting the erection of the welfare state at every step. It is only from about the 1955 to 1975 that an uneasy political consensus grew up between Tory and Labour and then this consensus only applied to the leaderships. On the right of the Tories opposition to welfare capitalism and nationalisation continued to be expressed; to the left of the Labour Party demands for the further extension of the welfare state were routinely made. What happened in the 1970s and 1980s wasn't that capitalism transformed itself to make neo-Keynesian "unviable" but that the economic crisis provided the opportunity for the advocates of neo-liberalism to gain political hegemony. Neo-Liberalism didn't just emerge, it was fought for by the agents of capital in assaults on the working class: hence the bitter battles of the 1980s. In short, neo-liberalism didn't triumph over neo-keynesianism because it was technically superior, but because its exponents gained the upper hand in the class struggle.

For the same reasons, the austerity agenda as a particular interpretation (as Mennochio argues, from the point of view of capital) of the crisis and its solution has triumphed over a mooted (and muted) return to neo-Keynesianism. And this is what makes it ideological.


it's hardly "leftist dogma" to say that err those working within the capitalist state must act within the framework, logic and interests of capital
This is true. However, I don't see why you want to argue that the austerity program is not part of an ideological attack by capital to make the workers pay for the bosses crisis. The point is to attack the "logic" of our class enemies, isn't it? If we say, "Yes, within the limits of existing society your austerity program is certainly the only logical response," then how are we supposed to mount an attack against it?

[Thirsty Crow]

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has denied the material roots of the crisis. But I note that you also seems to be operating with a non-Marxist conception of ideology as something that is imaginary and not rooted in material relations. Otherwise why would you polarise the debate in such a way?
I think this here is the crux of the issue. Concretely, what "ideology" is.

I do not hold that ideology is imaginary and not rooted in human material practice. On the contrary, I don't think human beings can produce ideas, let alone more or less systematic evaluations and descriptions of the world (or one of its segments), which would be "uprooted" in such a way, but that's another matter.
On the contrary, ideology or ideological statements, in my opinion represents essentially a mystification of sorts of the existing, empirical world. The most important thing is not to trace out the truth value of such statements, but to fit them into an framework of possible actions which they might drive and justify. The real questions are what do ideologies do and what actions they implicitly support.

Now, when we're talking about the assertion that austerity is simply ideological, more often than not that actually entails holding the position that there is no need for capital to put pressure on the state for such solutions. The underlying idea, again more often than not, is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, arising from the current state of accumulation process, for austerity measures, implying that this is all a sort of a conspiracy of the right wing. I think this is exactly what OP had in mind.


I'm on the side of those who want to resist the austerity programmes of bourgeois governments, whereas you appear to be in agreement with the austerity program as a technically correct application of economic policy whilst, at the same time, you decry those who resist it as "populists". Why would capital require friends when it has enemies like you!Now where did you get that weird idea that I decry all of thosewho resist austerity as "populists" (sure, plenty of them really are)? The struggle against austerity, in which I have participated personally as well, arises from material necessity of those hit by it. Of course that I recognize that, and of course that I recognize the need for class struggle to take off if there were to be a development towards some kind of a revolutionary situation, but that doesn't mean I don't have a firm opinion on the individuals and organizations involved who would channel the struggle into the bourgeois political arena for the sake of another round of the glorious welfare state. And I don't buy that bullshit of broad fronts and keeping your mouth shut about big problems within it, and nor do I think that communists should exhaust their activity as mouthpieces for whichever "progressive" bourgeois solution they manage to spot on the horizon. I don't think the global working class is in a position to afford ourselves such dangerous illusions (and don't get all nervous since I'm not accusing you of anything here).

To sum it up, sure, I do recognize that the austerity drive is a necessity for capital, and so much worse for capital since this actually represents the very way this mode of production reproduces itself.

[Hit The North]

On the contrary, ideology or ideological statements, in my opinion represents essentially a mystification of sorts of the existing, empirical world. The most important thing is not to trace out the truth value of such statements, but to fit them into an framework of possible actions which they might drive and justify. The real questions are what do ideologies do and what actions they implicitly support.


But I think that is a valid description of the austerity agenda - that it is a "mystification of sorts of the existing, empirical world." Frankly, rather than it being a rational and dispassionate technical approach to the crisis it is an attempt to cling to the old, failed way of conducting business, by calming down the perceived problem (too much debt) by cutting spending. But it is obvious from the paucity of innovative ideas among the champions of austerity that it is their aim to return to the same system. It is an attempt to save not just capitalism, but neo-Liberal capitalism.


Now, when we're talking about the assertion that austerity is simply ideological, more often than not that actually entails holding the position that there is no need for capital to put pressure on the state for such solutions. The underlying idea, again more often than not, is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, arising from the current state of accumulation process, for austerity measures, implying that this is all a sort of a conspiracy of the right wing. I think this is exactly what OP had in mind. But the OP was a parody of the real argument. I haven't come across any organisations on the revolutionary left who argue that the austerity agenda is purely ideological or not bound up with material interests. It is too easy to see the austerity programme as capital putting pressure on the State for solutions. Firstly, the State has been a voluntary actor in this, often taking the lead given that austerity policies generally entail the slashing of public spending. Secondly, it is not the case that all branches of capital are enthusiasts for austerity policies given that a key effect is to retard economic growth. So, again, it is not even the case that austerity programmes are the most rational and technically correct solution to the crisis from the point of view of capital, as you argue, because a capitalist economy that cannot grow is one doomed to eternal winter. This is not a good situation for capital in either the manufacturing or service sectors. But it does represent the interests of finance capital: another reason why the austerity program is ideological.

And here's another reason why the austerity agenda is ideological: The huge cuts in public spending are a result of a misdiagnosis of the crisis - that it arises as a result of nation-states taking on too much debt. This is patent nonsense when we consider that most European nations had higher burdens of debt during the 1950s and 1960s, a time of capitalist expansion and rising living standards. But this isn't a misdiagnosis that has arisen accidentally as a result of incompetence. No, it is a purposeful strategy to eliminate areas of state provision and open them up to profit-seeking capitalist enterprises: in Britain, for example, to turn welfare and health provision into even more profitable sectors. It's a good business opportunity: the infrastructure is already there (courtesy of the taxpayer); a suitably low paid and demoralised workforce (the government are even now working on this); and, best of all, it eliminates one of the things so abhorred by neo-liberalism: state sponsored welfare provision.

So there are major aspects of the austerity agenda that are ideological covers for certain hegemonic material interests.


The struggle against austerity, in which I have participated personally as well, arises from material necessity of those hit by it. Of course that I recognize that, and of course that I recognize the need for class struggle to take off if there were to be a development towards some kind of a revolutionary situation, but that doesn't mean I don't have a firm opinion on the individuals and organizations involved who would channel the struggle into the bourgeois political arena for the sake of another round of the glorious welfare state. And I don't buy that bullshit of broad fronts and keeping your mouth shut about big problems within it, and nor do I think that communists should exhaust their activity as mouthpieces for whichever "progressive" bourgeois solution they manage to spot on the horizon. I don't think the global working class is in a position to afford ourselves such dangerous illusionsThen we are in agreement. :)


To sum it up, sure, I do recognize that the austerity drive is a necessity for capital, and so much worse for capital since this actually represents the very way this mode of production reproduces itself. Yes, and it is never ever presented this way: "we need to role back the social costs of the mode of production so that we can restore a viable rate of exploitation". It is always presented ideologically.

[Thirsty Crow]

But I think that is a valid description of the austerity agenda - that it is a "mystification of sorts of the existing, empirical world." Frankly, rather than it being a rational and dispassionate technical approach to the crisis it is an attempt to cling to the old, failed way of conducting business, by calming down the perceived problem (too much debt) by cutting spending. But it is obvious from the paucity of innovative ideas among the champions of austerity that it is their aim to return to the same system. It is an attempt to save not just capitalism, but neo-Liberal capitalism. But there is no question of a "return" to some other capitalism than "neo-liberal" capitalism, since that wasn't a free choice after all but was conditioned by the crisis of profitability first appearing in the 70s (after the two or so decades of relative social peace and continued accumulation, otherwise known as boom). The so called financialization, alongside work restructuring and new relationships between nation-states, wasn't some sort of a "conspiracy" of one faction of capital against another (and the working class), something that many "anti-globalization", "alter-globalization" organizations seem to imply. I don't think there is a new, "not failed" way of conducting business, and the problem perceived is real enough.



Secondly, it is not the case that all branches of capital are enthusiasts for austerity policies given that a key effect is to retard economic growth. So, again, it is not even the case that austerity programmes are the most rational and technically correct solution to the crisis from the point of view of capital, as you argue, because a capitalist economy that cannot grow is one doomed to eternal winter.
Yes, of course that this is true, but the point is that this is pretty much the only option left on the table save for massive devaluation, and we all know how that went down in history. Furthermore, the point actually is that temporary resolving of the crisis can never be achieved "rationally" and without a significant social cost, which means that your statement with regard to the rationality of austerity is misplaced.


This is not a good situation for capital in either the manufacturing or service sectors. But it does represent the interests of finance capital: another reason why the austerity program is ideological.

Actually, austerity isn't limited to cutting spending. It also entails possibilities for privatization of services and enteprises previously managed by the state, so this statement of yours should be balanced in light if this fact (for instance, in world regions where there are things left open for privatizations in the first place, this will be as important as cutting spending and fuelling accumulation by tax policies).


And here's another reason why the austerity agenda is ideological: The huge cuts in public spending are a result of a misdiagnosis of the crisis - that it arises as a result of nation-states taking on too much debt.
Of course that the explanation of the causes of the crisis will be ideologicalin the sense we outlined, that should be no surprise to anyone. But that doesn't mean that state debt isn't a problem, as it cannot accumulate (the debt) indefinitely, and that is practically the course capitalism has embarked upon from the 70s, growth through debt.


This is patent nonsense when we consider that most European nations had higher burdens of debt during the 1950s and 1960s, a time of capitalist expansion and rising living standards.
I'd like to see some statistics and evidence confirming this.
Not that I doubt it's true, I actually think it is, but it would be nice to have concrete numbers and data at disposal.
Now, you're right, but it seems to me that you didn't draw conclusions from this. It's precisely the fact that sustained economic growth (enabled by the massive destruction of WWII and mass production) actually can support growing debt, but once this situation is reversed, then the debt becomes a huge problem as insecurity of returns sets in. And again, this actually doesn't confirm that austerity is primarily ideological.


But this isn't a misdiagnosis that has arisen accidentally as a result of incompetence. No, it is a purposeful strategy to eliminate areas of state provision and open them up to profit-seeking capitalist enterprises: in Britain, for example, to turn welfare and health provision into even more profitable sectors. It's a good business opportunity: the infrastructure is already there (courtesy of the taxpayer); a suitably low paid and demoralised workforce (the government are even now working on this); and, best of all, it eliminates one of the things so abhorred by neo-liberalism: state sponsored welfare provision.
The whole of the capitalist class of the capitalist class abhors state welfare once profitability comes into question.


Yes, and it is never ever presented this way: "we need to role back the social costs of the mode of production so that we can restore a viable rate of exploitation". It is always presented ideologically.
Yes, of course it is always presented in this way. That's a permanent necessity.