Political illiteracy

Chris Dillow blames Political illiteracy.

In this sense, therefore, the elevation of "the deficit" over the problem of low pay is not just economic illiteracy but political illiteracy too — a failure to see that is politics is (or should be) really about how to arrange affairs so as to make individuals' reasonable plans as compatible as possible.

This is one reason why economists such as me, Simon and Paul Krugman (I apologise for putting myself into such elevated company) are drawn into politics. It's because our economic problem is a fundamentally political problem — and people have forgotten what politics is.

Emphasis Mine

And the political problem is that the system is not delivering for the poor. The main reason is that the system is designed that way: the rich will get richer.

But, of course, Dillow means that the Capitalist system is becoming unplatable for the majority of people, and that challenges the legitimacy of the system. It is therefore the task of the ideological superstructure to come up with a plan that will again get people to accept the system.

This plan seems to be a minor concession of political power in order to give the illusion of control to the people.

Read more!

Support Ted Rall

Ted Rall asks for support: It's the Season…to Support Independent Political Cartooning!.

Reality is, if you like to read my writing and cartoons, and you want me to be able to keep doing it, you need to support it. Times are tough, no doubt, but the cost of one coffee a day a Starbucks means a lot to me.

There are many ways to help out:

• Make a one-off or recurring monthly donation.
• Join my annual Ted Rall Subscription Service for just [US]$30/year — and get my toons and essays sent to your email before anyone else sees them.
• Support my work on Beacon (cost $60/year), which also gives you access to a bunch of other excellent writers’ work.
• Buy one of my books
.

Emphasis Mine

Go ahead and click on those links! Ted Rall needs our support.

Read more!

Paul Krugman: Mad as Hellas

Mark Thoma posts an edited version of Paul Krugman: Mad as Hellas.

The important point here is that it’s not just the Greeks who are mad as Hellas (their own name for their country) and aren’t going to take it anymore. Look at France, where Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Front, outpolls mainstream candidates of both right and left. Look at Italy, where about half of voters support radical parties like the Northern League and the Five-Star Movement. Look at Britain, where both anti-immigrant politicians and Scottish separatists are threatening the political order.

It would be a terrible thing if any of these groups — with the exception, surprisingly, of Syriza, which seems relatively benign — were to come to power. But there’s a reason they’re on the rise. This is what happens when an elite claims the right to rule based on its supposed expertise,… then demonstrates both that it does not, in fact, know what it is doing, and that it is too ideologically rigid to learn from its mistakes.

Emphasis Mine

Krugman presents an example of the argument that the system is sound, it is only failing because there are idiotic/moronic/corrupt/greedy/evil people in charge. Change the rulers and the system will become good again.

People, like Krugman, seem to have argued that it is our fault that these people are in charge. But they ignore the whole ideological superstructure that includes the media, that works to ensure that these people stay in charge.

The system is working! But you have to ask: for whom the system is working? My answer is those same idiotic/moronic/corrupt/greedy/evil people who are in charge! They love the system because they are doing so well out of it.

As Karl Marx wrote over 160 years ago, the laws of motion for Capitalism ensure the increasing accumulation of capital in a decreasing number of Capitalists. This is a consequence of how the system works. The system is not failing when the rich get richer; it is working as intended.

It is only when Capitalism is under attack from alternatives, that this behaviour is modified. The Capitalists have found that the workers can be brought off for a period. But, then they want their money back, so a period of austerity ensues.

Unfortunately, one of the alternatives to Capitalism is seen to be some form of Fascism. Fascism arises when the petite bourgeoise (aka the middle class) sees their position in society eroding, and fight back by returning Capitalism to a purer form.

However, the Fascists see the workers as their natural enemy, and so continue the class war between the Capitalists and the workers more intensely. And in the end, the Capitalist system is strengthened through Fascism by weakening the workers.

Read more!

Pilger: War by media a triumph of propaganda

John Pilger writes that War by media a triumph of propaganda.

It’s clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by illuminating and shaming the media’s gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He became not only a target, but a golden goose.

Emphasis Mine

Yet, as Pilger acknowledges, the people marched in the largest ant-war demonstration, so far, back in February 2003. But, still Iraq was invaded and the whole mess that gave rise to ISIS (or ISIL) started.

People are not willing to question the system. They still want to work within the system. Until that fundamental belief is changed, all the truth-telling and facts are not going change how events unfold.

The single, brilliant piece of Capitalist propaganda is TINA (There Is No Alternative). This is why Venezuela, Cuba, Eucador, Wikileaks, Snowden, etc. are continually vilified. It is this piece of propaganda that unlies all others.

At the end of the day, if the ruling class refuses to move on a matter, what are the people going to do about? Vote for a different faction of the ruling class?

When the system is the problem, supporting a different faction of the ruling class doees not solve the fundamental problem.

But as Trotsky wrote, the natural end of a system occurs when all avenues of using the system have been explored, and the system is still found to be wanting.

Unfortunately, the natural end of Capitalism is Barbarism. It occurs when the self-centredness triumphs as small closely-knit communities. Since Capitalism is a far more productive system than Barbarism, the consequent economic collapse will lead to a smaller population with a shorter life expectancy.

This reduction in the general health that accompanies the reversion of a superior economic system to that of an inferior one, was best demonstrated in Russia and Eastern Europe when Socialism was replaced by Capitalism.

At this stage of the revolution, we can change one person's mind at a time. It is the guerallia form of revolution-building. There are no heroic gestures at this stage.

Even with Syriza and Podemos, they are still working within the system. They want to get the system to work for the poor, rather than the rich. This is a necessary action of getting people involved to start questioning how the system operates.

However, we need people to start questioning why the system exists at all.

Read more!

Greece: 'Why we must support a SYRIZA government'

Andrew Burgin writes Greece: 'Why we must support a SYRIZA government'.

The defence of a workers’ government in Greece will not just be a test for those in SYRIZA itself but it will be a test for all who consider themselves socialists across Europe. A defeat in Greece will open the path to Golden Dawn, an openly neo-Nazi organisation and that would strengthen reaction across the continent.

It will be the responsibility of the labour and trade union movement here and elsewhere to come to the aid of this government. We will need to support the measures it takes and work to strengthen it against its enemies, to help it withstand those pressures. We will need to build international networks of support and political and material aid.

Emphasis Mine

We are at a critical juncture in history. Neoliberalism is being directly challenged by ordinary people. Yet, we must take action to prevent the fascist reaction in defense of Capitalism.

Read more!

For worker control

Chris Dillow argues For worker control.

Neal Lawson is absolutely right. Social democracy is "hopelessly prepared for the 21st century."

This is because it is yet another example of an idea that has outlived its usefulness. Social democrats used to think that they did not need to challenge the fundamental power structures of capitalism because, with a few good top-down economic and social policies, capitalism could be made to deliver increased benefits for workers and the poor in terms both of rising real wages and better public services.

Emphasis Mine

Dillow goes on to argue that the harsher economic climate means that reformism can no longer deliver for the workers. Working within the system will not garner benefits for workers. He goes onto to say:

Times have changed. So the left must change. Neal says:

Instead of pulling policy levers, the job is to create the platforms so that people can collectively change things for themselves.

There's one context in which this is especially necessary — the workplace.

Both Dillow and Lawson think that the Left only consists of Reformists. Revolutionaries have been removed from the political discourse.

Dillow lists three (3) reasons why worker control of the workplace directly benefits workers:

1. Increased power for workers directly raises their well-being.…This points to a case for workers choosing their bosses, to increase the chances of them getting good ones.
2. There's a good body of evidence to show that worker ownership and control can raise productivity.
3. A feeling of control at work might have favourable cultural effects.…This could eventually improve the quality of our democracy generally.

But Dillow ignores the greatest obstacle to worker control—private ownership of the means of production. Until a substantial proportion of the economy is under the control of workers, it can be said that we have worker control. In other words, worker control can only start to exist under Socialism, and reach it mature form under Communism.

And Dillow ignores the political implications of worker control—the loss of power by the Capitalists. No ruling class has ever voluntarially relinquished power. Such contests are always violent.

Dillow concludes that:

My point here is a simple one. The days when the leftist politics could ignore the "hidden abode of production" because lightly modified capitalism would deliver the goods have gone. Our new times require new politics. The fact that the Labour party is ignoring the question (pdf) of how to empower workers is lousy politics as well as lousy economics

Emphasis Mine

Being left-wing used to mean that there was agreement about the economy benefiting people in general. Now, left-wing, in the authorised discourse, means making neoliberalism socially acceptable.

Read more!

Inequality & productivity

Chris Dillow looks at the interaction between Inequality & productivity.

6. Inequality can prevent a shift to more productive organizational forms. There's reasonable evidence to suggest that worker coops can be at least as productive as their hierarchical counterparts. Which poses the question: why aren't there more of them? One reason lies in inequality. Poor workers lack the access to credit that would allow them to buy their firms. And even if they had such credit, they might not want to own the firm simply because doing so is risky; it entails putting all one's eggs into one basket. In a more egalitarian economy, these problems could be smaller.

Emphasis Mine

In a Communist/Socialist society, the state would acquire the firms on behalf of the workers. And the productivity of such co-ops is measured by how well they satisfy human needs of the community, not by the profit generated per worker.

Dillow list several reasons why inequality reduces productivity:

1. Inequality might demotivate poorer-paid employees because they look to star employees and bosses to help the firm rather than take the initiative themselves
2. Wage inequality reduces job satisfaction
3. Inequality reduces trust
4. Where inequality is high, the rich will invest a lot in simply protecting their privilege
5. At high levels of inequality, the rich might fear that property rights are insecure
6. Inequality can prevent a shift to more productive organizational forms.

Dillow's conclusion is:

But there's one big fact which hints that they might be significant. Productivity growth has been much lower recently than it was in the 80s. This should be puzzling to people like Ryan, because for years they've told us that Thatcherite reforms in the 80s should have boosted productivity growth. So why has it fallen? Might it be that the benefits of those reforms have been offset by the fact that the increased proportion of income going to the 1% depressed productivity through the above mechanisms?

Emphasis Mine

Dillow thinks Capitalists are interested in a productive economy. Instead Capitalists are always concerned about the accumulation of Capital by whatever means.

Workers need to take control of the economy away from the Capitalists so that the ecomony can benefit everyone, not just the rich.

Read more!

Real Independence: In 2014, Scotland used more Renewable Energy than Nuclear, Coal or Gas

Juan Cole writes Real Independence: In 2014, Scotland used more Renewable Energy than Nuclear, Coal or Gas.

Edie.net reports that in November, wind energy alone produced more than enough electricity for every home in Scotland. Over all in 2013, Scotland produced 46.6% equivalent of its gross electricity from renewables. Scotland, with a population of 4 million, is well on its way to getting 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2020, among the more ambitious goals set by anyone in the world.

Emphasis Mine

This is certainly putting Australia to shame, especially as Abbott seeks to dump the Renewable Engery Target.

Read more!

Economists just don't look very ideological

Noah Smith asserts that Economists just don't look very ideological.

So political ideology, as far as we can tell, just doesn't explain much of the variance in academic economists' policy recommendations. Keep in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the authors simply might not have measured ideology accurately.

But given the fact that economists deal every day with topics that are inherently political, I'm surprised we don't find more bias in paper-writing.

And there's also the possibility that the sample is heavily influenced by a few outliers. There are a couple of departments out there that may be influenced by big donations from political activists. That might inject a few politicized folks into the academic mix,

So overall, I think my thesis that most of econ doesn't line up along left-right political lines seems like it's borne out by the data. Still, that leaves the possibility that a few policy issues, or a few top economists, might be strongly motivated by political ideology. I'm sure we can all think of one or two anecdotes.

Emphasis Mine

Or, the ideological differences allowed Capitalism are really not measurable.

For instance, the idea of Capitalism cannot be challenged. An analysis of alternative economic systems cannot be treated sympathetically.

There is an academic bias that is due to the nature of the Capitalist society. Academia is part of the ideological superstructure that exists to mould the minds of workers into supporting the system that exploits and crushes them.

Read more!

Against competition

Chris Dillow examines the case Against competition.

The point of all this is not necessarily to argue for state direction of the economy. If bosses can't know much, nor perhaps can governments: Orgel's second rule says that "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Instead, it is perhaps to defend the real world in which market forces don't select very strongly. As Nick Bloom and colleagues have shown, there is a large variation in corporate efficiency around the world. From a conventional point of view, this is sub-optimal. But from a Darwinian point of view, it might not be. As Andrew Lo says, what look like suboptimal strategies might in fact be second-best adaptations which permit survival in a changing environment. And the same lack of selection that allows inefficient firms to survive also supports a diversity of firms which stabilizes the economy in the face of shocks.

We know that cognitive and cultural diversity are good things. So too is ecological diversity.

Emphasis Mine

Dillow implicitly assumes that firms within a future Communist society will not be open to change.

In a historical sense, we have only seen Communist societies built upon economically and politically backward ones. These societies were playing catch-up to the rest of the industrialised work. They had a clear goal of what they wanted to achieve, and how to achieve it. In these cases, state direction was essential and successful.

In a Communist society built upon an advanced ecomonic and political base will be completely different in character. This society will have different goals to a Capitalist one, but will not know the correct path to take. In this case, the workers will have to have the confidence to make mistakes and to correct them as needed.

The setting of direction will have to be done through intense democratic discussion at all levels of society. So the society is then built with the consent of all, instead of haphazard ideas that flourish and die with great rapidity.

Read more!

Goals, strategy and tactics for change

Seth Godin outlines Goals, strategy and tactics for change.

The Goal: Who are you trying to change? What observable actions will let you know you've succeeded?

The Strategy: What are the emotions you can amplify, the connections you can make that will cause someone to do something they've hesitated to do in the past (change)? The strategy isn't the point, it's the lever that helps you cause the change you seek.

The Tactics: What are the actions you take that cause the strategy to work? What are the events and interactions that, when taken together, comprise your strategy?

Emphasis in Original

Our goal is to create a Communist society. We are trying to change workers of all nations. Workers will achieve this when they are self-confidently managing their places of work and building a society that satisfies human need.

Our strategy is to build a mass movement of workers. The emotions we want to amplify are that of solidarity, compassion, duty, self-sacrifice. We want to show that we are all human and that we can work together to build a better world. The connection is to realise the humanity of other people despite what I am told about the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, their culture, or their intellect.

Our tactics is a mixture of agitation and propaganda in and around mass actions. This includes self-study, interactions with other, publishing, meetings, being out on the streets. The two main events are mass actions (marches, rallies, speeches, film showings, forums, conferences, etc) and party meeting to evaluate and plan mass actions.

Above all, there must be a deep theoretical understanding of how Capitalism. This means a study of Marx and Engels and their commentators.

And there is the study of revolution for which we turn to Lenin and Trotsky along with their commentators.

Read more!

Social democracy and neoliberalism: victim or vanguard?

Damien Cahill muses on Social democracy and neoliberalism: victim or vanguard?.

First, neoliberalism wasn’t simply the product of conservative governments imposing an ideological agenda on labour. While neoliberalism has been an attack upon working class living standards and working-class forms of political and industrial organisation, and while some of the most radical forms of these attacks have come from conservative governments, Labour governments and sections of the labour movement were also active agents of neoliberalism either before, or contemporaneously with, the better-known neoliberal governments led by Thatcher and Reagan.

Second, this suggests that the neoliberal transformation of states and economies should not be seen primarily as an ideological phenomenon. Most accounts of neoliberalism view it as a result of politicians coming under the influence of fundamentalist neoliberal intellectuals like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Yet, if Labour parties and labour movements that had little if any contact or sympathy with such intellectuals were actually in the vanguard the neoliberal revolution, this suggests that such ideational explanations have little to recommend them. Rather, we are better advised to look to the prevailing political-economic conditions of the 1970s, and the ways that these emerged out of the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production and its historical evolution as providing the particular problems to which capitalist states viewed neoliberalism as the preferred solution.

Finally, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the making of neoliberalism was also an active confrontation with and against socialism. Just as Thatcher sought, quite strategically, not only to use socialism as a spectre against which to discursively frame her own policies, but also to attack the social and institutional support bases of socialism in Britain and elsewhere, so was the embrace of neoliberalism by sections of the labour movement part of a reaction against socialism from within the working class and its representative organisations.

Labour’s embrace of neoliberalism was thus a reaction against socialism, against working-class democracy and against economic and political democratisation more generally, none of which have yet recovered from the devastation wrought by four decades of neoliberalisation.

Emphasis Mine

As Humphrey McQueen writes in A New Britannica, this has always been the case with the ALP. Its members preferring parlimentarism over mass action. The ALP believed that there was no class distinction in Australia.

The concept of a workers' struggle is an alien concept. The ALP was always loyal to the nation however the Capitalists defined it.

In a way, aspirationalism has always been the collar around our necks. This very idea that we could become part of respectible society only if we behaved ourselves. This carrot dangling in our faces as we hauled the cart along.

So when Capitalism was threatened by its own contradictions, the workers' organisation decided to make noble sacrifices in order to save the system. Of course, there has never been a reciporal response from our masters. Over the past 150 years, the workers have bourne the burden in order to save the system in order that we might enter into its upper ranks.

All of this talk of exploitation of the workers is drowned out by the distant soft clinking of gold coins. No one wants to question where the wealth comes form if one hopes to acquire some of that wealth some day.

Read more!