Socialism v capitalism

[John Shelton]

Harvey seems to preach to a growth rate of 3 % when very few western societies have seen such growth levels on a consistent basis in the twentieth century.

The figure isn't Harvey's - the 3% is an IMF projection from the mid 2000s. I don't have the book to hand so can't give the reference.

[ahinton]

It seems heliocentric has several criticisms of his ideas which he's choosing to ignore.

1) He's demonstrated no resource constraint which would stop growth. Some materials may be in short supply from time to time (due to uneven geographical distribution), but nothing that would stop it altogether. Where's the lesson in entropy and thermodynamics?
2) He's completely ignored PhilipT's excellent example of growth through innovation when in fact this has been a massive source of growth in the twentieth centrury. And innovation is very far from done.
3) Marx predicted increasing exploitation of the workforce as capitalism slowed, but in fact the west has seemingly exchanged greater growth for shorter working weeks, and increased leisure time. No sign of exploitation here. Every sign that the workforce happily swaps leisure for growth.
4) Mills pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the concept of zero growth. It doesn't mean that capitalism has to end. Harvey seems to preach to a growth rate of 3 % when very few western societies have seen such growth levels on a consistent basis in the twentieth century.

I agree with you about 1) and 2). 3), however, is true only to the extent of the limit of such exploitation of employees and it surely remains the case that there are far too many workers the world over whose labour is exploited unreasonably and who, by dint of the abuse of capitalist practice, are forced to their own severe detriment to provide it at well below its proper market value. I also agree with you about 4) except to the extent that Harvey's reference to the phenomenon of 3% growth is presented for the purposes of theoretical illustration rather than in a context of "preaching", so I think that you do Harvey something of a disservice here. I do not endorse some of what Harvey writes but he is a political and economic thinker whose ideas are far too important and well-considered to ignore, let alone dismiss.

[John Shelton]

In the sense that I sought to illustrate an issue of mutual incompatibility, I rather think that I do and I appreciate your correction; thanks! I hope, nevertheless, that the sense of what I wrote was not unduly undermined by this error.

Indeed no; I got the idea .

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Ney Nonymous
I'm quoting heliocentric:

Indeed. And in order for that value to be added (at a compound rate) more value needs to be added as time goes on, that is to say more sources of profit need to be found, which historically has meant "opening up new markets". David Harvey writes in 2010:

If we are to get back to three percent growth, then this means finding new and profitable global investment opportunities for $1.6 trillion in 2010 rising to closer to $3 trillion by 2030. This contrasts with the $0.15 trillion new investment needed in 1950 and the $0.42 trillion needed in 1973 (the dollar figures are inflation adjusted). Real problems of finding adequate outlets for surplus capital began to emerge after 1980, even with the opening up of China and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. The difficulties were in part resolved by creation of fictitious markets where speculation in asset values could take off unhindered. Where will all this investment go now?

Your answer?

And is your point material? Let's say 2 %; or 1 % growth. Plenty of western societies thriving on values like that.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

ahinton
I agree about not ignoring Harvey, but I'm not about to become an acolyte.

[John Shelton]

Ney NonymousI'm quoting heliocentric:

Sure, but "If we are to get back to three percent growth ..." is a quote from Harvey and Harvey hasn't plucked 3% from nowhere. The IMF didn't see western societies thriving on 2% or 1% growth - but I'd need to look the passage up in the book. Which I will try to do at some stage over the weekend.

[teamsaint]

i find myself inclined to agree with AIC for once. There is a good deal less "shortage" of all sorts of resources , than we are led to believe.
The fear of shortage is frequently used by asset contollers and their government (sock)puppets to contol and exploit the populations of the world.

I am sure you can find plenty of examples. There are also plenty of example of misuse of resources. War is a prime example of course.It might be a worthwhile exercise to look for examples of companies on all sides that survived and thrived through the huge conflicts of the C20.

Where i think I disagree with AIC is that the economic success of the west has surely been built on exploiting the developing world..perhaps he meant that it didn't HAVE to be that way, just that this was how it in fact did happen.

[amateur51]

3) Marx predicted increasing exploitation of the workforce as capitalism slowed, but in fact the west has seemingly exchanged greater growth for shorter working weeks, and increased leisure time. No sign of exploitation here. Every sign that the workforce happily swaps leisure for growth.

Really? The greater part of the Housing Benefit bill which this government is so keen to reduce is in fact paid to families where both parents are working and where they live in private rented accommodation, the cosrt of which is unregulated. Furthermore, this Government is hell-bent on increasing social housing rents so that they reached 80% of private rented sector
rents.

[teamsaint]

Really? The greater part of the Housing Benefit bill which this government is so keen to reduce is in fact paid to families where both parents are working and where they live in private rented accommodation, the cosrt of which is unregulated. Furthermore, this Government is hell-bent on increasing social housing rents so that they reached 80% of private rented sector
rents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/20/britishidentity.health

http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hrreview-articles/health-safety/stress-levels-increase-as-uk-employees-work-more-hours-according-to-towers-watson-study/39039

There is plenty of evidence that working hours are tending to increase in recent times.

[scottycelt]

The evolution of capitalism was accompanied by the greatest ever expansion of colonialism and neo-colonialism in human history.

Wasn't that more a result of competitive nationalism rather than capitalism?

After all, communist powers like the old Soviet Union was never particularly renowned for any lesser degree of expansionism and even had border skirmishes with its fellow-communist neighbour,China, over territory.. ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Wasn't that more a result of competitive nationalism rather than capitalism?

After all, communist powers like the old Soviet Union was never particularly renowned for any lesser degree of expansionism and even had border skirmishes with its fellow-communist neighbour,China, over territory.. ?

I could have added nationalism to my list of "greatest ever expansions", given the 19th century nation state's growth as an expression of the same phenomenon.

[heliocentric]

After all, communist powers like the old Soviet Union was never particularly renowned for any lesser degree of expansionism and even had border skirmishes with its fellow-communist neighbour,China, over territory.. ?

The evolution of capitalism through colonial expansion S_A is talking about here took place in the 18th and 19th centuries; there was no Soviet Union, and China was one of the principal victims. You are of course entirely correct that the USSR was concerned with expansionism for similar reasons to the colonial powers and later the USA, but that's because in many ways it functioned as a "state capitalist" system, which by that time (as has been pointed out here numerous times) had very little to do with communism.

[scottycelt]

The evolution of capitalism through colonial expansion S_A is talking about here took place in the 18th and 19th centuries; there was no Soviet Union, and China was one of the principal victims. You are of course entirely correct that the USSR was concerned with expansionism for similar reasons to the colonial powers and later the USA, but that's because in many ways it functioned as a "state capitalist" system, which by that time (as has been pointed out here numerous times) had very little to do with communism.

No doubt you'll be astonished to learn that I simply cannot agree with you ...

You are correct that the claim that the old Soviet Union was 'not really communist' has been expressed many times on this forum. That fact alone surely does not add further particular weight to the actual validity of the claim. If we mean by 'communism' full state control and public ownership, completely divorced from the world capitalist system, I can think of few better examples than the USSR. To suggest its aggressive foreign expansionism was in some way 'capitalist' is interesting and requires quite a bit of dictionary definition-changing of the word.

I would suggest that 'communist' China is the much better example of 'state capitalism'. In fact without its provision of credit and its current status as 'the workshop of the world' the whole capitalist system would almost certainly have entered a deep depression in 2008 which would almost certainly have still existed today.

It can also be argued that some on the Left tend to be bit selective when pointing to the 'failures' of capitalism. Greece is often cited but rich little Switzerland, say, is completely ignored. The USA is held up as the perfect example of 'capitalist' foreign policy but plenty of other countries which exist within the world capitalist system have an entirely separate foreign agenda.

Can any member here point to a country that they consider truly 'communist' and which has survived? I can think of only Cuba which has defied the odds to a quite remarkable degree, especially considering its geographical position. Whether the system there can be termed 'successful' I am certainly in no position to judge, and shall simply leave that to those with a forum-acceptable 'informed view' on the matter to come to their own conclusions.

[heliocentric]

If we mean by 'communism' full state control and public ownership, completely divorced from the world capitalist system, I can think of few better examples than the USSR. To suggest its aggressive foreign expansionism was in some way 'capitalist' is interesting and requires quite a bit of dictionary definition-changing of the word.

"We" mean by communism the political system outlined in Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, strangely enough, to which the USSR under Stalin and subsequently certainly did not conform. In addition it did not involve public ownership and was not divorced from the world capitalist system.

You may not be familiar with the concept of "state capitalism" but it is a current and respected idea among socialists who seek explanations for the political direction taken by the USSR under Stalin, and was first described in Tony Cliff's book State Capitalism in Russia in 1955.

[amateur51]

Can any member here point to a country that they consider truly 'communist' and which has survived? I can think of only Cuba which has defied the odds to a quite remarkable degree, especially considering its geographical position. Whether the system there can be termed 'successful' I am certainly in no position to judge, and shall simply leave that to those with a forum-acceptable 'informed view' on the matter to come to their own conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala