Permanent Revolution

Bill on Mon 15, January 2007 @ 18:33

Bill — 2007-01-15 18:33:46

There's an amusing example of the L5I's doublethink in their latest "theses on the world situation". Summarising the world economy today they write:
"11. The present business cycle of the world economy seems to be at its peak or has already passed it. The world economy grew by 3.4% in 2005 and the World Bank predicts GDP growth in 2006 of 3.9% and 3.2% in 2007. The slowdown has already begun in the world’s strongest economy, the United States. As a result of the bursting of the housing bubble, declining productivity growth etc., overall GDP growth has fallen back sharply. Other economies, like the EU, are somewhat behind in the cycle and are approaching the peak of the cycle just now. Contrary to the claims of the bourgeois globalisation enthusiasts (plus their left-wing stooges) the present cycle in no way express a new “long wave” of economic upswing of global capitalism but rather a continuation of its crisis and declining growth rates."

For the L5I the proof of declining growth rates is the fact that they have increased from 3.4% to 3.9%!

Funnily enough they said the same thing last year: "The business cycle is at – or even just past – the peak of the business cycle. The next 12 months we will probably witness a slowdown." (2006 British perspectives) I dare say they'll be right in the end!

They also claim that: "The imperialist epoch’s general tendency towards decline express itself in the present period by over-accumulation of capital and the profit rate’s tendency to decline..." But of course don't even try to produce any figures to prove that...

John on Wed 17, January 2007 @ 13:40

John — 2007-01-17 13:40:34

On the discovery that we are now "stooges" of the bourgeoisie. At the WP day school in Leeds Steve McS after regaling the audience with the usual adjectives, in summary PR are "demoralised labour aristocrats who didn't want to do anything" commented on the differences that "we will see who is right", implying the possibility at least that we may be right. If we are right, does that mean that the LFI are stooges of the bourgeoise?

Sean on Mon 22, January 2007 @ 21:11

Sean — 2007-01-22 21:11:22

Is having a different economic interpretation really a good enough reason to be a separate organisation publishing a magazine aimed at already-Marxist readers, rather than being actively involved in bringing Marxism to fellow workers?

Bill on Mon 22, January 2007 @ 22:20

Bill — 2007-01-22 22:20:18

On the face of it no, of course Marxists should be able to have different perspectives and remain within the same organisation. The problem with WP/LFI was that behind the dispute over perspectives lay a refusal to honestly appraise the world as it existed. Instead of an assessment of existing reality we had empty phrases and insults. Attempts to base perspectives on experience, the "highest criterion of human reason" according to Trotsky, were denounced as "empiricism". Anyone who disagreed with the notion that the world economy was "stagnant", showing "a tendency to stagnation", that rates of profit were "falling", or that the world was anything other than in a "pre-revolutionary period" were denounced as "pessimistic labour aristocrats who didn't care about the poor" and who "wanted good news for capitalism." And to add injury to insult we were forbidden from publically expressing our assessment of the changes in the world situation which had arisen as a result of the restoration of capitalism in the former Stalinist states and the defeats of the workers in the key OECD countries. We were literally banned from bringing "Marxism to fellow workers", hence we had no option but to split.

Richard B on Tue 23, January 2007 @ 02:46

Richard B — 2007-01-23 02:46:47

Overall, this is a very good critique of Harman's simplistic and, as you say, dishonest assessment of the world today. It is weakened, however, by a couple of straightforward mis-readings (I trust) of what Harman actually wrote. you write: "But far from being a third worldist notion, the idea that imperialism exploits the world through the export of finance capital is a thoroughly Leninist one." But nowhere does Harman claim tht this is not so. He writes - as you quote - "The old “third worldist” notion that capitalism lives mainly off the exploitation of the poorer countries of the “Global South” does not fit with the realities of the system today.” (my emphasis). Andon that, he is right, capitalist profits do still mainly originate outside of the third world. Of course Harman and the SWP have always denied the degree to which the west does super-exploit the third world, and his description of the 'third worldist' position is dubious, to say the least, but those are different criticisms to the ones you have made. Earlier in that paragraph you say that Harman "wants to down play the significance of the “emerging” or “transition” economies to world capitalism" and then use the examples of Brazil, China and Saudi Arabia to show how he ignores certain such countires. However, Harman specifically includes all these countries as of great importance - "So a map of the world in terms of importance for capitalist exploitation would be dominated by Europe, North America, Japan, China, Brazil, Mexico and the three or four largest oil and gas producers". Contrary to your implication that these countires are ignored if they are 'world leaders' in any area, he explicitly points out tht Brazil is the world largest sugar producer. Harman does not agree with you that such countries are 'semi-colonies', they are simjply 'less developed' countries. Again, you might well argue that he is wrong to do so, but you have to argue that, not that he simply ignores their economic importance. It'd be a shame if such a good critique were dismissed because of a couple of simple errors.

Richard B on Tue 23, January 2007 @ 02:58

Richard B — 2007-01-23 02:58:33

oh, and I was under the impressoin that you hadn't 'split', and that you had in fact been expelled.

Bill on Tue 23, January 2007 @ 10:03

Bill — 2007-01-23 10:03:46

Fair point up to a point, but as you demonstrate the purpose of this downplaying of the degree of exploitation of the third world is to try to write off the significance of the enlargement of world capitalism by the integration of the economies of the former workers states. He implies that reference to the signifiance of imperialist exploitation of the world is "third worldist", he wants to downplay the degree to which the parasitism of the major imperialists particularly the USA arises through the exploitation specifically of the "third world". In terms of the reference to Brazil and Saudi Arabia it was around his use of the USA's cereal exports to try to down play the importance of the "third world" as a source of raw materials. That he later includes these very economies shows the contradictions in his own argument. As for being expelled and not leaving that is of course also true...our bags were packed but we didn't have the opportunity to carry them through the door.

Richard B on Wed 24, January 2007 @ 03:58

Richard B — 2007-01-24 03:58:51

"In terms of the reference to Brazil and Saudi Arabia it was around his use of the USA's cereal exports to try to down play the importance of the "third world" as a source of raw materials. That he later includes these very economies shows the contradictions in his own argument." No, no! He is denying that those countires are 'third worldist' at all. Thus there is no contradiction for him. What he seriously fudges is whether those countires are now actually imperialist.

Bill on Wed 24, January 2007 @ 14:18

Bill — 2007-01-24 14:18:29

Essentially what Harman is trying to say is that the impact of the "third world" countries on the world economy is very small, to the point that even in the supply of raw materials they are not significant players. Therefore he quotes figures for the top ten of non-oil exports to show that only Brazil and Chile are included there. This is on a par with his emphasis on the quantity of investment to the major countries etc and what's more again ignores the trend, check out this report for example.

http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/CIB_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000199956.pdf