Monday, 23 May 2011

Is a better capitalism possible ?

This was said this weekend:

We need a different kind of economy, fairer to the lowest paid and demanding greater responsibility from the higher paid; broader-based, less reliant on financial services. A better capitalism.

THis was said this weekend at the Progress, the moderate labour right thinktank conference this weekend. The speech was by.... Ed Miliband. The labour leader.

Would you believe it. This new leader not even in the job a year and already we know what he is about. Although some may say we dont know nearly enough i think we can work out what kind of Britain he is after.

Lets be honest you cannot make capitalism fairer. yes you may be able to grant concessions to the working class all you like but there will always be greater wealth at the top of the economy than the bottom.

Ed Miliband ought to remember this. Gordon Brown said he had eliminated boom and bust whilst forgetting that it is in capitalisms nature for a unstable peaks and troughs of a economy. The fact that it is built on many contradictions according to Karl Marx suggests that periods of upturns and downturns are going to be repeated and repeated.

For the left to hold any illusions in this new labour leader that he will take this party in a left ward direction are sadly kidding themselves. Miliband has already spelled out that he and his party would have to make cuts all be it at a slightly less fast or as deep . But cuts all the same.

As a socialist i am against all cuts as i do not beleive they are at all nessesary. The ruling class beleives they are but they would. They want to make the working class pay for the mistakes of the bankers and the failiures of another capitalist break down.

But for a labour leader who could possibly lead our country in 2015 it is rather concerning that he still believes you can make capitalism better and fairer for the poor. This is incorrect as i previously said you can grant concessions to the working class but never provide the fruit of their labour as they will still not own it.

Only a taking over of the commanding heights of the economy where workers democratically control the economy including the banking sector nationalising all of the banks properly. Not a semi-nationalisation like Northern Rock but for real true workers ownership. Included in this the commanding heights of the economy including the wealthiest 150 or so monopolies will be brought under public workers control. All run democratically of course.

Only this way will the working class be able to fullfill their wishes and be able to afford a decent living for themselves. Miliband has been shown to not understand the way capitalism works. Perhaps he could read some of Marx's Das capital to read how the system works. As quite frankly he is lacking judgement if he and other labour members believe it can be made fairer.


  1. It might be possible to make capitalism fairer. There are market economies with various GINI's. Our approach is wrong.

    'The market knows best' is certainly a bizarre god like attitude our free market fundamentalist enemies believe.

    I think the market couldn't care less about anything more than price signals. That the market will adapt to those who are able to pay. This is why as the world economy has expanded hunger has increased. Its a function of the widening gap between rich and poor. the market is blind to human needs, it sees only price signals -what the elite are able to pay.

    We can fix this market failure by simply evening out price signals and restricting global trade.

    Local will surely know what is actually most benefitial in terms of production if their economies are not bolted on to the needs of the rich economies.

    And likewise if our disposable incomes in our own individual countries or trade blocs are very similar, then the sort of goods the economy produces - the goods the workers work to produce, will be exactly the right profile of goods for everybody.

    Redistribution of wealth, and flattening of earnings is alls that is required to make production priorities reflect real needs.

    I believe what is required is a set of very strong policies that lead a nation or nations linked to it, to be drawn in a favoured direction inexorably.

    brain fart:
    Could we have a constitutional law that forces our government to (and if it fails, an automatic general election is called) maintain GINI to a low level? So even tory government would have to abide by redistributive policies.

    Could we have a law that demand that a minimum % of the economy is owned by local councils and the state?

    Would it be safer to restrict state ownership to commanding heights and housing? Because the more the treasure gains wealth in other ways than mere taxation - the more it will be forced to see the economy holistically. Socialism should emerge from holistic thinking.

    Have you had any more thought about spanner in the works policies: UK is a medium sized nation within the worlds largest trade bloc. What happens if we, as one of the four trillion € economies abandon intellectual property + patent protection laws.

    Smashing those restrictive laws, should improve the economy of the world, and for our western sphere which still holds to the stupid notion that global trade means specialisation and that we will specialise in knowledge whilst china will specialise in factories: breaking the patent laws should throw a spanner in the works of that vague strategic idea.

  2. with regards to worker ownership? are we talking cooperatives. I wonder if we change the corporate tax structure to penalise companies which have a wide earnings gap between themselves and their employees, including agency staff who work on their premisses. If the gap is large, then tax them more.

    If the gap between staff in a company is small/hour, then they should be on a lower tax band. That would effectively in my view, forge superior business practices and a more co-operative like set of businesses.

  3. umm no not really democratic worker ownership not co operative style, that is still working within the capitalist system, it cannot produce true workers representation as they will have to come in contact with the system at some point to survive. By workers controlled ownership i meant having workers controlling the commanding heights of the economy. We wouldnt need to nationalise every fish and chip shop. Only the very heights of the economy. This will then lead to a filtering down process where workers are in control of the economy using the profits not for personal gain but for social pruposes and the bettering of society, that is essentailly what socialism is. The democratic control of the economy. Of course this would just be the first step to removing the state from peoples lives and freeing them from the grips of .capitalism