tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post3138119150863352359..comments2024-03-18T19:21:49.666+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Constructively Critiquing CorbynomicsPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-65702001106316512342015-11-10T15:11:46.224+00:002015-11-10T15:11:46.224+00:00“every pound spent attracts two pounds' worth ...“every pound spent attracts two pounds' worth of private investment”<br /><br />And the only reason you get private investment is because the private investor expects £3 for every £2 they put in!! In other words we are ultimately paying for the private investment; the private investor is just making shit loads of money. I have seen these people on Location, Location, Location and A place in the Sun:Home or Away, these people are not struggling for finances!<br /><br />Bynre is spouting nothing new, just old New Labour guff in sheep’s clothing.<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-46491398872058864182015-11-10T09:37:27.240+00:002015-11-10T09:37:27.240+00:00Hi Phil
I did a quick blog just on the corp gov a...Hi Phil<br /><br />I did a quick blog just on the corp gov aspects of the speech. Shift away from shareholder primacy is kinda interesting but I'm not convinced there is much to see here.<br /><br />http://labourandcapital.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/liam-byrnes-speech-bit-wrong-bit.html<br /><br />Cheers<br />TomTom Powdrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511483398745094803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-70482297684164396822015-11-09T18:10:52.529+00:002015-11-09T18:10:52.529+00:00David,
The problem is, how do you deal with the f...David,<br /><br />The problem is, how do you deal with the fact that the majority of people, including the working-class, are indeed driven by individual desires? The weakness of trades unions, and why typically a minority have only been members of them, is precisely that. Capitalism atomises workers, and other collectives than class often arise as more powerful.<br /><br />Indeed, as Lenin points out, trades unions themselves are not actually most of the time acting to pursue and promote class interest, but only sectional interest - look at TU positions on Trident for example.<br /><br />TU's have usually also recruited on the basis that the best way of the individual pursuing their own self interest is by such collective action. So, it seems to me that extending that approach, is sensible, certainly in social democratic terms.<br /><br />But, in that case, some of the other points in Byrne's approach are at best timid, if not just wrong. If you are going to promote such entrepreneurial socialism, and steal the clothes of aspiration, why talk about increased shareholder rights? The actual problem today, within the confines of capitalism, and as even Andy Haldane and Hillary Clinton have recognised is existing corporate structures, which give too much power to shareholders, so that shareholder value is privileged over the actual needs of the business for investment in productive-capital.<br /><br />In Social-democratic terms what is needed is a reduction in shareholder rights, and a return to the idea put forward by marx that such firms already do represent socialised capital, as much as a co-operative, that the capital belongs to the firm itself, and the shareholders are mere lenders of money to it, upon which they are entitled only to receive the average rate of interest, in the form of dividends.<br /><br />As in german Social democracy, the social capital owned by the firm should be controlled by the firm itself, and so the governing board should be elected by those who work in it, including the managers. That suggests a return to the ideas of the Bullock Report, and so on.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting that is a socialist solution, but it would be a more consistent social democratic solution than that put forward by Byrne.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-70547501827261734502015-11-09T15:17:13.646+00:002015-11-09T15:17:13.646+00:00I seem to be between you and other commenters.
My...I seem to be between you and other commenters.<br /><br />My gut reaction (as posted in comments at The Guardian) was "who are you and what have you done with the real Liam Byrne?"<br /><br />I think there is real progress in Byrne admitting (esp. when you compare with the main failed candidates from the leadership election) that actually, there are problems with British capitalism.<br /><br />I feel he's too defeatist about global corporations. We can do better than we are doing at holding them to account. Some are indeed very powerful, but many of them are not going to sacrifice the UK market just because we ask them to behave better in particular ways.<br /><br />The contributory principle stuff is a red flag to me though. It shows me that like so many "big talkers" from the right of the party, who are keen to say "the world has changed" he's not actually thought through what the change means.<br /><br />Further, while I'm always up for more science investment, I don't think that begins to address the question of how we build an economy for the future. We need a working theory of what it means to be a national economy in this era and what elements prosperity hinges upon. I'd propose that energy is probably at the centre of it all, but I'm open to other ideas - but Byrne doesn't appear to really notice the problem.Metatonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-15407761670269981902015-11-08T21:14:45.787+00:002015-11-08T21:14:45.787+00:00What Byrne is saying is sodding Blairism, no matte...What Byrne is saying is sodding Blairism, no matter what guff you sell it as. All that shit about teaching 'entrepreneurialism', as if everyone can sell something to someone else in a world of huge multinationals where people are increasingly fighting it out to sell themselves as casual labour.<br /><br />Blairism depended on the idea that neoliberalism would benefit everyone as long as they were given incentives and punishments to enable/force them to compete effectively. It was rubbish then and it's rubbish now, though at least Blair had a bit more salesmanship about him. Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-24580877400512522922015-11-08T20:54:36.482+00:002015-11-08T20:54:36.482+00:00You really are being too generous to Byrne. There ...You really are being too generous to Byrne. There has been no Damascane conversion. This is still neoliberalism, though full marks to the man for trying to spin it otherwise. <br /><br />The philosophical key is his notion of the individual as an entrepreneur (which I'm sure you recognise from Foucault's "entrepreneur of himself"). This leads logically to the idea that socialism can be defined as a process whereby we each, as individuals, contribute to the common good. Help us win that global race with China (see Byrne's 2013 tome, <a href="http://fromarsetoelbow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-many-faces-of-liam-byrne_2.html" rel="nofollow">'Turning to Face the East: How Britain Can Prosper in the Asian Century'</a>). Of course, socialism is actually about collective action, not individual striving.<br /><br />"Super funds" means concentrating social capital, which in turn means fat fees and leverage opportunities for City professionals. You can take the boy out of the merchant bank, but you can't take the merchant bank out of the boy. "Enhanced shareholder voting rights" means privileging incumbents, i.e. domestic capitalists. This is an idea that was popularised by David Sainsbury in 2013's <a href="http://fromarsetoelbow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-revolution-devours-its-children.html" rel="nofollow">'Progressive Capitalism'</a>, many of whose ideas Byrne is recycling, not least the tired old workhorse of stakeholder capitalism. This is the sort of guff that gives Martin Kettle and Will Hutton a hard-on.<br /><br />I loved your upbeat take on his plan for primary reasearch: "we need to be pouring more public money into science investment - every pound spent attracts two pounds' worth of private investment". I believe that is what economists call as subsidy. There are very few genuinely "public" research bodies any longer. They've long been compromised by private funding and Whitehall's "business-friendly" straitjacket.<br /><br />Byrne's loyalty to the contributory principle rather gives the game away. This is a view of society that has not advanced since the days of Beveridge, despite the obvious revolutions in the economy and the disposition of social power. The common ground between Byrne and Corbyn is a desire to resurrect the social democratic, interventionist state. One sees it as a way of helping the people negotiate capitalism, the other as a way of helping capitalism control its antisocial impulses. Both are out of date, but at least one is ethically attractive.David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.com