tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post965832827381187727..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: iPads and SocialismPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-91605187916197924262015-12-07T10:05:02.374+00:002015-12-07T10:05:02.374+00:00Once again we see the complete collapse into illog...Once again we see the complete collapse into illogicality by BCFG, which comes from being a troll, only interested in perpetuating silly arguments, by denying and opposing, for the sake of it what others say.<br /><br />He begins by accusing Boffy of wanting to enrich private capitalists. There is no reason Boffy or any other Marxist would want to do that, of course, but making such unfounded allegations are the basis of the arguments put by trolls.<br /><br />He accuses Boffy and Matthew of "apologism for private appropriation!"<br /><br />And what does BCFG end up arguing - that the payment of dividends to private money-capitalists, i.e. shareholders is a good thing!!! In other words, the worst kind of apologism for private appropriation!!!<br /><br />We will leave aside the illogicality of arguing that paying dividends, which are a deduction from profit, can in any sense be argued to be conducive to accumulation, or that Marx showed extensively how the payment of such interest had the exact opposite effect, precisely because it goes to fund revenue rather capital!<br /><br />Ari.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-19390107985701980692015-12-06T15:42:18.509+00:002015-12-06T15:42:18.509+00:00No one doubts that shareholders are interested in ...No one doubts that shareholders are interested in things other than dividends. That's partly the point. They are interested in short term capital gains, by share prices being inflated, which is why many only hold shares for very short periods.<br /><br />To suggest that paying dividends or paying higher dividends is the cause of higher growth, and greater accumulation, is sheer nonsense. A firm that pays dividends does not have those dividends to accumulate. Exactly what consequence of paying dividends do you argue causes growth to increase?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-39066811220678786582015-12-06T15:37:40.123+00:002015-12-06T15:37:40.123+00:00The rest of your argument is quite honestly confus...The rest of your argument is quite honestly confused gibberish. Firstly, I have not been led astray by anyone, thank you very much. I am quite able to read and understand things for myself. In addition, the argument here has nothing to do with Chapter 32 of Capital Volume1, it, is taken directly from Chapter 27 of Capital Volume III, as well as from Engels comments in his Critique of the Erfurt Programme.<br /><br />You previously argued that Engels' comments related to the socialised nature of production and private appropriation. But, all of capitalist production is based upon socialised production! That, indeed, is the point about Volume I, Chapter 32. And your interpretation of that that it is about the transformation from capitalist production to socialist production is quite clearly wrong given Engels comments, and given Marx' comments in Capital III, not to mention Kautsky's comments. On the basis of your argument there is absolutely no difference between the private capitalist production of the early period, which is based upon socialised production, but capital as private property, and the socialised capitalist production of the later period, of the joint stock company and the co-operative!<br /><br />In both these cases, production is socialised. The point is that in the latter case, the capital itself is no longer private property, but is socialised property. The capital belongs to the firm not to the private capitalist, not to the bondholders, not to the shareholders, but as Marx puts it to the “associated producers”, i.e. the workers and managers within the firm!<br /><br />As Engels puts it,<br /><br />“Capitalist production by joint-stock companies is no longer private production but production on behalf of many associated people. And when we pass on from joint-stock companies to trusts, which dominate and monopolise whole branches of industry, this puts an end not only to private production but also to planlessness.”<br /><br />If there is no difference between capital as private property, as in the case of the privately owned firm, and capital as socialised property, as in the case of the joint stock company or co-operative, then Engels' comment above is meaningless, and so is Marx's comment,<br /><br />““The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.” <br /><br />Nor too would Marx’s analysis of how this capital becomes social capital rather than capital as private property make any sense.<br /><br />“The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself...<br /><br />It is the point of departure for the capitalist mode of production; its accomplishment is the goal of this production. In the last instance, it aims at the expropriation of the means of production from all individuals. With the development of social production the means of production cease to be means of private production and products of private production, and can thereafter be only means of production in the hands of associated producers, i.e., the latter's social property, much as they are their social products.”<br /><br />(Capital III, Chapter 27) <br /><br />Which rather clearly refutes everything you have been saying!<br /><br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-86751675190296883972015-12-06T15:36:40.453+00:002015-12-06T15:36:40.453+00:00You haven't answered the point that shares are...You haven't answered the point that shares are not capital! Marx and Engels explain at length that neither shares, nor bonds, nor other forms of loan certificate such as mortgages are capital, but are only fictitious capital.<br /><br />In fact, would you like to explain what in your opinion is the distinction between a commercial bond and a share?<br /><br />“Ok, what do you think would happen if tomorrow everyone cashed in their shares? You would have the total collapse of capitalism.” <br /><br />Shareholders can only cash in their shares by selling them to someone else. If they all wanted to sell their shares, the price of those shares would collapse, but this in no sense means a destruction of capital, precisely because shares are not capital! It would not affect, the companies of whose shares they are, precisely because those companies have already obtained, the money-capital they wanted to borrow in the first place, and have bought real capital with it! In fact, Marx says that the fall in the price of these bonds, and shares is general conducive to capital.<br /><br />“Your call for lower corporate taxes on the private appropriators is a complete red herring that has no empirical justification.”<br /><br />Actually, I made no such call. I have simply pointed out that your statements about what Boffy said or didn't say were untrue, and I have pointed out that the arguments you have put show a lack of understanding of what Marx said, or even basic economics. Boffy did not call for lower corporate taxes on private appropriators, and that has been shown several times now, but you keep repeating that lie, which is the behaviour of a troll, not someone interested in a serious discussion. Boffy argued for taxing the private appropriators of dividends, and other unearned income more heavily, as well as increasing capital gains and transfer taxes. That is hardly compatible with the impression you are trying to convey, is it?<br /><br />He argued for scrapping Corporation Tax as a means of encouraging Corporate profits to be reported in the UK, and accumulated in the UK. You can think that is a good or a bad idea, but it certainly cannot be portrayed, as you are doing, as being about Boffy wanting to increase the wealth and income of private capitalists! In fact, the evasion and avoidance of corporate taxes by big business, and the difficulty of closing loopholes to prevent it, suggest it could be a good idea. It is much easier to tax dividend income at source, wherever the shareholder might live in the world.<br /><br />“is the more money they have then the more they will accumulate and the better off we will all be.”<br /><br />And why would I, and why would Boffy want to do that? The argument is nothing to do with the private capitalists appropriating more money. If they are taxed more heavily via higher dividend taxes, and capital gains taxes, as Boffy suggested they would have LESS money, whereas the socialised capital, i.e. the joint stock company or the co-operative would have more money to invest in productive capacity, without going cap in hand to money-capitalist to borrow more of it!! Its your suggestion that supports the private money-capitalists at the expense of the socialised capital, because by taking profit away in tax, that could have been reinvested, you force the socialised capital, to go into the money market to borrow additional money-capital.<br /><br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-91158790546826138252015-12-06T13:35:19.255+00:002015-12-06T13:35:19.255+00:00Links as promised:
Investors not just interested ...Links as promised:<br /><br />Investors not just interested in dividends:<br /><br />https://www.boundless.com/finance/textbooks/boundless-finance-textbook/stock-valuation-7/stock-valuation-74/relationship-between-dividend-payments-and-the-growth-rate-335-6420/<br /><br />Paying dividends leads to higher growth, more accumulation:<br /><br />https://www.researchaffiliates.com/Production%20content%20library/FAJ_Jan_Feb_2003_Surprise_Higher_Dividends_Higher_Earnings_Growth.pdfBCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-40890319973722111382015-12-06T12:30:43.837+00:002015-12-06T12:30:43.837+00:00“If you don't understand that, you clearly hav...“If you don't understand that, you clearly haven't read Capital.”<br /><br />Ok, what do you think would happen if tomorrow everyone cashed in their shares? You would have the total collapse of capitalism. Why do you think joint stock companies exist in the first place? The money they raise through issuing shares is used to invest in the company. I.e. they use the money raised from shares to invest in machines, equipment, buildings etc. You are not seeing capitalism as a circuit, as a thing in motion. The way you have framed the question you may as well say that every £1 spent a beer by a worker is a £1 that could have been used by the capitalist to accumulate more!<br /><br />Investors, i.e. people who buy shares are not just interested in dividends, they are interested in the profitability of the company and its potential for future growth.<br /><br />And the evidence also suggests that paying out dividends is no barrier to accumulation. I will post the links to these articles in another comment.<br /><br />Your call for lower corporate taxes on the private appropriators is a complete red herring that has no empirical justification. In fact implied in the argument is that we should just reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. Because implied in your argument, whether you admit it or not, is the more money they have then the more they will accumulate and the better off we will all be. <br /><br />Boffy has completely led you astray because he interprets chapter 32, Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation in volume one of Marx’s Capital to be a story of capitalism, where it is in fact a story of the negation of capitalism and the emergence of socialism. I.e. it is a flight of fancy based on Marx’s historical materialist method. Let us look at what Marx says,<br /><br />“The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property.”<br /><br />Clear as a bell Marx claims the capitalist mode of production produces capitalist private property. Not socialised capital, or the end of private property but capitalist private property.<br /><br />“The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property.”<br /><br />Note here Marx says capitalist private property rests on socialised production, not socialised capital or property. Engels makes this point clear in Socialism scientific and Utopian. He characterises capitalism as a contradiction between socialised production and private appropriation. This is the real story, not your guff about socialised capital.<br /><br />But here is the real clincher which proves that Marx was actually talking ultimately about socialism and not capitalism in chapter 32,<br /><br />“In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. “<br /><br />Now unless you think that capitalism is a system where a few usurpers are expropriated by the mass of the people it becomes clear Marx in this chapter characterises capitalism as a system based on capitalist private property, where a few usurpers expropriate the masses.<br /><br />Boffy actually believes that when Marx says, “The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” he is talking about capitalism and not socialism. Boffy’s whole argument rests upon this scandalous misinterpretation of Marx and he is clearly sucking some fools into his devilish scheme.<br /><br />Read that chapter again and tell me with a straight face that Boffy isn’t completely wrong. And that you haven’t been led astray.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-43800538435435503712015-12-06T11:16:18.478+00:002015-12-06T11:16:18.478+00:00“If you don't understand that, you clearly hav...“If you don't understand that, you clearly haven't read Capital.”<br /><br />Ok, what do you think would happen if tomorrow everyone cashed in their shares? You would have the total collapse of capitalism. Why do you think joint stock companies exist in the first place? The money they raise through issuing shares is used to invest in the company. I.e. they use the money raised from shares to invest in machines, equipmentetc. You are not seeing capitalism as a circuit, as a thing in motion. The way you have framed the question you may as well say that every £1 spent a beer by a worker is a £1 that could have been used by the capitalist to accumulate more!<br /><br />Investors, i.e. people who buy shares are not just interested in dividends, they are interested in the profitability of the company and its potential for future growth, as this article makes clear:<br /><br />https://www.boundless.com/finance/textbooks/boundless-finance-textbook/stock-valuation-7/stock-valuation-74/relationship-between-dividend-payments-and-the-growth-rate-335-6420/<br /><br />And the evidence also suggests that paying out dividends is no barrier to accumulation, as this study shows:<br /><br />https://www.researchaffiliates.com/Production%20content%20library/FAJ_Jan_Feb_2003_Surprise_Higher_Dividends_Higher_Earnings_Growth.pdf<br /><br />Your call for lower corporate taxes on the private appropriators is a complete red herring that has no empirical justification. In fact implied in the argument is that we should just reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. Because implied in your argument, whether you admit it or not, is the more money they have then the more they will accumulate and the better off we will all be. <br /><br />Boffy has completely led you astray because he interprets chapter 32, Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation in volume one of Marx’s Capital to be a story of capitalism, where it is in fact a story of the negation of capitalism and the emergence of socialism. I.e. it is a flight of fancy based on Marx’s historical materialist method. Let us look at what Marx says,<br /><br />“The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property.”<br /><br />Clear as a bell Marx claims the capitalist mode of production produces capitalist private property. Not socialised capital, or the end of private property but capitalist private property.<br /><br />“The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is...than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property.”<br /><br />Note here that Marx says capitalist private property rests on socialised production, not socialised capital or socialised property. Engels makes this point clear in Socialism scientific and Utopian. He characterises capitalism as a contradiction between socialised production and private appropriation. This is the real story, not your guff about socialised capital.<br /><br />But here is the real clincher which proves that Marx was actually talking ultimately about socialism and not capitalism in chapter 32,<br /><br />“In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. “<br /><br />Now unless you think that capitalism is a system where a few usurpers are expropriated by the mass of the people it becomes clear that Marx in this chapter clearly characterises capitalism as a system based on capitalist private property, where a few usurpers expropriate the masses.<br /><br />Boffy actually believes that when Marx says, “The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” he is talking about capitalism and not socialism. Boffy’s whole argument rests upon this scandalous misinterpretation of Marx and he is clearly sucking some fools into his devilish scheme.<br /><br />Read that chapter again and tell me with a straight face that Boffy isn’t completely wrong. And that you haven’t been led astray. And then tell me I am the irrational one!BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-26285277182474612712015-12-05T15:17:54.639+00:002015-12-05T15:17:54.639+00:00"No they don't, most certainly not in the..."No they don't, most certainly not in the way you have framed the question with regard to lowering corporate taxes."<br /><br />Yes, they do. Shares are fictitious capital, as are bonds and other such certificates. If you don't understand that, you clearly haven't read Capital.<br /><br />"This is absurd. The point Engels is making is that production is socialised and appropriation is private."<br /><br />So how do you think production is possible under capitalism without capital? It is that very capital that is socialised, and no longer private property. Moreover, the appropriation itself, in the first instance is also socialised, as Marx sets out in analysing revenues, because no appropriation occurs prior to the surplus value being realised, and the surplus value is realised by and appropriated by the socialised capital. Only then, as Marx sets out is it divided into interest (dividends), rent, and profit of enterprise.<br /><br />"Dogma, pure and simple. And not a fact but an assertion. And moreover apologism for private appropriation!"<br /><br />Well if you mean by dogma it was the conclusion that Marx, Engels, Kautsky and Trotsky amongst others arrived at, then that is true. What does it have to do with apologism for private appropriation? <br /><br />"But if they are making such profits why would they need to invest anyway!"<br /><br />Firstly, to make more profits, which is the nature of capital, and secondly to be able to beat the competition, which is required for survival.<br /><br />"More likely is that investment is down because the returns on that investment are not forthcoming."<br /><br />Except there has been large amounts of profits, and growth of earnings. The point is why would you invest in something that might give you 10%, when you can speculate and make a 50% capital gain?<br /><br />"And evidence also suggests that companies that pay dividends have higher earnings growth."<br /><br />Where is your evidence for that? Microsoft, had massive earnings growth for years, but never paid a dividend. But, logic suggests that it is higher earnings growth that enables dividends to be paid, not vice versa. Indeed, that is part of Marx's explanation of the relation between profits and interest.<br /><br />"Looking at your last response I would wholeheartedly agree that you are incapable of having a sensible argument with me!"<br /><br />To be honest, looking at your comments in the round, I think I have to agree with others that its impossible for you to have a rational discussion with anyone. And to be honest, I don't think that rational discussion is really what you intend.<br /><br />Matthew. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-68021207176626944762015-12-05T13:38:48.620+00:002015-12-05T13:38:48.620+00:00Matthew,
"Marx and Engels, in Capital, most ...Matthew,<br /><br />"Marx and Engels, in Capital, most explicitly state that they are not, and explain, at length why they are not."<br /><br />No they don't, most certainly not in the way you have framed the question with regard to lowering corporate taxes.<br /><br />"which is why he and Engels say that it is the abolition of capital as private property."<br /><br />This is absurd. The point Engels is making is that production is socialised and appropriation is private. It is a contradiction which characterises advanced capitalism. Do you see the distinction and the importance of it?<br /><br />"Because it is even more difficult for workers to be able to obtain any control, when it is exercised by the capitalist state than when it is exercised by the representatives of shareholders."<br /><br />Dogma, pure and simple. And not a fact but an assertion. And moreover apologism for private appropriation!<br /><br />"The argument is about the extent to which profits are being paid out as dividends, rather than invested, as opposed to tax policy per se."<br /><br />But if they are making such profits why would they need to invest anyway! The logic just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. More likely is that investment is down because the returns on that investment are not forthcoming. And evidence also suggests that companies that pay dividends have higher earnings growth. Your theory is incoherent.<br /><br />"So, its probably a waste of anybody's time trying to have a sensible discussion with you."<br /><br />Looking at your last response I would wholeheartedly agree that you are incapable of having a sensible argument with me!<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-80618370222890739102015-12-03T19:46:37.393+00:002015-12-03T19:46:37.393+00:00"So shares are capital"
Marx and Engels..."So shares are capital"<br /><br />Marx and Engels, in Capital, most explicitly state that they are not, and explain, at length why they are not.<br /><br />"Most joint stock companies are owned by wealthy shareholders."<br /><br />No. they are not, as Marx sets out. The shares are owned by wealthy shareholders, but as marx demonstrates the capital itself is owned by the firm. It is socialised, as Marx says quite clearly, which is why he and Engels say that it is the abolition of capital as private property.<br /><br />"But if you want to give more power to ‘socialised capital’ why bother with these unproven and tinkering at the margins solutions and instead call for the top 200 companies to be nationalised?"<br /><br />Because it is even more difficult for workers to be able to obtain any control, when it is exercised by the capitalist state than when it is exercised by the representatives of shareholders.<br /><br />But, the same argument would apply that say a nationalised coal firm should retain its profits, so as to be able to reinvest them in productive-capital, rather than be taken as Corporation tax by the state, or siphoned off in other ways by the capitalist state to provide revenue for private capitalists or their state.<br /><br />"What evidence? And there is also plenty of evidence to suggest the reason for lack of investment has little to do with tax policy."<br /><br />Michael Roberts recently gave the figures about the increase in the proportion of company cash reserves used for buying shares etc. The argument is about the extent to which profits are being paid out as dividends, rather than invested, as opposed to tax policy per se.<br /><br />You keep trying to make out that its about investment being limited by the state taking too much tax, but its been pointed out to you several times that that is not the argument.<br /><br />"The other anonymous seems to spend his time telling others who is a troll or not. Sounds like the definition of troll to me!"<br /><br />Actually, I think the way you argue, suggests they are right. So, its probably a waste of anybody's time trying to have a sensible discussion with you.<br /><br />Matthew.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-75915773199845411032015-12-03T17:44:40.203+00:002015-12-03T17:44:40.203+00:00Matthew,
“Because shares are not capital. They ar...Matthew,<br /><br />“Because shares are not capital. They are only a loan certificate.”<br /><br />I am minded here of something my economics teacher once said, if everyone took their money out of the bank capitalism would be finished. The same is true of shares. If everyone cashed in their shares the system would fall over. So shares are capital, if I borrow money to buy a machine that is capital financing, if I do it to buy a car it isn’t. You are not viewing things in motion.<br /><br />“Except what makes it socialised is not the fact that there are shareholders, but that the capital is owned by the firm itself, i.e. by the producers (workers and managers) within it, and is not private property.”<br /><br />For the record I reject the very basis of how Boffy uses the word socialised. I think his definition differs from Marx’s. Most joint stock companies are owned by wealthy shareholders. Most are not owned by the workers and managers. Are you not mixing joint stock company up with co-operatives?<br /><br />“effectively the company does not take those decisions, because with current corporate governance structures, it is the representatives of the shareholders who lend money to the company who have usurped the right to take those decisions.”<br /><br />There are companies that have never paid out any dividends. Issuing shares is often a useful way of raising capital from gullible idiots.<br /><br />“Its retaining more of it in the hands of the socialised capital, rather than it being transferred to the hands of private capitalists.”<br /><br />‘Socialised capital’ as you like to call it is effectively owned by private capitalists. As Engels said, appropriation is done by capitalists even as production itself becomes socialised. Socialsed capital doesn’t give capitalism its character but the contradiction between socialised production and private appropriation. But if you want to give more power to ‘socialised capital’ why bother with these unproven and tinkering at the margins solutions and instead call for the top 200 companies to be nationalised?<br /><br />“The evidence is that the huge cash reserves are being used to buy back shares to boost share prices, to make capital transfers to shareholders, and to buy the shares of other companies, i.e. speculation rather than investment.”<br /><br />What evidence? And there is also plenty of evidence to suggest the reason for lack of investment has little to do with tax policy.<br /><br />“The current government looks after the interests of money capitalists who lend to socialised capital, not of socialised capital!”<br /><br />Well corporate tax rates are higher in France, Australia, China, Germany and India than they are here. You focus on tax rates as the problem puzzles me, as there are so many variables at play.<br /><br />The other anonymous seems to spend his time telling others who is a troll or not. Sounds like the definition of troll to me!<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-54027277120052561672015-12-03T13:18:52.633+00:002015-12-03T13:18:52.633+00:00Matthew,
You say, to BCFG
"Boffy, never sai...Matthew,<br /><br />You say, to BCFG<br /><br />"Boffy, never said they could, and I have pointed out that fact to you several times, so why do you simply keep repeating that lie?"<br /><br />The answer is simple. Its because BCFG is a troll. BCFG asks other people questions, and misrepresents other people's statements as a matter of course, of perpetuating pointless arguments. But, he objects to answering questions about his own position, because that would expose both his lack of knowledge, and the lack of any logical argument.<br /><br />He makes silly inflammatory comments purely to provoke a response. Sad really! The best thing is to ignore him, and maybe he'll just go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-32300185160308762852015-12-03T11:33:36.329+00:002015-12-03T11:33:36.329+00:00“Boffy’s argument is that shares undermine ‘produc...“Boffy’s argument is that shares undermine ‘production’. But if this is the case how then can joint stock companies be ‘socialised’ capital.”<br /><br />Because shares are not capital. They are only a loan certificate.<br /><br />“You want to undermine the thing that makes it socialised in the first place!”<br /><br />Except what makes it socialised is not the fact that there are shareholders, but that the capital is owned by the firm itself, i.e. by the producers (workers and managers) within it, and is not private property. A joint stock company may itself not have any shareholders, because it could buy back all of the shares itself.<br /><br />“Also, a company decides when and how much to pay in dividends.”<br /><br />Except, effectively the company does not take those decisions, because with current corporate governance structures, it is the representatives of the shareholders who lend money to the company who have usurped the right to take those decisions. That is why Haldane talks about “capital eating itself”, and why he has himself talked about the need for a reform of corporate governance.<br /><br />“Dividends are effectively paid out of profits, if you give the capitalists more profit why wouldn’t they just pay out more dividends?” <br /><br />But, where capital is socialised you don't give the capitalists more profit. The profit belongs to the socialised capital. That is the point! The point is that it raises the question of why shareholders have been allowed to usurp a right that does not belong to them. In Germany that right is limited by the Co-Determination Law, it was challenged in the UK by the Bullock Report, and has been proposed for reform in the EU. Haldane and Hillary Clinton have also now called for reform.<br /><br />Moreover, its not giving capitalists more profit. Its retaining more of it in the hands of the socialised capital, rather than it being transferred to the hands of private capitalists. If higher taxes on dividends and capital gains are introduced, it encourages capital accumulation.<br /><br />“Boffy seems to be saying that we have an accumulation problem because corporation tax is too high and the state take too much of it.”<br /><br />No what he said was that there is an accumulation problem, because too much is taken as dividends by shareholders, and as transfers to other private capitalists, and used also for speculation rather than being retained for productive investment.<br /><br />“My understanding is that companies have huge cash reserves but are not investing, so the problem isn’t one of a lack of accumulation but a lack of profitable outlets for investment.”<br /><br />The evidence is that the huge cash reserves are being used to buy back shares to boost share prices, to make capital transfers to shareholders, and to buy the shares of other companies, i.e. speculation rather than investment.<br /><br />“But if it is true that the state is effectively strangling capital accumulation and growth why the hell don’t they do what Boffy says!”<br /><br />Firstly, Boffy didn't say the state was strangling capital accumulation. Secondly, decisions on taxes are made by the government of the day, not the state. The current government looks after the interests of money capitalists who lend to socialised capital, not of socialised capital!<br /><br />“it has reduced tax on dividends for those holding shares for more than one year. Wouldn’t this be a smarter approach to the problem, for those wishing to tinker with the capitalist system?”<br /><br />No because shares are not capital, and they produce no wealth, so why would you want to encourage speculation in shares, rather than investment in real capital?<br /><br />“Germany has consistently had higher corporate tax rates than the UK, has this affected their production in relation to the UK?”<br /><br />Germany also has the Co-determination laws, so that its supervisory boards are more likely to plough back profits into accumulation than to pay them out as dividends to shareholders. <br /><br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-70655436650041911022015-12-03T11:32:36.381+00:002015-12-03T11:32:36.381+00:00“And Engels calls for taking over these productive...“And Engels calls for taking over these productive forces, he does not call for them to be smashed!”<br /><br />Except, Engels says no such thing. Engels agreed with Kautsky and the position set out in the Erfurt Programme that the capitalist state would never nationalise anything in the workers interest, and it is impossible for workers to simply take over the state, or aspects of the state such as nationalised industries! It is why, as Engels said they were opposed to all “state socialism”. It is why Engels opposed the idea of calling on that state to set up a national insurance scheme and welfare state. It is why Engels says,<br /><br />“It seems that the most advanced workers in Germany are demanding the emancipation of the workers from the capitalists by the transfer of state capital to associations of workers, so that production can be organised, without capitalists, for general account; and as a means to the achievement of this end: the conquest of political power by universal direct suffrage.”<br /><br />“There is no conception in Marxism that co-ops will take over the capitalist world market by itself. As Engels says all the existing co-ops show is that we have no need of the manufacturers and merchants!” <br /><br />Boffy, never said they could, and I have pointed out that fact to you several times, so why do you simply keep repeating that lie? He argued that the capitalists would resist, and so workers would need to form a political party to resist that, and would need to develop their own forms of state to resist the use of the existing state against them! But, in fact both Marx and Engels DID argue for the co-operative commonwealth to be developed within that context, by the spread of co-operatives, not by nationalised industry.<br /><br />“The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises. into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale.” (Marx)<br /><br />“And Marx and I never doubted that in the transition to the full communist economy we will have to use the cooperative system as an intermediate stage on a large scale.” (Engels) <br /><br />“But if we, workers, cannot take over the state, how do we stop them using the money to give handouts to ‘inefficient’ capitalists?”<br /><br />Because, it IS possible to win elections, and thereby form the government. The government is not the state! The government is able to take certain decisions, which do not threaten the rule of capital, and which therefore, will not cause the state to rise up in open rebellion against it, as it did, for example, in Chile.<br /><br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71494819484607749842015-12-02T19:50:16.756+00:002015-12-02T19:50:16.756+00:00The capitalist state is ‘socialised capital’ par e...The capitalist state is ‘socialised capital’ par excellence! Why are you making a distinction between ‘socialised capital’ and the capitalist state? As Engels said in Socialism, Scientific and Utopian,<br /><br />“State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”<br /><br />So for Engels state ownership brings things to a head more than co-ops or joint stock companies! And Engels calls for taking over these productive forces, he does not call for them to be smashed! Boffy is re-writing Marxism in his image. There is no conception in Marxism that co-ops will take over the capitalist world market by itself. As Engels says all the existing co-ops show is that we have no need of the manufacturers and merchants!<br /><br />“The argument is about whether the capitalist state should continue to take capital away from efficient, socialised capital, and give it to inefficient smaller usually private capital.”<br /><br />But if we, workers, cannot take over the state, how do we stop them using the money to give handouts to ‘inefficient’ capitalists? This is your problem, you claim we have no control over the state but make demands on how they should use the money!<br /><br />As I said earlier your whole argument is this: should we take from the left or right pocket of the capitalist.<br /><br />Boffy’s argument is that shares undermine ‘production’. But if this is the case how then can joint stock companies be ‘socialised’ capital, i.e. a transitional form of production while at the same time being a leech on real production? Are shares the problem or not? If Boffy wants ‘socialised capital’ to retain its profit but wants that same ‘socialised capital’ to not pay out dividends then what is socialised about this capital! You want to undermine the thing that makes it socialised in the first place! If a shareholder sees no value in holding shares what form does the company take? And where does the capital then come from? Also, a company decides when and how much to pay in dividends. <br /><br />Dividends are effectively paid out of profits, if you give the capitalists more profit why wouldn’t they just pay out more dividends? Boffy seems to be saying that we have an accumulation problem because corporation tax is too high and the state take too much of it. My understanding is that companies have huge cash reserves but are not investing, so the problem isn’t one of a lack of accumulation but a lack of profitable outlets for investment. But if it is true that the state is effectively strangling capital accumulation and growth why the hell don’t they do what Boffy says! For example in China corporation tax is 25%, and was 33% but this didn’t curtail production in any way whatsoever. In fact in recent years China has gone in the opposite direction, it has reduced tax on dividends for those holding shares for more than one year. Wouldn’t this be a smarter approach to the problem, for those wishing to tinker with the capitalist system? Germany has consistently had higher corporate tax rates than the UK, has this affected their production in relation to the UK? I am just not convinced by Boffy’s logic. It doesn’t seem to fit in with the empirical evidence. It is all theory without evidence.<br /><br />We haven’t even got onto effective tax rates and how these differ from the official corporation tax (and are always less!)<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-2948544792234974442015-12-02T18:28:30.059+00:002015-12-02T18:28:30.059+00:00Sorry BCFG. Your previous comment was caught by th...Sorry BCFG. Your previous comment was caught by the spam folder.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-18097238101591666482015-12-02T16:44:59.584+00:002015-12-02T16:44:59.584+00:00Does my comment get posted or not? Have I been ban...Does my comment get posted or not? Have I been banned for some reason?<br /><br />Out of courtesy please let me know as then I won't bother posting.BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52663494089180184042015-12-02T08:09:33.535+00:002015-12-02T08:09:33.535+00:00A fuller explanation of how workers build an alter...A fuller explanation of how workers build an alternative to capitalism, here and now, as described by Marx i set out <a href="http://irishmarxism.net/2015/03/02/karl-marxs-alternative-to-capitalism-part-1/" rel="nofollow">in a series of posts here</a>.<br /><br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-30470128044497581712015-12-01T21:04:57.024+00:002015-12-01T21:04:57.024+00:00The capitalist state is ‘socialised capital’ par e...The capitalist state is ‘socialised capital’ par excellence! Why are you making a distinction between ‘socialised capital’ and the capitalist state? As Engels said in Socialism, Scientific and Utopian,<br /><br />“State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”<br /><br />So for Engels state ownership brings things to a head more than co-ops or joint stock companies! And Engels calls for taking over these productive forces, he does not call for them to be smashed! Boffy is re-writing Marxism in his image. There is no conception in Marxism that co-ops will take over the capitalist world market by itself. As Engels says all the existing co-ops show is that we have no need of the manufacturers and merchants!<br /><br />“The argument is about whether the capitalist state should continue to take capital away from efficient, socialised capital, and give it to inefficient smaller usually private capital.”<br /><br />But if we, workers, cannot take over the state, how do we stop them using the money to give handouts to ‘inefficient’ capitalists? This is your problem, you claim we have no control over the state but make demands on how they should use the money!<br /><br />As I said earlier your whole argument is this: should we take from the left or right pocket of the capitalist.<br /><br />Boffy’s argument is that shares undermine ‘production’. But if this is the case how then can joint stock companies be ‘socialised’ capital, i.e. a transitional form of production while at the same time being a leech on real production? Are shares the problem or not? If Boffy wants ‘socialised capital’ to retain its profit but wants that same ‘socialised capital’ to not pay out dividends then what is socialised about this capital! You want to undermine the thing that makes it socialised in the first place! If a shareholder sees no value in holding shares what form does the company take? And where does the capital then come from? Also, a company decides when and how much to pay in dividends. <br /><br />Dividends are effectively paid out of profits, if you give the capitalists more profit why wouldn’t they just pay out more dividends? Boffy seems to be saying that we have an accumulation problem because corporation tax is too high and the state take too much of it. My understanding is that companies have huge cash reserves but are not investing, so the problem isn’t one of a lack of accumulation but a lack of profitable outlets for investment. But if it is true that the state is effectively strangling capital accumulation and growth why the hell don’t they do what Boffy says! For example in China corporation tax is 25%, and was 33% but this didn’t curtail production in any way whatsoever. In fact in recent years China has gone in the opposite direction, it has reduced tax on dividends for those holding shares for more than one year. Wouldn’t this be a smarter approach to the problem, for those wishing to tinker with the capitalist system? Germany has consistently had higher corporate tax rates than the UK, has this affected their production in relation to the UK? I am just not convinced by Boffy’s logic. It doesn’t seem to fit in with the empirical evidence. It is all theory without evidence.<br /><br />We haven’t even got onto effective tax rates and how these differ from the official corporation tax (and are always less!)<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-10456599747676598842015-12-01T13:26:22.010+00:002015-12-01T13:26:22.010+00:00Matthew,
You may find this blog post useful - Soc...Matthew,<br /><br />You may find this blog post useful - <a href="http://boffyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/socialised-capital-part-1-of-2.html" rel="nofollow">Socialised Capital</a>.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-58833608411224426452015-11-30T17:28:41.446+00:002015-11-30T17:28:41.446+00:00"So on one hand you think the more workers co...<br />"So on one hand you think the more workers control their own destiny the better but on the other hand you want more control for capitalists, giving them even more power over workers lives."<br /><br />Again I argued no such thing, and nor did Boffy. In fact, Boffy argued for taking control away from those capitalists, by referring to the fact that logically it is the workers in the factory, as in Germany, as much as the capitalists who lend money to it, who should have that control. His point, as I understand it is that its only in Co-ops where that can be properly achieved.<br /><br />" Let the market decide our fate, seems to be your motto."<br /><br />Quite the opposite. Your point earlier about co-ops handing over surplus value to a federation as a comparison with handing tax to the state is wrong, because the healthcare and so on would be paid for out of social insurance payments made by workers into their own funds, out of which these commodities would be bought, thereby reproducing the capital consumed in their production.<br /><br />But, within a co-op federation, run on that basis, it would be the workers who would decide how much to pay in contributions to cover the purchase of commodities like healthcare and so on, and to allocate the resources required for their production. They would do that to meet their own health and social needs. <br /><br />By contrast, the capitalist state sets those limits, in accordance with the needs of the market for labour-power and so on.<br /><br />"Your whole argument is built on the idea that co-ops can, by themselves, transform and replace capitalism."<br /><br />In some ways, as Marx points out they have already replaced capitalism, within the confines of the capitalist system itself. because they have abolished capital as private property in large part.<br /><br />I haven't argued that they can simply just replace capitalism and nor has Boffy. The capitalists will resist that transformation, and will have to be defeated. Then as Marx says, it will be possible to use credit, to extend co-operatives nationally and internationally, to create the Co-operative Commonwealth that Marx described.<br /> <br />Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-79067767167120575532015-11-30T17:28:08.055+00:002015-11-30T17:28:08.055+00:00"Boffy wants a law that gives more money to p..."Boffy wants a law that gives more money to private capitalists."<br /><br />No, he doesn't. He specifically argued for higher dividend taxes, and other taxes on unearned income from capital gains and so on! Increasing those taxes, whilst scrapping Corporation Tax encourages the profits to be retained by the socialised capital, for accumulation, to employ more workers and so on, rather than going to private money capitalists to spend.<br /><br />"So is your position one of giving more or less to inefficient capitalists? If you want society to be dysfunctional sign up for Austerity and start campaigning for the Tories."<br /><br />Actually, I was just pointing out that your statements about what Boffy said, are untrue. I have no desire to give more or less to inefficient or efficient capitalists. Nor was that what Boffy he said. The argument is about whether the capitalist state should continue to take capital away from efficient, socialised capital, and give it to inefficient smaller usually private capital. There is no reason why a Marxist should want the capitalist state to be able to do that.<br /><br />"These are usually hugely subsidised by the state. By your logic, this should stop as these inefficient capitalists should go to the wall! Compete or die."<br /><br />Generally, these are produce by large companies that are efficient, and profitable, but there is no reason a Marxist should support those that are not. <br /><br />"But this isn’t what you were arguing! You are claiming giving more money to capitalists will improve workers position in society."<br /><br />Except I have argued no such thing. I have merely pointed out that your claims about what Boffy said in that respect were untrue, and that applies again here. Boffy made no comments about giving money to anyone! He only argued AGAINST taking money away from socialised capital in Corporation tax, in order to give it to largely private small capitalists, in the kinds of subsidies that the state provides through in work benefits, and AGAINST giving it to private money capitalists, by arguing for a rise in dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. The very opposite of what you are claiming!<br /><br />Matthew.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-84633719998459973112015-11-29T19:47:09.663+00:002015-11-29T19:47:09.663+00:00“Besides what Boffy spoke about was not more priva...“Besides what Boffy spoke about was not more private capital, but the further accumulation of socialised capital, in the shape of co-operatives and joint stock companies, which as he says, Marx called the transitional forms of property between capitalism and socialism, which also deals with your comment that Mrx thought they were only useful experiments.”<br /><br />No, Boffy wants a law that gives more money to private capitalists. If we cut through the theory let us say I want less patients in hospital corridors, more bus routes etc and you and Boffy want more deck space on the yachts of the rich and powerful. After all you call joint stock companies ‘socialised capital’ but the richest own most of the shares. Share ownership is an unequal as wealth is generally in a capitalist system. In order to make this medicine palatable you throw in the sweetener that some of the money could be used to extend co-ops. There is enough Marxists literature out there that dismantles this argument. <br /><br />“Since when did a Marxist want to ensure the functioning of the capitalist system, rather than to build alternatives to it”<br /><br />So is your position one of giving more or less to inefficient capitalists? If you want society to be dysfunctional sign up for Austerity and start campaigning for the Tories.<br /><br />“because some of the dividends also gets used to accumulate additional capital, to produce kidney dialysis machines, or CT scanners and so on”<br /><br />These are usually hugely subsidised by the state. By your logic, this should stop as these inefficient capitalists should go to the wall! Compete or die. <br /><br />“Secondly, if socialised capital retained the surplus value it produced, then, particularly for co-operatives could provide workers owned and controlled healthcare, education and so on”<br /><br />Well, surely the co-op would then have to give up a portion of its surplus value to be used by a national federation of co-operatives in supplying health care etc? In other words it would be giving up just as happens when it is given up a portion to the state. You have done the five card trick here, moved the argument onto something different in the hope no-one would notice. If you are arguing that services would be better if they were controlled by workers rather than by capitalists then we are agreed. But this isn’t what you were arguing! You are claiming giving more money to capitalists will improve workers position in society. So on one hand you think the more workers control their own destiny the better but on the other hand you want more control for capitalists, giving them even more power over workers lives. Let the market decide our fate, seems to be your motto. Again I can’t find this in Marx. Whichever way we look at it, all you are arguing for is yet more wealth and power for the 1%. Like they don’t have enough already!<br /><br />Your whole argument is built on the idea that co-ops can, by themselves, transform and replace capitalism. Though for some unfathomable reason you also seem to think joint stock companies can fulfill this role too. Your whole argument collapses once you recognise this as the bullshit it is.<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38213363888613810922015-11-27T15:17:53.525+00:002015-11-27T15:17:53.525+00:00"For the power of capital to be limited this ..."For the power of capital to be limited this would require a massive popular upheaval on a wide scale- ie. revolution."<br /><br />I disagree. To overturn the power of capital would require that, but not to limit it. When capital grew within feudalism, as Marx describes, that is precisely what happened.<br /><br />When workers are strong, they can even temporarily, and within bounds, limit the power of capital. Other workers organisations can limit that power in other ways.<br /><br />The idea that its possible to go straight from where we are to a revolution, is a non-starter. Even Lenin points out that a revolution is usually the culmination of a whole series of previous reforms that lead up to it. Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-78673564320515215832015-11-27T12:21:26.529+00:002015-11-27T12:21:26.529+00:00The whole problem with the idea of creating 'a...The whole problem with the idea of creating 'alternative state and democratic institutions' is that in a predominantly capitalist economy this does not 'thereby act to limit the power of capital'. For the power of capital to be limited this would require a massive popular upheaval on a wide scale- ie. revolution. A piecemeal approach just leads to co-ops and worker enterprises being swallowed by the logic of capital and acting according to its dictates. When it comes to public services, without some kind of massive distribution of wealth and power, and the drastic reduction of working hours, you are left with a situation little better than Cameron's laughable 'big society'.<br /> Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.com