Constantin Gurdgiev and Brian Lucey Misunderstand The Euro Crisis

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Friday July 08, 2011 23:31

by Paddy Hackett

rasherrs at eircom dot net

Greece and the Euro Crisis

Throwing more debt, in the short or long run, at the problem will not solve
the problem. This is precisely because the source of the problem does not
lie within the process of circulation (i.e. money and credit spheres). It is
contained within the production process.

Forgive the publication of this second draft. The first draft was rough with some errors in it. This draft is a more presentable version. But still not perfect. The first draft may be discarded.

Much of the radical Left/Right falsely posit the source of the current
capitalist contradictions as existing within the process of circulation of
capital. This is why they persistently confine themselves to solutions that
are grounded in the process of circulation of capital. They focus on money,
credit, spending, taxation and commodities. Each one of these forgoing
forms are necessarily confined to the sphere of circulation. Consequently
they cannot provide the key to the solution of the Euro crisis let alone the
Current world capitalist crises. Much of the the radical Left/Right are the present day
King Canutes. The crisis of capitalism is the crisis of the radical Left. It is also a crisis
Of consciousness, organisation and leadership within the (if today I can suggest
such a phenomenon) working class movement.

The Euro crisis, today, has found its extreme expression, economically and
politically, in Greece. The Greek social system is enormously indebted to
such a degree, that it cannot sell government bonds to acquire
credit with which to meet the cost of running the state. Consequently the
Greek ruling class is being forced to seek loans from the EU under extremely
strict conditions that will, in the short term at least, further hinder
growth. These austere conditions involve enormous privatisation of state
companies and large cut-backs in state spending. Much of this austerity
package will entail job losses, diminished incomes and reduced welfare
benefits. Even this forthcoming Euro loan will not go near getting Greece
out of its financial and economic problems. At most it may merely
temporarily alleviate the financial problem. This punctuated policy amounts
to death by a thousand cuts.

Some commentators mistakenly argue, Constantin Gurdgiev and Brian Lucey,
that the better approach is a comprehensive deal now that sorts out Greece's
problems once and for all.This, they claim, must involve debt forgiveness
and presumably economic restructuring. They argue that a piecemeal approach
can only but prolong the crisis leading in the future to an even more devastating
situation. This, they claim, can only intensify the problem thereby rendering
the collapse of the Euro more likely. This event will have widespread
ramifications.

The EU tops, and their subalterns, argue that their punctuated policy is the best policy
in the circumstances. By staging financial help to Greece accompanied by the imposition
of belt tightening it appears that the EU hopes to protect the Euro.The overall fear among
the European bourgeoisie is the collapse of the Euro and the ensuing fallout.

Neither policy can solve the crisis. The Euro crisis is the result of a much
deeper dynamic.

The problem has its source in the failure of capitalism to produce
sufficient absolute surplus value to compensate for the falling general rate
of profit --the regulator of the capitalist economic system. Resisting this
ongoing falling volume of surplus value will not be sorted out by throwing
more debt (paper) at the problem. At most this just postpones the crisis
leading consequently to an even more devastating crash.

The solution has to be the production of more surplus value. This economic
problem is lodged within the production process --not in the circulation
process. This means that transformation must take place within the process
of production.Consequently this leaves only two options open.

The capitalist solution: A massive development and investment of technology
on an unprecedented scale leading to an enormous increase in the rate of surplus
value and thereby a corresponding enormous increase the volume of total
surplus value produced.

The communist solution: A revolutionary transformation of the production
process involving the abolition of capital and thereby the valorisation
process. Under these conditions the production process will exist to serve the
needs of the people.

Throwing more debt, in the short or long run, at the problem will not solve
the problem. This is precisely because the source of the problem does not
lie within the process of circulation (i.e. money and credit spheres). It is
contained within the production process.

save preference

Comments (8 of 8)

Oil not credit.

by Ratioanal Ecologist.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:51

The problem with the world economy can be traced to the massive spike in oil prices that occurred in the 2000s. This spike led to increased price inflation and a shrinking of credit just at the time when the financial system had put in place the preconditions for collapse(sub-prime lending, wild speculation and fraudulent financial products).
Oil prices, in the long term, are only going in one direction and will resume this trajectory once demand increases-which it inevitably will. Peak Oil has in all likelihood been reached.
The cheap Cocaine(oil) that the various bubbles needed will no longer be available.
And no system can make oil!
Oil spikes cause recessions. But what are recessions? A dip in consumption!
Consumerism and Globalisation will be ended when the black stuff (not Guinness) fails to flow.
The next 50 years is about Peak Oil, Peak Water.

Is that a deliberate mispelling, ratio-anal..

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party

Thu Jul 14, 2011 15:11

..or just a symptom of your general inclination?

Either way, to reduce the problems of western economics to the simplicity of energy supply strikes as a wee bit superficial.
You are only looking at micro-fluctuations in a few factors.
Western economics is founded on war and theft(the privatised claiming of public goods which creates scarcity and economic flow to the advantage of the possessor). It was a sick way to run the world even before we became dependent on hydrocarbons.

as for '..no system can make oil..', get yourself an olive tree. Or a rape-seed plant if you've only a window-box.
And weren't the German's producing synthetic fuels to beat the naval embargos, way back?

And the 'next fifty years' will be about whether we can shed a large residue of animal evolutionary traits and realise our humanity; or join the dodo.

Its a sort of a contest between us humans, and a bunch of mutating corporate dinosaurs that have stitched our resources into their liquid accounts so as to exclude the vast majority from access to a share of the wealth our sweat has generated. Trouble is the dinosaurs have hired a large contingent of pre-human hominids to serve them and maintain their dominance.

What 's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a catfish?
Well, one is a muck-sucking bottom feeder; the other is a fish.

Opus Diablos and Proudhon's "Property is Theft"

Thu Jul 14, 2011 15:37

Ireland

You seem to share Proudhon's naive view that property is theft when you make the claim that economics is theft. To base property on theft is tantamount to basing it on morality. But who decides what theft is and what is theft?

Even hunter-gatherer society there existed forms of property --tribal propery. Would you necessarily call this property form theft.

Paddy

Mornin Paddy

Thu Jul 14, 2011 16:37

Its a matter of proportion. I possess my own personal property, but I was referring to the above simplistic reduction of our economic problems to oil prices. Keep to the context.

I am not an ideologue. I know Proudhon's name but am unfamiliar with his writings. Am i right in presuming he originated the 'all property is theft' cliche?I thought that was Marx, but I met too many Marxists to ever want to read him either. Most of his fans seemed opiated by his texts and incapable of framing an argument without his biblical endorsement.

But I do hold that claiming of public resources without recognising attaching public responsibilities is theft, among other crime designations(its been accompanied by slavery, torure and murder historically).
I think we have to reach a stage where we will not nationalise, but internationalise resources on an overt level. Too idealistic?Naive?Is not a private exclusive claim to any portion of the earth primitive?Whether by an individual(Cecil Rhodes), corporation, or nation(the modern intermediate neo-tribal bloc).
Tribal property is NOT private property, quite the opposite. Internationalising ownership would simply move that up a notch to the human tribe ownership.And enlightened self-interest would seem to require we include the human responsibilities to other fauna and our ecological interdependence. We are in transition to the that larger tribal identity, despite the vested interests in retarding our evolution.
Ownership is an abstract concept, with multiple definitions and levels of attaching conditions.
But do please, NOT presume I am promoting any ideas other than my own provisional and tentative opinions. Where i see questionable posts I tend to challenge. I do not come equipped with dogma of any shade(so far). Nor do i carry flags for 'thinkers'. I do my own, however weak or sloppy.

I hope that clarifies. If not I'll give it another shot. Or disagree if I'm off track, in your own opinion.

Opus Diablos and Proudhon

Thu Jul 14, 2011 21:12

"But do please, NOT presume I am promoting any ideas other than my own provisional and tentative opinions. Where i see questionable posts I tend to challenge. I do not come equipped with dogma of any shade(so far). Nor do i carry flags for 'thinkers'. I do my own, however weak or sloppy."

Your own provisional and tentative ideas are not your ideas. All ideas come from others even if they have been modified and even transformed. Ideas are a social product. Even Einstein and Newton were not completely original. They intellectually influenced by others.

To Opus Diabolos.

by Rational Ecologist.

Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:14

To begin thanks for drawing attention to the misspelling of my moniker and the humourous aside arising from that. Humour is more important than ever in today's mad world.
When I said that no system can make oil, I was quite clearly referring to the black stuff that comes out of the ground. I am aware of the production of 'synthetic oil', however, I do stick by my point that cheap oil has given rise to mass consumerism. I don't think all of the problems of the world are down to recent spikes in oil prices, rather price is more a symptom than cause, nonetheless, given that we are addicted to oil it is perhaps the case of the system bringing itself down by ignoring Nature and resource depletion.
It seems you are hoping for some sort of existential or spiritual revolution, whereby humankind overcomes it's animal limitations and see see the whole, the cosmos as the moral realm. Man I hope you are right because I share James Lovelock's viewpoint-by century's end we will have a human population of less than 1 billion. I hope I am wrong.
I am really not sure what is the best system but I do know that Capitalism is a nihilistic, suicidal and disgusting one.
We are a tribal species but in a ecosystem we can't deal with.
Read 'Rogue Primate' or 'The Human Zoo'.
Thanks!

To Opus Diablos.

Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:18

F**k! Now I've misspelt your name. Sorry but I am a shocking typist.

a billion by the century end, RE

Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09

Depends on the billion. If its the neo-con elite ruling a slave population for their ends, then the human experiment (or whatever you want to call it) has failed. The animal won.

If its a billion rational, socially interdependent healthy hominids conscious of the delicacy of biological existence and in control of its animal instincts(currently still dominant and not under rational control)then maybe we will have evolved a notch.

Either way I wont be about to complain. But that dont bother me as I labour under the delusion I already reached human status. I'm not convinced the likes of the dragons in their Swiss and offshore dens of looted wealth for their bloated financial ego-extensions qualify. But then who am I to call that, as I said, subjective opinion is all I can deliver.

As for Paddy's 'your own ...are not yours..'. I think if you read yourself Paddy, you might spot your contradiction. No reason why ideas cannot be owned in common.

Besides, Einstein and Newton and Groucho all put their individual stamp on and altered by their interpretations, already current ideas, to make their perspectives uniquely their own. They do say there are only seven basic jokes, its how ye tell 'em.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Constantin Gurdgiev and Brian Lucey Misunderstand The Euro Crisis

Comments (8 of 8)