McDonnell For Labour Leader

The Labour Party is almost dead, poisoned by the venom of progeny of the marriage, made in hell, of Blue Labour and New Labour, in order to defeat Corbyn and a resurgent Left, after 2015. But, the biter has been bit. Mandelson, aka, the Prince of Darkness has been exposed to the light, and begins to disintegrate before our eyes, whilst his disciples rush to rescue his church, all the while being slowly dragged into the light themselves. One of the original apostles, Blair, is silent, whilst the other Brown, has sought to disown his master and all his works, particularly from the time of the 2008 global financial crisis. At the same time, Brown has sought to offer some solace to Starmer, who will be offered up as the sacrifice.

The revelation setting out the way the Prince of Darkness, riding a pale horse, acted in 2008, to pass information to Epstein, whose global financial connections with other members of the elite, enabled them to feather their own nest, only begs further questions to be asked, including some that were asked at the time about how and why the global ruling class were bailed out, by bailing out the banks, and why central banks and governments pumped literally trillions of dollars into stock and bond markets in the years that followed, whilst simultaneously draining trillions of dollars from the global economy, via financial austerity.

My novel, 2017, is a work of fiction, but draws on some historical events during the period after 1999. One such event is the strange behaviour of the UK, under the Chancellorship of Gordon Brown, in selling large amounts of gold from its reserves, just at the point when the price of gold had reached a nadir of around $250 an ounce, and was about to embark on a long period of secular rise that took it to nearly $2000 in 2011, and, after a period of consolidation, has now seen its price rise to over $5,000 an ounce. In my novel, I also discussed other suggestions on the sale of the gold at a time when many financial institutions had been shorting it, and when, a sharp rise in its price could have cost them billions of dollars.

Brown proclaims that Starmer is an honourable man, and that, although appointing Mandelson was a mistake, he believes that it was only a mistake. But, there is no grounds for claiming that Starmer is in any way honourable. Like Trump and Mandelson, he lies as easily as he breathes. We know that he was chosen by the unholy cabal of New Labour and Blue Labour to act as their vicar on Earth, the bland face they presented to the Labour Party, as they sought to seize control from Corbyn and the mass of the members. In that role, he presented himself as continuing the mildly progressive, and electorally popular, social-democratic agenda of Corbyn, but, it was simply a lie to get elected leader, and as soon as he had done so, every single element of that programme, no matter how electorally popular, was ditched.

For the conservative, social-democrats of New Labour, Starmer's commitment to the petty-bourgeois nationalist agenda of Blue Labour, symbolised by his support for Brexit, is anathema, but the Blairites of New Labour could not defeat the Corbynite majority in the party on their own. They needed an alliance with Blue Labour, and the cover of the need to win in the so called Red Wall seats. The ground had already been seeded. The idiotic and unprincipled position of Labour of refusing to oppose Brexit, under Corbyn, on the grounds that it had been voted for in the 2016 Referendum, and the false claims about needing to “win back” Labour voters in Red Wall, constituencies, fed into it. The use of the “anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism” lie, to oust Corbyn, and attack the Left, also provided the New Labour/Blue Labour alliance with a shared trope that could be used.

But, it is the conservative social-democrats (neo-liberals) of New Labour that have been used by Blue Labour, just as, in the past, the liberal politicians in Italy and Germany thought they could utilise the Fascists but found that they had themselves been used. The Prince of Darkness has fallen, but Beelzebub, in the form of Maurice Glassman, is ready to seize his throne, and to instruct his minions. The spawn of the marriage made in hell, has stepped forward to sacrifice himself in what appears a vain attempt to keep in place Starmer. McSweeney has gone, but Mandelson himself showed that such actions are far from being terminal.

By the end of the week, Starmer may well be gone too. The main thing saving him at the moment is that, neither New nor Blue Labour have a credible candidate to replace him. Streeting is himself a progeny of Mandelson's New Labour venture, and closely tied to Mandelson himself. He is also closely tied to all of those private healthcare vultures set to swoop on a collapsing NHS, and so bringing with it all the echoes of those relations between Mandelson, New Labour and big business. Burnham could have been an acceptable candidate for them, but is not in parliament, blocked by Starmer. Rayner is touted by sections of the media, but is also recently tainted by all the same kinds of sleaze and grasping. For the Left, despite what the media try to portray she has no credentials, and sat passively as Starmer's Deputy as he steadily decimated the party membership, and pushed ever Rightwards.

More significantly, none of those alternatives can save Labour, at this stage, from its inevitable demise, just as the repeated changes of leader of the Tories was unable to save them. For all the glaring deficiencies of Corbyn's Labour, it still turned Labour into a truly mass party, the largest in Europe, and, in 2017, secured the biggest increase in votes and seats since 1945. Even in 2019, having suffered 4 years of constant attack from the Right inside the party, and from the media, it still won more votes than did Starmer's Labour in 2024. Despite the deficiencies of Corbyn's politics, and of the Stalinoid elements behind him, the very prospect of a new Left Party, quickly attracted 800,000 people towards it.

The continued failure of Your Party to resolve its internal squabbles, has simply driven a large portion of those seeking such an alternative into the arms of the Greens. The fact that the Greens, despite their own petty-bourgeois agenda, have attracted over 150,000 members, and have surged in the polls to an extent that, in many seats, it will be they and not Labour that represents the credible alternative to Reform, shows that, the idea of Labour offering up just the same stale and failed politics of the last 30 years, will not fly. Only if the Blair-Rights could form an alliance/party with the Liberals and Left of the Conservatives, would they be able to appeal to any sizeable electoral base within the ranks of the progressive middle-class.

If Labour is to offer any real alternative on its own, its only hope, at this point, is to outflank the Greens on their Left, and, in doing so, to also appeal to those same sections of the progressive middle-class, in particular, by committing to reverse Brexit, as a precondition for growth. The only credible candidate to do that is John McDonnell. McDonnell could bring back large numbers of those that supported Corbyn's Labour. But, he would suffer the same problem as Corbyn with the hostile PLP, unless, to save their own skins, they were forced to acquiesce in his return. Either way, the mistake made by Corbyn cannot be repeated. The party must be thoroughly democratised, including instituting mandatory reselection of all MP's and councillors.

SNNS 29

 

Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History - Part 17

““In general,” Herr Dühring sermonises us, “the estimate of most of Hume’s commentators has been very prejudiced, and ideas have been attributed to him which he never entertained in the least”.

Herr Dühring himself gives us more than one striking example of this “procedure”.

For example, Hume’s essay on interest begins with the following words:

“Nothing is esteemed a more certain sign of the flourishing condition of any nation than the lowness of interest: and with reason; though I believe the cause is somewhat different from what is commonly apprehended.”.” (p 306)

As Marx sets out in Capital III, no such mechanical correlation can be adduced. The lowest rate of interest arises at that point of the cycle following the period of crisis. At that point, the rate of profit rises sharply, due to rises in productivity brought about by a technological revolution. There is, then, a large rise in the mass of realised profit, relative to the demand for money-capital. Such periods are characterised by slower growth and stagnation, and the low rate of interest encourages speculation in assets, rather than investment in real capital accumulation. Similarly, when economies are booming, the demand for money-capital rises relative to its supply, because, in such periods, the rate of profit is squeezed. The rate of interest rises to its highest point when this same process leads to crisis.

What can be said is that societies that had a long period of capital accumulation tend to have lower rates of interest. That is because, as Marx describes, they have, thereby, a larger pool of amassed savings. Many of those who were were formerly industrial capitalists – as with Engels – having retired, take their money-capital with them, and it forms a relatively growing pool that can be thrown in to the money market in addition to the constant flow of additional money-capital from realised profits.

The idea, put forward by Hume, as a commonplace, had, in fact, been put forward a century earlier, by Child. Hume never claimed to have originated this idea, and yet, Duhring says,

“Among the views (of Hume) “on the rate of interest we must mainly stress the idea that it is the true barometer of conditions” (which?) “and that its lowness is an almost infallible sign of the prosperity of a nation”. (p 306)

Engels notes,

“We have seen how Hume confuses every increase of the precious metals with such an increase as is accompanied by a depreciation, a revolution in their own value, hence, in the measure of value of commodities. This confusion was inevitable in Hume because he had not the slightest insight into the function of the precious metals as the measure of value. It was impossible for him to have it because he had absolutely no knowledge of value itself. The very word is to be found perhaps only once in his essays, in the passage where, in attempting to “correct” Locke's erroneous notion that the precious metals had “only an imaginary value”, he makes matters even worse by saying that they had “chiefly a fictitious value”.” (p 306-7)

Back To Part 16

Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History - Part 16

Engels turns, now, to the related question of the rate of interest and the supply of money. As I have set out, elsewhere, the confusion extends not only to a failure to distinguish between money and money tokens/currency, but also money-capital. The rate of interest is a function of the demand for and supply of money-capital, and neither an increase in the supply of money nor money tokens equates to an increase in the supply of money-capital, which is largely a function of the rate of profit, and consequent mass of realised profit.

“Hume's arguments, expressly directed against Locke that the rate of interest is not regulated by the amount of money available but by the rate of profit, and his other explanations of the causes determining the high or low level of the rate of interest, are all to be found, much more exactly though less brilliantly stated, in An Essay on the Governing Causes of the Natural Rate of Interest; wherein the sentiments of Sir W. Petty and Mr. Locke, on that head, are considered. This work appeared in 1750, two years before Hume's essay; its author was J. Massie, a writer active in various fields, who had a wide public, as can be seen from contemporary English literature. Adam Smith's discussion of the rate of interest is closer to Massie than to Hume. Neither Massie nor Hume knows or says anything regarding the nature of “profit”, which plays a role with both.” (p 305-6)

Marx discusses these ideas in Theories of Surplus Value. The argument that a rise in the supply of money, i.e. of the money commodity, such as gold or silver, cannot bring about a rise in prices, unless that increased supply is a consequence of a fall in the value of that money commodity, was set out above. However, a fall in the value of the money commodity does bring about both an increase in the quantity of it required to act as money, and to be thrown into circulation as currency, and, also, a rise in prices.

As Marx sets out in "A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy", the same is true if the quantity of gold represented by the standard of prices, e.g. the Pound, is reduced. In other words, if the value of gold remains constant, but a Pound, now, represents only 1/8 ounce of gold, rather than ¼ ounce of gold, i.e. each Pound, represents only half the amount of social labour-time it did previously, more £'s must be thrown into circulation, and prices double.

But, in any of these cases, the increased supply of money, or of money tokens does not represent an increase in the supply of money-capital. If the value of money falls, requiring more money to be thrown into circulation, or if the value of money tokens falls, because the value of money remains constant, but additional tokens are thrown into circulation, the effect is a rise in prices, not a change in interest rates. If on one side of a balance there is 6 potatoes, and on the other side there is a 5 kg weight, it does not change anything if, instead, of the one 5 kg. weight there is 5 1 kg. weights. If the demand for money-capital is £1 million to buy commodities, if prices rise as a result of inflation, so that those commodities cost £2 million, then, the demand for money-capital will rise to £2 million, and this £2 million will have only the same value as previously was represented by £1 million, i.e. will buy only the same quantity of commodities.

There would be no effect on the rate of interest. If it was 10% before, it will be 10% after. Before, the £100,000 of interest bought a certain quantity of commodities, but, now, the same quantity of commodities are bought with the £200,000 of interest. All that has changed is the price labels.

Back To Part 15

SNNS 28

 

Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History - Part 15

If the value of gold itself had not fallen, as a result of new discoveries, an increase in its supply could, at most, only result in a temporary fall in its market price. That fall in its market price would reduce the profits of gold miners, or even result in losses. The least profitable would go out of business, gold production would fall, supply would contract, and its market price would rise.

What Hume saw was the effect not of a rise in the supply of gold and silver, but a fall in its value, as a result of the new discoveries. Hume writes,

“‘It is easy to trace the money in its progress through the whole commonwealth; where we shall find, that it must first quicken the diligence of every individual, before it increases the price of labour." (p 304)

Engels notes,

“In other words, Hume is here describing the effect of a revolution in the value of the precious metals, namely, a depreciation, or, which is the same thing, a revolution in the measure of value of the precious metals. He correctly ascertains that, in the gradual process of readjustment in the prices of commodities, this depreciation "increases the price of labour" — in ordinary language, wages—only in the last instance; that is to say, it increases the profit made by merchants and industrialists at the cost of the worker (which he, nevertheless, thinks is quite in order), and thus “quickens diligence”.” (p 305)

The same is true in modern economies, where central banks facilitate rising prices via increased liquidity, which ultimately, then, leads to workers demanding higher wages, which is, then, presented as the cause of the inflation. Similarly, protectionism, whether via import controls, or tariffs, results in higher domestic prices, but it is only after those prices have risen that workers are left having to respond to them in demands for higher wages.

“But he does not ask himself the real scientific question, namely, whether and in what way an increase in the supply of the precious metals, their value remaining the same, affects the prices of commodities; and he lumps together every “increase of the precious metals” with their depreciation. Hume therefore does precisely what Marx says he does (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, p. 173).” (p 305)

In other words, this is Marx's criticism of The Quantity Theory of Money, as presented by Hume, and later adopted by Ricardo, Lord Overstone et al, and enshrined in the 1844 Bank Act. But, an examination of Marx's argument, here, shows precisely what is wrong with the attempt by some socialists, today, to have Marx apply this argument to the increased supply of money tokens/currency.

The whole point, here, is that Marx posits the question in terms of the value of money. If there is no change in the value of gold, there is no change in the value of money, where gold is the money commodity. An increased supply may, temporarily cause its market price to fall, just as the market prices of all commodities fluctuate as a result of short-term changes in demand and supply, but that is all. If the value of gold does not change, then, as Marx describes, in "A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy", the only other way a change in prices can occur is if the quantity of gold contained in the standard of prices, for example the Pound, is changed, or as described earlier, if 6d of silver is attempted to be passed off as a shilling.

But, it is precisely this latter which occurs where the currency is debased, depreciating in the case of a fiat currency, by printing it in excess. In that case, it is precisely this quantity of these money tokens thrown into circulation that causes their depreciation and leads to an inflation of prices.

Back To Part 14

Forward To Part 16

Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History - Part 14

“Herr Duhring can only repeat his predecessors errors concerning Hume’s actual theory of money according to which money is a mere token of value, and therefore, other things being equal, commodity prices rise in proportion to the increase in the volume of money in circulation, and fall in proportion to its decrease.” (p 304)

Today, many socialists have heard that Marx rejected this Quantity Theory of Money. Given the association of Monetarism, as propounded by the likes of Milton Friedman, with right-wing ideas and governments, and the opposition to the ideas of Monetarists by the Keynesians, who have a corresponding relationship to more social-democratic governments, it is not too surprising that many such socialists have conflated the two things. But, again, it reflects only a confusion in relation to money as against money tokens/currency, and one that was encouraged by a Stalinism that was itself collapsing into social-democracy, and adoption of Keynesian rather than Marxist economics.

“But after propounding the above theory, Hume himself raises the objection (as Montesquieu, starting from the same premises, had done previously) that

nevertheless “’it is certain” that since the discovery of the mines in America, “industry has increased in all the nations of Europe, except in the possessors of those mines”, and that this “may justly be ascribed, amongst other reasons, to the increase of gold and silver”.

His explanation of this phenomenon is that

“though the high price of commodities be a necessary consequence of the increase of gold and silver, yet it follows not immediately upon that increase; but some time is required before the money circulates through the whole state, and makes its effect be felt on all ranks of people”. In this interval it has a beneficial effect on industry and trade.” (p 304)

Marx describes this, also, in Capital II. What, in fact, was happening? It is not that an increase in the supply of gold and silver – money – of itself resulted in a rise in prices. Take money out of the equation and assume only an exchange of commodities. The basis of this exchange is an exchange of equal values, say 1 metre of cloth for 1 kilo of wine. If the supply of cloth and wine are in balance to meet the demand for each, a rise in the supply of one of them may result in a temporary fall in its rate of exchange. For example, if more cloth is supplied, either some of it is unsold, or 1 metre of cloth is exchanged for less than a litre of wine to clear the market. But, it does not change the value of cloth, and the result is that less cloth is, then, produced and brought to market.

The only way that this increase in supply of cloth can be sustained is if the value of cloth itself falls, i.e. if less labour is required for its production. If, then 2 metres of cloth has the same value as 1 litre of wine, the supply of cloth can be sustainably increased, and a new exchange rate of 2:1 is established. Price is only a specific form of exchange-value, the exchange value of commodities against money. So, if gold is the money commodity, it is not a question of more gold being supplied, but this increase in supply being a consequence of new gold discoveries which reduced the value of gold, i.e. less labour is required for its production.

This gold, whose value is lower, is supplied into European markets, as described above. At first, the lower value of this gold is not manifest in those exchanges. It exchanges at its old value, and so the gold miners are able to buy, say, British cotton cloth, and this demand for cloth stimulates textile production. But, over time, this influx of gold circulates within the British economy. The textile producers buy more cotton, more machines and so on, and pay for it with this gold. Their suppliers now buy more inputs with the gold paid to them. Eventually, this increased supply of gold has had an effect throughout the economy. The effect is two-fold; first it leads to an increased demand, and consequently an increase in production; secondly, it results in the new value of gold becoming manifest as an increase in prices. But, that is only so because the increased supply of gold was also an increased supply of gold at a lower value.

Back To Part 13

Forward To Part 15