Some tweets on left parliamentary aspirations and Keynesian welfare state mythology.

The critique of parliamentarism doesn't rely on bad faith or careerism. Bad faith and careerism result from the logic of parliamentarism. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Electoral socialists often tell me they support all that direct action rank-and-file organising AS WELL AS electoralism. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

But in practice the goal is to get elected and resources are diverted, as well as movements subordinated, to that goal. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Labour, or Left Unity, or the New Workers Party, is an 'alternative' in the way pepsi is an alternative to coke. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

The alternative to political parties acting in their own interests over and against the workers isn't to do it again. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Kinda weird how many Marxists have no class analysis of the state apparatus... — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

...as if putting some 'workers' (i.e. leftist intellectuals) into parliament would transform its class character. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

You could put miners and electricians in parliament and before long they'd have their noses in the trough. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

If they tried to enact any reforms that benefited workers vis capital, the rate of accumulation, and so state revenues, would fall. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Underlying this seems to be a quasi-Keynesian mythology that redistribution boosts economic growth. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

It doesn't. A bigger wage share is a lower share for capital, suppressing the rate of accumulation and hence economic growth. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Wealth redistribution would only boost aggregate demand if that wealth was previously sat under a mattress somewhere. It isn't though. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

It's invested, investment is also demand - it consumes machines, software, construction - i.e. means of production. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Essentially a fantasy of reconciling the interests of capital and labour, based on a rose-tinted mythology of the post-war period. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Conditions of the post-WWII boom: (1) massive destruction of capital value by depression and demolition (not repeatable w/o massive misery). — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

(2) Bretton Woods system of capital controls/fixed exchange rates. Collapsed due to its own contradictions in 1971. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

(3) Exclusion of women and blacks from many unionised sectors, often with trade union collusion. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

(4) Thus reliant on cheap immigrant labour (from colonies, or internal migration), and domestic unwaged labour. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

(5) Cold War geopolitics making welfare an anti-communist imperative coupled with fear of a repeat of post-WWI revolutions. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

(6) Massive plunder of the colonies, whose populations didn't get welfare. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Important to remember this arrangement broke down all of its own accord, a decade before Thatcher & Reagan. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

The IMF came in on Labour's watch. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

More to the point, part of it's breakdown was revolt: against factory work, wage repression, domestic work, racism, colonialism. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

The post-war compromise was only ever between capital and a section of labour under very specific conditions, which aren't coming back. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

In fact, both the included and excluded workers revolted against that compromise in the 1960s and 70s. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Amazing what a bit of materialism and historical analysis can do for mythology. I think Marx had something to say along these lines ffs. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

Just to be clear - I'm not against a redistribution of wealth. Preferably won by struggle (but I'd take a handout). — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

I'm saying redistribution can't be assumed to be good for capitalism. Conflicting interest can't be harmonised by nice policies. — Joseph (@JosephKay76) September 4, 2013

One thing people pointed out is that some firms are currently sitting on a lot of cash rather than investing. So in theory, this money could be seized and redistributed, boosting consumer spending. But would that boost economic growth, or just provide a one-off shot of consumer spending? And when we say businesses are sitting on cash reserves, we mean they have them in the bank. To what extent are banks using these deposits as collateral, and making loads, or in turn holding on to the funds? Finally, investment decisions are based on expected profits, it's not clear that a one-off boost to consumer demand would have any effect on the rate of profit.