World News

Thank you!

Some resources while I work out a more succinct reply later (I wrote mini-essays here and deleted them):

1. Liberalism, a Counter-history by Losurdo

2. Richard Wolff's channel to be used as intro videos on youtube

3. Deeper dives:

• a) Next Recession blog by Michael Roberts https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
• b) Crisis Theory blog: https://critiqueofcrisistheory.com/

4. Redsails.org:

• A) https://redsails.org/concessions/
• B) https://redsails.org/roberts-harvey-law-of-value/
• C) https://redsails.org/the-modern-monetary-trick/

5. Bidetmarxman on twitter

could you maybe expand on the economic inefficiencies of liberalism part

• generally without war there is no pressure within a capitalist economy for longer term planning between industries and all sectors of an economy working together, except for the following blip in history. After 1917-1918, the western workers threatened, using the new Soviet Union as leverage, with domestic revolution if they didn't get concessions
• the above resulted in the welfare state - pensions, sick pay, maternity leave, child labour laws, 40 hour work week, universal health care etc etc. Effectively what we consider a modern developed economy
• a certain faction of capital agreed to the above concessions to maintain stability (and stave off socialism) but also they realised this allowed them to catch up with rapidly advancing Soviet union technology with a larger skilled workforce (eg space race, computer chips, mobile communication, internet, universal vaccination, arms etc etc).
• with the dissolution of the Soviet union in the 1980s that pressure against capital was again lost with liberalism once again having less restraints, and the ongoing decline of the west that you can see to this day
• neo-liberalism could be considered goverment intervention to maintain and create new markets though in practice it is just another form defence of capital againt a dictatorship of the proleteriat

===

• with the above kept in mind, if a firm wants to obtain feeder-products down the supply chain to help make its own products then it has to pay for that product in the market - the anarchy of the market introduces transactional costs that it could do without
• so in attempt to solve the above problem a firm could buy other firms up and down the supply chain to sidestep market constraints and gain economies of scale
• but now you have a new problem, less competition, in liberal theory you need competition to drive innovation and product prices down
• so to take a crude and simple overview you have a contradiction of the anarchy of competition and lack of coordination with mulitple firms vs a vertically integrated firm with potentially no competition
• and given the above firms are all representstions of dictatorships of capital think of the lack of feedback loops in the system from the workers who actually have to make and use the above products
• now potentially apply the above to every sector that may be involved in infrastructure, from mineral extraction to road and railway building, to energy production. Think what a lack of cohesive central planning may introduce here
• we are still working within the confines of liberal theory - none of the above is actually marxist; we have not introduced value of labour, the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall, crises of captialism, the attempt to resolve domestic contradictions through imperialism etc etc

Hoped that help (that was the shortest I could make the response by focusing on one aspect of a liberal political economy and it doesn't fully capture a marxist analysis but hopefully it is a good enough start with a bit of dialectical materialism: highlighting contradictions as engines driving change)