Taking to the streets on March 26th - Cuts protest

[rabid]

Erm, that's what Marx was saying. Once capitalism cannot sustain itself, its ideology will no longer be able to justify it and we'll have to start looking for an alternative.

[worm]

If all systems are capitalist then humanity is indisputably f**ked. Even capitalism itself says that could be the only outcome if all systems are capitalist.

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I thought you were both basically saying the same thing.

[eFestivals]

The revolution was not a choice of man, but an inevitable change that would come about when the material reality of man's condition could no longer keep the ideology of capitalism in unison.

No, it's the conditions stopping man from being able to operate a capitalist mechanism.

Spot the contradiction. Wing-nut.

If to your brain that's not a contradiction, then it's your writing and brain that's shit instead.

[worm]

Spot the contradiction.

[eFestivals]

I think he over-estimated his belief in inevitability, exemplified in his Communist Manifesto, which is f**king nuts.

I think you've under-estimated the time-scale no less than Marx himself did.

[worm]

I think you've under-estimated the time-scale no less than Marx himself did.

[lost]

If all systems are capitalist then humanity is indisputably f**ked. Even capitalism itself says that could be the only outcome if all systems are capitalist.

And your analysis suffers from you only being able to see things in today's terms. Black markets are only able to exist when there is a surplus that exists to trade with. In a finite world there cannot always be that surplus.

When there is no surplus, then the values of everything have to be reassessed, and ultimately come to have the same value to everyone - at which point it becomes impossible for a capitalist system to operate.

Of course, whether things ever actually get that far is another thing. I think the more likely outcome is the destruction of mankind brought about by the non-acceptance of the rich in their ultimate downfall.

[eFestivals]

Nah, it's not the collapse of capitalism that's the problem, it's the inevitable alternative that he prescribes.

First of all, there's a glaring irony in it, in that he was prescribing something that, by his own philosophical premise, can only be taken as a utopian pipe dream of his time. But more importantly, he massively underestimated the devlopment of technology and the merge of inter-cultural ideologies that has occured as a result.

Just as your words here are a product of your time, so his thoughts were the product of his. You are the very thing that you condemn.

All the same, Marx's basic premise was correct. When (not "if") capitalism is no longer able to sustain itself, then - if humanity is to survive - the only answer will be a truly communal system of exchange, where profit is no part of it.

[eFestivals]

better get terraforming mars then but seriously I'd tend to agree with that, I'm starting to notice some of the best economists studied human rather than social sciences, someone can come up with the ideal system but then people will start behaving in a completely way when it has been implemented which is where Marx falls down. Equally behavior such as herd instinct is a great argument for more government control and has done alot of damage in the past with regards to bubbles forming. I tend to think any system will be flawed because people are flawed.

So who are these "best economists" then?

The "best economists" are the ones whot have been ignored for thirty years as fruitcakes, and even now - when they've been proven as correct - they're still ignored as fruitcakes in favour of the f**k-ups which have led us to where we are.

I agree that people are flawed, but history tells us that the impact those flaws can have and how many people are affected by them can vary wildly. The flaws are much more prevalent now - thru the current fashion of individualism - than has been the case in the past. In the future, if humanity is to survive, individualism will have much less influence than it currently does.

[TalkShow Bob]

As is Conservativism. As is the Labour movement. As is Liberal Democracy. So why is Social Democracy assigned a fixed political point? Why is it free of political sway and the others aren't?

Also, if you're going to suggest that there are fixed ideological points of reference that underpin political parties, then surely you need a fixed material point too?

[TalkShow Bob]

I'm well aware of that.

But all the same, if the election had ended with what would have been viewed as chaos by a significant number of the electorate, because a govt with the authority to push thru policy hadn't come of it (I'm meaning a minority govt), then those who viewed it as chaos would have voted differently in a subsequent election, to avoid that chaos.

Every indicator in the period between the election and the Tories and LibDims forming their coalition indicated that if they hadn't have formed that coalition and they'd have been another election, then the tories would have been the beneficiaries of that.

Remember, our electoral system means that majority opinion is nothing to do with the result that comes from any election. The system has always been designed to benefit the tories and it still does - which is precisely why the tories would never have agreed to a referendum on PR as they have for AV. And they've only agreed to a referendum on AV because they know it's unlikely that AV will win, because the people want PR and not the "grubby little compromise" of AV.

[TalkShow Bob]

Aren't all systems capitalist? they just vary between the amount of free market capitalism and state capitalism that exists.. hmm maybe Cambodia 1975 -78 wasn't but systems like that don't tend to last too long. Your never going to get 100% state capitalism as black markets will always spring up and equally your never going to get 100% free market, Hong Kong is probably the closest we've seen.

I'm also struggling with some of the terms being thrown around, liberal traditionally means small government but the American term refers to the left. Equally I'm struggling with Anarchists arguing for a bigger state...

[worm]

but there is no inevitable alternative is there, there's an infinite number of options

[worm]

Just as your words here are a product of your time

Edited April 8, 2011 by worm

[lost]

No Neo Liberal is small government. Liberal dosen't nessaserly have to be. Liberalism is an ideology about equality and freedom but then you get say classical liberal and neo liberal that dictate how you achive that ideology and give you a form of government eg liberal democracy. Also you have to rember that Americas left (or well the Democrats) is essentully our right.

[worm]

No Conservitism is a political ideology - also you have to rember conservatives in the USSR were very diffrent to ones in the UK. The labour movement is a movement.

Liberal Democracy is a form of government as is Social Democracy. Under those forms of government you have certan facits of a state. EG Social Democracy is a strong, big, open state underpined by a comprehensive welfair net. The political spectrum is set around these ideas then your and your parties place on the specturm can move. If you like they are the radio station on a fixed point and you or a party are the dial moving up and down.

[TalkShow Bob]

classic liberalism is liberalism, (neo means after) neo liberalism is crony capitalism or corporatism. You generally find the "neo" movements distort the ideals of the first i.e Keynesianism states the government should run a deficit during a recession and then a surplus during the good times, we've just had 10 years of neo-Keynesianism where the government has run a deficit during the good times and an enormous deficit during the recession

[worm]

classic liberalism is liberalism, (neo means after) neo liberalism is crony capitalism or corporatism. You generally find the "neo" movements distort the ideals of the first i.e Keynesianism states the government should run a deficit during a recession and then a surplus during the good times, we've just had 10 years of neo-Keynesianism where the government has run a deficit during the good times and an enormous deficit during the recession

[TalkShow Bob]

What was the gaff on the mail? I havent seen it today...

[worm]

But you do have forms of government that fit along the specturm which dose run from left to right.

[lost]

What was the gaff on the mail? I havent seen it today...

Edited April 8, 2011 by lost

[TalkShow Bob]

I'm asking how you know what is left and right according to this spectrum if your starting point is inseperable from the material reality you live under?

[eFestivals]

I'm not the one talking about inevitability.

Unlike Marx, I believe that humankind can change political structures and alter the course of history. In fact, I don't believe that history has a course.

I also "believe that humankind can change political structures and alter the course of history" and I also "don't believe that history has a course".

But I'm not stupid enough to think that that can mean that humanity will ever be able to make something out of nothing either. And so it *IS* inevitable that capitalism will collapse.

That isn't his premise.

make it up out of nothing why don't you? Oh, you already have. Wing nut.

His premise is nothing to do with the survival of people

Care to show me where I said it was?

Wing nut.

He believed that capitalism was a temporary social order, as part of a much bigger historical narrative.

no shit sherlock.

You haven't even read Marx, as you've admitted in the past and demonstrated on countless occasions. Don't tell your grandmother how to suck eggs, eh wing nut?

[worm]

The spectrum runs from left to right and I think no matter where you decide the center is, which I agree is based around your ideals and or your coutnry and system of birth perants ect ect, you will be able to tell which is left and which is right.