alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is always with many caveats that I make comparisons with Nazi Germany in any context.
With Gaza the similarity has to be with the ghettos.
Concentration camps pre-date Nazi Germany. The British had them in the Boer War. But in American how else can we describe the many reservations except as concentration camps.
How long before calling Israel an apartheid state comes forbidden? The creation of the disjointed West Bank will be akin to South Africa’s bantustans
Can Kashmir be seen in isolation to the anti-muslim trend in India by the right-wing Hindutva movement.
Just posted on the blog
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-prejudiced-politics-of-population.html
The blog has previously posted on the campaign in Assam, home to tens of thousands of people from muslim Bangladesh, to make those who cannot prove they are Indian stateless.
Schekn, Let us try and deal with the issues we appear to have a disagreement so forebear with me if I return to basics and make a lengthy reply.
Our idea of socialism has always been one based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to needs. We advocate a future world where there will be plenty for all. We argue that there is sufficient resources and technology to provide such abundance. This brings us into conflict with those in the eco movement who dispute this is possible and indeed demand the opposite – degrowth and some even suggest abandoning technology itself. We are told of the apparent paradox that humanity places limitless demands upon a finite world. Our goal they say is unsustainable. In response we say that these criticisms come from a logic embedded in seeing the world through capitalist eyes and not of a socialist vision of a completely different type of economics. The scientific community fail to put the revolutionary transformation of the profit system on the agenda and continue to construct their models within todays parameters of capitalism. We, too, are seeking to establish a “steady-state economy” or “zero-growth” society, a situation where human needs are in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them and we claim that our way is the only way.
Conventional economics declare that the true state of the world is scarcity. We try to explain that abundance is not a situation where an infinite amount of every good could be produced. And scarcity is not the situation which exists in the absence of this impossible total or sheer abundance. Abundance is a situation where productive resources are sufficient to produce enough wealth to satisfy human needs, while scarcity is a situation where productive resources are insufficient for this purpose. Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter. In socialism a buffer of surplus stock for any particular item, whether a consumer or a producer good, can be produced, to allow for future fluctuations in the demand for that item, and to provide an adequate response time for any necessary adjustments. Thus achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of extrapolated trends in demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a good would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static, or downward).
Will people want too much? Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society. In a society such as capitalism, people’s needs are not met and reasonable people feel insecure. People tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. In a socialist society “too much” can only mean “more than is sustainably produced.” For socialism to be established the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all but importantly, we do not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. All projections hold the same neo-Malthusian view of human fertility and consumption that in response to abundance, humans would respond with more – more children and more consumption.
As someone from a scientific background you are well aware of the saying “Garbage In Garbage Out.” When I state that carrying capacity is not fixed it is because the outcome is dependent upon the input of data and information. That explains the wide disparity in estimates from a few billion (despite the glaring fact that we have alread exceeded that low figure) to tens of billions of people. It varies with a wide range of factors. How can the estimates swing so widely? Because people in different parts of the world are consuming different amounts of those resources. Usually, American lifestyle and consumption pattern are taking as the standard but there is no reason to presume that the rest of the world need follow the American example. Also ignored is the enormous socuial waste of resources most obviously in the in armament industries but also in the superfluous commercial activites of a buying and selling exchange economy. It is ahistorical to assume carrying capacity to be static. The “carrying capacity” idea originated with Giammaria Ortes, a defrocked Camaldolese who in 1790 published a tract called ‘Reflections on the Population of Nations in Relation to National Economy.’ Here Ortes set the unalterable upper limit for the world’s human population at 3 billion. Many since have joined the ranks of those who cried wolf.
We have been adapted our environments to be more productive to serve human needs for tens of millennia. We cleared forests for grasslands and agriculture. We selected and bred plants and animals that were more nutritious, fertile and abundant. What the record strongly suggests is that carrying capacity is not fixed. It is many orders of magnitude greater than it was when we began our journey on this planet. There is no particular reason to think that we will not be able to continue to raise carrying capacity further. The idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history. Humans transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves. This is what we do and have always done. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits. The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been.
In regards to population our case is that numbers don’t matter, the type of system most certainly does. The argument that the planet is ‘overpopulated’ ignores the irrationality inherent within the capitalist economic system. All population projections hold the same neo-Malthusian view of human fertility and consumption that in response to abundance, humans would respond with more – more children and more consumption. In reality, human fertility and consumption work nothing like this. Affluence and modernisation bring falling, not rising fertility rates. As our material circumstances improve, we have fewer children, not more. The explosion of human population over the past 200 years has not been a result of rising fertility rates but rather falling mortality rates, higher child survival rates due to better public health, nutrition, sanitation and public safety. I could go on and on about the myth of overpopulation and explain the potential we have in providing for a far larger global population.
My mention of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum was to draw attention to resource allocation. There always exists a number of factors required to produce a given good, one of these will be the limiting factor. That is to say, the output of this good will be restricted by the availability of the factor in question constituting the limiting factor. It makes sense from an economic point of view to economise most on those things that are scarcest and to make greatest use of those things that are abundant. Factors lying in between these two poles can be treated accordingly in relative terms. Acting as if all factors are scarce is not a very sensible approach to adopt. Effective economisation of resources requires discrimination and selection; you cannot treat every factor equally, as equally scarce for this will result in gross misallocation of resources and economic inefficiency. It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity.
In reference to peak oil an interesting aside is that America’s belligerent over-reaction to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, a country always recognised to be under the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, was that the CIA analyists had decided that the dramatic fall in Russion oil output was because it had reached that peak oil production and the invasion was the first step in encircling the middle-east oil countries to secure its future supplies. Later they learned that it was simply a restructuring glitch of old technology being replaced by more modern machinery that caused the fall in oil.
As if we didn’t know
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49287899
The UN’s human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, a former president of Chile, said the latest sanctions were “extremely broad” and would hit the most vulnerable sections of society. The measures were “still likely to significantly exacerbate the crisis for millions of ordinary Venezuelans”.
Joe Biden’s Iraq lies
“…world population is well beyond carrying capacity of the planet…”
I would challenge this assertion. Carrying capacity is a flexible elastic definition, not a fixed one. Too many times I have seen misanthropic – even racist – conclusions reached from those (who claim to be otherwise liberal and progressive) who say population numbers is the primary issue.
Consumption patterns will indeed require to be addressed to achieve a steady-state zero-growth economy which socialism would accomplish but capitalism is incapable of achieving.
I have also never been an adherent for the claim peak this or peak that arguments. These are usually framed within the capitalist paradigm of prices and labour costs of capitalist supply and demand where a product may well be economically scarce.
I think Liebig’s Law of the Minimum is relevant here, that there is always second best and third best options even if it does appear that a particular resource is crucial and insufficient.
Having presented those caveats, schekn, I think, you and I have more in common than clashing.
“…This kind of thinking: “People do have choices to make and if they don’t choose the right ones … then so be it…” is not very helpful…”
Was my response to ALB that there would be a backlash to the XR protests resulting in people not caring and consciousness-lowering.
But once more to return to a point where we are in agreement i.e.
“the logic of profit making (capitalism) is in direct contradiction to trying to solve this problem, hence any attempts to tackle it through reforms within the current economic/political system are doomed to fail.”
Taking into account our agreement with XR of the urgency of the emergency, and so if capitalist solutions cannot resolve the crisis, do you believe that your other position, schekn,
“…Most people are motivated by what is best for them, and if they choose to not follow the advice of scientific consensus, it is not because they choose badly, it is because they do not understand all of the implications of their choices, and because they feel that they do not have the power to change the situation…”
will lead inevitably to the speedily and timely adoption of socialism by first the eco-activists then the population at large as the answer?
Without being a determinist, I see such an outcome as the only hope for civilization’s survival and under-stating the importance and critical nature of global warming cannot be the socialist approach which is as I keep saying “Socialism or Barbarism , if we are lucky”.
I see no benefit in presenting the false comfort and unjustified confidence of capitalism itself being able to solve the climate change problem even if we don’t get socialism.
Without socialism, the consequences will be horrific on a global-scale where those who grumble about a few hours delay in traffic will realise just how myopic their attitude was. It has not fully sunk in on just how tenuous our survival as a society is going to be.
I’m sure this reply is one you expected to receive from me. I won’t disappoint.
I’m afraid that disrupting the daily life of workers is exactly what a socialist revolution is going to do, ALB. When we say it will be peaceful, I don’t think we ever intend to say it will be without a certain amount of upheaval.
It seems to me that if society is going to deal effectively with global warming, there will be a certain amount of pain involved.
But if people can’t face protests a little bit more upsetting than the normal day-to-day roadwork disruption to traffic , then so be it…they pay the price. Just as they do by continuing to ignoring our own counsel. If we heeded those who complain about their lives being upset by others taking action, then let’s be blunt…no strike would ever be permitted and certainly not in public transport.
We have already discussed on the forum the level of meat-eating and the case for changing towards a flexitarian diet is only growing stronger
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49238749
People do have choices to make and if they don’t choose the right ones such as the recommendations of scientific consensus then so be it…we’ll all suffer the consequences of complacency.
The end of civilization is very much a feasible scenario. Personally I don’t foresee the extinction of our species because we are adaptive and different regions of the planet will open up for relocation and settlement. But perhaps it will be those called preppers who will be the part of our species that survives.
We have presently only a few examples of failed states but it is not difficult to imagine those multiplying and many other regions suffering the knock-on effects and the destabilization.
The basis of our case for socialism leads us to that possibility because we do not accept that the reforms necessary to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gases much less reverse them will be sufficient – too little, too late.
The worse case scenarios are only too likely and I think we have already touched upon the conservativism of the scientific authorities in underestimating the tipping points that will provoke runaway climate change.
Okay, it has become a standing joke of my pessimistic doom and gloom on the forum, but let those who have the optimistic alternative view, explain why capitalism will not lead us towards exceeding 4C as some informed opinions have suggested may well happen.
If capitalism can be believed to halt the climate crisis by reforms, then just why do we oppose those? Why are we critical of XR when it appeals for capitalism to enact legislation and regulation if it is possible to halt climate change by such means?
In the past I have heard the CNDer present their apocalyptic futures and could discount them since nuclear holocaust was not an existential part of capitalism, endless expansion and ceaseless growth, however, are integral to the capitalist system
I know my answer, I do not consider it possible that capitalism can take the required action. Only socialism. And if we are talking of time-frames for socialism being realized, I am afraid I can offer only another bleak despondent prediction.
But i’ll go on trying…irrational as that might seem to some.
In Pakistan’s parliament on Tuesday,the prime minister, Imran Khan, said he would raise the issue with the UN, adding: “I am afraid that [India] will now carry out ethnic cleansing in Kashmir. They will try to remove the local people and bring in others and make them a majority, so that the locals become nothing but slaves.”
Many associate this with the Israeli settlements in the West Bank but may be more similar to China’s policy in Tibet and Xinjiang
Another couple of articles by the WSP (India) on the Countercurrent website
https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/the-russian-revolution-in-retrospect
https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/critique-of-paresh-chattopadhyays-twentieth-century-socialism
Hopefully they are not going to over-stay their welcome
I’m somewhat surprised how the India changing the status of Kashmir is not making more headlines than it is.
Two nuclear armed nations possibly confronting one another over the issue and already having had outright wars and ongoing armed conflicts is submerged to the inside pages rather than being the lead news item.
The blog has commented here
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-kashmir-conflict.html
Protesters from Extinction Rebellion stopped traffic for seven minutes at a time on the A38 Bristol Street between 08:00 and 09:00
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49263916
Protester Eve Jones, 50, a teacher, apologised for the disruption. “What we are here to do is force the government to pay attention to the issue of climate change and take urgent and decisive action.” She added: “I have two children and I’m scared for their future.”
Retired plumber Bruford Low, 57, said the group was “only too aware that this sort of action causes anger and upset. But I feel angry and upset about the climate situation,” he said. “I’ve never protested before in my life, but I’ve looked at the science behind this problem and we have a very limited amount of time. If we don’t take action within the next 18 months it may well be too late.”
Jeanne Bouvier, a health care assistant from Edgbaston, said it was important to take part in the protests.”We want the government to act and reduce gas emissions to net zero by 2025,” she added.
It has been answered so many times, LBird.
Just like how resources are allocated, just as how services and goods are delivered it will be the communities, small and large, who will decide how life will be run. It will not be one size fit all. What is studied and taught will be what is wanted by students and professors. I know Marx was much more in favour of technical education but he also understood the necessity of the abstract subjects.
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.”
Socialist society if unable to exercise direct democracy with general assemblies will delegate many of the responsibilities to interested parties such as committees and councils, many which already exist in todays society, who possess more specific information and knowledge. It is not handing power to an elite but deferring to specialists such as the General Medical Council, something I think you take umbrage at, claiming that everyone can know everything. Yet these bodies already take their instructions from the outside government departments and with socialism will still be under the command of society as a whole via its various networks of professional and consumer associations, the structure we have the basis for but will be greatly adapted and adjusted to fit our new circumstances.
Nowhere has anyone within the SPGB advocated that control is not social and that sections of the population, an elite, are given privilege and power to impose decisions upon others without consent.
It was our case against syndicalism and industrial unionism where we insisted that production remains under the rule of society as a whole, not just the direct producers, something I think you also have challenged with support for workers’ councils.
We talk of conditional “workers’ power”, not its unlimited authority and it is more figuratively than literal because out intent is to abolish the concept of worker and again I refer you to the Marx quote above.
We do not claim the arrogance of suggesting that we have all the answers particularly in relation to how socialism itself will be arranged and organized. All we do is present a portrait painted by a broad brush of the basics.
“…I can’t make any of youse give a political answer to these political questions…”
And we will continue to let you ask and pose those questions and to say we have never engaged…just how many members and how many times have we answered…you may disregard what we say, but don’t say we have never engaged with you in discussion.
Just as I did Russel Brand, I never ever found Lee Camp to be particularly funny.
So despite his no doubt sincerity, his humour does not resonate with me and so his message is not received by me.
Hopefully others might get something out of him.
Also the FBI is now treating the Garlic Festival shooter as a domestic terror crime.
https://apnews.com/0643623fc2d74531ac48c5c5dd934b40
On the day of the attack, he urged his Instagram followers to read a 19th century book popular with white supremacists who follow extremist websites. He also complained about overcrowding towns and paving open space to make room for “hordes” of Latinos and Silicon Valley whites.
