ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It does say “what’s left of the aristocracy”, a reference presumably to the hierarchy of dukes, earls, marquesses and barons, at the top of which is the monarch. All that’s left over from feudalism.
Of course most aristocrats are now capitalists, even though some of them are still great landowners a part of whose income is ground-rent.
Even the Fabians didn’t think it would take a 170 years (1949-2121) to gradually transform capitalism into socialism. That would require the Labour Party to win about 40 general elections one after the other.
Pity that claim that the current Chinese dictator had said that the higher phase of communism/socialism (the same thing) would not be possible for another 100 years turned out to be false. But he wasn’t as pessimistic as Lenin who is reported to have said, “If Socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years” (From a speech in November 1918 quoted by John Reed in Ten Days that Shook the World).
The idea that an intellectual minority can seize power and then educate people to become socialists has proved wrong in practice not just in theory. It was never going to work, not only because you can’t force people to be socialists but in the meantime you have to try to manage the capitalist economy and that can’t be made to run in the interests of the workers. What happens is that the so-called intellectual minority (or some of them) evolve into a new privileged exploiting class.
Isn’t he the person who wants to “reset” capitalism ?
For those unable to wait a month to see, here’s an extract from the article:
“the mention of ‘government controlled ‘banks’ and ‘higher wages and benefits’ makes it even clearer that what is in fact being proposed is not an entirely different kind of society from the present capitalist one but rather a varied form of it, with the hope that it will be more benign. But this is not a socialist society, since, by definition, socialism must be a society (and a world society, not one with the US-centred focus the author seems to be presenting) without governments, without buying and selling, and certainly without banks. So long as there are these elements – money, banks, buying and selling – there will be what David Klein himself correctly sees as being at the core of capitalism, surplus value, even if it is the state rather than private individuals that takes on the task of generating the surplus as capital for investment.”
So, an illusory eco-capitalism rather than eco-socialism.
That article is going to be torn to pieces for that sort of thing in the November Special Issue of the Socialist Standard.
I suppose it could be argued that there were various types of Brexit and Johnson and his crowd chose to go for the most extreme version. If Britain (I say Britain rather than the UK as Northern Ireland is still in the Single Market — and doesn’t seem to have these problems) had left the EU’s political institutions but stayed in the Single Market and/or the Customs Union then this sort of thing would not have happened. Didn’t Theresa May want to stay in one or the other? In other words, the referendum result didn’t have to be interpreted in the way it has been. But that’s the problem with referendums. You don’t know how they are going to be interpreted.
Just been (7.15 am) to try to get some petrol. Hardly panic buying as it’s a week since this started and I waited till now so that those who really needed it could fill up. But the petrol station was closed.
This feels like “Brexit meltdown” with the implications of re-erecting customs posts between the UK’s biggest and nearest market for physical goods and supply of extra workers are becoming clearer. And this is before import controls have been fully implemented, which will make things worse. Madness even from a capitalist point of view.
Not that the financiers who funded the Brexit campaign are worried. It doesn’t affect them. They are freed from any possible EU restrictions on their activities and get trade deals with far away countries to export their financial “services”.
Meanwhile ordinary workers get harmed in the crossfire between the two rival sections of the capitalist class. Unfortunately some turkeys voted for Christmas.
Pathetic. All these reforms are to be achieved within capitalism by pressure from a grass-roots movement! And they call us impossibilists.
“He also mentioned the next centenary, 2121. By then, the government hopes, the population will be mature, well-educated prosperous and ready to assume responsibility for communist life.”
No “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” till 2021 ! Another hundred years of capitalism and the state ! This is a killer quote if we can track it down and then use it and use it.
She was also the police officer who authorised the shooting of an innocent Brazilian at Stockwell tube station in 2005 just because he looked a bit like an Arab. Another police murder but she got off and was later appointed head of the Met.
I have to admit that he did make one sensible point:
“Nationalism is just one arm of the rise of identity-based politics in the Western world that has done immense damage to the progressive cause. By dividing people into smaller and smaller groups and diminishing the experiences of others, we atomise our society ever more and keep potential allies and friends at arm’s length.”
But I couldn’t find anything else.
Finished reading it now and you’re right. There’s nothing there. Just politician-speak. There will be a “better, brighter future” for “hard-working families” under the next Labour government working in “partnership with business” promoting “world class“ innovation, blah, blah, blah. Just substitute Tory or LibDem for Labour and you have their promises too.
It really is:
Labour, Liberal, Tory
Same old same old story.Intrigued by this tweet from Will Hutton, in which he implied that Starmer in his now notorious 13,000 word essay advocated a “contribution society” where the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” would apply, I thought I should have a look at it.
I have not read it all yet, but I can already report that (fortunately) he doesn’t mention the word “socialism” but is even afraid to use the word “capitalism”. His so-called “contribution society” seems to be one people contribute by working hard and get paid a “fair wage”.
I will report more when I have finished reading it.
That tells us quite a bit about the way the CIA thinks but I doubt that the ideas got any further but would have been vetoed as too risky or unrealistic by someone higher up the chain of command. Anyway, they were never implemented.
And I just don’t believe that the shoot-outs were approved by MI5 or MI6. They would never get away with shooting the types of a Russian plane at a British airport. The media would want to know why and there would be no plausible justification that the British secret service would be able give.
