ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This reminds me of why my Sun-reading brother-in-law opposed the Iraq war — because it would result in more foreign refugees coming in. Talk about being right for the (very) wrong reason.
Interesting as you say. I wonder whether they will be investing their own capital in this or money that has been lent to them. Probably the latter I guess.
And why not? Banks are in business to make money by borrowing it at one rate of interest and lending it at a higher rate. But if they can get a higher return from using the money they borrowed to get an income in some other way, that makes business sense even if it is no longer banking in the strict sense.
Even before this they will have been lending money to people to buy-to-let and sharing in the rental income through the interest the borrower pays them. Now they are going for the whole rental income.
A bit of a problem for the thin air school of banking as you imply.
The Governor in exile of The Afghan central bank recounts an amusing incident when Taleban officials turned up at the bank and asked to see its financial assets, presumably assuming that they would be in the form of notes and coins which they could lay their hands on. Most of it of course is held abroad in the form of other country’s government bonds.
No doubt Saudi and other Gulf billionaires will continue to contribute some money to promote their version of Mohammedanism but this probably won’t be enough.
I heard an expert on the television say that over half of those employed in Afghanistan worked for central and local government making the state the biggest employer (most people in Afghanistan are peasants or petty traders). These will need to be paid.
The Taleban are going to have to govern within the constraints of capitalism, on which sharia law has nothing to say except that profits are ok as long as they are not called interest. After all, Mohammed was a rich merchant.
So while the Taleban are in military control of (most of) the country, the outgoing clique that used to run the country still have some bargaining chips in money and a bureaucracy without which capitalism cannot be administered.
So there must be a compromise.
This article from 2015 discusses the subsequent development of state-capitalist grouplets in Afghanistan. No idea if or to what extent it is wishful thinking.
Like we speculated :
“After president Ghani’s escape on Sunday, one of the few figures from the previous regime still publicly resisting Taliban rule was the former vice-president, Amrullah Saleh, who declared himself the rightful caretaker president. Saleh, who is believed to be in hiding in Panjshir valley, north of Kabul, one of the few districts that has not fallen to insurgents, said on Twitter that he would “under no circumstances bow” to “the Talib terrorists”. He received online promises of support from accounts that said they belonged to government soldiers, along with posts saying troops loyal to the memory of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance assassinated by two al-Qaida operatives just before the 9/11 attacks on the US, were converging on Panjshir to form a “Resistance 2” movement.”
We shouldn’t forget that it was a Labour government that committed the UK to join the American imperialist adventure in Afghanistan. Another reason for not having anything to do with that party except outright opposition. They support capitalism and imperialism as much as the Tories.
If YMS is right then the political and military leaders of Afghanistan are to be given credit, not condemned as Biden did last night, for deciding not to engage in a civil war. That spared thousands of lives and, anyway, why should they die to defend US imperialist interests?
It is unbelievable that the whole of the Afghan army has disintegrated. There must be some units left, probably composed of Tajiks, Uzbeks And Hazara who are not going to accept exclusive rule by the Pashtuns (who only make up about half the population).
The Taleban leaders seem to realise this with their declarations that they are seeking to form an inclusive government. They will also have to accept that the 2020s are not the 1990s. Their fighters are not the same as then. In fact most of them don’t seem old enough to have been part of those who oppressed the people last time. And they all seem to have mobile phones. Even I didn’t have one in the 1990s. True, they are led by sinister priests with black turbans who may wish to try to impose what they did last time. I doubt if they will get away with imposing the mad mullah who leads them as the Emir of Afghanistan. We will see.
At least the US is trying to do better than Germany when it was being defeated at the end of the last world war and had to withdraw from the countries they had conquered. They left those who had collaborated with them to their fate.
According to this, Hume also held a labour theory of value. That all new wealth is produced by humans working on materials that originally came from nature is obvious and that this was reflected in prices was accepted by early theorists of capitalism including David Ricardo who was himself a capitalist. It was only when capitalism’s defenders realised the implications of this that they dropped it.
More added to the Edgar Hardcastle Internet Archive, from the Second World War period:
The Materialist Conception of History September 1940
Trade relations after the War February 1942
Are the Workers better off during the War? March 1942
The future of Sir Stafford Cripps March 1942
Post War Trade April 1942
Population and Social Progress June 1942
A Challenge to Mr. Bevin on Post-War Reconstruction August 1942
China takes up the White Man’s Burden November 1942
Some Socialist points on the Beveridge Report December 1942
Where Reformism fails March 1943
No unemployment after the end of the War? April 1943
A Critic of Marx’s Economic Theories December 1943
Divide and Rule. Idiotic Squabbles of British and American Miners’ Leaders, September 1944Although Marx criticised Hume’s Quantity Theory of Money (that the amount of metallic money in circulation determines the level of prices rather than, as Marx and others held, that the amount of money in circulation depended on the level of prices) he has this amusing footnote in chapter 25 of volume I of Capital which shows how Hume and Adam Smith were advanced thinkers for their day (mid-18th century):
“Adam Smith’s position with the Protestant priesthood of his time is shown by the following. In “A Letter to A. Smith, L.L.D. On the Life, Death, and Philosophy of his Friend, David Hume. By one of the People called Christians,” 4th Edition, Oxford, 1784, Dr. Horne, Bishop of Norwich, reproves Adam Smith, because in a published letter to Mr. Strahan, he “embalmed his friend David” (sc. Hume); because he told the world how “Hume amused himself on his deathbed with Lucian and Whist,” and because he even had the impudence to write of Hume: “I have always considered him, both in his life-time and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as, perhaps, the nature of human frailty will permit.” The bishop cries out, in a passion: “Is it right in you, Sir, to hold up to our view as ‘perfectly wise and virtuous,’ the character and conduct of one, who seems to have been possessed with an incurable antipathy to all that is called Religion; and who strained every nerve to explode, suppress and extirpate the spirit of it among men, that its very name, if he could effect it, might no more be had in remembrance?” (l. c., p. 8.) “But let not the lovers of truth be discouraged. Atheism cannot be of long continuance.” (P. 17.) Adam Smith, “had the atrocious wickedness to propagate atheism through the land (viz., by his “Theory of Moral Sentiments”). Upon the whole, Doctor, your meaning is good; but I think you will not succeed this time. You would persuade us, by the example of David Hume, Esq., that atheism is the only cordial for low spirits, and the proper antidote against the fear of death…. You may smile over Babylon in ruins and congratulate the hardened Pharaoh on his overthrow in the Red Sea.” (l. c., pp. 21, 22.)
One orthodox individual, amongst Adam Smith’s college friends, writes after his death: “Smith’s well-placed affection for Hume … hindered him from being a Christian…. When he met with honest men whom he liked … he would believe almost anything they said. Had he been a friend of the worthy ingenious Horrox he would have believed that the moon some times disappeared in a clear sky without the interposition of a cloud…. He approached to republicanism in his political principles.” (“The Bee.” By James Anderson, 18 Vols., Vol. 3, pp. 166, 165, Edinburgh, 1791-93.) Parson Thomas Chalmers has his suspicions as to Adam Smith having invented the category of “unproductive labourers,” solely for the Protestant parsons, in spite of their blessed work in the vineyard of the Lord.”
Hume’s writings on philosophy are compulsory reading by all students of politics and philosophy in all English-speaking countries. I didn’t find him an easier read as he tends to ramble.
If you want to read anything of him his chapter arguing against the possibility of miracles is a classic.
Yes that was a good find and a good article. By coincidence there will be a review of Caffentzis’s companion book on John Locke in next month’s Socialist Standard. Here is an essay on it by Harry Cleaver. It is not as good as Linebaugh’s nor as well- written, but at the end he says that post-capitalist society has to escape from money and that this idea is gaining ground amongst revolutionaries. Hope so.
I wouldn’t describe those capitalist corporations who are concerned about climate change as “less anti social”. They are just as profit-oriented as any other capitalist enterprise.
They are concerned about their future profits and taxes on them (they reckon that it is better for them to pay less tax now to deal with the problem instead of waiting for it to get worse and have to pay more); some are looking to make a profit out of other sources of energy or new technologies.
It is not a question of rationality but of calculated self-interest.
What will happen will depend on how successful the fossil fuel lobby is, but most governments are not listening to them any more. Some are such as Australia, as did the US under Trump.
I don’t think we can get away with saying or implying that all governments are in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby.
Haven’t you heard? Hume has been cancelled and the name of that building changed because he supported and had some investment in chattel slavery?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-54138247
