ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How do they describe Nazi Germany then? And the difference in political institutions and practices between there and the US? In fact how to they explain why the two of them are not in a concentration camp?
@ Leon Trotsky. Of course all new value is produced by the working class, including surplus value. Keeping society going rests entirely on us and our work.
But what happens to surplus value after it has been extracted from us at the point of production — how it is distributed amongst the various parasites who live off it — is not a concern of ours. Why should we be concerned about how the thieves share out their loot, for instance how much goes to the financiers as compared to the industrialists?
Quantitive Easing by the government does not create any new wealth or value. It just redistributes wealth, already produced by the working class, amongst different sections of the capitalist class.
You are right that the US could in theory go bankrupt but this has never happened and in practice is extremely unlikely. The US capitalist class is rich enough for the government to tax them to prevent this if this was threatened. Capitalists, both in the US and in other countries, know this; which is why they are prepared to lend the US government money confident that they will get it back with interest. There is no evidence that this is changing as they know that the US is not Argentina or some banana republic.
I take it, Leon Davidovitch, that you will be voting for Biden? Which would not be possible if the US were a fascist state rather than a limited, “bourgeois democracy”. It is true that in a fascist state there are two parties — one is in power, the other is in gaol.
That would be a proper response to a very hypothetical situation (though I suspect that this is just the usual Trotskyist resolution-mongering) but, as we have always said, if people are not prepared to vote for something they won’t be prepared to strike for it. It looks, though, as if they are going to be prepared to vote for it in sufficient numbers to make Trump history. Most of the US capitalist class seem to have become fed up with him too.
This was a big issue at the time the party was formed in 1904. The first issue of the Socialist Standard in a article in “Physical Deterioration” pointed out;
“We are told that over 100.000 school children in London alone go breakfastless to school. For them there is little hope for a sturdy manhood. Arrest the progress of physical deterioration amongst the children through the provision of meals by the State to all school children and you will do much to strengthen the physique and stamina of the race.”
Why is it still a problem 116 years later?
Not because the Tories are the nasty party and seem to revel in it but because capitalism is the nasty system.
“For example- I am Irish and wear a green hat. Adam wears a green hat- so he must be Irish.“
So, the flawed argument would be:
A is white and thinks he (or she) is entitled to be treated better than non-whites and oppresses them.
B is white.
Therefore, B thinks he is entitled to be treated better than non-whites and oppresses them.
I see what you mean.
Sounds as if some in the privilege studies department should follow a course in the philosophy department as they seem to be privileged in it not having to follow the rules of logic .😊
Thanks. When you use the term “essentialism” as an error to be avoided how exactly is it defined? Does it mean that it’s the essence of, for instance, “white” people to be privileged or racist or whatever? Anyway, it sounds as if it is something bad !
Sorry, LBN, she is not using the word “privilege” in the sense you said it is used in “privilege studies” — to criticise only those who think they are entitled to be privileged.
She is using it to criticise all “whites” (and of course all males too) simply for being privileged.
Listen to what she says:
“My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person,”“I see the desire to keep our image of ourselves ”clean“ as part of white privilege.” [as if all groups didn’t share this desire ?]“The denial of men’s overprivileged state takes many forms.”
So, now all “whites” and all males are overprivileged oppressors !Supposing that this were true, what would it mean? If you are being oppressed, what is your response? Obviously, you struggle against your oppressor and to overthrow their privileges. It’s a recipe for race war and/or sex war.Socialists are opposed to all racism and all sexism but we don’t employ the language of “white privilege” and “male overprivilege”. We want to unite the working class not split it.I don’t suppose anybody in the field of “privilege studies” studies the privileges of those who own and control the means of life and the privileged lifestyle without having to work that this allows them?Thanks. I’ll take up his offer and send something to the Brooklyn Rail. Actually, the disagreement with the original article is essentially only on the one point as to whether or not businesses have the power to increase their prices at will and cause prices generally to rise.
Meanwhile, here’s the opening section of the Party’s Study Guide on Inflation, which explains that not every rise in prices is a case of “inflation” in its strict sense:
“The word inflation has come to be used very loosely in recent years to mean any rise in prices, so that it has in fact almost become a synonym for price increase. Words are of course always changing their meaning in line with changed social practices and ideas. We can’t complain about that. But this particular change reflects an underlying confusion, amongst professional economists and the general public alike, about the cause of the enormous rise in prices that has taken place since the beginning of the last world war.
First, let us distinguish between a rise in the price of a particular Commodity and a rise in the prices of all commodities, between a rise in individual prices and a rise in the general price level. This is not always easy in practice since a rise in the general price level will also of course involve a rise in individual prices. But there is a real distinction here which it is essential to make .
A rise in the general price level can be defined as a rise in the prices of all commodities such that their prices relative to each other remain unchanged. Individual prices, on the other hand, can rise for a number of reasons besides as part of a rise in the general price level. The demand for a commodity night temporarily exceed its supply; monopoly conditions might exist; its cost of production might go up. All these no doubt have operated since the war to cause particular prices to rise at particular times, but then at other times other forces – supply exceeding demand, falling costs, government subsidies – will have worked to reduce particular prices. But in any event none of these could explain a general rise in the prices of all commodities.
What could cause such a rise? Only, it will be argued here, some change in the standard of price, some monetary change. A general rise in prices, or inflation in its strict sense, is a purely monetary phenomenon. Marx was amongst those who recognised this.”
I didn’t mean to say that the term “privilege” was toxic. After all, it appears a couple of times in our declaration of principles. It’s the term “white privilege” even in its narrow academic sense of “white racism” that is.
I see. Having escaped from academia the term “white privilege” has become toxic and applied to all “white” people. If applied in the sense developed in academia it would only apply to those “whites” who felt they were entitled to be treated better than “non-whites” and in fact acted this out. But they already was a perfectly clear term for this — racism. That’s what we are opposed to.
If I have understood you right, LBN, you are pointing out that the researchers who innovated with the meaning of the word “privilege” meant it to be used only with regard to people who felt they were entitled to behave as they did.
Hence your conclusion that, as most “white” people do not think that they are entitled to be treated better than “non-white” people, the term “white privilege” would be being misused if applied to all “whites people”.
But that is precisely how it is being used by those who bandy it about. So we need to oppose them and insist that the term be thrown out as a slur — I was going to say racial slur but then “whites” are not a race.
Yes. He talks a lot of sense;
Dr Ali said: “The problem with focusing on ethnicity as a risk factor is that it misses the very large number of non-ethnic minority groups, so whites basically, who also live in deprived areas and overcrowded housing and with high risk occupations.
He added the whole population should have a “personalised risk assessment” rather than just targeting ethnic groups.
“It doesn’t make sense to put all ethnic minorities in the same basket as it doesn’t make sense to put all whites in the same basket,” he said.
Three very valid points. In fact the whole concept of BAME (Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic) is not a biological classification but an absurd political one.
Next somebody is going to talk of “employment privilege” to describe those with a job compared to those without one Or to “public sector privilege” to describe those working there compared with those working in the private sector (the Dailies Mail, Express and Telegraph already do). And many more “privileged” workers will be identified until we sink into the stinking bog of “intersectionality”.
Meanwhile the really privileged in society — those who own and control the means of production — sit back and watch us squabbling over who is the most oppressed (and so needs the most money spent on reforms to benefit them). This is not a question of “identity politics” gone mad but of it being mad from the start.
