ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian, of course there will be shortages, some temporary, some permanent, in a socialist society but the solution won’t be “economic” (in terms of money costs, prices, etc) but technical, a question of organisation and conscious choice.
If you check back in this and other threads on the subject you will see I have guessed that the aim of limiting the rise in global average temperature to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2099 is unlikely to be met.
What I have been objecting to is other, alarmist guesses of a rise of 5. 6, or 7 degrees.
A rise of 2 degrees will still cause problems (rising sea levels, mass population movements, more extreme weather) that capitalism won’t be able to cope with properly. But it won’t be the extinction of humanity or the end of the world.
Yes, and what they mean by scarcity isn’t the normal meaning, i.e a shortage of something, but the non-existence of “sheer abundance” (of everything growing on trees). So, for them, “scarcity” will always exist with some form of market system the best way to deal with it.
“I fail to see how socialism will not be economising on scarce resources.“
Brian, to see economics as being about “economising on scarce resources” is accept precisely the basic assumption of academic bourgeois economics. All their textbooks define economics as the study of how societies allocate scarce resources between competing uses. On this assumption, economics will always exist whereas Marx’s position was that it was the study of the impersonal forces governing the production and distribution of wealth that arose when items of wealth were produced to be sold on a market with a view to profit. So, what is being studied is an “economy”. Since in socialism there is no production for sale or profit it is not an “economy”.
Of course socialism will not want to waste scarce resources but the way they are used will be decided by conscious decision not market forces. Production will be under human control. Which is what socialism is all about, so that it can be directed at satisfying human needs.
More climate alarmism. People will be getting the impression that we are a climate alarmist party whereas we are not. The French scenarios, as Michael E Mann points out, are based on assumptions which nobody knows for certain, in particular a high “climate sensitivity” (the relationship between an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in global average temperature). The worst-case scenario which gets the sensational(ist) headline treatment is also based on nothing being done to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels (which is unlikely and indeed the intention of the authors to avoid) but in fact for it to increase as production does.
Why is the same headline and bold type treatment not given to Mann’s guess that:
““I suspect, when all is said and done, we’re probably looking at something in the range of 3-4°C and no higher, at least for near-term warming,”
Forgot to add:
Petteri Taalas, who is secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said he fully supported UN climate goals, but he criticised radical green campaigners for forecasting the end of the world. Dr Taalas agrees polar ice is melting faster than expected, but he’s concerned that public fear could lead to paralysis – and also to mental health problems amongst the young.
“We are fully behind climate science and fully behind the (upcoming) New York climate summit”, he said. “But I want to stick to the facts, which are quite convincing and dramatic enough. We should avoid interpreting them too much. When I was young we were afraid of nuclear war. We seriously thought it’s better not to have children. I’m feeling the same sentiment among young people at the moment. So we have to be a bit careful with our communication style.”Marx himself didn’t use the word “economics”. He wrote of “political economy” as in the subtitle of Das Kapital: “A Critique of Political Economy”. By this he meant the study of the impersonal economic forces that came into operation when production was carried on for sale on a market with a view to profit.
The “Classical” Political Economists Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the others believed that these forces were natural forces i.e. that production for sale on a market with a view to profit was the natural way to organise the production and distribution of wealth. Marx “critique” was that it wasn’t but was only a passing phase in the development of human society
The next stage would be socialism based on the common ownership of the means of life which would allow production to be geared to meeting needs not sale and profit. On this basis the economic forces that “political economy” studied would cease to operate and there would be nothing for such a branch of science to study.
in other words, “political economy” and “economics” only exist under capitalism and there is no such thing as “socialist economics”. It’s a contradiction in terms as socialism will not be an economy.
The term “Marxian economics” refers to the analysis of capitalism that Marx pioneered. It is not about how production and distribution will be organised in a socialist society.
Fair enough except I don’t see the bus “hurtling” towards the cliff edge. Rather it is cruising along at 60mph towards a cliff edge 100 miles away. Someone suggests that this is too fast, so the drivers says ok I will reduce the speed to 50mph. There’s also a raving maniac at the back insisting that the cliff edge is only 5 miles away. There’s also a socialist suggesting that they change direction but nobody is taking any notice, partly because they can’t be heard over the ravings of the maniac.
There are only two reasons for studying modern academic economics:
- To know what the enemy, the intellectual defenders of the capitalist economic system, are saying, the better to refute them;
- If you need a qualification in economics to get a better job under capitalism (but you don’t have to believe it, just pretend you do).
There is this criticism of modern academic economics on this site here:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/publications/economists-not-on-this-planet/
I see the Liberals voted yesterday to drop the word “Democratic” from their title when they voted that MPs should vote to ignore the result of a democratically-held referendum without a mandate from a further referendum.
Meanwhile, Labour’s position is even more ridiculous. They want to negotiate a deal and put it to the people telling them to vote against it.
The farce continues.
Petteri Taalas, who is secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said he fully supported UN climate goals, but he criticised radical green campaigners for forecasting the end of the world. Dr Taalas agrees polar ice is melting faster than expected, but he’s concerned that public fear could lead to paralysis – and also to mental health problems amongst the young.
“We are fully behind climate science and fully behind the (upcoming) New York climate summit”, he said. “But I want to stick to the facts, which are quite convincing and dramatic enough. We should avoid interpreting them too much. When I was young we were afraid of nuclear war. We seriously thought it’s better not to have children. I’m feeling the same sentiment among young people at the moment. So we have to be a bit careful with our communication style.”Exactly ! Good man ! That’s exactly the position I have been trying to put all along to counter the alarmist stuff that is re-posted here almost daily. It’s the only reasonable attitude that non-scientists like individual socialists and the Party can take.Every time alarmist views are propagated here all I need do from now on is re-post Dr Taalas’s comments !How about “Neither Brexit nor EU but World Socialism”? But that’s accepting that Brexit or Remain is to be the main issue of the election, whereas we want it to be Capitalism or Socialism? Obviously we have to mention Brexit if only in passing but I don’t think we should make it our theme as well that of the conventional politicians, should we?
Yes this is a highly significant and dangerous development. The “big one” as this article from the Wall Street Journal puts it.
It’s Iran showing that, even though it’s not (yet) got nuclear weapons, it’s still got a ‘nuclear option’ — ruining the Saudi oil industry and so provoking a world-wide economic crisis and downturn. Presumably, it’s aimed at bringing the US to the negotiating table to discuss lifting its savage economic sanctions on them.
Actually, there is no evidence that Einstein ever said that. It’s another internet myth or fake information:
http://www.news.hypercrit.net/2012/11/13/einstein-on-misattribution-i-probably-didnt-say-that/
What would be insane (or, rather, utopian socialism) would be expecting socialist ideas to come entirely from what we do and then to blame ourselves for not getting very far.
Not that we do do the same thing over and over again — unless you mean putting over the direct case for socialism, as we do in various and changing ways. But the only alternative to that is reformism. Which people have been doing over and over again without getting any nearer to socialism.
That’s a coincidence as North London branch report that yesterday, when they set up their stall at their usual place in Holloway Road, they found that the Brexit Party were already there — together with their candidate, James Heartfield. But what a disappointment the author of the excellent Unpatriotic History of the Second World War has turned out to be. Although he didn’t agree with us, he was sympathetic enough to sign our nomination papers at one local election and presumably voted for us. His talk on his book that he gave at Head Office is on this site here:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/unpatriotic-history-2nd-world-war/
Rather ironic that he should now be the standard-bearer for an ultra-patriotic British party full of nostalgia for the Dunkirk spirit.
