Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Understanding sarcasm deoesn’t seem to be your strong suit does it, Birdy boy.
I suppose it’s because most people take your views and ideas seriously (Sarcasm alert- Sarcasm alart-Sarcasm alert!)
I have the same issue in reverse, you can’t access RTE and RTE player in the UK (to watch the Gaelic Football or the Hurling).
There are ways around things………..
I think that one of the most important lessons for ourselves as democrats, who wish to use democratic processes to use democratically organise a transformation of society, is that all of the nay sayers of the left, who have told us for decades that the democratic process would be over thrown are wrong.
The big lesson of the capitol building riots were that the protestors captured exactly that they captured the building. Watching the news feed from that event the thing that the protestors found was that they were overjoyed that they had captured the building, which was followed very quickly by puzzlement because they despite capturing the building, the (capitalist) democratic process continued. YOu could practically see the thoughts forming in their heads “well we’ve captured the building, what are we going to do now”
Another example of this was the election of the 1st Dail in 1919, the delegates didn’t recognise the Westminster Parliament, the assembly created their own assembly building, but they remained as being generally recognised as the legitimate democratically elected assembly.
A future Socialist majority might be barred from entering the halls of Westminster, but they will still retain the legitimacy of the elected delegates of a Socialist majority. The state exists because the vast majority believe in the legitimacy of the state, if a majority of those people consider the elected delegates to be the legitimate body that represents them, there is little that a recalcitrant minority can do about that.
“In effect, ‘esteem and respect’ are democratically elected, not chosen by an individual.”
If esteem has to be democratically elected, where does that fit in to self esteeem?
Even looking at public esteem, Alan Shearer probably wouldn’t have esteem and respect in many parts of the world, he certainly wouldn’t be elected to any universal place of esteem and he’s not going to get many votes in Sunderland, but he definited would in my neck of the world.
The idea that esteem would be electorally earned by a democratic world wide majority is as preposterous as a your single monolithic view of science.
Some people will view Joe Hutton as a musical genius (me included, you should lookk him up) others will find the Northumbrian pipes annoying.
I personally think the Beatles were the most over rated musical group of all time, but I am comfortable that others swoon at evey note of “Maxwells’ Silver Hammer”, despite that, in my view, it is a titivated umpah band song.
I think L Bird struggles with the concept of diversity and divergency. Socialism (to my mind) is about the liberation from uniformity and Homogeneity of capitalism. I personally don’t want a McDonaldisation of society.
“His main point is that socialism in our and Marx’s sense is not just impossible but is ‘evil’ on the grounds that it would oblige people to share responsibility for something that was against their moral principles.
This is the old ‘tyranny of the majority’ argument deployed by individualist anarchists against socialism (Haskins seems to be some sort of moderate anarcho-capitalist). His argument is that, because what is to be produced is democratically decided, if a majority decide to raise cattle or pigs to eat this would be ‘evil’ because it would force Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Vegans to accept this despite voting against it.”
Following his logic we can assume that he also thinks that Capitalism is similarly “Evil” as it requires pacifists, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. who object to war, armies, etc. to “pay tax” to support the war industry.
Taking his logic further, if motor industry corporations object to various car safety requirements, is it evil to require them to follow safety standardised regulations?
Stretching this even further, is it “evil” to compel Socialists to live in a capitalist society? I object to property relationships, presumable it is “evil” to put me in prison if I walk away from Tesco’s with a dozen bottles of whiskey.
To be honest, if the only defence of capitalism I had was such a piss poor pile of horse shit, I hope I would have the sense to keep my mouth shut!
The problem that Trump faces, as Marcos has alluded to, is that Trump supporters are generally low tax and small government supporters. Overthrowing a majority supported elected government requires a highly centralised, big state with high tax spend.
Add to this, as our analysis demonstrates, tax is a levy on capital. The capitalists are not going to provide support for high taxes to pay for Trump to be in office, giving them something that they already have (a quiescent working class).
Trump will not have support in terms of big business and big capital
Trumpism is certainly not a fascistic phenomenon, despite the bleatings of the trots and their follow travellers.
Fascist/Nazi parties have historically appealed to the marginalised petty bourgeoisie and those higher status workers who have been threatened by immigration, changes in market conditions, etc.
Trump appeals to the more rural, small town non metropolitan workers, who will provide votes but generally speaking are in the minority and are batting above their average, in terms of influence and attention.
The vast majority of urban metropolitan workers (in east Coast and West Coast US) have no time for Trump and Trumpism.
Combine the dearth of support for Trump in this area and the lack of support for big business and you can only see an end of Trump and his ilk.
I cannot see a Balkanisation of the US, as this would not be in the interests of the Capitalist Class.
The only other scenario would be with Trump supporters trying a restaging of the US civil War with a far quicker and emphatic victory for the Union and the creation of a more homogeneous Centralised US state.
we get a few mentions on his website as well.
“https://stoppingsocialism.com/2020/09/what-is-socialism/”
He clearly has no concept of what Socialism is and has a very limited understanding of Marxian thought, but no publicity is bad publicity!
“BD, hope you haven’t been taken in.”
No fear, I’ve got all of my money tied up in dutch tulip bulbs!
L Bird “For Marx, humans produce their ‘material reality’, which implies we can change it.”
Not that I accept your argument. However your reasoning is false.
Just because a human produced their material reality, there is nothing to imply that those humans can change it.
Human beings with schizophrenia have their own reality which is often very different from the reality of most other people, this does not mean that they can change their reality.
Wez, the point I was making is that during the normal operation of the company (i.e. when the company is solvent and is trading), individual share holders cannot simply say I want my 10% of all the assets of the company, 10% of the machinery, 10% of the land, 10% of the cash
However, even though there are differences between stocks and shares, neither provide a fractional ownership of the physical nature of the business.
So, for instance you own 20% of a manufacturing company, you cannot simply take 20% of the land, or 20% of the stock and say that “that’s mine”.
Although I don’t always agree with our feathered friend (glad to see that you are still out there and pecking corn, LB), much of the capitalist system is based on various belief systems, rather that physical entities.
Many currencies state words to the effect, “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…..” the whole capitalist system is based on belief systems. Promisory notes, insurance certificates, bank notes, bonds, share certificates, property deeds.
In the capitalist system they appear to be as real as apples and pears, but they only exist within the context of capitalism and the belief system that supports them.
If you tear up property deeds the houses don’t fall down. If we convert Private Property (the means of production an distribution) into common ownership, the physical nature of the productive systems do not change.
I think the issue is that whilst some “Marxists” accept that a moneyless society is the basis of socialism and understand that a money based economy shows that a society cannot be a socialist one, they make the illogical assumption that a society that has little or no usage of money, must therefore show elements of socialism.
If you look at much of the feudal economy, it was money free. In many ways the Kampuchean system was not a hybrid of State Capitalism and non market socialism, it was more akin to a system of State Feudalism. The rural workers laboured to have some share of the produce, whilst the rest was sold off (to the global market) by the State Fief, who was enriched by this.
The issue of a money or a moneyfree society is not the crucial main determinant of the economic basis of a system of society but the nature of property ownership.
The question we must ask is who owned (or had control) of the means of production?
Socialism requires common ownership
In Kampuchea there was no common ownership, just as there was no common ownership in War Communism.
