Statisation: a possible flaw in world socialism

[ALB]

This article puts our position rather well:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/one_world.htm

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

This article puts our position rather well:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/one_world.htm

We have been on the right track all the time, there is no question about it,  that is the reason why I do not waste my times with innovators. Whoever leaves a set of ideas is in order to adopt a new set of ideas. There is nothing magical about that

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Marcos wrote:

 What is the difference between your ideas and a typical right winger or anti-communist?  We always leave one set idea to adopt another set of ideas, you left the SPGB to take a new set of ideas, and that statement cited above  is a living proof of that

Not for the first time, I don't follow your comment/question.  My ideas are clearly different from a typical pro-capitalist right-winger: you only have to read my comments to surmise that, not least the comment you've just quoted.

So, why did you answer this post and prior question too ? Ask me if I care

[Ike Pettigrew]

Marcos wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Marcos wrote:

 What is the difference between your ideas and a typical right winger or anti-communist?  We always leave one set idea to adopt another set of ideas, you left the SPGB to take a new set of ideas, and that statement cited above  is a living proof of that

Not for the first time, I don't follow your comment/question.  My ideas are clearly different from a typical pro-capitalist right-winger: you only have to read my comments to surmise that, not least the comment you've just quoted.

So, why did you answer this post and prior question too ? Ask me if I care

Again, sorry, I genuinely just don't follow you.  If you want to explain your point, go ahead.

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ Young Master SmeetYes, but this is just words on [virtual] paper.  My concern here is with what your ideas actually really mean and I think the point is conceded: in practice, socialism would be a statist society, albeit a soft state.  I realise that socialism is not a statist ideology, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise, and I also appreciate that the 'state' that would in reality exist in socialism may not be regarded as a state and it may not even be acknowledged as such, but that is what it would be.  Socialism may not be statist, but statism is the result of socialism when you think about it properly.  It's just of a soft state variety, comparable to what you would have under almost-all types of market-based anarchism.Of course, that in itself doesn't defeat your case, and if we accept your assumptions about human nature and behaviour, then it wouldn't be a significant issue.  Even somebody who loses the land that has been held in his family for decades or centuries probably won't care much, because in a system of common ownership he doesn't need to possess significant amounts of land, there's no economic benefit to him.But this, I repeat, rests on acceptance of your underlying assumptions about people.  I think these assumptions are wrong – the existence of capitalism is itself a clue to human nature – and I think in reality, socialism would either collapse or it would be reformed into something that is only a rough reflection of its pure form.  

[Ike Pettigrew]

ALB wrote:

This article puts our position rather well:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/one_world.htm

The link suggests an idealistic system in which it is assumed that different types of people will all work in harmony together for the common good of a construct known as 'humanity'.  I accept there are obvious situations where that should be expected to happen in reality: for instance, genuine planetary-wide threats.  But when it comes to more mundane matters (which will be 99.9% of the time), I am less convinced.  Dozens of questions come to mind: starting with, who defines what is the common good or the collective interest?  Or rather, how is that decided?  By votes, presumably – but then, doesn't that mean that the majority can outvote the minority?  Oh dear…On the subject of planetary-wide threats, until recently we were assured, verily I say with brass knobs on, that the planet was threatened by anthropogenic global warming and we should cut down on our carbon emissions, etc., and look sharp about it.  It now seems that there is no such threat, or at least, there is now serious doubt about the issue.  At the very least, the threat has been grossly exaggerated.  Of course, I appreciate that in socialism, the basis of this type of decision-making would be different – and probably better – but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

[J Surman]

[/quote] On the subject of planetary-wide threats, until recently we were assured, verily I say with brass knobs on, that the planet was threatened by anthropogenic global warming and we should cut down on our carbon emissions, etc., and look sharp about it.  It now seems that there is no such threat, or at least, there is now serious doubt about the issue. [/quote]Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

[J Surman]

For some reason the quote I started with from your last post re. climate change, global warming etc, which you claim to no longer be a threat, didn't appear at the start of my question to you. It is this claim to which I am asking you to produce hard evidence please.

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

[Ike Pettigrew]

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated.  I can certainly provide links to discussion of this, with further links and evidence: but surely you can use the search engines yourself.But my point was about the socialist case, not global warming specifically.  Even if I'm wrong and global warming is occurring as predicted in the climate change model, the concern still stands that your system entails no minority protection and therefore what you regard as democratic decisions aren't 'democratic' at all.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

Note to Moderator: I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated. 

So in other words you don't have a clue?

[Anonymous]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

Note to Moderator: I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

From someone who asserts that people with dark skins are biologically and intellectually inferior to Ike Pettigrew, I will wear that as a badge of honour.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated.  I can certainly provide links to discussion of this, with further links and evidence: but surely you can use the search engines yourself.But my point was about the socialist case, not global warming specifically.  Even if I'm wrong and global warming is occurring as predicted in the climate change model, the concern still stands that your system entails no minority protection and therefore what you regard as democratic decisions aren't 'democratic' at all.

Let me add something to this, just for the abundance of clarity: I am not a climate scientist, and as far as I am aware, nobody else here is a professional climate scientist either.  If there is such a person among us, then please step forward and perhaps start a new thread on the topic, otherwise the point is that all of us are reliant on information we receive from others.  To ask me for hard evidence is a bit beside the point.  It's not as if I've just come back from an expedition to Antarctica and I can share with you my latest findings.  I'm not a practising scientist.  I can provide links to evidence that casts global warming and anthropogenic global warming into doubt, either on the basis that it is an exaggeration or that it isn't happening at all, but I assume you can all use search engines – and anyway, my point wasn't about global warming itself, that was just an example.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated. 

So in other words you don't have a clue?

As a point of principle, I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  I would add that such people do nothing for the socialist case.

[Author]

Posts