ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That was quick. This week hasn’t been a good one for dictators. In South Korea a would-be dictator was forced to back down by parliamentary and popular resistance. In Syria a decades long brutal dictatorship collapsed within 10 days.
Both illustrate that even under capitalism a determined majority will get its way in the end. No government can maintain its rule in the face of widespread majority resistance. Those who think that a capitalist government would be able to establish and maintain for any length of time a dictatorship in face of the democratically-expressed majority will for socialism should take note.
In the words of Victor Hugo, “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come”.
Farage’s mob maybe ahead of the Laborite gang in some opinion polls, but according to this they are not putting their votes where their mouth is:
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19257/local-electoral-year-statistics-summary
Musk must think Britain is part of America where there are no limits on what candidates can receive or spend. Here only electors (those on the electoral roll) or, under certain circumstances, companies or other associations registered in Britain can make donations. Parties are obliged to check that the door is eligible and, if they don’t, and, if it turns out it is not from an eligible donor, they can be fined and the donation forfeited to the state.
That’s a ridiculous allegation. See for instance this article in this month’s Socialist Standard:
Well, in the end “martial law” only existed for a few hours and then only on paper.
The last capitalist government should take note if it considers trying to impose martial law in the event of a socialist victory at the polls. As should those who argue that the last capitalist government will inevitably try. and get away, with this. True, if they did try, it would last for more than a couple of hours but in the end the socialist majority would get its way as no government can maintain itself in power for long in the face of overwhelming popular opposition.
Yes, Aristotle draw a distinction between “economics” and “chrematistics”.
“From Ancient Greek χρῆμα (khrêma, “money”).”
“Chrematistics (from Greek: χρηματιστική), or the study of wealth or a particular theory of wealth as measured in money”
I think we can all agree that that’s inapplicable to socialism.
I thought I would check with the original German of what Luxemburg wrote and the situation is not that clear-cut. The word that the Australian translator translated as “economics” is Nationalökonomie which literally means “national economy”, the word then in use to mean fir instance the subject studied at university.
This was the word Engels and Marx had used in their early writings (1840s) and which they later called “political economy”. In fact in some translations Nationalökonomie which they used has been translated into English as “political economy”.
There is another German word Wirtschaft which can also be translated as “economics” and which Luxemburg also used. It is a sort of literal translation of the Greek word from which “economics” is derived, ie rules of house-keeping.
What Luxemburg said would disappear in socialism was Nationalökonomie, which is obvious in one sense as with capitalism would go the study of how it works (and ideological justifications for it).
There is also a German word Naturalwirtschaft used to describe an “economy” where money is not used.
And in this month’s Socialist Standard,published online yesterday:
Here is what Rosa Luxemburg wrote for a course on economics she taught at the German Social Democrats’ school that was translated and published in Australia under the title What is Economics?:
https://www.workersliberty.org/files/29544399-Luxemburg-What-is-Economics.pdf
Here are a couple of relevant passages.
“Sometimes economics is simply defined as follows: it is the “science of the economic relations among human beings.” The question of the definition of economics does not become clarified by this camouflage of the issue involved but instead becomes even more involved-the following question arises: is it necessary, and if so why, to have a special science about the economic relations of “human beings,” i.e., all human beings, at all times and under all conditions?” (page 224)
“If we understand at this point why the science of economics originated only about a century and a half ago, then, from the vantage point gained, we will also be able to construct its subsequent fate. If economics is a science dealing with the particular laws of the capitalist mode of production, then its reason for existence and its function are bound to the life span of the latter and economics will lose its base as soon as that mode of production will have ceased to exist. In other words, economics as a science will have accomplished its mission as soon as the anarchistic economy of capitalism has made way for a planful, organized economic order which will be systematically directed and managed by the entire working force of mankind. The victory of the modern working class and the realization of socialism will be the end of economics as a science.” (pages 244-5).
The pamphlet is not 250 pages long (the above is from a collection of her articles) but only 30 pages and well worth reading to see how she develops her argument.
Another unintended consequence. The US supports Israel’s military actions to weaken Hezbollah and Iran who support the regime in Syria and opens the door to Al Quaeda.
Just like in Iraq where they overthrew the Saddam regime and so allowed the largely pro-Iran Shia Muslim majority to dominate.
Looks like the Islamist savages in the land of Isis are on the march again and another part of the relatively civilised world risks falling under their sway.
Labour thrilled at not losing:
Maybe if Caines hadn’t stood, the Greens might have won.
The Corbynists are seeing it the other way round. For example:
“I feel compelled to express my frustration with the Green Party’s decision to stand a candidate in this election. It was clear they had little chance of winning, yet their decision to run may have split the vote and prevented Jackson from achieving an even better result. To me, this highlights a level of selfishness that undermines the broader goal of supporting candidates like Jackson, who are genuinely dedicated to improving the commmunity.”
And even:
“Shame re green, socialist and other independent voters.”
It is true that the Greens only stood a paper candidate. No leaflets and just one letter in the local media. They didn’t seem to want to win.
