Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just taking the piss comrade, flat in Byker with a view over the scrap yard nearer to my budget.
I thought if ex comrade Watkins was gullible enough to believe Von Mises and Hayek he might be safe enough to believe I had a flat in Monacođđđ
SW – “Intuition”
Genuinely though, how did you know.
Have you spoken to someone in the party that knows about me?
Really the purpose of having a pseudonym 0n line is to keep private information private.
SW – “Fair enough, itâs an interesting subject, but the mistake you are making is in thinking that I am as ideologically committed to the opinions I write about as you are to yours.”
So perhaps was correct all along “Youâre not going to make the big bucks writing accurately about Socialism in a magazine owned by Bill Bonner!!”
We’ve all got to make a living.
âBut as far as know, Von Mises is just saying that without a single unit of account (i.e prices in units of money) you wouldnât be able to make calculations and allocations based on this single unit of account. The question for us to ask is if such a single unit of account is as necessary as he thinks.â
As Einstein is often misquoted as saying â’Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be countedâ
(It was from actually from William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: a casual introduction to sociological thinking)FWIW? Sadly I’m not hip with the kids, not sure what it means:)
If there is a “body” which reponds to the requests of the consumers, it is not “employing powers of disposal”, it is responding to the requests of others.
I think there is a very marked difference to what is implied by Von Mises. Power of disposal is the key, it implies that the body, not the community has the power to allocate and also therefore not allocate distribution.
It is perfectly feasible to create structure and organisation that has “Power with” without having “power over”, Von Mises work is very clearly a criticism of the case for power over, however, I would argue that that is not something that Socialists are really seeking anyway.
I might be missing something, but, apart from the obvious problem with Von Mises pamphlet, that he criticises State Capitalism and refers to this as Socialism, the whole exercise is prefaced with one main assumption, which he hasn’t provided any evidence to support.
In his third sentence he states –
“It goes without saying that the community will only be in a position to employ its powers of disposal through the setting up of a special body for the purpose.”
It clearly doesn’t go without saying, at all.
(Indeed, if it didn’t need to be said, then why did he then feel the need to then go on to actually say it?! It is a bit like the clowns on GB News who keep telling us that they are saying all the things they aren’t allowed to say, when they are clearly saying them)
The whole premise of his entire argument is provably false, without resorting to the SPGB’s argument.
For example it is perfectly feasible that the community could employ its “power of disposal” in lots of different ways. It could be done by lottery; it could be done alphabetically, etc.
From our point of view it would be done on the principle of “from each according to their ability to each according to their needs”, their self determined needs.
A bottom up system where those who wish to consume will inform those who produce what is required, which is clearly the opposite of the top down model Mises attempts to criticise.
“They should have known better than to trot out this nonsense about the market”
I wonder what the market price is to write an article in Moneyweek, this might explain the deficits in their work.
You’re not going to make the big bucks writing accurately about Socialism in a magazine owned by Bill Bonner!!
Lizzie – “Mea culpa, tâwas a sweeping generalisation.” & “Fair point, but I donât think anyone can be good at everything! đ”
Bloody hell, with reflective comments and a degree of modesty, you might be completely unique in the world of on line posting! đ
I hope I have the sense to follow your example, although doing the sensible thing has always been a struggle for me.
âSettler colonial states have a terminal shelf life. Israel is no exception.â
What, like the USA, Canada, South and Central America, Australia, New Zealand, the Province of Ulster.
The Norman French invasion of England was a settler colonial state. The Turk occupation of Anatolia was a settler state, as was the Arabic occupation of North Africa.
Youâre not much of a historian, Lizzie
“from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”
Will that be the same kind of freedom that the Irish workers who gave their life for “freedom” got?
Will it be like Cosgrave’s Ireland, who said “I am not going to hesitate if the country is to live, and if we have to exterminate ten thousand Republicans” and then executed more republicans than the British, 77 as opposed to 14.Will it be the kind of freedom that both Cosgrave and De Valera used to surpress workers’ wages and supress trades unions.
Will it be a state which uses religion to send unmarried mothers to the Magdalene laundries and then sell those of their children who survived to rich Americans. They’re still fishing out the bodies of the dead babies hidden in Tuam.
Or will it be the kind of freedom that Zimbabwean workers fought and died for, mass exterminations of thousands of Ndebele, mass inflation and the enrichment of a new capitalist ruling class?
Be careful what you wish for
Genuine question to Lizzie, you described me as a âhammerheadâ, Iâve never heard that being used as an insult. As insults go itâs a bit shite. Is it a direct translation from a common German insult.
To be fair Robbo, she gets on my thrupenny bits as well, but if we are consistent in our view we kind of have to put up with shite like hers.
I think sheâs probably a bit pissed off with your language abilities, she clearly wants to be the only cunning linguist on the forum.
