DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The trouble with all this discussion about calculation is that there is a background assumption that all that matters can be quantified and therefore calculated. That is a highly ideological position. ‘Efficiency’ is not some kind of neutral or value free measurement.
While socialist society could and would need to make use of some kind of calculations, seems to me that these would be the beginning and not the end of the matter. We are not talking about some hyper rationalised consumer society where producers follow the dictacts of a plan, but a self-ruling democratic commonwealth where what society does is decided through deliberation. Such deliberation involves paying heed to considerations about autonomy, quality of life, appreciation of nature etc.
What could be viewed as “ineffeciant” in the context of a market economy that produces for profit, could well be the most preferable method for a society that produces for need.
Even within mainstream economics departments Austrian economics is viewed as ideological. I don’t think we need to spend too much time with it.
So in other words Joseph has become an Anarchist Communist in all but name? Or does he not call for electoral abstinence?
Like I said, seems to me these discussions about calculation are just besides the point. If you want to talk about the possibility or impossibility of socialism you have to be talking about the possibility or impossibility of free and co-operative self-government.
‘Das Kapital’ isn’t a book about the effective ‘economic’ allocation of goods. It’s a book about domination, about how people end up being controlled and dominated by the imperatives of the market.
Why would it be interesting? I couldn’t see anything new in it and, like the old calculation arguments, it misses the mark about what socialism is (the proponents of ‘cybernetic socialism’ do this too).
It’s true that socialism wouldn’t always end up making the “most economical” production choices, but so what? There are other considerations to be taken into account – for example the quality of the life of the people making the stuff, the environmental impact of the goods produced etc.
You could have a perfectly “economic” allocation of production goods, yet everyone’s life would still be a misery and the planet heading to an uninhabitable hell.
Please correct me if I am missing anything.
The paper tangentially references an article by Tom O’Shea – I suggest you read that instead.
Socialism won’t be about making the “most economic methods for producing goods and services” since productive decisions won’t be made by reducing things to a single metric. This stuff is actually besides the point.
Do these guys say anything in answer to what could be called the “structural domination problem” of capitalism? Or do they not even accept it as a problem?
“There’s a longstanding American left communist sympathizer on Urban 75 who’s currently stanning for Biden in this election cycle – especially doubling-down in the aftermath of Biden’s disastrous debate performance – specifically because of Project 2025.”
I had to Google ‘stanning’. A bit of an embarrassment, since Eminem is from my generation.
I don’t look on Urban 75, but strange that he doesn’t want Biden to be replaced with another candidate since that seems the more likely way of beating Trump in an election.
I don’t think his concerns about Project 2025 and the threat of an organised religious right are misplaced though.
“But George III was not an “absolute monarch”.”
Yes of course, I was trying to imply that the Supreme Court judgment had elevated the president to something higher than the founders would have intended – from a constitutional monarch to an absolute one.
But on looking into this more I’m not so sure about that. If the US president is modelled on how the monarchy works in the UK, then saying that the president is above the law (when it comes to official business) is putting them in the same legal position as the British monarch.
This short blog about what would happen if King Charles killed Queen Camilla was entertaining:
https://uollb.com/blog/law/what-would-happen-to-king-charles-iii-if-he-committed-murder““Only 2% vote up from last time, lost several seats, total vote share a pathetic 34%, leader loses 18,000 votes in his seat, overall turnout a near historic low.”
With first past the post you win by winning seats not by getting the largest total vote share. I’ve heard someone comment that the low vote share for labour may indicate a high instance of anti-tory tactical voting. This could also explain the rise in seats for the lib dems.
Seeing as the whole republican conception of freedom, which motivated the American revolution, is about not being under the arbitrary will of another it would seem strange if the Founding Fathers really wanted to create an elected absolute monarch. Weren’t they concerned with things such as the rule of law?
Thomas Paine – “[…]in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the Crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.”
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/paine-on-the-idea-that-the-law-is-king-1776Seems to me that there really is a move by conservative elements in the USA to try and cement minority-rule through capture and use of state power, Project 2025 and all that. I don’t think it’s melodramatic to say that there is more at stake in Biden vs Trump than just who manages capitalism for the next political cycle.
Or have I fallen for a leftist conspiracy theory?
Obviously the religious fundamentalists don’t like evolutionary theory is because it undermines their literal translation of the bible, obviously.
The question to ask is why is religious fundamentalism gaining ground in some countries (another example is Indonesia) while some others are becoming more and more irreligious (the UK and the Netherlands for example).
These days if someone is using the term “Darwinism’ they are more likely to be a creationist than an evolutionary biologist. If “Darwinism'” is used by scientists usually it will be referencing a historic period rather than evolutionary biology in general.
More reading:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0111-2
