robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What is all this about? Russian Oligarchs backing the Tories
Ms Truss said that “nothing is off the table” when it came to hitting Moscow with further sanctions, as she was asked whether donors to the Conservative Party could be among those targeted.“We are very clear that nothing is off the table in terms of who we’re targeting, in terms of the access of Russia to British financial institutions,” she told Sky News.
“We are maintaining our alliance with our international allies to make sure that we are targeting those key people who are backing and supporting Putin’s regime … I don’t rule out anything.”
Asked if any Russia-linked money should be handed back by the Tories, Ms Truss added: “All of donations to the Conservative Party are from people on the electoral register in Britain, those donations are properly declared.”
The foreign secretary confirmed that Prime Minister Boris Johnson “misspoke” when he told MPs on Tuesday that Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich had previously been sanctioned by the UK.
Asked whether the billionaire should have been sanctioned, Ms Truss said: “I’m not going to go into details of what our future sanctions plans are, but nothing is off the table.”
When I suggested they have demonstrably shown that they should therefore drop their commitment to free enterprise and opposition to Big Government and State intervention in the economy to promote US prosperity, they cannot see the paradox.
Yes, exactly Alan. These people are utterly muddled in their thinking. They will attribute China’s economic success to it embracing capitalism, meaning for them the so-called free market. But they will continue to call the regime there a totalitarian “communist” regime which needless to say is somewhat at odds with their claim that capitalism promotes a “free society”. If anything that would suggest that capitalism in their terms can quite happily embrace a politically totalitarian regime like China and not only that would fare better in economic terms compared with so-called western democracies, by virtue of doing exactly that
After 20 years of WTO membership, China still embraces a state-led, non-market approach to the economy and trade, despite other WTO members’ expectations – and China’s own representations – that China would transform its economy and pursue the open, market-oriented policies endorsed by the WTO. In fact, China’s embrace of a state-led, non-market approach to the economy and trade has increased rather than decreased over time, and the mercantilism that it generates has harmed and disadvantaged U.S. companies and workers, often
severely.I have often found in debating market libertarians, ancaps, and the like that there is a tendency among them to equate capitalism with the free market and to assert that the free market is the route to greater economic prosperity etc etc
When faced with the counter-example of China as an instance of state-led capitalist development, these same people will tend to argue that China’s phenomenal rise as a global economic power to the point of overtaking the US as the number one economy in the world is because of its embrace of the free market and capitalism. The above illustrates this is not quite the case. Even the Economist magazine a few years ago talked of the rise of state capitalism but for our market libertarians, the term “state capitalism” is an oxymoron.
Whether one form of capitalism is “better” in capitalist terms – that is, facilitates economic growth – than another is, I think, a purely contingent matter. There is some evidence to suggest that for early or still developing capitalism, the state capitalist model is preferable from that point of view
Germany in the late 19th century under Bismarck pioneered the state capitalist model and by the turn of the century had overtaken Britain as an industrial power. Similarly, the rise of Soviet state capitalism in its first few decades was quite remarkable. This was the period of primitive accumulation and extensive, as opposed to intensive, growth, and many commentators in the West at the time, were seriously worried at the prospect of the Soviet Union eventually catching with, and even surpassing, the West. Of course, that did not happen but once again contingent factors came into play
The Soviet version of state capitalism may not have been particularly suited to a mature and diversified capitalist economy but it is important to see that there are different kinds of state capitalism, Chinese state capitalism being another version of state capitalism
Over the Christmas period, I developed thrombosis, unbeknown to me, and was diagnosed with this condition on January 1 after the pain in my upper thigh refused to go. I have no idea how this could have come about but quite a few people here in Spain have told me that it could possibly be a consequence of the COVID vaccine – I was double vaccinated last August. One of my Spanish friends told me that a relative of his – a man in his 30s who is very active – had developed the same condition after being vaccinated.
I don’t know how plausible the claim is. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficiently compelling to prove a connection but then again that doesn’t mean we can rule it out – at least in specific cases – even if it is not statistically significant. Does anybody know anything more about this?
I tried mentioning the WSM in a post on the sub-reddit forun but they won’t allow it. Maybe others here could try to more subtly introduce the party into the discussion. This is definitely a target audience we should focus on
Quite a useful article this albeit a bit too one-sided in my view
Alan
I think there is value in debating with these people, not because there is much prospect of us changing their minds but because these debates are likely to be viewed by many more people than just them and their immediate supporters. The stoppingsocialism site has its own tv channels and some of the clips have attracted quite big audiences (“what is socialism”, for example, attracted 112K visitors). The other site I mentioned Humanprogress.org also seems to attract very large audiences. It includes people like Steven Pinker and Angus Deaton on its board. I came across it on Facebook
Here’s another bunch of right-wingers who might be worth contacting with a view to a public debate
And I would hope, actually insist, that taking the piss is a prerequisite of any socialist society.
Actually, BD, that is a very perceptive point and one that directly connects with the topic under discussion
In hunter-gatherer societies, one of the ways in which the group ensured its egalitarian nature was by taking the piss out of anyone who sought to get above their station and lord it over others (remember the distinction between status hierarchies and dominance hierachies – this would be a case of wanting to transform the former into the latter)
Anyway here’s an interesting peice on the subject:
The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone’s boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone—especially some young man—attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.
The difference between ‘personal, individual consumption’ and ‘social production’.
Conflating the two is a common conservative tactic – “The Communists will force you to share your underpants!”. “The Communists will collectivise your window-box
This is precisely why you are playing into the hands of those very conservatives by suggesting that that is precisely what communism would do!
LBird
You are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say democracy was a bourgeois obsession. What I was referring to was the bourgeois obsession with quantifying everything (with the emphasis on everything)- in this context counting heads and determining the weight of public opinion on every subject under the sun. That’s just ridiculous – totally impractical and uncalled for.
As a socialist of course, I hold that democracy is a key aspect of a socialist society – far more so than is possible under capitalism. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for a huge amount of what will go on in a socialist society formal democratic decision-making will simply not be required. To keep it simple, society is not going to vote on what I eat for breakfast or what clothes I put on when I get up in the morning, is it?
Lastly in response to my point “Society’s dominant values which will arise quite naturally out of the interactions of individuals…“ you say “But how, robbo? This political claim makes humanity passive and ‘nature’ the active subject.” Rubbish.
The opposite is the case. I am actually investing human beings with agency. That is precisely why I referred to the interactions of individuals. There is no such thing as society without individuals and there is no such thing as individuals without society. The relationship between them is a dialectical one.
This is very different from either a holistic perspective or an individualistic perspective as well you know
The point about status or esteem is that it tends to reflect the values and concerns of the society in question. A skilled hunter or forager in a hunter-gatherer band would be esteemed precisely for the skills she or he brings to bear for the benefit of the band itself.
It would be the same in socialism, I think. The distribution of esteem or status would tend to adapt itself to reflect the concerns and the needs of society. As I say, this is a very effective counterargument to those who say socialism will be undermined by freeloading. The need to feel esteemed by our fellows is a very important human need (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and you are unlikely to gain the respect of your fellows by freeloading. Quite the opposite.
I see this process of adaption as organic and as the expression of evolving culture. You don’t need to formalise it in the guise of a democratic vote. This absurd bourgeois obsession with quantifying everything, – counting heads – apart from being totally impractical, completely misses the point. Society’s dominant values which will arise quite naturally out of the interactions of individuals are already in a sense the expression of the outlook of the majority of those individuals
A human individual is impossible without society – I always find that rather dialectically liberating.
Yes, and the converse is equally true. Society is equally impossible without human individuals
But anyway – all this is moving slightly away from the topic under discussion: status differentiation in a socialist society
Yes, ‘individuals‘, collectively, not an ‘individual’, alone.
Of course. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a democracy, would it? But the collectivity of individuals is obviously comprised of a number of singular individuals in the sense of empirical human beings who participate in, and make possible, democratic decision-making. There is no such thing as a society without individuals in this sense any more than you can have individuals without society
