Sympo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:
"Political conditions are subservient to the economic conditions of production, which as Engels says, in his response to Bloch² are those of the production and reproduction of social life."Is calling the political conditions "subservient to the economic conditions" the same thing as calling it "undecisive" in the making of history? (This question is not meant to be rhetorical)"Yes. Take the Labour parties. Take the Leninist parties. They were really, really, really important. Nobody could deny that. But they were not decisive. Not at all!"Why exactly weren't the Bolsheviks decisive in the making of history?
gnome wrote:I think you're absolutely spot on and it begs the question why you're not a member especially when perhaps you have more than a working knowledge of how capitalism works.Without being too specific, I have my personal reasons for not joining (not trying to be mysterious).For the moment, I prefer reading the partys articles and trying to become more educated about certain marxist subjects from time to time (especially marxian economics).
Anyone can question what I'm saying right now, but what's the point of being part of a super small party (the SPGB) when you approve of the policies of a much larger party (Labour)?Also, the text gave me the impression that the former member thinks Keynesianism works? Am I correct?Again, I have no say since I'm not a member. I'm just slightly interested in the affair.
What was the nature of the posts that the expelled SPGB member shared? Were they saying something in the likes of "Vote Labour" or was it something like "The Tory's are bad"?I'm not a member and have no say in this matter but it would perhaps be good if people could find out what the posts actually said?
LBird wrote:"Scenario C (to use your terms): People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where explanations are formed about that particular subject. These explanations are then explained to people, and if the people accept the explanations, they make the decision to accept the explanation. If the explanation is unacceptable, new experts are elected by the people."So, for example if a council were to decide where to bury nuclear waste the members would say this to the the public "The council thinks we should put the waste in area X because of reason Y"Then people could say "What a stupid decision, let's replace these morons". And if the amount of people who would be in favor of re-election were bigger than those who were opposed to it, we would get a new council whose decisions hopefully would be less stupid according to the public.If this is what you consider to be scenario C? Because this is how I more or less envisioned scenario A.A problem that could be caused by this arrangement would perhaps be that people who are not experts don't feel that they're knowledgable enough about the subject to object to decisions made by councils. If the council goes "We're gonna do this because of that" I think there's a risk of most people, including myself, going "Sure, whatever".
Not really relevant to the discussion YMS and others are having with LBird but what is the great difference between scenario A and scenario B?Scenario A: People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where decisions are made about that particular subject.Scenario B: People democratically elect individuals who are not experts on the subject to form a council where decisions are made about that particular subject. The non-experts learn about the issue (unless we want them to screw up) and become more educated on the subject than those that elected them. They have, as I see it, basically become experts.Are any of the scenarios not examples of leaving decisions to elected experts? And are any of these scenarios undemocratic?
ALB wrote:If it comes to elections I can think of a number of reasons for voting for somebody other than that they are an "expert" of some sort, e.g. sensible, level-headed, able to understand a problem, etc.Let's say we elect people to a council that is supposed to manage nuclear waste or something (just an example). Doesn't "understanding the problem" mean that these people must have "great skill or knowledge" about nuclear waste? Meaning that they are experts?
"Such decisions don't have to be left to 'experts' but can be taken by democratically elected councils able to examine the matter in more detail before coming to a decision."For me, this sounds as though we would pretty much leave some decisions to "experts" (albeit non-priviliged ones that could be recalled at any time).I mean I would probably vote for someone I believed to be knowledgable on the subject.And isn't that what an expert is?What other useful merit besides expertize can one consider when electing someone?
robbo203 wrote:"Have you read Benedict Anderson's book on Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism?"I've never heard of him (though I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject)"While the seed of extreme nationalism may exist in capitalism only because nationalism is part of the logic of capitalism in my view, I dont think it necessarily follows that nationalism in its extreme form must always occur."Does this, combined with the idea that states could include all sellers in economic transactions, mean that Capitalism could potentially be a system where no military conflicts between states occur?
robbo203 wrote:"In answer to you first point yes I suppose the scenario you suggest is possible but that still does not negate the basic argument that there is a zero sum situation – a conflict of interest – involved"I assume you think the scenario looks pretty unlikely?"they are predicated on a myth called the "national interest" which assumes a commonality of interests between workers and capitalists within a given nation state." So the seed of extreme nationalism will always exist in capitalist society.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I did a quick google on this Before the war, 70% of Germany's export trade was with European countries, mostly the Netherlands, France, and EnglandThat only tells us how much of Germanys exports that went to France and Britain though. It doesn't tell us how much Germany traded with France and Britain. From what I've heard, Nazi Germany aspired autarky. Isn't that true?
robbo203 wrote:I think your reply was good but I would like to play devil's advocate here and question a few things."For instance, a seller and a buyer might strike a deal but this might very well have the effect of damaging the interests of another potential seller, for example who had been deliberately excluded from the proceedings and might feel aggrieved as a result."Can't the second seller get in on the action (i.e. why can't the buyer buy half of X from seller 1 and half from seller 2)?"On the contrary the drive to war normally engages irrational factors such as nationalistic sentiments to an extraordinary degree"Are capitalist states inherently irrational? Is there no way for them to permanently stay away from extreme nationalism?
Vin wrote:You cant have harmony and capitalismWhy exactly though isn't it possible for nations to "cut the cake" so that both nations feel like they have gotten their fair share? Doesn't states often want to avoid war?
gnome wrote:It is this global system of competitive accumulation that creates the rivalry that leads to war.Why isn't it possible for all capitalist nations to benefit from cooperation with eachother? Can't they all get satishfied?
Lew wrote:Britain, France and Germany were very economically intertwined(…)but that didn't stop WW1 and WW2.Did Nazi Germany really trade a lot with France/Britain prior to WW2? What's the reason behind the fact that European nations have not fought eachother post-WW2? Was it because of the Soviet state capitalist threat?
