British public lurching to the right

[Agathor]

A new survey from British Social Attitudes makes for uncomfortable reading.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/survey-increasingly-social


Most voters (74 per cent) continue to believe that inequality is too large (down from 82 per cent in 2000) but just 34 per cent believe the government should redistribute more to solve the problem.




the percentage who believe that benefits for the unemployed are too high has risen from 37 per cent in 2000 to 55 per cent in 2010. This is all the more galling since inequality has continued to rise and benefits have failed to keep pace with earnings.




Worst of all, the left has lost the argument won by Tony Blair - that taxes should be increased to fund higher spending on health, education and social benefits. Just 30 per cent now believe that they should, down from 61 per cent in 2002.




On climate change, just 26 per cent now say they would be willing to pay "much higher prices" to protect the environment, down from 43 per cent a decade ago, while just 22 per cent say they would be willing to pay "much higher taxes", down from 31 per cent a decade ago. In addition, 37 per cent think many claims about environmental threats are exaggerated, up from 24 per cent in 2000.


This survey should strictly temper any optimism that the British left has taken from the Occupy demos.

[ed miliband]

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/08/public-opinion-does-not-exist.html

And anyway, people not wanting to pay taxes =/= a "lurch to the right".

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

On climate change, just 26 per cent now say they would be willing to pay "much higher prices" to protect the environment, down from 43 per cent a decade ago

It's good that people aren't willing to pay higher prices. They shouldn't. It's just like putting the burden of bank bailouts on the working class.

[Agathor]

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/08/public-opinion-does-not-exist.html

And anyway, people not wanting to pay taxes =/= a "lurch to the right".

The survey showed that people disapprove of redistribution to alleviate inequality, which means they don't want rich people paying more taxes.

Opinion polls are not useless. They accurately predict our election results, for example. The people who don't like them tend to be the people who don't like their findings.

And enough of this smug "=/=" shit, eh?

[Agathor]

It's good that people aren't willing to pay higher prices. They shouldn't. It's just like putting the burden of bank bailouts on the working class.

It's very likely that the general population will have to lower their living standards to avoid a climate catastrophe. It's too big of a problem to solve just by raising the top income bracket. It will certainly lead to higher prices, plane travel will need to become extremely expensive, and foreign products (we have a trade deficit btw) will cost much more.

To say that we can convert to renewable energy in the next few decades without raising prices or taxes is pretty ridiculous.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's very likely that the general population will have to lower their living standards to avoid a climate catastrophe. It's too big of a problem to solve just by raising the top income bracket. It will certainly lead to higher prices, plane travel will need to become extremely expensive, and foreign products (we have a trade deficit btw) will cost much more.

To say that we can convert to renewable energy in the next few decades without raising prices or taxes is pretty ridiculous.

See, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Your proposals are reforms within a capitalist context. Prices - taxes - hither thither. Foreign - national; trade, etc; betrays then that you are arguing for reforms within capitalism; but within capitalism the problems both of the economic developments, of poverty and environmental concerns can never be rectified, can never be prevented.

[Agathor]

within capitalism... environmental concerns can never be rectified

Explain.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Explain.

What is there to explain? Within the ramification of capitalist society, the necessary steps to counter such things - like many other serious problems - cannot be taken; and furthermore will not be taken. That's all. It's either revolution or horrors; there's no "better capitalism", and all attempts to reform within capitalism will lead only to short and temporary measures that will prove insufficient, and those measures will not only be insufficient, but also rain down the harshest punishment on the proletariat.

[Mather]

Explain.

Instead of saying that our environmental problems will be solved via working class revolution and the abolition of capitalism, you instead say we should have to pay more taxes to the state and higher bills to private companies. Such a narrative places both the blame and burden of our environmental problems on the working class, the very people who contribute the least to environmental damage.

Only with a change from capitalism to communism will we even begin to be able to deal with our environmental problems.

[Agathor]

What is there to explain? Within the ramification of capitalist society, the necessary steps to counter such things - like many other serious problems - cannot be taken; and furthermore will not be taken. That's all. It's either revolution or horrors; there's no "better capitalism", and all attempts to reform within capitalism will lead only to short and temporary measures that will prove insufficient, and those measures will not only be insufficient, but also rain down the harshest punishment on the proletariat.

So no need to work for workplace health regulations or collective bargaining agreements or eight hour workdays because "there is no better capitalism"?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why Britain can't reduce its carbon emissions within capitalism.

[Agathor]

Only with a change from capitalism to communism will we even begin to be able to deal with our environmental problems.

If that's true (it isn't) then we're already dead.

[Agathor]

Instead of saying that our environmental problems will be solved via working class revolution and the abolition of capitalism, you instead say we should have to pay more taxes to the state and higher bills to private companies.

This is just childish nonsense. Even if communist revolution had a hint of a possibility of an occurrence within the next fifty years, the working class would still need to pay for environmental reforms within socialism. Clean energy will cost more to produce than fossil fuels regardless of the economic system.

Edit: the amount of people thanking the quoted post is extremely depressing. Marx, I'm sorry. You deserve a better posterity.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is just childish nonsense. Even if communist revolution had a hint of a possibility of an occurrence within the next fifty years, the working class would still need to pay for environmental reforms within socialism. Clean energy will cost more to produce than fossil fuels regardless of the economic system.

I think you seem to have a peculiar view of what this revolution would entail if you fancy it would work like your regular current-day capitalism with cost-benefit in monetary terms and whatnot still present. Costs will no longer be determined by the same factors as in capitalism - labour, technical expertise, there will be no patents, raw materials will be priced per costs associated with procuring them rather than supply-demand and only for purposes of relative calculation; so no, it would not be more costly, the abandonment of the current cost-calculation methods would make much more cheaper and common experimentation with new methods and possibilities and speed up any such.

[Mather]

So no need to work for workplace health regulations or collective bargaining agreements or eight hour workdays because "there is no better capitalism"?

The big difference here that reforms like workplace regulations, the minimum wage, eight hour working day etc... benefit the working class whereas higher taxes and higher prices for food and bills don't.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me why Britain can't reduce its carbon emissions within capitalism.

It can tinker with them but such measures are nowhere near enough to solve our environmental problems. To deal with our environmnetal problems will require a complete change in the way we produce things and in our use of energy. Simply telling the working class that they will have to pay more in order to use ineffecient and polluting energy sources (gas, coal and oil) will in no way address the root of the problem, which is the type of fuel we use to generate energy.


If that's true (it isn't)

So you insist that only capitalism can solve our environmental problems?



then we're already dead.


Climate change will make life harder for humans, especially in some areas of the third world. But it will not end in our extinction and at present is nowhere near an existential threat.


This is just childish nonsense. Even if communist revolution had a hint of a possibility of an occurrence within the next fifty years, the working class would still need to pay for environmental reforms within socialism.

You are aware that communism is a moneyless social system, so there will be no financial costs to consider, only ones based on labour and resources. What is more, unlike capitalism where any cynical attempt/stunt to 'solve' our environmental problems places the burden on those least responsible (the working class) a communist approach would deal with the root of the problem by developing technologies and energy generation that does not cause large scale environmental damage.


Clean energy will cost more to produce than fossil fuels regardless of the economic system.

As above, that would be a very different case if money is abolished and costs are measured in labour and resources. Also all costs will be equally shared and the burden of costs do not fall exclusively on the working class.



Edit: the amount of people thanking the quoted post is extremely depressing. Marx, I'm sorry. You deserve a better posterity.


Stop being an arrogant prick!

[OHumanista]

One thing is arguing for workplace regulations and similar labor reforms.(positive)
Quite another is taxing people to MINIMALLY aleviate ecological problems in capitalism.
If you really are this desperate about investing in such energies why not tax corporation to invest in it? (then again doesn't makes much sense even if it's a way better proposal, because environmentalism is directly opposed to capitalist interests and they don't support things harmful to their interests)

[Agathor]

In a communist society there will be no money, so nothing will cost anything to build!

Mansions for everyone.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Unsurprisingly, people are not stupid as the press often like to make out (in order to spread the necessary political and activist apathy that entrenches Capitalist rule).

I don't think this survey represents a 'lurch to the left' at all. People (rightly) associate redistribution of wealth with higher taxes. Given the increasingly regressive (relatively speaking, of course) nature of taxation over the past 30-40 years, and given that people have been financially immiserated to bail out the banks, should we be surprised that people are hostile to Statism?

Also, green issues are not necessarily intertwined with Socialist politics, more of an overlap.

[Agathor]

Unsurprisingly, people are not stupid as the press often like to make out (in order to spread the necessary political and activist apathy that entrenches Capitalist rule).

I don't think this survey represents a 'lurch to the left' at all. People (rightly) associate redistribution of wealth with higher taxes. Given the increasingly regressive (relatively speaking, of course) nature of taxation over the past 30-40 years, and given that people have been financially immiserated to bail out the banks, should we be surprised that people are hostile to Statism?

Also, green issues are not necessarily intertwined with Socialist politics, more of an overlap.

You can't explain the welfare stuff.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In a communist society there will be no money, so nothing will cost anything to build!

Mansions for everyone.

Now you are just being silly and purposefully daft.

Read what has been said before. Here, here's a partial explanation, from what Mather said:


As above, that would be a very different case if money is abolished and costs are measured in labour and resources. Also all costs will be equally shared and the burden of costs do not fall exclusively on the working class.

There's no need for mansions for everyone. Mansions are pointless and their only existence in capitalism is that of status symbols. You don't need 37 bathrooms and 24 living rooms in your home, unless you dwell with your extended 45 people family.

[Agathor]

As above, that would be a very different case if money is abolished and costs are measured in labour and resources. Also all costs will be equally shared and the burden of costs do not fall exclusively on the working class.


Yeah, costs will be measured in labour and resources, more-or-less as they're calculated now. It will take much more labour to build an economy that's independent of fossil fuels than it will to keep the fossil fuels. Energy sector requires more workers - energy sector costs more to maintain.

[Jesouhaite]

I am new to this site, but not to its beliefs. I would like to promulgate, British politics is enexorably right wing, we all know this. Thats fine. What I would like to suggest is that in the near future, when this current generation of 'baby boomers' is, in voting terms, insignificant, that us, be that 14-45 born 95 onwards will be able to say "yeah ok, this has 't worked...what else is there...." why is the communist party not actively promoting these ideas? This should be our agenda! Please politely respond, I am interested in your arguments. Thanks.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You can't explain the welfare stuff.

Yes, yes I can.

It is patently clear that people don't trust the state any more. The state used public money to fund an un-conditional, regressive bailout of un-profitable financial institutions and, even in 2011 (see Northern Rock) is prepared to sell off the good parts of these institutions at cut-price rate to the private sector, and leave taxpayers with the toxic, debt-laden parts.

The state has been used to suppress strikes. The state has been used to murder the likes of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan.

Is it any wonder that, when asked if they support giving the state their money to re-distribute as the government of the day (remember that we have had ultra-Capitalist, neo-liberal, warmonger governments for over 30 years now) sees fit, that people respond with an emphatic no.

We've seen with the student protests, we've seen with the anger re: tuition fees, with the anger re: yet another top-down privatisation of the NHS that people don't trust the state anymore and don't want to engage with it.

I don't really think that, living in the UK in 2011, I can accept that people are wholeheartedly accepting the immiseration of the poorest in society, the swingeing cuts being imposed and so on. Statistics can be misleading and the way they were used in the OP certainly do not paint a wholly true picture of events in the country right now.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yeah, costs will be measured in labour and resources, more-or-less as they're calculated now. It will take much more labour to build an economy that's independent of fossil fuels than it will to keep the fossil fuels. Energy sector requires more workers - energy sector costs more to maintain.

No they aren't. Labour will be measured in terms of labour hours required for reference, and resources by the amount that exists and the labour time required to get hold of those; as it is now, it is about financial costs and in those contexts "superfluous" spending - such as research and similar non-proved projects (not guaranteed to give a monetary profit) have a hard time getting much time and resources allocated to them; this would change.

But then again, if your ideal is simply a social-democratic capitalist world with some meagre environmental reforms - or, alternatively, some hideous primitivist new dark-age that dooms people to declining living standards and harsher life within capitalism, then I can understand your positions and the conventionalism you display in your views on this matter. It is like you are either unwilling or unable to look beyond how things work now and somehow you seem to fancy that what is required has any chance of happening as the world is today, which is either idealist nonsense or simply short-sighted foolishness.

[Agathor]

Yes, yes I can.

It is patently clear that people don't trust the state any more. The state used public money to fund an un-conditional, regressive bailout of un-profitable financial institutions and, even in 2011 (see Northern Rock) is prepared to sell off the good parts of these institutions at cut-price rate to the private sector, and leave taxpayers with the toxic, debt-laden parts.

The state has been used to suppress strikes. The state has been used to murder the likes of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan.

Is it any wonder that, when asked if they support giving the state their money to re-distribute as the government of the day (remember that we have had ultra-Capitalist, neo-liberal, warmonger governments for over 30 years now) sees fit, that people respond with an emphatic no.

We've seen with the student protests, we've seen with the anger re: tuition fees, with the anger re: yet another top-down privatisation of the NHS that people don't trust the state anymore and don't want to engage with it.

I don't really think that, living in the UK in 2011, I can accept that people are wholeheartedly accepting the immiseration of the poorest in society, the swingeing cuts being imposed and so on. Statistics can be misleading and the way they were used in the OP certainly do not paint a wholly true picture of events in the country right now.

Obviously you don't have any evidence for any of this. It's a pretty ludicrous interpretation.

[Agathor]

No they aren't. Labour will be measured in terms of labour hours required for reference, and resources by the amount that exists and the labour time required to get hold of those; as it is now, it is about financial costs and in those contexts "superfluous" spending - such as research and similar non-proved projects (not guaranteed to give a monetary profit) have a hard time getting much time and resources allocated to them; this would change.

But then again, if your ideal is simply a social-democratic capitalist world with some meagre environmental reforms - or, alternatively, some hideous primitivist new dark-age that dooms people to declining living standards and harsher life within capitalism, then I can understand your positions and the conventionalism you display in your views on this matter. It is like you are either unwilling or unable to look beyond how things work now and somehow you seem to fancy that what is required has any chance of happening as the world is today, which is either idealist nonsense or simply short-sighted foolishness.

You focused on a minor point and called me a social democrat. There is no hope for some people.

Some advice: find a high school economics textbook and start reading on the first page.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Obviously you don't have any evidence for any of this. It's a pretty ludicrous interpretation.

It's an opinion, not a research paper.

If you can't actually engage with my opinion, then you may as well just not comment, instead of resorting to calling it 'ludicrous' simply because you have nothing interesting to say on the topic/can't understand the phrase 'difference of opinion'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some advice: find a high school economics textbook and start reading on the first page.

Why? It would invariably be full of Capitalist claptrap such as supply=demand=equilibrium=EMH=rational expectations etc.

Better still, why don't you get off your high horse and engage with people rather than instantly saying 'you're wrong' to anybody who disagrees with you. This is a website for debate, not the promulgation of egotistical self-adulation.

[Manic Impressive]

in times of economic crisis peoples politics and conciousness tend to polarize. I've definitely noticed recently and over the last few years that people have begun to become either more right or more left as they try to find a solution to the mess that is capitalism

[Mather]

In a communist society there will be no money, so nothing will cost anything to build!

Mansions for everyone.


I suppose you have no choice but to post rubbish like this to hide the fact that you have nothing of worth to say. I also see your doing it to the other posters too.

You post on a forum for revolutionary leftists and then get shitty with people who think that only by abolishing capitalism can we begin to solve our environmental problems.

What point are you trying to make?


Yeah, costs will be measured in labour and resources, more-or-less as they're calculated now.

Wrong.

Costs today are measured in financial terms and only account for labour and resources on those terms. That and the fact that the profit motive will be absent from any planning under communism.




It will take much more labour to build an economy that's independent of fossil fuels than it will to keep the fossil fuels. Energy sector requires more workers - energy sector costs more to maintain.


Again your wrong.

Fossil fuel energy sources cost more to maintain and use and that would be the case either in a capitalist system or under communism as the costs are higher in financial, energy, labour and resource terms. Oil wells or coal mines require more resources and labour than solar panel plants or nuclear power stations for example.



Some advice: find a high school economics textbook and start reading on the first page.


Here you go, being an arrogant prick, again!

Does this have something to do with the fact that you have no argument and so resort to these childish gimmicks?

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't see what is so absurd about what this guy is saying. No matter the mechanism, social content, coordination, etc. of reproductive life (i.e., Marxian classless, stateless, value-less communism vice various utopian schemes), it will go without saying the following:

a.) There will remain substantially different possible 'baskets' of choices for an organic human community to make, utilizing the same labor (however unalienated) and raw material resources.

b.) It follows, therefore, that a communist society would still need to intelligently decide amongst alternatives it can scientifically percieve, when planning for social reproduction. That is, in order to fight global warming, we may have more capacity committed to such mitigationist labors, and thus perhaps would have to proportionally delay a major space program, etc.

c.) The colossal cost of constructing and maintaining a global industrial infrastructure, based on certain fundamental energy constraints (for instance, the energy in joules consumed cannot exceed energy made available).

d.) Therefore, it is a non-trivial problem to develop the most intelligent and socially acceptable possible plan for mitigating ecological and industrial sustainability, even considering a narrow aspect such as GHG-emitting v. non-GHG-emitting energy and industrial production systems. And that will of course have to be rationally framed in a plan that includes such other substantial labors as homogenizing the global standard of living, expanding education, securing water resources, ad nauseum.

e.) I think the left in its dull fetish for the insularity of the monastery, too trivially dismisses these very real issues (simply because the Greens and liberals offer the wrong solutions, not solutions for the working-class, does not justify dismissing simply the issues at hand), and the thought invested in them which will be important after the revolution, and would best not be merely improvised on the spot.

Marxian communism is value-less, it is true. Production of goods and services are not commodities, need not be exchanged, and need not be subject to a universal equivalent. Rather, social scientific planning of production for use prevails. But Marxian communism does not entail the mystical abolition of the global, social, production possibilities frontier. Scientific planning by definition presupposes that scientific selection among possible options of plan (and thus allocation of human resources), which obviously must entail trade-offs. Trade-offs are not value, do not imply exchange.

[vyborg]

Survey can be easily manipulated formulating questions in a way or another.
it is also very easy to see that the answers are not a coherent political outlook of the world.

for instance if i ask do you want better schools? 99% reply yes. then i ask: do you want to pay more taxes for schools? 99% reply no thanx. Consistency is nowhere to be seen.

Anyway i agree that generally speaking the replies shows a completely disbelief of bourgeois politics as a whole and this is very good. the government cannot solve anything.

a last point: even her majesty queen elizabeth made jokes about mainstream economics after the crisis exploded. someone advises us to learn from this very hogwash...it would be funny but it is also tragical

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't see what is so absurd about what this guy is saying. No matter the mechanism, social content, coordination, etc. of reproductive life (i.e., Marxian classless, stateless, value-less communism vice various utopian schemes), it will go without saying the following:

a.) There will remain substantially different possible 'baskets' of choices for an organic human community to make, utilizing the same labor (however unalienated) and raw material resources.

b.) It follows, therefore, that a communist society would still need to intelligently decide amongst alternatives it can scientifically percieve, when planning for social reproduction. That is, in order to fight global warming, we may have more capacity committed to such mitigationist labors, and thus perhaps would have to proportionally delay a major space program, etc.

c.) The colossal cost of constructing and maintaining a global industrial infrastructure, based on certain fundamental energy constraints (for instance, the energy in joules consumed cannot exceed energy made available).

d.) Therefore, it is a non-trivial problem to develop the most intelligent and socially acceptable possible plan for mitigating ecological and industrial sustainability, even considering a narrow aspect such as GHG-emitting v. non-GHG-emitting energy and industrial production systems. And that will of course have to be rationally framed in a plan that includes such other substantial labors as homogenizing the global standard of living, expanding education, securing water resources, ad nauseum.

e.) I think the left in its dull fetish for the insularity of the monastery, too trivially dismisses these very real issues (simply because the Greens and liberals offer the wrong solutions, not solutions for the working-class, does not justify dismissing simply the issues at hand), and the thought invested in them which will be important after the revolution, and would best not be merely improvised on the spot.

Marxian communism is value-less, it is true. Production of goods and services are not commodities, need not be exchanged, and need not be subject to a universal equivalent. Rather, social scientific planning of production for use prevails. But Marxian communism does not entail the mystical abolition of the global, social, production possibilities frontier. Scientific planning by definition presupposes that scientific selection among possible options of plan (and thus allocation of human resources), which obviously must entail trade-offs. Trade-offs are not value, do not imply exchange.

Disagree:

Well, in part anyway. Capitalism narrows the theoretical basket of goods via market inefficiencies (especially that of imperfect information on the consumer side, a chronic problem that almost always prevents the equilibrium price from being found....it doesn't exist!), state inefficiencies, market & state hoarding of capital (i.e. greed, inequality, exploitation).

It should go without saying that, whilst in a communist society people would not be driving around in Ferraris and living in 5 bed houses necessarily, that the overall 'pie' (society's production possibility frontier) would increase, as well as the way in which goods within society are produced, distributed (and recycled).

But yes, you are absolutely correct in your rejection of utopianism and your re-clarification of the scientific nature of communism. It's not going to be some dreamland, it is merely our political alternative for the mass of people on this globe - the working class - to enjoy not only a better life in terms of living standards, but to be able to control the direction of their own lives and those of their neighbours.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well, in part anyway. Capitalism narrows the theoretical basket of goods via market inefficiencies (especially that of imperfect information on the consumer side, a chronic problem that almost always prevents the equilibrium price from being found....it doesn't exist!), state inefficiencies, market & state hoarding of capital (i.e. greed, inequality, exploitation).

What does this have to do with the fact that we will have to tally-up how many (willing) man-hours at whatever mixes of skill and other factors, together with the natural resources available, can be committed to various possible uses, among which the human community will have to make scientific determinations and come to social conclusions?

Nothing you're stating has any more substance than truism or slogan. Nothing in this paragraph demonstrates that scarcity of all resources and productive constraints will be eliminated. Therefore, the global, social production possibilities frontier is maintained under communism, and therefore some means of social accounting must necessarily be undertaken.


It should go without saying that, whilst in a communist society people would not be driving around in Ferraris and living in 5 bed houses necessarily, that the overall 'pie' (society's production possibility frontier) would increase, as well as the way in which goods within society are produced, distributed (and recycled).

Yeah, under ceteris paribus assumptions. All other things being equal, a communist and a capitalist system operating over the same essential base of material resources, the communist society will always be able to realize social reproduction at a higher level. That is by definition of the concept.

However, it is precisely here we cannot take for granted such assumptions. Industrial, ecological, and environmental sustainability is a different animal from many other social issues. The fact is the material base of social reproduction can and is being run down, so that its total productive capacity is diminished (perhaps, and increasingly so, permanently). So even accepting that exiting capitalism means that resources need not be priced and over-committed to the consumption requirements of the ruling class, that does not make it reflexive that one can assume that it will be relatively low in social cost to mitigate or repair the problem.

Overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism will not conjure back into being annihilated pollinators, or change the fundamental energy economics of fossil v. post-fossil sources, etc.


But yes, you are absolutely correct in your rejection of utopianism and your re-clarification of the scientific nature of communism. It's not going to be some dreamland, it is merely our political alternative for the mass of people on this globe - the working class - to enjoy not only a better life in terms of living standards, but to be able to control the direction of their own lives and those of their neighbours.

Yes, but I do not see anyone meaningfully questioning the basic premises of the claim, only throwing around truisms that it should work out, because, y'know, its communism.

Not good enough for scientific socialists, not good enough an answer for the working-class.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, but I do not see anyone meaningfully questioning the basic premises of the claim, only throwing around truisms that it should work out, because, y'know, its communism.

Not good enough for scientific socialists, not good enough an answer for the working-class.

I do not think it is accurate to say that it is merely truism; of course, there's no reason it will be some magical improvement at the very shift and that there will not be difficult challenges to face in many regards, merely that limiting oneself to merely thinking of how such things work under capitalism is bad and equally unproductive and that demanding declining living standards rather than seeking other ways to solve such situations and increase and equalise the living standards globally is anti-socialist and essentially equal to those collaborators in cuts in social spending who agree with the premises along the lines that "cuts are necessary, we just think the burden should fall more equally on everyone" as some daft prick interviewed during the UK strike said with regards to government policy on economic gutting.

[Rafiq]

You focused on a minor point and called me a social democrat. There is no hope for some people.

Some advice: find a high school economics textbook and start reading on the first page.

Yeah! While we're at it, why don't we read a Textbook from Stalinist Russia in regards to civics! Great Idea!

The point of Marx was to fucking challenge the already existing convictions in regards to economics.

[Firebrand]

I think the returns for the local elections across the uk prove that the brittish public has actually taken a sharp turn to the left since the general election. True they haven't gone very far left but if there was a general election today the tories would be crushed and the lib-dems would cease to be a major party.

[MotherCossack]

I think the returns for the local elections across the uk prove that the brittish public has actually taken a sharp turn to the left since the general election. True they haven't gone very far left but if there was a general election today the tories would be crushed and the lib-dems would cease to be a major party.

cor blimey..... thats putting a very upbeat spin on things....... not sure I 'm really convinced there is much more than an uncomfortable shuffle in a very arbitary fashion .... s'pose we got a few ... but it is hardly the enlightenment of the proletariat.....
Yeah... maybe It 's me but everywhere i go I hear people spewing out the tory rubbish ... in it together and it is gonna be tough but if we dont it will ruin our kids lives and their kids too.....
Seems like they almost enjoy how grim life could get... and everyone has forgotten the massive bonuses paid to some.....
If you lot really think we are approaching the demise of capitalism.... great.... but personally I am not anything like as sure.

[Firebrand]

It's a choice between thinking positive and being miserable. Besides, you never know its going to happen until it happens, revolutions are almost always unexpected. You never know when the years of resentment and passive agression will flare up into open revolt.

[Skyhilist]

Alright so I have a few questions. In a classless and moneyless society, what will keep all of the lazy and ignorant people of society working? Secondly, what would stop a person within this society from gaining momentum, rising to power and turning the whole thing into a dictatorship?

[Bronco]

I think the returns for the local elections across the uk prove that the brittish public has actually taken a sharp turn to the left since the general election. True they haven't gone very far left but if there was a general election today the tories would be crushed and the lib-dems would cease to be a major party.

Well it stands to reason that the opposition party are going to be successful in times of economic downturn, just as the Conservatives were in the local elections prior to their getting into power. Voting Labour doesn't represent a "sharp turn to the left" either

Also, why has this thread been bumped from 5 months ago?

[A Marxist Historian]

Alright so I have a few questions. In a classless and moneyless society, what will keep all of the lazy and ignorant people of society working? Secondly, what would stop a person within this society from gaining momentum, rising to power and turning the whole thing into a dictatorship?

To create a classless and moneyless society, you need a social transformation, which would transform peoples' personal values.

There have been plenty of primitive communist societies in human history, most of the American Indian tribes for example. This was not a problem there, because laziness was simply not tolerated, by anybody. Too much social pressure against it. The occasional lazy person would often simply be kicked out of the tribe to starve to death or get eaten by wolves.

This would not be necessary in a world communist society of abundance, but the ostracism and contempt the truly lazy would undergo in the socialist society of the future would be equally effective. Hey, everybody at least wants to be able to get laid...

To get to that point, you would have what might be a fairly lengthy "lower stage" of communism, what Lenin and Marx called "socialism," during which classes would be abolished, and people would receive a share of the social surplus dependent on how hard and well they work. So "moneyless" in the technical sense, as labor certificates or whatever you want to call them are not money by Marxist standards, not universal equivalents etc., but still "money" in popular terms.

The Soviet ruble was something halfway in between money and labor certificates, as it couldn't be turned into capital and couldn't be used to buy anything other than Soviet consumer goods.

As for single individuals becoming dictators, this can only happen in any society when you have social forces behind them. How else can a dictator take power? Mass hypnosis? Social classes, the army, a mass fascist movement, foreign occupiers, etc. etc. Never in any society whatseover has anybody ever become a dictator merely by force of personal will.

-M.H.-

[Firebrand]

Well it stands to reason that the opposition party are going to be successful in times of economic downturn, just as the Conservatives were in the local elections prior to their getting into power. Voting Labour doesn't represent a "sharp turn to the left" either
As i said, they didn't go very far left, but they did go as far left as its possible to go in this electoral system.


Also, why has this thread been bumped from 5 months ago?

You'll have to ask rafiq about that