The biggest lie in British politics (Economics and Johann Hari content)

Chat Forum

[closed]

The biggest lie in British politics (Economics and Johann Hari content)

84 posts & 31 voices | Started 1 year ago by miketually | Latest reply from konabunny

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1 23

mogrim - Member

Where would be be if it hadn't been for the proletariat ? No industrial revolution.

Thought the proletariat sprung up out of the industrial revolution, being part of marxist theory (itself a reaction to capitalism, of course)? Unless you decide to apply the term retroactively, I suppose.

Something you said earlier:
In truth, despite the fact that it would appear otherwise, economics is a precise science

Rubbish. Define a precise way to measure unemployment and inflation, then. Define a precise way to measure the submerged economy when calculating unemployment. It's not precise - it's getting better, it might be able to measure trends, but it's a long way off accurate predictions which surely is a fundamental part of a "precise science".

Posted 1 year ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Thought the proletariat sprung up out of the industrial revolution

Yes it did. And ?

Rubbish. Define a precise way to measure unemployment and inflation, then. Define a precise way to measure the submerged economy when calculating unemployment.

?

Whether you can or cannot precisely measure unemployment is completely irrelevant. Economics is a precise science in the same way as weather patterns are a precise science. The fact that we are often completely unable to predict the weather is irrelevant - none of it happens by chance. As I said, everything has a logic. Unless you're religious.

Posted 1 year ago #
mavisto - Member

Ernie. I know exactly what communism is. What you misinterpreted or chose to ignore is that even in communist states someone has to govern i.e. be in charge. And that usually means someone 'wants' to be in charge.

One of the forefathers of socialism, Robert Owen, attempted to create self sustaining communes in America. They all failed, basically because he wasn't there to govern them

As for your comments to my post and the post of Mogrim about the proletariat,you appear to be arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Society may have needed the proletariat to provide the manual labour, but without the ideas and the money to support them, the industrial revolution would certainly not have happened.

As for economics and weather systems being a precise science. Sorry, but you are mistaken. We might understand the principles of how they work, but the fact that we cannot predict accurately the simple outcome of a number of parameters makes them anything but a 'precise science'. It is certainly not irrelevant,as science virtually relies on our ability to predict a specific outcome.

By your argument the principles of plate tectonics are a precise science. Try explaining that one to the people of Japan.

Posted 1 year ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Ernie. I know exactly what communism is. What you misinterpreted or chose to ignore is that even in communist states someone has to govern i.e. be in charge.

I suggest you read up on the "withering away of the state". How can you have "someone" in charge if there is no state structures ?

you appear to be arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg

No I wasn't arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg. I was challenging your claim that the industrial revolution was solely down to "the capitalists". I think you'll find that the proletariat played quite an important role. And yes, capitalism was the result of the industrial revolution, not the other way round. There's no chicken and egg about it.

By your argument the principles of plate tectonics are a precise science. Try explaining that one to the people of Japan.

Why would I have a problem explaining to the Japanese people that plate tectonics is a precise science which involves a conflict of opposing forces ? Do they believe that it is all down to divine intervention ?

Posted 1 year ago #
mavisto - Member

Your definition of Communism is a philosophy that has never existed. The nearest thing we've had in modern times is Cuba. Great health care, but that's about all that can be said about it. And you can't tell me that Castro wasn't in charge. So much so that when he's ill, relatives take over.

As for the industrial revolution. Take away the investors and the inventors and what have you got? Nothing, there is no scope for the industrial revolution to have begun. The proletariat would still have existed (those of lower social class, not specifically working class), but working on farms etc. Take away the proletariat and there is still the possibility that the industrial revolution may have happened.

You may well be able to explain the principles of opposing forces, but that does not make it a precise science.

I have a genuine question for you. I've been wracking my brains to think of a socialist or communist country or state, now or in history that has progressed humanity in any positive way? And I don't mean ideologically, I mean practically. You know, 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

Whether rightly or wrongly, the only ones I can think of have been driven by violent domination or greed.

Posted 1 year ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

mavisto - the philosophy clearly exists. True communism has not on any large scale. You mistake the totalitarian states called communist for true communism.

Posted 1 year ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Your definition of Communism is a philosophy that has never existed

It's the only one that I'm aware of. It's certainly Marx's definition, which after all is what we're talking about.

Cuba is not communist, it does not claim to be communist. It claims to be socialist, and in the commonly accepted definition of the word, that is exactly what it is.

Posted 1 year ago #
mavisto - Member

TJ I am fully aware that the philosophy of Communism exists.

I was actually trying to make the point that communism has never really existed other than as a philosophy. The so-called communist countries and states are of course totalitarian regimes. That was also my point. Many of these countries profess to being communist, but are nothing of the sort.

It is a philosophy that had never had a working application.

Ernie I concede that Cuba is not communist, but I believe Castro is still the head of the Communist Party. But they are certainly not socialist. Huge human rights violations, torture of its people, doesn't sound very social to me.

Posted 1 year ago #
mavisto - Member

And Ernie, Can you or TJ answer my question please I'd really like to know.

I have a genuine question for you. I've been wracking my brains to think of a socialist or communist country or state, now or in history that has progressed humanity in any positive way? And I don't mean ideologically, I mean practically. You know, 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

Posted 1 year ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Why me or TJ ? We're not a partnership you know.

I really need to get on with stuff but : a socialist or communist country or state, now or in history that has progressed humanity in any positive way? And I don't mean ideologically, I mean practically. You know, 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

Well it's a huge subject and not one I want to immerse myself into hours of pointless discussion, but there are examples of socialism having transformed backward feudal agrarian societies into industrial superpowers within a very short period of time. And in some cases becoming even more technologically advanced in certain areas than other far more established capitalist countries. I'm not sure whether you also include creating the world's first national health service, an idea since adopted by most of the advanced capitalist countries in the world, despite the fact that it is based not simply on a socialist principle, but on the advanced communist principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", as an example of a "practical" achievement. Then there is abolition of unemployment and the huge increases in life expectancy - are these "practical" achievements ? Or the lack of involvement by socialists countries in armed conflicts, certainly in comparison with capitalist countries ? And so it goes on........how long is a piece of string really. Then of course there is the subject of the failings under socialism, another huge subject worthy of endless discussions imo, although it's not what you asked. Basically you're asking too much imo. STW can only deal with small easy to chew debates imo.

Posted 1 year ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

WE are not Ernie? *sobs*

Posted 1 year ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Sorry mate...........I let you speak for yourself.

Posted 1 year ago #
Junkyard - Member

I've been wracking my brains to think of a socialist or communist country or state, now or in history that has progressed humanity in any positive way?

OHH i know this one and so do you apparently

I was actually trying to make the point that communism has never really existed other than as a philosophy.

We have never had a trully capitalist system we have an interventionist state [ as has every country] as no one actually trusts the capitalist model despite telling us all how much better it is - see the recent bailing out of the banks by the state - imagine we were subsidising miners/manufacturing what would the right wing capitalist be saying then?

Posted 1 year ago #
konabunny - Member

imagine we were subsidising miners/manufacturing what would the right wing capitalist be saying then?

I don't know. What do right-wing capitalists say about the massive subsidies to the arms manufacturing industry?

Posted 1 year ago #