Topical political theory

[Serial_Apologist]

But do YOU think that he is?! Hope the racket stops soon if it's not already done so.

The consistent answer is yes, obviously. The racket has stopped, by the way. I'm just concerned it may have been a soundcheck for a party to be held later this evening.

Your mention of Carnegie and Gates is interesting; however, if governments act equally responsibly with the funds in their charge, mightn't they likewise be regarded as members of the ruling class by dint of so doing (or would you regard that term as applicable only to individuals and not to governments)?

Not quite sure what it is you're asking here. Given that the ruling class organises itself collectively, it isn't only individuals that belong to it, as I would have thought is obvious. Governments don't have to be, but are likely to be, unless based in an alternative power base challenging capitalist rule, since, unchallenged, the socioeconomic default model predisposes governments to carry on supporting the status quo. Any alterative power structure strong enough to do so would need to win support through existing channels, eg trade unions, local authorities, parliaments and national assemblies, these being legitimate centres of decision-making in the broader public's mind to be won over. So, elected governments needn't be members of the ruling class, though they are likely to be in its pocket in the absence of an alternative strong enough to take on capitalist power, which includes the courts, bureaucracy, armed forces and police, though the rank-and-file, being ordinary wage/salary earners, are clearly not, and are there to be won over. By extension, then, parliaments and other organs of the state are neutral as regards class affiliation is concerned - though I imagine a "true Marxist" might disagree, and say they all serve the interests of the capitalist class and have to be smashed. Personally I now think such rhetoric belongs to a pre-enfranchised, pre-welfare state past. Hope that answers your question!

[ahinton]

The consistent answer is yes, obviously. The racket has stopped, by the way. I'm just concerned it may have been a soundcheck for a party to be held later this evening.



Not quite sure what it is you're asking here. Given that the ruling class organises itself collectively, it isn't only individuals that belong to it, as I would have thought is obvious. Governments don't have to be, but are likely to be, unless based in an alternative power base challenging capitalist rule, since, unchallenged, the socioeconomic default model predisposes governments to carry on supporting the status quo. Any alterative power structure strong enough to do so would need to win support through existing channels, eg trade unions, local authorities, parliaments and national assemblies, these being legitimate centres of decision-making in the broader public's mind to be won over. So, elected governments needn't be members of the ruling class, though they are likely to be in its pocket in the absence of an alternative strong enough to take on capitalist power, which includes the courts, bureaucracy, armed forces and police, though the rank-and-file, being ordinary wage/salary earners, are clearly not, and are there to be won over. By extension, then, parliaments and other organs of the state are neutral as regards class affiliation is concerned - though I imagine a "true Marxist" might disagree, and say they all serve the interests of the capitalist class and have to be smashed. Personally I now think such rhetoric belongs to a pre-enfranchised, pre-welfare state past. Hope that answers your question!

I think that it does pretty much; thanks once again. The only things that occur to me about this now are (a) that "the ruling class" has no monopoly on collectivism (of organisation or anything else) and (b) that there have always been and are likely for the foreseeable future to remain many different takes on what constitutes/defines "capitalism", including not only Margaret Thatcher's famous turning of sixpence into a shilling but also the notion that it can be any movement of funds, goods or anything else of economic value from one ownership to another - something from which I imagine almost no humans to be exempt.

[Richard Barrett]

I imagine a "true Marxist" might disagree, and say they all serve the interests of the capitalist class and have to be smashed. Personally I now think such rhetoric belongs to a pre-enfranchised, pre-welfare state past.

I would say that recent history proves that nothing, including the welfare state, can be taken for granted. The kind of social democratic reforms that characterised the 1945-80 period can easily be (and in many cases are being) rolled back again, precisely because capitalist institutions were reformed rather than replaced. It was and is important to fight for these reforms but I think one also has to bear in mind how fragile they are.

[ahinton]

I would say that recent history proves that nothing, including the welfare state, can be taken for granted. The kind of social democratic reforms that characterised the 1945-80 period can easily be (and in many cases are being) rolled back again, precisely because capitalist institutions were reformed rather than replaced. It was and is important to fight for these reforms but I think one also has to bear in mind how fragile they are.

I agree that nothing can be taken for granted; that said, in terms of the two possible definitions of what constitutes capitalism as put forward in #3783 (although you may not accept one or the other or both), how might "capitalist institutions" be defined in ways that clearly distinguish them from "non-capitalist institutions"?

[Serial_Apologist]

I would say that recent history proves that nothing, including the welfare state, can be taken for granted. The kind of social democratic reforms that characterised the 1945-80 period can easily be (and in many cases are being) rolled back again, precisely because capitalist institutions were reformed rather than replaced. It was and is important to fight for these reforms but I think one also has to bear in mind how fragile they are.

I think that now that socialist ideas are regaining some popular credence out there it's worth clarifying where lines are drawn in how such issues are put across.

[ahinton]

I think that now that socialist ideas are regaining some popular credence out there it's worth clarifying where lines are drawn in how such issues are put across.

I agree - but I don't see why thinking Conservatives cannot or are apparently unwilling to absorb some of them; after all, socialism is about society and the Conservatives are supposed to represent society as a whole just as are supporters of Labour and other political parties.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree that nothing can be taken for granted; that said, in terms of the two possible definitions of what constitutes capitalism as put forward in #3783 (although you may not accept one or the other or both), how might "capitalist institutions" be defined in ways that clearly distinguish them from "non-capitalist institutions"?

I think what is more important about institutions of whatever sort is what they "do", rather than what they are "are", given that like everything else they are subject to flux, and how they are viewed is dependent on perspective, otherwise we can get trapped in abstractions.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree - but I don't see why thinking Conservatives cannot or are apparently unwilling to absorb some of them; after all, socialism is about society and the Conservatives are supposed to represent society as a whole just as are supporters of Labour and other political parties.

Because "thinking Conservatives" watch their own backsides and support their class - unlike other classically reformist parties to the left of them who are ambivalent about class, such as Labour, and like Gordon Brown, find themselves confronted with having to deal with the fallout from ideological mis-education! In any case, who does all this "supposing"???

The main split between Conservatives is between those who still hold to the centrality of the (nation) state as the bulwark of economic success in their terms - after all the state is as finally its institutions of self-preservation as of consent - and those who go flat out for capitalist internationalism. When the latter fails, as became so transparently obvious in the 2007 crash, even Tories and their equivalents overseas are forced to question their own long-held and implemented assumptions. Having tried so-called demand-management and mixed economics and found it worked to export to places with plentiful cheap resources of raw materials and unorganised labour and re-patriate profits to keep the domestic populace contented on rising incomes and improving services until the system first collapsed under levels of taxation that undermined competitiveness and profitability, and then, having privatised, its own complexities, a section of them, represented by the Brexiteers, once more fell back on the ideology of patriotism and the nation state, with all the associated mythologising and confected nostalgics. It was the latter who "won the day".

[P. G. Tipps]

Because "thinking Conservatives" watch their own backsides and support their class - unlike other classically reformist parties to the left of them who are ambivalent about class, such as Labour, and have, like Gordon Brown, are confronted with having to deal with the fallout from ideological mis-education! Inj any case, who does all this "supposing"???

The main split between Conservatives is between those who still hold to the centrality of the (nation) state as the bulwark of economic success in their terms - after all the state is as finally its institutions of self-preservation as of consent - and those who go flat out for capitalist internationalism. When the latter fails, as became so transparently obvious in the 2007 crash, even Tories and their equivalents overseas are forced to question their own long-held and implemented assumptions. Having tried so-called demand-management and mixed economics and found it worked better to export to places with plentiful cheap resources of raw materials and unorganised labour and re-patriate profits to keep the domestic populace contented on rising incomes and improving services until the system collapsed under its own complexities, a section of them, represented by the Brexiteers, once more fell back on the ideology of patriotism and the nation state, with all the associated mythologising and confected nostalgics.

I have to hand it to you, S_A.!

I may disagree with you on most things (probably just about everything) but you are always admirably adept and thoroughly consistent in highlighting the undoubted shortcomings in the global capitalist system.

[ahinton]

Because "thinking Conservatives" watch their own backsides and support their class - unlike other classically reformist parties to the left of them who are ambivalent about class, such as Labour, and like Gordon Brown, find themselves confronted with having to deal with the fallout from ideological mis-education! In any case, who does all this "supposing"???

The main split between Conservatives is between those who still hold to the centrality of the (nation) state as the bulwark of economic success in their terms - after all the state is as finally its institutions of self-preservation as of consent - and those who go flat out for capitalist internationalism. When the latter fails, as became so transparently obvious in the 2007 crash, even Tories and their equivalents overseas are forced to question their own long-held and implemented assumptions. Having tried so-called demand-management and mixed economics and found it worked to export to places with plentiful cheap resources of raw materials and unorganised labour and re-patriate profits to keep the domestic populace contented on rising incomes and improving services until the system first collapsed under levels of taxation that undermined competitiveness and profitability, and then, having privatised, its own complexities, a section of them, represented by the Brexiteers, once more fell back on the ideology of patriotism and the nation state, with all the associated mythologising and confected nostalgics. It was the latter who "won the day".

Good points all and very well reasoned (as usual from you!), but I still fail to grasp the fundamental issue of what might distinguish "capitalist inernationalism" from any other economic practice; whilst of course there are many and varied manifestations of capitalism, it nevertheless seems, in one or other of its forms, to be ubiquitous.

[ahinton]

I have to hand it to you, S_A.!

I may disagree with you on most things (probably just about everything) but you are always admirably adept and thoroughly consistent in highlighting the undoubted shortcomings in the global capitalist system.

Agreed wholeheartedly; perhaps one problem is that the "global capitalist system" is merely a large scale example of capitalism in practice on all and every scale, however small and localised.

[Richard Barrett]

I think that now that socialist ideas are regaining some popular credence out there it's worth clarifying where lines are drawn in how such issues are put across.

When there is a real chance of progressive reforms being enacted, it's a historical moment which all socialists need to get behind, even those like me who are suspicious of reformism, in order to help build a mass movement which can collectively realise what can be achieved and push for more. To do otherwise would be stupidly sectarian. At a certain point more radical ideas might be needed, and so they need to be kept alive and evolving for that purpose. It's quite amazing to me how rapidly a point has been reached where these things are under such wide discussion, which tends to suggest that what's gong on is far more than a question of who fought a good or bad campaign during the election.

[Lat-Literal]

When there is a real chance of progressive reforms being enacted, it's a historical moment which all socialists need to get behind, even those like me who are suspicious of reformism, in order to help build a mass movement which can collectively realise what can be achieved and push for more. To do otherwise would be stupidly sectarian. At a certain point more radical ideas might be needed, and so they need to be kept alive and evolving for that purpose. It's quite amazing to me how rapidly a point has been reached where these things are under such wide discussion, which tends to suggest that what's gong on is far more than a question of who fought a good or bad campaign during the election.

Are you in the upper tax bracket?

Let me answer that for you - you are?

And you wish to distribute wealth from low middle to middle incomes to low or no incomes from an unaffected high?.

Yes?

Here's a little conundrum for you. Person X is forced to leave work in 2010 because of austerity. After six months. he doesn't qualify for any benefits. While born in this country - and more to the point having paid taxes for nearly three decades - he has no income and no benefits for six years plus during which time he still has to pay for a mortgage. He eventually takes an early pension of £500 per month and still pays for a mortgage. He has never had any kids. Hence he has never had child benefit. He has never had up to £28,000 in housing support. He has never had disability benefit although he was borderline. And when it was after year five that he could qualify for unemployment benefit he decided against it on the grounds that it would be greed. Now, where in your socialist empire are the more deserving going to be helped? Will it just be on the number of children produced as rapidly as possible and the inability to get onto the mortgage ladder in Central London at age 25? No....no.....if you think for one moment I'm paying for any of it, I will be a conscientious objector and with the entire media behind me. And I will also gather as many similar people - probably they will be in their millions - as I can at that time.

Let's be 'avin ya!

The Tories can fanny around as they wish while Labour stir. Intellectually I can be nicely dangerous!

For a start, where are these poor people in Britain? There aren't any poor people in Britain. The food bank is utilised by people who have their social support and their housing paid. Reasonable immigrants - the vast majority who work hard - know this - they tell me all the time and many have said to me that we are very foolish even under the current regime.

I don't want to give the game away as I am a Unionist but you do realise that the moment Corbyn gives into Scottish independence, England will be Tory forever and if he doesn't do so, that is the Conservatives' ultimate card? To abandon their own Unionism so as to ensure that England is Conservative through and through? Old man Labour cannot win here. Push it just a tad too far and there will be a swing for independence and a blue or at most social democratic Albion - it's your choice but we will bend to destroy excessive leftism.

[P. G. Tipps]

'Ohhh ... Jer-em-ee Cawwww-bin .. '

Poor, poor Bruckner ... still at least he has now made Glastonbury!

[Richard Barrett]

Are you in the upper tax bracket?

Actually no. The rest of your post doesn't deserve a response. Have a nice day.