The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[Dave2002]

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-publ...enationalised/

Nationalisation of the railways is even more popular among regular users of the service than with the population as a whole.

Only according to a few rather questionable polls. Limitations - size of poll, possibly poll demographics etc. Personally I’m on the fence on this one. I think reverting back to British Rail “standards” would be a terrible mistake, but having some of the nonsense knocked out of the rail system would be very welcome. Competition for trains/rail services which means you can’t get on a train if you have the “wrong” ticket may make sense if most operators have services stopping at stations every few minutes, but is a complete (and unwanted) farce in more rural areas where trains are more infrequent.

Recent example - train 1 by operator 1 is delayed so connection missed at intervening station. At the intervening station another train run by operator 2 is also delayed, but going to same next destination, and should arrive there in time for the final connection. Not allowed to board even though there’s plenty of space as a different TOC. Eventually another train arrives - by operator 1, so allowed to board, but will miss next (last?) connection. Operator 1 then provides taxi to final intended destination, which just manages to arrive within 30 minutes of the intended time, so no penalty compensation applies.

Is that really a way to run a service? Noooooooo.

[Tony Halstead]

Yes I do agree with that "accusation"! It does seem to me that most of society's problems can be traced to capitalism in one way or another. In fact, in so many ways, I could spend some considerable time listing them. But I don't imagine this would be a very good place for that! I will just limit myelf to my view that "human nature" is malleable - our need to belong is something we share with all living beings; but we differ inasmuch that as humans, "intelligence" predisposes the capacity to formulate and share concepts adaptable to all areas of living together, from such abstract concepts as sustainability and fairness to planning for the future, based on past evidence. This specifically human form of intelligence is inborn in each and every one of us, and there to be nurtured and optimised in whatever opportunities life permits, according to the way life is organised. Capitalism limits the rationing out of our potential life capacities and chances as individuals, establishing the models by which we self- and inter-relate, mistaking reductionist identity impositions that limit our expectations to what society in its capitalist form can afford to deliver, and thwarting the ambitions thereby created when inimical conditions directly attributable to capitalism's inner contradictions pertain: typically its tendency to periodic overproduction arising from the anarchic way it accumulates wealth, leaving even mitigatory strategies wanting because of undermining the profit priority that equals success in its terms. People thus become categorised in the name of divide-and-rule strategies which deflect blame away from those in charge who most benefit by creating secure ghettoes for themselves, leaving those thus categorised no choice but to rebel or succumb to mental breakdown. Having (as one does!) great faith (!) in the human capacity to create fulfilling lives and livelihoods that are inclusive of differences in ability, without the perpetual stimulation of needs through publicity and advertising pressures to "keep up with the Joneses" is part and parcel of a "socialist mentality", and this goes hand-in-hand with a critique of a system which is by its own mechanisms self-limiting, by virtue of locking up so much capital in so few hands when the going gets tough, and in turn fails to make full use of the human capacity that gets pushed to the wayside. That's why yes, it mostly does devolve onto capitalism'as failings.



Well there are other ways of looking at the problems of the world, and while they're accessible it's no bad idea to check them out!



I could take each case and argue the pros and cons, but all this is a secondary symptom of, rather than a critique, of socialism, which does have an honorable tradition.



I would argue that Marxist dialectical materialism still has much to offer since it is open to elaboration in the light of evidence from other fields, but that it's largely still at a theoretical stage because it hasn't been allowed! This is not to say that lessons weren't and aren't there to be learned by the left in its many varieties. But this is not to overlook the fact that at every point where radical left governments have taken power, whether through insurrection, as in the case of Russia and Cuba, or reformist parliamentary means as in the cases of Chile in 1973 or Portugal in 1975, the old ruling orders have used means ranging from propaganda, law, and economic blockade to violent physical repression and external invasion to unseat them, or to create the conditions for circumstances that will then be used as pretexts for disparaging the very idea of change. Its basic premise, that all wealth is created by transforming raw materials into commodities, and that the surplus over and above that required to pay for said commodities furnishes the privileges and power of a few who operate a system which is environmentally and of itself unsustainable and under-utilising of human endeavour at the expense of the rest, who perpetually have to be coerced into divide-and-rule tactics and strategies that prevent them from uniting to replace it with something rational, for which I don't have a better word than socialism.

Many thanks, S_A, for an absolute block-buster of a post, all of which I agree with!

[Dave2002]

Many thanks, S_A, for an absolute block-buster of a post, all of which I agree with!

Sorry - I’m not by any means in favour of many aspects of capitalism, but there’s no way I can agree with all, or even most of, S_A’s post. Interesting reading, though. Chacun ....

[Joseph K]

Many thanks, S_A, for an absolute block-buster of a post, all of which I agree with!

+1

[Richard Tarleton]

our need to belong is something we share with all living beings

Species which stick together do so for sound biological reasons determined by their evolutionary biology and life requirements, rather than through any abstract need - some species go to great lengths to remain solitary, except when they are forced to seek out a mate for reproduction, and then often for only the briefest time......

I would argue that Marxist dialectical materialism still has much to offer since it is open to elaboration in the light of evidence from other fields, but that it's largely still at a theoretical stage because it hasn't been allowed! This is not to say that lessons weren't and aren't there to be learned by the left in its many varieties. But this is not to overlook the fact that at every point where radical left governments have taken power, whether through insurrection, as in the case of Russia and Cuba, or reformist parliamentary means as in the cases of Chile in 1973 or Portugal in 1975, the old ruling orders have used means ranging from propaganda, law, and economic blockade to violent physical repression and external invasion to unseat them, or to create the conditions for circumstances that will then be used as pretexts for disparaging the very idea of change. Its basic premise, that all wealth is created by transforming raw materials into commodities, and that the surplus over and above that required to pay for said commodities furnishes the privileges and power of a few who operate a system which is environmentally and of itself unsustainable and under-utilising of human endeavour at the expense of the rest, who perpetually have to be coerced into divide-and-rule tactics and strategies that prevent them from uniting to replace it with something rational, for which I don't have a better word than socialism.

I've highlighted the pronoun because I'm not clear what it refers to, S_A - Marxist dialectic or capitalism? Your last sentence would seem to be a perfect critique of every state/command economy created in the name of socialism in the last century - where the economy is run by bureaucrats with no aptitude for the task, and a corrupt elite cements itself in power, affording itself every luxury while the people suffer grotesque shortages and waste is on an epic scale (Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela today...). To your list of radical left goverenments one could perhaps add Spain in the early 1930s, where a legitimately elected left wing government was overthrown by a fascist military coup. The unfortunate Salvador Allende's government was not in power for long enough for the corrupt elite to emerge - perhaps his would have proved the exception.

[Joseph K]

I've highlighted the pronoun because I'm not clear what it refers to, S_A - Marxist dialectic or capitalism? Your last sentence would seem to be a perfect critique of every state/command economy created in the name of socialism in the last century - where the economy is run by bureaucrats with no aptitude for the task, and a corrupt elite cements itself in power, affording itself every luxury while the people suffer grotesque shortages and waste is on an epic scale (Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela today...). To your list of radical left goverenments one could perhaps add Spain in the early 1930s, where a legitimately elected left wing government was overthrown by a fascist military coup. The unfortunate Salvador Allende's government was not in power for long enough for the corrupt elite to emerge - perhaps his would have proved the exception.

It's obvious he's talking about capitalism, since his description is contrasted at the end of the sentence with socialism:

that prevent them from uniting to replace it with something rational, for which I don't have a better word than socialism.

Of course (I think we've been here before) orthodox Marxists would dispute the extent detractors of Marxism seek to make out that countries like the USSR represent real Marxism. It's not that aspects of such countries don't feature aspects of Marxism in the same way that the post-WWII social democracies did also, but that in fundamental respects they make a grotesque mockery of things such as the dictatorship of the proletariat - which Bertrand Russell pointed out in his critical examination of Marxism was essentially a democratic concept until it was decided that the sole prole was Stalin!

But it seems to me that it's fairly obvious SA is referring to neoliberal capitalism.

[Richard Tarleton]

My point stands, Joseph - it's a perfect description of every state/command economy created in the name of socialism in the last century.

So we still await an orthodox Marxist regime, anywhere in the world, that actually works? All the failures, including what you refer to as the "post-WWII social democracies" () , weren't really Marxist at all, or failed for reasons which were not their fault?

[Joseph K]

My point stands, Joseph - it's a perfect description of every state/command economy created in the name of socialism in the last century.

As well as our society - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

So we still await an orthodox Marxist regime, anywhere in the world, that actually works? All the failures, including what you refer to as the "post-WWII social democracies" () , weren't really Marxist at all, or failed for reasons which were not their fault?

Yes. We're still awaiting an orthodox Marxist revolution that perforce would be a trans- and pan-national global revolution. Otherwise you get all the paranoia and authoritarianism of Stalinism.

The roughly 3% compound growth required for capitalism to reproduce itself is obviously unsustainable... the mind boggles to think the extent of environmental degradation and increasing inequality that this will result and is resulting in.

I'd say that they featured aspects of socialism, without truly being socialist countries. I think things like the NHS - rather, the NHS as it was originally implemented, as a genuinely universal free service without all the chipping-away at it over the 70-odd years it's been here - would/could remain in basically the same way after a genuine Marxist revolution.

[cloughie]

My point stands, Joseph - it's a perfect description of every state/command economy created in the name of socialism in the last century.

So we still await an orthodox Marxist regime, anywhere in the world, that actually works? All the failures, including what you refer to as the "post-WWII social democracies" () , weren't really Marxist at all, or failed for reasons which were not their fault?

Capitalism seems to work well in fine weather, but when it rains the umbrella is nowhere to be seen and there always seems to be greed led gains which are achieved through someone else’s misfortune!

[Richard Barrett]

We're still awaiting an orthodox Marxist revolution

I wouldn't use a term like "orthodox" in this kind of context though: within the broad outlines of a movement towards a radical notion of equality much flexibility is necessary, and responsiveness to changing conditions - for example the equation of capitalist growth with environmental degradation is something that's come more clearly into focus since Marx's lifetime.

Criticising Marxism on the grounds that no society claiming to be based on its precepts in the last century actually did so is a bit like criticising Christianity over the last 1500 years or so on the same grounds. Also, the implication is that somehow capitalism "works", when for many millions of people in the world, not to mention the as yet unborn who will have to deal with the wasteland it's making of the planet, it clearly doesn't. The only way for human civilisation to survive in the long term is surely on the basis of some kind of planned economy, rather than on the basis of the accumulation of increasing wealth by a decreasing proportion of humanity, especially once you add in the idea of "disaster capitalism" as developed convincingly by Naomi Klein. It may already be too late, but this is a central reason why I think the ideas of socialism have to be kept alive and indeed that any opportunity to move towards implementing them should be taken. As S_A says, there are many subtle arguments and ideas which those of us committed to socialist thinking might have brought into some of the discussions on this forum, if there were to be the time and opportunity, although he's a lot better at it than I am!

[Richard Tarleton]

Yes. We're still awaiting an orthodox Marxist revolution that perforce would be a trans- and pan-national global revolution. Otherwise you get all the paranoia and authoritarianism of Stalinism.

Isn't it entirely possible - given the number of times it's been the result (every time, most recently in Venezuela, and nobody's mentioned North Korea yet) that "all the paranoia and authoritarianism", as you put it, are an inevitable consequence of attempts at Marxist revolution, rather than indicators that it has yet to be achieved?

The roughly 3% compound growth required for capitalism to reproduce itself is obviously unsustainable... the mind boggles to think the extent of environmental degradation and increasing inequality that this will result and is resulting in.

Environmental degradation not the unique preserve of capitalism....Aral Sea....but I'm forgetting, the Soviet Union was not a Marxist state

[Richard Barrett]

Isn't it entirely possible - given the number of times it's been the result (every time, most recently in Venezuela, and nobody's mentioned North Korea yet) that "all the paranoia and authoritarianism", as you put it, are an inevitable consequence of attempts at Marxist revolution, rather than indicators that it has yet to be achieved?

They are probably the inevitable consequence of attempting to build a system in the face of implacable hostility from the rich capitalist powers in whose interest it is not to see any such thing succeeding. Who has been funding opposition groups there and indeed engineered a failed coup against the Chávez government in 2002?

Environmental degradation not the unique preserve of capitalism....Aral Sea....but I'm forgetting, the Soviet Union was not a Marxist state

Indeed, and in fact the most coherent Marxist analyses of the USSR describe it as having been a system of "state capitalism".

[Joseph K]

Isn't it entirely possible - given the number of times it's been the result (every time, most recently in Venezuela, and nobody's mentioned North Korea yet) that "all the paranoia and authoritarianism", as you put it, are an inevitable consequence of attempts at Marxist revolution, rather than indicators that it has yet to be achieved?

We're covering old ground here. I've pointed out in the past that Russia was still a mostly feudal nation i.e. the means of production had not developed to the extent that a revolution would result in communism.

One has to distinguish between Marxist-Leninism and more orthodox less authoritarian positions. There were aspects of the Russian revolution, e.g. worker councils set up by the soviets, which were genuinely socialist in character, but these were quashed, in favour of state capitalism.

Environmental degradation not the unique preserve of capitalism....Aral Sea....but I'm forgetting, the Soviet Union was not a Marxist state

Indeed it wasn't a Marxist state. Although I can see it suits detractors of Marxism to claim that it was - it also suits dictators/bureaucrats to try and exploit the ethical prestige of socialism by claiming to represent it.

The people who genuinely benefit from capitalism are a tiny minority of the entire world. Surely you can see that? Also, through imperialism the capitalist west has supported numerous authoritarian right-wing regimes, which are full of authoritarianism and paranoia (e.g. Pinochet).

[Richard Barrett]

Of course, if you go back into history you see that capitalism itself has itself been the revolutionary movement which eventually supplanted feudalism in most of the developed world, although at various points along that process I'm sure many people would have said that anything apart from hereditary monarchies was inherently unstable and unworkable - many steps were taken backwards and forwards until the new configuration of economic classes established itself. At that point Marx enters the discussion, and imagines not only that a further evolution towards a classless society could be considered (as many people did before him), but also that it could be brought about by a potentially revolutionary class brought into being and empowered by capitalism itself. But as Joseph says we've been over all this before.

Maybe we can get back to the Tory leadership situation. Andrew Marr's description of Johnson as a "nasty piece of work" seems to have accumulated yet more evidence in the form of the recording of the row between him and his partner which he seems curiously reticent to talk about. Will that be enough to make a difference to the blue-rinse mob I wonder?

[oddoneout]

Of course, if you go back into history you see that capitalism itself has itself been the revolutionary movement which eventually supplanted feudalism in most of the developed world, although at various points along that process I'm sure many people would have said that anything apart from hereditary monarchies was inherently unstable and unworkable - many steps were taken backwards and forwards until the new configuration of economic classes established itself. At that point Marx enters the discussion, and imagines not only that a further evolution towards a classless society could be considered (as many people did before him), but also that it could be brought about by a potentially revolutionary class brought into being and empowered by capitalism itself. But as Joseph says we've been over all this before.

Maybe we can get back to the Tory leadership situation. Andrew Marr's description of Johnson as a "nasty piece of work" seems to have accumulated yet more evidence in the form of the recording of the row between him and his partner which he seems curiously reticent to talk about. Will that be enough to make a difference to the blue-rinse mob I wonder?

No, and certainly not the male counterparts of said mob. I've got to the stage of thinking that even if a prison sentence was on the cards for some reason it wouldn't stop the inevitable unless he was actually incarcerated at the time - and even then how long before he would be out, with said bluerinse-plus refusing to believe his guilt?
Not talking is the new game plan, enforced by his minders I gather, and seems to be working in terms of a clear run at the goal of PM. As with the Leave EU result I suspect there is no 'what happens next' plan once the goal is achieved, since the concept of running the country effectively is not(and has not been for many years) on the Tory agenda.