[TV] Election Debate, Climate Change, Channel 4, TONIGHT 7pm

[Blue3]

You can power the entire globe if you took 1% of the Sahara desert and made it solar collecting. You could cover that area in today's solar technology at an approx. cost of 5 trillion dollars, or 10% of the world's GDP, or a little under what the US paid to bail out it's banks. It would work out 10 times cheaper than the equivalent power output of nuclear. And that includes cabling across the globe to deliver the power.

This is already happening in small capacity delivery with North African countries supplying Europe through cabling under the Med with clean solar generated energy.

All we lack really is ambition.

Sunny yes but not ideal one sandstorm and everything's covered

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't particularly find it amusing; just that JC might just be trying to out-do everyone for a few cheap votes. I don't doubt that he is concerned about climate change, but first and foremost he is a politician desperate to win popularity.

If only that were true.

All I 'hear' is a 'no compromise with the electorate' litany of policies that scare the bejesus out of middle of the road voters.

Fortunately, he'll not be able to pursue many of them, if he get's in, which he won't.

And despite all that I'm still voting labour (the best chance in my constuency) to keep Boris the Liar out.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

i dont think we lack the ambition, but problems of resources and politics.

There is no problem of resources - apart from the fact that 82% of the wealth generated globally last year went to the richest 1% of the global population

 

[Hastings gull]

The sun shines on half the planet all the time - and solar isn't the only form of renewable energy

nuclear is a disaster - we are stuck with waste from nuclear plants for millennia

I support planting tress - lots of them - but it is not a solution - it is one small part of what needs to be done

I oppose carbon taxes - 100 companies are causing 71% of the climate crisis - carbon taxes hit the 99% - not the people causing the crisis - and they are not a solution because people need energy/transport and have to use fossil fuels if there is nothing else available.

Why should a democratically planned socialised economy decrease living standards ? - or are you claiming that any solution to the climate crisis will mean a drop in living standards - in which case, why?

What is this? I am genuinely NOT making a point; just intrigued as to what you mean.

 

[Hastings gull]

If only that were true.

All I 'hear' is a 'no compromise with the electorate' litany of policies that scare the bejesus out of middle of the road voters.

Fortunately, he'll not be able to pursue many of them, if he get's in, which he won't.

And despite all that I'm still voting labour (the best chance in my constuency) to keep Boris the Liar out.

But it is true - he is desperate to win popularity, as are all politicians. Are we talking at cross purposes? Is there really no other alternative for in Faversham? No Monster raving Looney party?

 

[beorhthelm]

What is this? I am genuinely NOT making a point; just intrigued as to what you mean.

it means communism, just tarted up language.

 

[Hastings gull]

it means communism, just tarted up language.

OK. Thanks! It did remind me of East Germany where they liked to combine socialism and democracy, aware of the charisma of the word "democracy". But, to be fair, I was and am still interested as to what is meant by this.

 

[peterward]

Any debate on climate change ultimately comes down to capitalism is killing the planet

With the greatest respect, thats just to simplistic. Its not Capitalism that's killing it, its a combination of many things.
Having 7 billion people (rather than the sustainable number of about 2 billion) is possibly the biggest reason. End capitalism and the problems don't go away unless 5 billion starve to death or volunteer their ends.
Carbon, pollution and global over population are killing it and unless you can address all 3 it matters not whether your system is capitalist, communist or something entirely different, 7 billion will still need food and energy.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

What is this? I am genuinely NOT making a point; just intrigued as to what you mean.

democratically planned socialised economy = an economy the key sectors of which are in public ownership, where economic activity is planned on a democratic basis (with input from all 'stakeholders') for the needs of the 99%, not the greed of the 1%.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

With the greatest respect, thats just to simplistic. Its not Capitalism that's killing it, its a combination of many things.
Having 7 billion people (rather than the sustainable number of about 2 billion) is possibly the biggest reason. End capitalism and the problems don't go away unless 5 billion starve to death or volunteer their ends.
Carbon, pollution and global over population are killing it and unless you can address all 3 it matters not whether your system is capitalist, communist or something entirely different, 7 billion will still need food and energy.

1. capitalism is killing the planet - as an economic system, capitalism is based on responding to market demands with short term goals and driven by the need for continually rising profit and market share in a drag towards a monopoly position - it is the very antipathy of what is needed to prevent environmental destruction
2. The planet is capable of sustaining population numbers significantly in excess of what currently exists - but this misses the point - the vast rise in population growth directly correlates with the development and growth of capitalism. In the modern capitalist world population growth is unsustainable while being driven by the nature of of capitalism itself. Population growth occurs in developing economies but stabilises in developed economies - the problem is that the exploitative nature of capitalism prohibits the development of poorer economies to the level of the developed (i.e. imperialist) world. if you want to stabilise and reduce population you must eliminate capitalism.
3. 26 individuals own more wealth than the poorest 3.8billion people - the top 1% of the world's population hoovered up 82% of world income in 2018 - there is more than enough wealth on the planet to dramatically improve the material conditions of the entire global population if the resources are used through a democratically planned socialised economy.
4. Carbon, pollution and 'over' population are the direct result of a capitalist globalised economy - as are poverty, deprivation, homelessness, mass migration, unemployment and wars - and you can address all of these problems by realising that capitalism is killing the planet (environmentally) and killing the people through global exploitation.
5. As I have stated - there are more than enough resources (material and economic) to provide food and energy for the entire global population

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

OK. Thanks! It did remind me of East Germany where they liked to combine socialism and democracy, aware of the charisma of the word "democracy". But, to be fair, I was and am still interested as to what is meant by this.

East Germany was a Stalinist dictatorship - not a democratically planned socialised economy.

 

[peterward]

democratically planned socialised economy = an economy the key sectors of which are in public ownership, where economic activity is planned on a democratic basis (with input from all 'stakeholders') for the needs of the 99%, not the greed of the 1%.

That's called the Soviet Union.

The most crazy thing about socialism, is its still consistently advocated around the world. In western democracies like the UK and France its always short lived, as after each dose, when the high tax economy nose dives or completely collapses, unemployment rises, living standards decline and then as sure a night follows day, Austerity/cuts ensue to try and control the wrecked economy. When will people ever learn that social justice can only come from a platform of sound economics. Or is a planned socialised economy more akin to the Cuban or Venezeula models, were corrupt Socialists at the top are the the greedy 1% lavish multi-millionaires, living in luxury at the expense of the starving hopeless masses?

Why do we you/we as regular citizens only give a few quid, maybe hundreds or a few thousand perhaps to charities or good causes each year, is it we just dont care enough? are greedy? Why dont we all give hundreds of thousands to charities? and disregard realities like mortgages, food bills etc. I'm sure many are not constrained by a desire to help others but rather budget. So why not just take out ten credit cards and as many loans as possible for each children in need or Africa appeal, the needs are genuine. Because that kind of approach while morally commendable is reckless, irresponsible and will lead to your ruin and a very short lived ability to help anyone else in future. And thats this "fresh new" - repackaged, failed every time before, nonsense that recently Francois Hollande and now Corbyn is again peddling.
I doubt Tony Bloom is going to keep his wealth in the UK, now Corbyn has targeted him in his them against us, evil millionaires, 1970's class warfare.
Is Bloom a villain of the people? Far better to get him and those like him to pay taxes here and maybe even a bit more by trying to work with him and creating the environment for his self made enterprises to thrive.

I read Marx as youngster, its a compelling Ideology for sure, but totally unaligned to the actual realities of the world we live in and it can never work as Marx intended. Humans whether Socialist, communist or capitalist are inherently corrupt. You will never get a system where someone doesn't spot an opportunity to advance themselves or isnt seduced by material wealth. Thats a Utopian pipe dream. The need of a fairer society is real, the need of social justice is real, socialism cannot deliver either.

 

[peterward]

1. capitalism is killing the planet - as an economic system, capitalism is based on responding to market demands with short term goals and driven by the need for continually rising profit and market share in a drag towards a monopoly position - it is the very antipathy of what is needed to prevent environmental destruction
2. The planet is capable of sustaining population numbers significantly in excess of what currently exists - but this misses the point - the vast rise in population growth directly correlates with the development and growth of capitalism. In the modern capitalist world population growth is unsustainable while being driven by the nature of of capitalism itself. Population growth occurs in developing economies but stabilises in developed economies - the problem is that the exploitative nature of capitalism prohibits the development of poorer economies to the level of the developed (i.e. imperialist) world. if you want to stabilise and reduce population you must eliminate capitalism.
3. 26 individuals own more wealth than the poorest 3.8billion people - the top 1% of the world's population hoovered up 82% of world income in 2018 - there is more than enough wealth on the planet to dramatically improve the material conditions of the entire global population if the resources are used through a democratically planned socialised economy.
4. Carbon, pollution and 'over' population are the direct result of a capitalist globalised economy - as are poverty, deprivation, homelessness, mass migration, unemployment and wars - and you can address all of these problems by realising that capitalism is killing the planet (environmentally) and killing the people through global exploitation.
5. As I have stated - there are more than enough resources (material and economic) to provide food and energy for the entire global population

Thats obvioulsy took a bit of time to write and I respect you do taking the time to do so Youre the sort of interesting person who makes a good drinking partner!

I dont agree or from what I read, nor does science that there are not to many people using the resources of our planet.

You know what, I agree with you about in many of the things you say about the perceived injustices in our world. What is poverty? emotional? spiritual? economic? there have always been some who had and some who had not long before the industrial revolution or the invention of money, its not a phenomenon thats just down to Captalism, thats just to simplistic. Do you see any advantages of Capitalism? the advent of life saving drugs, the technological advances that allow you to speak to someone on the other side of the planet, in real time on your computer, much less to visit them, competition has also driven innovation and from that there is also much good that's helped mankind. We're bloody lucky to have the rule of law in europe, something which has a massive difference on the standards of life, freedom and human rights.

If there was a way to address the things you suggest, wouldn't it be great, but alas I dont think there is. People need to start from the world we actually live in and not utopian fairytales. Please Mr Putin, could you and all the Siloviki who've embezzled billions, please give the money back as there's rampant poverty and would you mind to stop selling the oil. Mr Xi Jinping, we're truly concerned about pollution in the world, any chance you could stop building cities and denuclearize. Mr Trump, Donald, come on fella, climate change is real I promise....... African dictators please all listen, ive read Marx and there isnt any need for you to have that Palace and 1960's Rolls Royce when your people starve.

I dont mean to trivialise the seriousness of what are real issues, but dealing with the world as it actually is surely the place to start from. This Novara media utopia stuff is all horse shit when it meets the reality of a complex 21st century planet and the realities of human nature. Its dangerous to global stability. Do you honestly believe we can ever resolve the injustices you cite above? or do you advocate some kind of global revolution? If so how many will die against armed security forces to achieve this? What will happen to say the nuclear weapons of just one nations government such people power may actually manage to overthrow?

I dont have the answers either.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

That's called the Soviet Union.

The USSR was a bureaucratic dictatorship that had centralised control of a state owned economy - not a democratically planned socailised economy

The most crazy thing about socialism, is its still consistently advocated around the world.

It is inevitable that socialism is advocated within a capitalist society - it is the antithesis of capitalism - if you have capitalism working class people have no choice but to organise and will, by the nature of capitalist exploitation, develop a class consciousness.

In western democracies like the UK and France its always short lived, as after each dose, when the high tax economy nose dives or completely collapses, unemployment rises, living standards decline and then as sure a night follows day, Austerity/cuts ensue to try and control the wrecked economy. When will people ever learn that social justice can only come from a platform of sound economics.

The UK had a post-WW2 welfare state (before Thatcher took a hatchet to it) - France something similar. The post-WW2 period was the hay day for social democracy - as capitalism (and particularly US imperialism) pumped massive amounts of money into western Europe to prevent a reoccurrence of the revolutionary upheavals of the post WW1 period (particularly in light of the emerging cold war). Instead the revolutionary upheavals occurred in the colonial world where the working class and the peasantry demanded social, political and economic emancipation - with imperialism granting independence but then generally supporting dictatorships to suppress any left-wing movements.

Social democracy - and the welfare state - inevitably hit the brick wall of capitalism which cannot continuously sustain spending on social services - socialists defend the components of the welfare state like the NHS - but recognise that such services, vital for working class people, cannot be guaranteed under capitalism, and as a consequence a struggle for a democratically planned socailised economy is necessary. A socialised economy does not require high taxation or any of the other claims made by the right - the nose dive in the economy, the mass unemployment, the collapse in living standards and the austerity are not the result of the welfare state or spending on social services - they are the result of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and its inability to provide for the 99%.

Or is a planned socialised economy more akin to the Cuban

Cuba is a bureaucratic centralised dictatorship modelled on the old Soviet union - although these days it is moving significantly towards a capitalist model - it is the last bastion of Stalinism globally. Sections of the US elites are actually licking their chops at the prospects of getting their greedy hands on the natural resources in Cuba (Cuba has significant reserves of cobalt and nickel) and their very advanced cancer research. That was the reason Obama was making overtures to Cuba a number of years ago - big pharma wanted the cancer research. Trump doesn't represent big pharma so reverted to type and reimposed the blockades to shore up the emigre Cuban vote in Florida.

Noteworthy is the fact that Castro was not a socialist - he was a liberal lawyer (Che was a socialist) - after the 26 July movement overthrew Batista's dictatorship Castro went to the US - met with Nixon - asked the Kennedy's for help - and they responded by attempting a coup with the Bay of Pigs invasion. This catapulted Castro into the arms of the USSR and Castro became a communist overnight.

or Venezeula models, were corrupt Socialists at the top are the the greedy 1% lavish multi-millionaires, living in luxury at the expense of the starving hopeless masses?

Venezuela is not and never was socialist - Chavez was a left populist - bu the Venezuelan economy was never taken out of the control of the rich elites in Venezuela - Chavez funded his social programmes by ramping up oil production. Maduro is effectively a tin pot dictator who is leaning on the populism and popularity of Chavez - while corruption runs riot. Maduro has been compromising with the elites - and before Trump came to power the Obama administration had effectively backed a negotiated compromise with Maduro where he would share power for an interim period with the elites before swanning off into retirement. Trump also scuppered that one.

Saying all this - the Venezuelan masses have benefited significantly from the social programmes of Chavez - and that is the reason why the US hasn't been able to remove Maduro over the past couple of years.

Why do we you/we as regular citizens only give a few quid, maybe hundreds or a few thousand perhaps to charities or good causes each year, is it we just dont care enough? are greedy? Why dont we all give hundreds of thousands to charities? and disregard realities like mortgages, food bills etc. I'm sure many are not constrained by a desire to help others but rather budget. So why not just take out ten credit cards and as many loans as possible for each children in need or Africa appeal, the needs are genuine. Because that kind of approach while morally commendable is reckless, irresponsible and will lead to your ruin and a very short lived ability to help anyone else in future. And thats this "fresh new" - repackaged, failed every time before, nonsense that recently Francois Hollande and now Corbyn is again peddling.
I doubt Tony Bloom is going to keep his wealth in the UK, now Corbyn has targeted him in his them against us, evil millionaires, 1970's class warfare.
Is Bloom a villain of the people? Far better to get him and those like him to pay taxes here and maybe even a bit more by trying to work with him and creating the environment for his self made enterprises to thrive.

Why do we have charities at all ?

The reason is simple - we have charities because we have capitalism - charities are a safety valve for capitalism, assisting those most in need. We have charities because the rich won't pay tax (and then they make a big deal out of giving money to charity themselves as if they were somehow altruistic). Case in point - If you landed in America in 1492 - and every single day in the 500+ years since you made $5,000 a day you still would not have as much money as Jeff Bezos makes in a week. Jeff Bezos - the richest man in the world - and Amazon will not pay any federal tax in the US this year. Last year a socialist councillor on Seattle city council managed to get the city council to pass a local tax called a head tax. This was a tax on global conglomerates in Seattle - $250 per year for every employee of a company with a revenue of more than $20million a year to be paid by the company. The head tax was to fund a $50million annual programme to help the homeless and built social and affordable housing (Seattle is one of the most expensive cities in the USA for housing and has a major homelessness problem). After the tax was passed Amazon and the other conglomerates spent $millions in browbeating the democrat councillors who supported the head tax under public pressure, to reverse the proposal. Bezos then announced that he was donating almost $100million to housing charities across the US and was hailed as a great guy (writing the charitable donation off against tax of course) - but the guy won't pay tax.

This summer the socialist councillor, Kshama Sawant, was up for re-election - Bezos and Amazon pumped over $1.5million into a council election in an effort to unseat Sawant - they attempted to buy control of the council - Sawant won and Bezos and the rich elites lost - and Sawant is going to attempt to reintroduce the head tax because her election campaign was effectively a referendum on the head tax.

This is the problem with capitalism and the power and wealth of the 1%.

I read Marx as youngster, its a compelling Ideology for sure, but totally unaligned to the actual realities of the world we live in and it can never work as Marx intended.

Marx's analysis of capitalism has been proven absolutely spot on - and any of the serious capitalist economic commentators have recognised and acknowledged this for years.

Humans whether Socialist, communist or capitalist are inherently corrupt. You will never get a system where someone doesn't spot an opportunity to advance themselves or isnt seduced by material wealth. Thats a Utopian pipe dream.

The idea that people are inherently greedy or corrupt is actually bullsh*t - I could be more explanatory but it is better to be blunt. Human beings are products of their environment - there is no greedy or corrupt gene. Capitalism results in the alienation of large sections of the population from society. 99% of the population struggle from day to day to survive - and at the same time repeatedly demonstrate remarkable examples of kindness, generosity, empathy, help and assistance to others. The 1% are terrified of losing their wealth and their power and spend most of their time exercising their power to keep the vast majority of the population under heel.

All most people want is a roof over their head, a job to go to, enough money to have an occasional holiday, a decent education system for their children and a health service that will take care of their families when they are sick and of themselves when they get old and infirmed - while being shown a modicum of dignity and respect. And that is all socialism is attempting to do.

The need of a fairer society is real, the need of social justice is real, socialism cannot deliver either.

Here is your problem - under capitalism we do not have a fair society and we do not have social justice - indeed we cannot even have a fairer society. Equality and social justice are incompatible with capitalism - if you want these things then the only option is to support socialism - and the first step in that road in Britain is to vote for Corbyn's manifesto in a couple of weeks.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

This reply will be shorter

Thats obvioulsy took a bit of time to write and I respect you do taking the time to do so Youre the sort of interesting person who makes a good drinking partner!

I generally don't discuss politics when I am having a few pints.

I dont agree or from what I read, nor does science that there are not to many people using the resources of our planet.

Okay - can you produce evidence that the science does not agree with me.

You know what, I agree with you about in many of the things you say about the perceived injustices in our world. What is poverty? emotional? spiritual? economic? there have always been some who had and some who had not long before the industrial revolution or the invention of money, its not a phenomenon thats just down to Captalism, thats just to simplistic. Do you see any advantages of Capitalism? the advent of life saving drugs, the technological advances that allow you to speak to someone on the other side of the planet, in real time on your computer, much less to visit them, competition has also driven innovation and from that there is also much good that's helped mankind. We're bloody lucky to have the rule of law in europe, something which has a massive difference on the standards of life, freedom and human rights.

Capitalism is a stage in the evolution of human society - just as feudalism, ancient slave society, primitive communism, barbarism and savagery (some of these terms are now replaced with more fancy academic terms as they don't really represent the nature of the pre-'civilisation' period of human society).

Capitalism was a necessary stage in the development of economic activity - dramatically increasing production through the emergence of industrialisation in the late 18th and 19th century, It fundamentally altered the productive forces in society and resulted in a major leap forward. The problem is that capitalism reached a brickwall of productive development in the late 19th century and has been in an open war with the working class since. This is because of what Marx outlined as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall - an inevitable consequence of the forces of capitalist production. The rate of profit fell consistently from the 1880s (after a major global downturn) until the wall street crash in 1929 which led to the great depression. The inherent contradictions of capitalism in this period were cut across by WW2 which effectively destroyed the entire productive capacity of Europe over 6 years. The post-war boom was the result of the rebuilding of the productive capacity of western Europe and the far-east - and came to a shuttering halt in 1973. Despite this boom the global rate of profit has continued to decline and is still doing so today. We are now in what is known as the death agony of capitalism. Advances are still made - but they tend to be on a haphazard basis in individual sectors of the economy - but on a global basis over the entire economy we have a contraction of production, major overcapacity of the productive forces, increasing exploitation of the 99%, increasing gaps in wealth distribution and the destruction of the fabric of society - and Britain is actually a prime example of this decline of the productive forces and concentration of wealth in the hands of global finance. The scale of poverty, alienation and deprivation in British society is now on a scale that hasn't been seen since the 1930s.

Marxists used to argue that without a fundamental revolutionary transformation of society that would shift the mode of production from the anarchy of the market to a democratically planned socialised economy, the potential exist for a return to the state of barbarism as the fabric of society disintegrated (the preppers in the US are an example of this devolution) - but the reality is that globally this potential has been passed out by the climate catastrophe. Capitalism is killing the planet - and it will continue to do so. Capitalism cannot change course - it has to progress to its natural conclusion - either its replacement with the next stage of evolutionary development of the productive forces - a democratically planned socialised economy - or a devolution of society into climate collapse.

If there was a way to address the things you suggest, wouldn't it be great, but alas I dont think there is. People need to start from the world we actually live in and not utopian fairytales. Please Mr Putin, could you and all the Siloviki who've embezzled billions, please give the money back as there's rampant poverty and would you mind to stop selling the oil. Mr Xi Jinping, we're truly concerned about pollution in the world, any chance you could stop building cities and denuclearize. Mr Trump, Donald, come on fella, climate change is real I promise....... African dictators please all listen, ive read Marx and there isnt any need for you to have that Palace and 1960's Rolls Royce when your people starve.

The reality of the world is that we have a choice - continue on or current path to destruction - or change direction. The vehicle for changing this direction is not by appealing to the demagogues, dictators and elites - it is by mobilising the working class and the mass of the poor on a global basis. Socialism is an international ideology - it views the world on a global basis, not on sectional or nationalistic interests. Socialism requires the mass of the working class to buy into the politics and that requires the development of a class consciousness among the mass of the population. This consciousness comes from struggle between competing social classes - workers and the elites - and the struggle is fought around very normal and basic issues - wages, working conditions, social injustices, inequality, exploitation, etc. An example of this is the current industrial struggle in the Royal Mail. A victory for the workers would advance the cause of the entire working class in Britain and assist the development of class consciousness - a defeat for the workers throws this back to the next upcoming struggle.

I dont mean to trivialise the seriousness of what are real issues, but dealing with the world as it actually is surely the place to start from. This Novara media utopia stuff is all horse shit when it meets the reality of a complex 21st century planet and the realities of human nature. Its dangerous to global stability.

We don't have global stability - we have global crisis - economic crisis, environmental crisis, social crisis, etc. so let's take your questions in order -

Do you honestly believe we can ever resolve the injustices you cite above?

Yes - I have every confidence that working class people will draw the necessary conclusions and act to resolve these injustices - it is what makes me a socialist.

or do you advocate some kind of global revolution?

Unfortunately global revolution is necessary - now this does not necessarily mean an expressly violent revolutionary upheaval - revolution means a fundamental alteration in the course of society. Revolutions are not inherently violent - they only become violent when the elites resist the democratic wishes of the majority of the population.

If so how many will die against armed security forces to achieve this?

My desire would be that no one should die - I am in the business of saving lives - not taking them. Capitalism doesn't care about people - it cares about power and money and those elites that benefit from it have demonstrated over the past 250 years that human life is dispensable when it comes to the pursuit of profit. Any deaths that might occur would be directly the result of the elites attempting to hold power against the democratic wishes of the mass of the population (Bolivia, Chile, Hong Kong, Yeman and Iraq are examples of this in the past week alone).

What will happen to say the nuclear weapons of just one nations government such people power may actually manage to overthrow?

The would be decommissioned, dismantled, what could be recycled would be - and then the rest would be stored to decay over the half-life of the material.

I dont have the answers either.

I know what is necessary - and I suggest if you want to discuss this further to get a better understanding - if you are in Brighton you find some people selling a paper called Socialist Alternative - there are a few around - and ask them for a discussion. I am sure they will oblige.

 

[beorhthelm]

The USSR was a bureaucratic dictatorship that had centralised control of a state owned economy - not a democratically planned socailised economy
...
Cuba is a bureaucratic centralised dictatorship modelled on the old Soviet union
...
Venezuela is not and never was socialist - Chavez was a left populist -

ah yes, the arguement that marxist-socialism didnt work in those places because reasons, it'll be different this time. what on earth do you think a "planned economy" will be if not bureaucratic and dictatorial? its unavoidable. you must create a massive agency to monitor, measure needs and consumption, then direct production and distribution. meanwhile you tell people what they can and cant have, ultimatly what they can and cant do.

there is one place communism works, China has successfully fused communist political control with free market enterprise. may be thats the way forward? however they are also the largest consumers of raw resourses so conflicting with notion going communist will solve everything, and highlighting its us the population that drives consumption.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thats obvioulsy took a bit of time to write and I respect you do taking the time to do so Youre the sort of interesting person who makes a good drinking partner!

I dont agree or from what I read, nor does science that there are not to many people using the resources of our planet.

You know what, I agree with you about in many of the things you say about the perceived injustices in our world. What is poverty? emotional? spiritual? economic? there have always been some who had and some who had not long before the industrial revolution or the invention of money, its not a phenomenon thats just down to Captalism, thats just to simplistic. Do you see any advantages of Capitalism? the advent of life saving drugs, the technological advances that allow you to speak to someone on the other side of the planet, in real time on your computer, much less to visit them, competition has also driven innovation and from that there is also much good that's helped mankind. We're bloody lucky to have the rule of law in europe, something which has a massive difference on the standards of life, freedom and human rights.

If there was a way to address the things you suggest, wouldn't it be great, but alas I dont think there is. People need to start from the world we actually live in and not utopian fairytales. Please Mr Putin, could you and all the Siloviki who've embezzled billions, please give the money back as there's rampant poverty and would you mind to stop selling the oil. Mr Xi Jinping, we're truly concerned about pollution in the world, any chance you could stop building cities and denuclearize. Mr Trump, Donald, come on fella, climate change is real I promise....... African dictators please all listen, ive read Marx and there isnt any need for you to have that Palace and 1960's Rolls Royce when your people starve.

I dont mean to trivialise the seriousness of what are real issues, but dealing with the world as it actually is surely the place to start from. This Novara media utopia stuff is all horse shit when it meets the reality of a complex 21st century planet and the realities of human nature. Its dangerous to global stability. Do you honestly believe we can ever resolve the injustices you cite above? or do you advocate some kind of global revolution? If so how many will die against armed security forces to achieve this? What will happen to say the nuclear weapons of just one nations government such people power may actually manage to overthrow?

I dont have the answers either.

You're so wrong on this point, and for several reasons:
1, science carves up bits of the world, different phenomena and processes, and investigates it so, to that extent, scientists tend to focus on their own particular domain of investigation
2, that said, climate change/breakdown/crisis/catastrophe is such a serious issue that scientists from multiple domains of investigation (glaciologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, etc) have converged on this and recognise that we're heading towards breakdown and, this is caused by fossil fuel emissions and exponential resource use.
3, to the extent there is a branch of science that does study resource use, it gathers around the notion of the Anthropocene, in which new interdisciplinary scientific approaches are emerging, which go under names such as Earth System Science or Global Change Science. These are the disciplines that Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin are associated with, respectively and, as you read books, you might want to consult their recent The Human Planet to challenge your assumption that scientists think we can carry on as we are.

 

[peterward]

This reply will be shorter


I generally don't discuss politics when I am having a few pints.


Okay - can you produce evidence that the science does not agree with me.


Capitalism is a stage in the evolution of human society - just as feudalism, ancient slave society, primitive communism, barbarism and savagery (some of these terms are now replaced with more fancy academic terms as they don't really represent the nature of the pre-'civilisation' period of human society).

Capitalism was a necessary stage in the development of economic activity - dramatically increasing production through the emergence of industrialisation in the late 18th and 19th century, It fundamentally altered the productive forces in society and resulted in a major leap forward. The problem is that capitalism reached a brickwall of productive development in the late 19th century and has been in an open war with the working class since. This is because of what Marx outlined as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall - an inevitable consequence of the forces of capitalist production. The rate of profit fell consistently from the 1880s (after a major global downturn) until the wall street crash in 1929 which led to the great depression. The inherent contradictions of capitalism in this period were cut across by WW2 which effectively destroyed the entire productive capacity of Europe over 6 years. The post-war boom was the result of the rebuilding of the productive capacity of western Europe and the far-east - and came to a shuttering halt in 1973. Despite this boom the global rate of profit has continued to decline and is still doing so today. We are now in what is known as the death agony of capitalism. Advances are still made - but they tend to be on a haphazard basis in individual sectors of the economy - but on a global basis over the entire economy we have a contraction of production, major overcapacity of the productive forces, increasing exploitation of the 99%, increasing gaps in wealth distribution and the destruction of the fabric of society - and Britain is actually a prime example of this decline of the productive forces and concentration of wealth in the hands of global finance. The scale of poverty, alienation and deprivation in British society is now on a scale that hasn't been seen since the 1930s.

Marxists used to argue that without a fundamental revolutionary transformation of society that would shift the mode of production from the anarchy of the market to a democratically planned socialised economy, the potential exist for a return to the state of barbarism as the fabric of society disintegrated (the preppers in the US are an example of this devolution) - but the reality is that globally this potential has been passed out by the climate catastrophe. Capitalism is killing the planet - and it will continue to do so. Capitalism cannot change course - it has to progress to its natural conclusion - either its replacement with the next stage of evolutionary development of the productive forces - a democratically planned socialised economy - or a devolution of society into climate collapse.


The reality of the world is that we have a choice - continue on or current path to destruction - or change direction. The vehicle for changing this direction is not by appealing to the demagogues, dictators and elites - it is by mobilising the working class and the mass of the poor on a global basis. Socialism is an international ideology - it views the world on a global basis, not on sectional or nationalistic interests. Socialism requires the mass of the working class to buy into the politics and that requires the development of a class consciousness among the mass of the population. This consciousness comes from struggle between competing social classes - workers and the elites - and the struggle is fought around very normal and basic issues - wages, working conditions, social injustices, inequality, exploitation, etc. An example of this is the current industrial struggle in the Royal Mail. A victory for the workers would advance the cause of the entire working class in Britain and assist the development of class consciousness - a defeat for the workers throws this back to the next upcoming struggle.



We don't have global stability - we have global crisis - economic crisis, environmental crisis, social crisis, etc. so let's take your questions in order -


Yes - I have every confidence that working class people will draw the necessary conclusions and act to resolve these injustices - it is what makes me a socialist.


Unfortunately global revolution is necessary - now this does not necessarily mean an expressly violent revolutionary upheaval - revolution means a fundamental alteration in the course of society. Revolutions are not inherently violent - they only become violent when the elites resist the democratic wishes of the majority of the population.


My desire would be that no one should die - I am in the business of saving lives - not taking them. Capitalism doesn't care about people - it cares about power and money and those elites that benefit from it have demonstrated over the past 250 years that human life is dispensable when it comes to the pursuit of profit. Any deaths that might occur would be directly the result of the elites attempting to hold power against the democratic wishes of the mass of the population (Bolivia, Chile, Hong Kong, Yeman and Iraq are examples of this in the past week alone).


The would be decommissioned, dismantled, what could be recycled would be - and then the rest would be stored to decay over the half-life of the material.


I know what is necessary - and I suggest if you want to discuss this further to get a better understanding - if you are in Brighton you find some people selling a paper called Socialist Alternative - there are a few around - and ask them for a discussion. I am sure they will oblige.

Again, thx for taking your time to write such a detailed reply. I'll try and be brief, not because I want to but because the Mrs gets annoyed with me on the weekend!

The world you paint is not the world I see or the world in which we live, its not some Dickensian wasteland, with rich overlords and miserable starving masses.

Injustices happen, they always have and always will. Whether or not youre a bible believer, the central figure in that book another "JC" said "the poor will always be among you", this 2000 years before 21st century captalism. I'm not happy about it either, but this Utopian Socialised economy revolution i'm sure is not the answer. North Korea minus the executions?

There are just to many reasons why I would and could never vote for Corbyn. His past associations, attitudes towards extremists groups, terrorists, the nuclear deterent and those nations who are a national security threat to ours, and that's before getting to what would be a calamitous economic mistake that will make this nation and its people poorer. He wants to use the economic advantages of the Capitalism system that would allow him to borrow unprecedented amounts of other peoples money, to fund socialists dreams without any plan to actually pay back that money, except by dumping the debts on the heads of others down the line, such is the reality of the world we live in and has happened every time before. What is the plan to pay it back, hope the revolution occurs first having used the nasty capitalists borrowed cash?

I know many people who lived in the former soviet Union, maybe not your pure vision for the world but certainly a system more in line with your utopian one than the capitalist one. You cite Amazon using a legal loop hole and offshoring to avoid tax (something that needs to be addressed for sure - albeit a non revolutionary tweak), where in the soviet union - with as I stated, the inherently corruptability of human beings, the people with business avoided things like high taxes with bribes to those in the tax office, something that is rampant in all socialist economies, where everyone is forced to be poor/breadline and without hope of better. You go to the soviet train station, no tickets available today, until you find some extra roubles and then they magically appear. The whole system is built on bribes because people were poor and desperate for more. People still using whatever initiative they can to try and bring extra money to their family, corrupt or otherwise.

I'm not in the 1% or Corbyns 5% and I don't see this world you paint. Making the so called evil rich people poorer is not going to give poorer people today a better or happier life under a socialist utopia, it will make everyone poorer and take away all hope and aspiration, key human traits.

A guy sitting alone in his apartment for 2 years risking it all to get his fledgling IT company called Amazon off the ground, should be applauded, he should also pay fair tax without question, and that is his major failing. 2 fellas in a garage writing a search engine program called google, will it work, wont it work who knows but lets invest our time to risk and see if it can. These companies have a duty to pay more taxes, the fact they avoid them legally shows international taxation laws need changing not that the system that allowed such innovation and employment needs torching.

Fortunately the die hard socialist ideologues peddling such revolutionary Citizen Smith guff make up a lot less than 1%. The grown ups in the room need to fix and tweak many things but not burn the house down. adding 1 pence per pound onto income tax would be fairer and better way to start, and that would shoulder the responsibility of better public services proportionally on all citizens, the rich would pay a lot more, but all would be invested in it. But my guess is that's not far enough for revolutionaries, making enemies of those they hate and envy is deeply ingrained. Even if that means the objects of their hate move with their money and the government get a higher % of nothing.

 

[peterward]

You're so wrong on this point, and for several reasons:
1, science carves up bits of the world, different phenomena and processes, and investigates it so, to that extent, scientists tend to focus on their own particular domain of investigation
2, that said, climate change/breakdown/crisis/catastrophe is such a serious issue that scientists from multiple domains of investigation (glaciologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, etc) have converged on this and recognise that we're heading towards breakdown and, this is caused by fossil fuel emissions and exponential resource use.
3, to the extent there is a branch of science that does study resource use, it gathers around the notion of the Anthropocene, in which new interdisciplinary scientific approaches are emerging, which go under names such as Earth System Science or Global Change Science. These are the disciplines that Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin are associated with, respectively and, as you read books, you might want to consult their recent The Human Planet to challenge your assumption that scientists think we can carry on as we are.

No Im not wrong when that point is rooted in reality. The planet could actually take about 10 billion without the strain on natural resources or food production and things associated with consumerism. With the way we live in Europe, the actual amount is just under 2 billion. And europe consumes only 60% of what the US does.

So it goes back to the central theme of theory vs reality. Does Europe and other westernised nations close down all energy, transport, industry and food production and decide to live in mud huts and become subsitence farmers to sustain more people globally?

Or does the vast numbers of migrants flooding across the Mediterranean prove that those from poorer backgrounds and infrastructure would prefer to live the westernised way in the real world we actually live in? in which case how many is the sustainable level in the real world?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

ah yes, the arguement that marxist-socialism didnt work in those places because reasons, it'll be different this time. what on earth do you think a "planned economy" will be if not bureaucratic and dictatorial? its unavoidable. you must create a massive agency to monitor, measure needs and consumption, then direct production and distribution. meanwhile you tell people what they can and cant have, ultimatly what they can and cant do.

There are very clear, simple and straightforward reasons for the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union - specifically a four year 'civil war' involving the intervention of most European countries, including Britain (which effectively destroyed the country_ - the death of large numbers of Bolshevik members in the civil war - the necessity to hire and use the old Tsarist bureaucracy to keep the state functioning - but most importantly - the fact that only 10% of the population were working class. Russia was a semi-feudal oligarchy at the time of the Russian Revolution with the peasantry accounting for almost 90% of the population. In order to build a democratically planned socialised economy you need a critical mass of a majority of the population being working class. That is why Lenin, Trotsky and other leaders of the Bolsheviks (not Stalin) campaigned for a workers revolution in an advanced capitalist country - they knew and understood that a counter-revolution was inevitable in Russia without assistance from an international revolutionary upheaval (and that counter-revolution was the rise of bureaucratic Stalinism). It is not that socialism didn't work in the Soviet Union - it is that it couldn't work in the Soviet Union without assistance from the international working class - the leaders of the Russian Revolution knew this and predicted counter-revolution it that assistance didn't materialise (which it didn't).

there is one place communism works, China has successfully fused communist political control with free market enterprise. may be thats the way forward? however they are also the largest consumers of raw resourses so conflicting with notion going communist will solve everything, and highlighting its us the population that drives consumption.

China is not communist and never has been - the Chinese revolution was a peasant revolution - Mao effectively atomised the Chinese working class in the aftermath of the revolution (he ordered the red army to shoot workers who staged strikes in support of the revolution) - China today is a one party capitalist state - the majority of the economy is still state owned, but state ownership does not equate to socialism - however, China acts as imperialist power, gobbling up infrastructure all over the world and the economy is driven by the profit motive. If you think that China has successfully fused communist political control with free market enterprise then you really need to read some stuff about the development of Chinese society since 1949.