Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge

[jaggybunnet]

So you believe the less privileged should remain so as to be serfs for the upper class for the rest of time?

 

 

i am not saying that's how it should be i am saying that is how it is and always will be, as a species we are greedy, vain, violent and to be honest horrible.

 

like i said show me a socialist country that works.

 

Socialism is a utopia that due to points above can never work

[Meister Jag]

And there was me thinking that despite that industrialisation, a process which was far from exclusive to Communist Russia, within the same short space of time the political classses tended towards the formation of a rabid elite in the Politburo who suppressed the press, civil liberties, and basic individual economic freedoms of those outside the inner-circle to govern by fear. There was me thinking that when people sought pluralism it was denied. With tanks. There was me thinking that when the people sought autonomy even just to do socialism their own way in Hungary, this centralisation of power led to the execution of Imre Nagy and the installation of a puppet dictator (sorry, "leader of the revolution"). There was me thinking that the USSR crumbled under the weight of economic isolationism and the rejection of tyranny by the peoples of the satellite states in the DDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

 

Silly me. I really MUST pay more attention to the facts. Clearly socialism is a WONDERFUL idea that doesn't lead to the oppression of the masses at all. *headdesk*

 

Woody

 

Just returned to this, have I won? Film was so so btw (The Inbetweeners)and was really just your usual rights of passage stuff. Pretty predictable but some LOL bits along the way. See we even pause to be film critics on this DG - would recommend the Morning star's film guide page on a Friday; normally up there with the best of them and some humour in there to boot...

 

Anyway, economics in a post-revolutionary society; where do I begin and what will I just make up?

 

Economics? Right, here goes... I accept that the USSR was a basket case by 1989 and that people had to line up in queues for the odd loaf of bread, as the standard propaganda images would have us believe. I have little to add here from my earlier post, which shows that, by and large, a lifetime of capitalism since 1989 has been disastrous for all of us. Where are the advances, financial security for all, peace, improvements in the environment etc? Has capitalism delivered on any of the aforementioned. No!

 

When the USSR finally failed in 1989 this was primarily due to the immense pressures from the capitalist world, the construction of the Cold War by the USA, the continued economic sanctions and drain on vital resources etc. So given all these pressures, was it a surprise that the USSR lasted as long as it did? Lenin and all those following dreamed of peace that would allow the building of communism. In the absence of that peace, their achievement was stupendous. They basically frightened the capatalist World.

 

But probably the biggest success of the USSR and other communist states in Eastern Europe was that they gave us a sustained example of how difficult it is to construct communism after the revolution; basically, in layman's terms, how devilishly complex such a process is. By that I mean it was f****** hard! To be sure, they made plenty of mistakes, only to learn from them and try something else. Until then, revolutionaries had dreamed, romanticised, formulated ideal blueprints, as they tend still to do today (especially in the West)- think of the SSP, SWP, CP, RCP SLP and many others. But here was a moment when a revolution succeeded and communist construction began. As Jean-Jacques Lecercle put it, the USSR gave the capitalist world the biggest fright it ever had, see my comment above. I would quickly add: at least until China.

 

Plus, the Russian Revolution gave us some of the sexiest communists, ever; but maybe that's another topic for another day!

Edited August 26, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

 

Woody

 

Just returned to this, have I won?

 

Obviously sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet.

 

Anyway, economics in a post-revolutionary society; where do I begin and what will I just make up?

 

You'll probably begin with a platitude and make up the rest.

 

Economics? Right, here goes... I accept that the USSR was a basket case by 1989 and that people had to line up in queues for the odd loaf of bread, as the standard propaganda images would have us believe.

 

You say propaganda images; I say news and evidence.

 

I have little to add here from my earlier post, which shows that, by and large, a lifetime of capitalism since 1989 has been disastrous for all of us.

 

Nonsense. First of all we've not had capitalism since 1989. We've had lots of different mixed markets in the west and in much of the old Soviet block, we've had vested interest corporatism, which is oligarchy. As any political scientist worth his salt knows, oligarchy is one of the many antitheses of free market economics. Thus the suggestion that we've even got "a lifetime of capitalism" let alone that it's been disastrous doesn't hold.

 

Secondly, greater marketisation has been absolutely bloody brilliant for some places. India has dragged millions out of poverty. Brazil has grown substantially since adopting a more free-market outlook and has been a leader in the development of WTO agreements, which have improved the lot of pretty much everyone both in developed and developing nations by providing cheaper, over the long-term less volatile, and more reliable food sources. The elimination of trade tariffs has meant that the movement of goods has made industrialisation a much more rapid process for countries in the Far East and with a consumer based economic model they improve the lot of all in all ways material.

 

Thirdly, to attribute the problems in the world economy to capitalism is a phoney argument. It is observed by even mixed-market and socialist models that indefinite economic growth with finite resources is not possible. Thus we must accept that at times economies will contract. That's not a bad thing unless people behave under the assumption that the bad times will never come (see debt). The current economic crisis is a debt-based one. And most of that debt has been brought about by the actions of governments. Not the private sector, but governments. Setting interest rates too low, bailing out failed business, hitting the poor hardest with quantitative easing and actively encouraging reckless behaviour with a poor grasp of the impact of regulatory measures.

 

Where are the advances, financial security for all, peace, improvements in the environment etc? Has capitalism delivered on any of the aforementioned. No!

 

Firstly, capitalism never promised financial security. Secondly, it never promised peace. Thirdly, it never promised environmental improvements.

 

But I'll tell you what capitalism has done. It's lifted hundreds of millions out of absolute poverty. It's generated wealth through the most efficient use of resources we've ever seen in an economic system of any kind. It's reduced the level of global conflict by the spread of free trade. Eliminated? No, but it never promised that. It's brought about greater economic and social interdependence than any planned economy sustained. The free market trading system has been used as a way to put pressure on regimes who do not respect basic human rights. It has put an end to situations where it makes more sense for a farmer to let his field go unploughed because his government used to pay him not to make crop to keep the food prices higher. Capitalism has single-handedly build cities in China in the last 4-5 years. Capitalism has developed renewable energy technology. Capitalism has made it possible for people to own cars that aren't death traps like Soviet Ladas. Capitalism has made international travel on aeroplanes the norm and not the exception.

 

Sure, capitalism isn't perfect. It rewards some massively disproportionately. But so does socialism. Socialism always tends to centralised power, and centralised power always tends to croneyism. That's true whether you fly a red flag or a green dollar bill. The key difference between the free market and socialism is that the free market works the way the world works. Without an element of social Darwinism in society, you end up with a lowest common denominator instead of a highest common multiple. Capitalism gets that. Socialism doesn't.

 

When the USSR finally failed in 1989 this was primarily due to the immense pressures from the capitalist world

 

I.e. failing by being inferior to it.

 

the construction of the Cold War by the USA

 

It takes two to tango, Ché.

 

the continued economic sanctions and drain on vital resources etc.

 

I.e. its vulnerability to external forces. Like capitalism.

 

So given all these pressures, was it a surprise that the USSR lasted as long as it did? Lenin and all those following dreamed of peace that would allow the building of communism. In the absence of that peace, their achievement was stupendous. They basically frightened the capatalist World.

 

Quite the contrary. They put the cart before the horse. Communism and socialism could only ever work if you got rid of war first. Its existence in a plural economic society is always prone to failure because it requires a level of coercion that individuals as the building blocks of society simply cannot tolerate.

 

But probably the biggest success of the USSR and other communist states in Eastern Europe was that they gave us a sustained example of how difficult it is to construct communism after the revolution; basically, in layman's terms, how devilishly complex such a process is. By that I mean it was f****** hard! To be sure, they made plenty of mistakes, only to learn from them and try something else. Until then, revolutionaries had dreamed, romanticised, formulated ideal blueprints, as they tend still to do today (especially in the West)- think of the SSP, SWP, CP, RCP SLP and many others. But here was a moment when a revolution succeeded and communist construction began. As Jean-Jacques Lecercle put it, the USSR gave the capitalist world the biggest fright it ever had, see my comment above. I would quickly add: at least until China.

 

This is all just crack-pipe territory. What Eastern Europe showed us is that when it comes down to it, human-beings are not pawns on a chess board, but organic, free-spirited and respond negatively to coercion. Trying to wave-away the violent suppression of the Hungarians, the Poles, the East Berliners and the Czechs and Slovaks is dishonest, inhumane and fundamentally perverted. They yearned for freedom and they got oppression. Tanks. On their streets. Foreign soldiers. With guns. Executing their leaders and eliminating their freedoms of expression, assembly and self-determination. Communism in one country isn't just a fantasy, but the dystopia of human instinct and human desire. These "revolutionaries" in the west are brainwashed. They lose completely the capacity for objective thinking. They don't believe in the freedoms of the oppressed; they believe in the oppression of the oppressors. Liberalism and free market economics believes in the emancipation of the individual if only he has the will to seek it.

 

Plus, the Russian Revolution gave us some of the sexiest communists, ever; but maybe that's another topic for another day!

 

The single most credible argument you've put forward on this forum.

[Blackpool Jags]

WJ and JB, please pay attention and remember that this is only for the benefit of the informationally malnourished: the gains made by the Russian revolution were put in place under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. At no time have either myself or (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting) MJ as much as begun to praise, let alone extol the 'virtues' of Jo Stalin. In fact Lenin - whose untimely ill health was a crushing blow for the intellectual advance of the socialist project - warned the Party against the thinly veiled ambitions of the tyrant. Both Lenin and Trotsky were master scholars of the works of Marx and Engels, and both were eminently aware of the dangers of ultra-leftism. Notably, Lenin's decollectivisation of agriculture and introduction of the country's new economic policy (NEP), was a bold display of his/their practical approach to progressive revolution.

 

Barely was Ulyanov pronounced dead and the sinister agenda of JS came into play: the NEP was reversed; Trotsky was declared personna non-grata (followed by we all know what); show trials became the norm; the Hitler-Stalin pact was begotten; democracy was minimised; and a long-term elite was established. This was the emergence of the deformed workers' state. The rest, MJ summarises eloquently.

 

So, when I describe the advances made by an example of socialism, I do so with facts on my side. None of this seeks to condone for a fleeting moment the horrors that Stalin visited upon not only his own opponents and others, but simply sets out to explain and describe - albeit somewhat poorly - the genuine remarkable gains which were made by the socialist transformation that Lenin and Trotsky's Communist Party introduced.

 

It might be an uncomfortable truth for some of our very right wing friends on here, and it certainly was for most of the Western powers for rather a long time, but Marxist socialism remains a viable and credible political set of values, but only if the reader is prepared to accept historical facts. Otherwise the game's a bogey and the same old pish will be repeated on here ad nauseum.

 

The end.

[Woodstock Jag]

But you've missed the point. All of that simply shows how utterly fragile a socialist "utopia" is, BJ. If the survival of such a system relies on the strength of Lenin the demigod, there's really not much holding it together at all.

 

With the exception of Weimar Germany, I'm struggling to think of a single multi-party democratic free(ish) market state that has subsequently succumbed to the whims of a long-lasting tyrant. Perhaps if we're generous we could add Vichy France into the mix but there's the small matter of an invading tyrannical army undermining that one.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[jaggybunnet]

WJ and JB, please pay attention and remember that this is only for the benefit of the informationally malnourished: the gains made by the Russian revolution were put in place under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. At no time have either myself or (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting) MJ as much as begun to praise, let alone extol the 'virtues' of Jo Stalin. In fact Lenin - whose untimely ill health was a crushing blow for the intellectual advance of the socialist project - warned the Party against the thinly veiled ambitions of the tyrant. Both Lenin and Trotsky were master scholars of the works of Marx and Engels, and both were eminently aware of the dangers of ultra-leftism. Notably, Lenin's decollectivisation of agriculture and introduction of the country's new economic policy (NEP), was a bold display of his/their practical approach to progressive revolution.

 

Barely was Ulyanov pronounced dead and the sinister agenda of JS came into play: the NEP was reversed; Trotsky was declared personna non-grata (followed by we all know what); show trials became the norm; the Hitler-Stalin pact was begotten; democracy was minimised; and a long-term elite was established. This was the emergence of the deformed workers' state. The rest, MJ summarises eloquently.

 

So, when I describe the advances made by an example of socialism, I do so with facts on my side. None of this seeks to condone for a fleeting moment the horrors that Stalin visited upon not only his own opponents and others, but simply sets out to explain and describe - albeit somewhat poorly - the genuine remarkable gains which were made by the socialist transformation that Lenin and Trotsky's Communist Party introduced.

 

It might be an uncomfortable truth for some of our very right wing friends on here, and it certainly was for most of the Western powers for rather a long time, but Marxist socialism remains a viable and credible political set of values, but only if the reader is prepared to accept historical facts. Otherwise the game's a bogey and the same old pish will be repeated on here ad nauseum.

 

The end.

 

 

still waiting for this great socialist state you talk of and ref your facts where are they please, or are you spouting the usual propaganda.

 

any way all student should pay full price for there education not just the rest of the uk

[B.C.G. JAG]

still waiting for this great socialist state you talk of and ref your facts where are they please, or are you spouting the usual propaganda.

 

any way all student should pay full price for there education not just the rest of the uk

As has been explained, Socialism in one country will never work, it - like any system - will only thrive and survive when it's the rule rather than the exception. To keep asking for an example of a successful Socialist state is a non-question. We have never had a global Socialist System to compare against. Woody has tried to woo us with the achievements of Capitalism, however Capitalism as a global economic system operates with benefits to only a small minority at the top - it can only work by squeezing the workers. Perhaps Marxism is a utopia we will never experience, but it offers considerably more hope than the dour picture you paint of selfishness and greed. Isn't it nice to aspire to something?

 

So I see the Tories in Scotland are looking for a new leader. Can't be much to choose from these days. Have you had the call yet?

[Woodstock Jag]

As has been explained, Socialism in one country will never work, it - like any system - will only thrive and survive when it's the rule rather than the exception.

 

Cart before the horse stuff. It won't become the rule rather than the exception until it works as a system.

 

To keep asking for an example of a successful Socialist state is a non-question.

 

No, it's the fatal question.

 

We have never had a global Socialist System to compare against.

 

Because socialism doesn't work.

 

Woody has tried to woo us with the achievements of Capitalism, however Capitalism as a global economic system operates with benefits to only a small minority at the top - it can only work by squeezing the workers.

 

Phoney analysis not borne out by the facts. Liberal economics rejects the notion of the zero-sum-gain. Everyone benefits; just some more than others. "The workers" are not a discrete entity and to suggest they are is to perpetuate a misdiagnosis of the divisions in society that bears little relation to contemporary Earth.

 

Perhaps Marxism is a utopia we will never experience, but it offers considerably more hope than the dour picture you paint of selfishness and greed. Isn't it nice to aspire to something?

 

Hope is a wonderful thing. But it has to be tempered by, you know, reality. Free markets and free trade deal in real gains. It's like democracy. Least worst is best.

[Meister Jag]

But you've missed the point. All of that simply shows how utterly fragile a socialist "utopia" is, BJ. If the survival of such a system relies on the strength of Lenin the demigod, there's really not much holding it together at all.

 

With the exception of Weimar Germany, I'm struggling to think of a single multi-party democratic free(ish) market state that has subsequently succumbed to the whims of a long-lasting tyrant. Perhaps if we're generous we could add Vichy France into the mix but there's the small matter of an invading tyrannical army undermining that one.

 

Woody and Jaggy up to a point...

 

I'm happy to continue this discussion but feel that I'm discussing matters with someone who has a dangerously closed mind. JB at least has the benefit of the experience of the workplace so brings some real life experiences - I guess both good and bad - to this discussion. WJ, on the other hand, appears intent on spouting neo-liberal propaganda in the hope that we'll all be impressed and have a Damascus road conversion. Hardly likely as most of us on this DG have life experience and know that we face an unfair World.

 

I say this as we don't riot, we try to change the system through the ballot box and we turn to DG's like this one to to exchange ideas and to try to gain an understanding of why it's all going wrong. As I've told you before, I don't have all of the answers and I am grateful that I can voice my opinions in relative safety; although this is becoming increasingly difficult in the workplace where it's open season on workers and as good a time as any for unscrupulous managers to single out the weak for removal. But I digress...

 

If everyone on this planet was a liberal, an enthusiastic supporter of the free market, then that would be the end of the matter. But of course some people oppose the market, and its effects - especially the resulting inequality. The market is a political and social regime, and like any other regime, it must be enforced against opposition. That is true even of democracies: democrats overthrow dictators, and dictators overthrow democracies; this has been the way of it for as long as I can care to remember. If either side wants to avoid their own overthrow, they must use force. Democrats do use democratic force, and do fight democratic wars - take a look at what has been carried out in the name of democracy in the past few years with wars being taken forward to preserve the peace(?) in Iraq, Afghanistan and, more recently, North Africa. We wonder why so-called liberal democracies target specific wars and leave other brutal regimes in place. People are not stupid and know that a country's natural resources are often what fuels (no pun intended) a super-power's interest in "restoring democracy".

 

In essence, the relationship between supporters and opponents of the free market, is similar to that between democrats and anti-democrats. They are enemies, inherently. On the very existence of the market, no compromise is possible. The free market either exists, or it does not exist. It can disappear by consent - which is absurdly unlikely - or without consent. Any attempt to end the free market is, by definition, an attempt to overthrow a fundamental social structure. Certainly, in the long-established western market democracies, it would mean a collapse of the existing social structures. The effect would be dramatic - comparable to occupation by a foreign power. This is hardly likely to happen even if guys like me and BJ are calling for change.

 

I'm with BJ on most of what he says, you really do have to adopt an open mind and try to look beyond what you've been fed at school. A serious Marxist analysis of what happened to the Russian Revolution after the death of Lenin is necessary to understand what went wrong and why the USSR collapsed. For Marxists, the October Revolution of 1917 was the greatest single event in human history. If we exclude the brief but glorious episode of the Paris Commune and other smaller uprisings, for the first time the working class succeeded in overthrowing its oppressors and at least began the task of the socialist transformation of society.

 

The October Revolution has been completely justified by history. As Trotsky points out in his writings - "The Revolution Betrayed" should be essential reading if you're seriously interested in learning more - for the first time the viability of socialism was demonstrated, not in the language of Marxist theoreticians, but in the language of industry. The nationalised planned economy established by the October Revolution succeeded in a remarkably short time in transforming a backward economy into the second most powerful nation on earth. BJ has made a similar point. Can this be denied?

 

As I've mentioned, the revolution took place, not in an advanced capitalist country as Marx had expected, but in a country that was extremely backward. To give an approximate idea of the conditions that confronted the Bolsheviks, in just one year, 1920, six million people starved to death in Soviet Russia. This in itself was not caused by the revolution and the new order set about ensuring that the people were never subjected to such conditions again.

 

Marx and Engels explained long ago that socialism - a classless society - requires material conditions in order to exist. The starting point of socialism must be a higher point of development of the productive forces than the most advanced capitalist society (the UK for instance). Only on the basis of a highly developed industry, agriculture, science and technology, is it possible to guarantee the conditions for the free development of human beings.

 

Moving onto Lenin's role... Engels long ago explained that in any society in which art, science and government is the monopoly of a minority, that minority will use and abuse its position in its own interests. Lenin was quick to see the danger of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Revolution in conditions of general backwardness. In State and Revolution, written in 1917, he worked out the basic conditions - not for socialism or communism - but for the first period after the Revolution, the transitional period between capitalism and socialism. These were:

 

1) Free and democratic elections and the right of recall for all officials.

2) No official to receive a wage higher than a skilled worker.

3) No standing army but the armed people.

4) Gradually, all the tasks of running the state to be carried out in turn by the workers: when everybody is a "bureaucrat" in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat.

 

When Stalin hit the scene, much of the above was lost and the beginning of the end was underway. Sad really; it didn't have to be that way.

 

Rant over...

Edited August 27, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Oh the wonderful irony of being called closed minded by a Marxist.

[Blackpool Jags]

Oh the wonderful irony of being called closed minded by a Marxist.

 

Nothing faintly ironic about it.

[jaggybunnet]

As has been explained, Socialism in one country will never work, it - like any system - will only thrive and survive when it's the rule rather than the exception. To keep asking for an example of a successful Socialist state is a non-question. We have never had a global Socialist System to compare against. Woody has tried to woo us with the achievements of Capitalism, however Capitalism as a global economic system operates with benefits to only a small minority at the top - it can only work by squeezing the workers. Perhaps Marxism is a utopia we will never experience, but it offers considerably more hope than the dour picture you paint of selfishness and greed. Isn't it nice to aspire to something?

 

So I see the Tories in Scotland are looking for a new leader. Can't be much to choose from these days. Have you had the call yet?

 

 

so that will be a no then, people don't want it and never will.

 

there will always be those who are in charge, and those who will serve under them, its what we are, live with it

[jaggybunnet]

 

The October Revolution has been completely justified by history. As Trotsky points out in his writings - "The Revolution Betrayed" should be essential reading if you're seriously interested in learning more - for the first time the viability of socialism was demonstrated, not in the language of Marxist theoreticians, but in the language of industry. The nationalised planned economy established by the October Revolution succeeded in a remarkably short time in transforming a backward economy into the second most powerful nation on earth. BJ has made a similar point. Can this be denied?

 

bloody right it can, they bullied threatened the workers with death and starvation to do this and many did die so don't hold this up as a shinning beacon to socialism

 

As I've mentioned, the revolution took place, not in an advanced capitalist country as Marx had expected, but in a country that was extremely backward. To give an approximate idea of the conditions that confronted the Bolsheviks, in just one year, 1920, six million people starved to death in Soviet Russia. This in itself was not caused by the revolution and the new order set about ensuring that the people were never subjected to such conditions again.

 

and more than that died after that time when farmers were only given enough grain to reseed the next season and not feed there family, if they used any to feed themselves they were killed or sent to the Gulags true Socialism at work add to that moving/killing tribes to there land could be used to plant crops, not for the people to eat but to sell to USA and other western countries.

 

 

Marx and Engels explained long ago that socialism - a classless society - requires material conditions in order to exist. The starting point of socialism must be a higher point of development of the productive forces than the most advanced capitalist society (the UK for instance). Only on the basis of a highly developed industry, agriculture, science and technology, is it possible to guarantee the conditions for the free development of human beings.

 

no such thing, there will always be those that work and those that organise /control those workers

 

 

 

Rant over...

i doubt it

 

Edited August 28, 2011 by jaggybunnet

[Meister Jag]

Jaggy

 

You go girl... can't say I understood much of that but may return to this later. (Have a stinker of a cold and am away back to bed. But remember that all colds and flus will be banished under communism! )

 

 

 

MJ

 

P.S. Spend a few minutes on-line and find out why the system really collapsed: Back then the Soviets were the largest oil producer in the world, and had profited greatly from the oil-price shocks in the 1970's. In 1983 the Americans went to Saudi Arabia and made a deal. In return for selling them fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft, the Saudis agreed to vastly increase oil production for the purpose of driving down prices and bankrupting the already weakened Soviet economy. And the rest comrade is, as they say, history - the Cold War was won without a shot being fired!

 

Bit of a simplistic analysis but this was all about timing, the Americans hit at the right moment when the Soviet economy was f***** and relying on outside money. Oh and before you make the point, guys like me never supported Stalin or any of his successors.

 

P.P.S. Has your mate WJ taken the huff and spat the dummy?

[Woodstock Jag]

Nothing faintly ironic about it.

 

As far as ideologies go, Marxism is one of the least receptive to coexistence of other ideas. It seeks to purge any notion of an alternative society to its own that could possibly be acceptable or a source of contentment. It is proscriptive. It reduces humanity to a rule-book. See Meister Jag's cut and paste of the Communist Manifesto's analysis of society that simply hasn't borne out in reality.

 

In truth, humanity is a far more complex, far more raw and instinctive: far more individualistic. Virtually all non-socialist theories accept that this degree of individual self-awareness is what makes us so profoundly unique as a species. Broad minded persons accept that whilst some sectors of society may seek to mutualise resources, others don't. Because we are directed by different emotions and to different degrees. Humanity ultimately exists to serve the ends its constituent members appropriate to itself. The first rule is that there are no rules.

 

Human progress is not by how much we can homologise it. Therein lies the closed-mindedness of Marxism.

[Woodstock Jag]

Spend a few minutes on-line and find out why the system really collapsed: Back then the Soviets were the largest oil producer in the world, and had profited greatly from the oil-price shocks in the 1970's. In 1983 the Americans went to Saudi Arabia and made a deal. In return for selling them fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft, the Saudis agreed to vastly increase oil production for the purpose of driving down prices and bankrupting the already weakened Soviet economy. And the rest comrade is, as they say, history - the Cold War was won without a shot being fired!

 

Oh, how very dare a country enter into a quid-pro-quo arrangement with another to gain access to cheaper resources! Welcome to the market my friend. Increased supply of oil and lower prices are what one might call... good.

 

The whole point is a communistic system is uncompetitive. Artificially suppressing supply when demand for a particular good is relatively constant is tantamount to protectionism, which leads to inflationary pressures, inefficient application of resources and ultimately sews the seeds for its own destruction.

 

What you've gone and admitted is exactly the criticism we levy against collectivist systems, be they communist or socialist. They don't respond well to natural human efficiency.

[Meister Jag]

Oh, how very dare a country enter into a quid-pro-quo arrangement with another to gain access to cheaper resources! Welcome to the market my friend. Increased supply of oil and lower prices are what one might call... good.

 

The whole point is a communistic system is uncompetitive. Artificially suppressing supply when demand for a particular good is relatively constant is tantamount to protectionism, which leads to inflationary pressures, inefficient application of resources and ultimately sews the seeds for its own destruction.

 

What you've gone and admitted is exactly the criticism we levy against collectivist systems, be they communist or socialist. They don't respond well to natural human efficiency.

 

WTF was that all about? For a young guy you seem very angry and I think you should get your BP checked asap. I agree totally, play with the markets and your fingers will get burned - you may even lose control of your country. When Russia fell it was in the hands of state capitalists; of the worst kind. Stalin and his mates did little to advance the cause of socialism...

 

Oh, and if you think America's deal was aimed at reducing the price of oil for the common good then you really are more deluded than I thought.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

WTF was that all about? For a young guy you seem very angry and I think you should get your BP checked asap. I agree totally, play with the markets and your fingers will get burned - you may even lose control of your country. When Russia fell it was in the hands of state capitalists; of the worst kind. Stalin and his mates did little to advance the cause of socialism...

 

The point being that socialism is so unstable that it inevitably tends to state croneyism. It's never not happened.

 

Oh, and if you think America's deal was aimed at reducing the price of oil for the common good then you really are more deluded than I thought.

 

The motive doesn't matter. The less the state artificially constricts economic output, the more readily and less expensively end-consumers reap the fruits. Free markets don't operate in your zero-sum-gain environment. Until you grasp that, you get nowhere.

[The Devil's Point]

Is there such a thing as an illegal turd?

[Woodstock Jag]

Is there such a thing as an illegal turd?

 

Sure, it's usually happens when they have a disagreeable worm but cannae puke it.

[alx]

Anytime youse lot want a proper grown up discussion about philosophy/economics/politics/etc let me know. Starter for ten: ridiculous ideological points of view are really juvenile and silly. In the real world things work on data and empirical thought. And other stuff like that.

 

 

[Meister Jag]

Alx

 

Point taken mate but we're dealing with a neo-liberal public schoolboy who claims to know how the real World runs. Where's Sieg Sieg 00 when you need him? Strangely quite!

 

But feel free to get involved... I've tried and am getting seriously fed up. As I read it, power is money and money should be worshiped. If you don't have it - to buy education, privilege, property and whatever else you need to have a spiffing life - then you're really shouldn't express an opinion. But if you do, it will just be dissected and shot down. Give it a go, sit back and watch the response...

Edited August 28, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Steven H]

Alx

 

Point taken mate but we're dealing with a neo-liberal public schoolboy who claims to know how the real World runs. Where's Sieg Sieg 00 when you need him? Strangely quite!

 

But feel free to get involved... I've tried and am getting seriously fed up. As I read it, power is money and money should be worshiped. If you don't have it - to buy education, privilege, property and whatever else you need to have spiffing life - then you're really shouldn't express an opinion. But if you do, it will just be dissected and shot down. Give it a go, sit back and watch the response...

 

Ach it just difficult to have a proper debate in this kinda setting, intricate yet important points are either missed or not easy to explain in print. Which then gives Woody, who appears to enjoy debating on this platform, the tools to attempt to patronise people and get his views across in a way that suits him. Nothing personal WJ, just how I see it.

[Meister Jag]

Woody (Alx if you're up for it!)

 

Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies - though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements. On the other hand, until the global free market imploded, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour - who I blame for much of what has gone wrong. In their economic policies both Blair and Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers.

 

The basic Labour idea since probably the 1950s was that socialism was unnecessary; this was because a capitalist system could be relied on to flourish and to generate more wealth than any other. This is where people like me take issue with the so-called people's party. In truth they have failed us as much as anyone. They failed to try to change society for the people who gave them power.

 

When in power all a socialist government had to do was to ensure that there was a degree of equitable wealth distribution. But since the 1970s the accelerating surge of globalisation made this more and more difficult and fatally undermined the traditional basis of the Labour party. Many in the 1980s agreed that if the ship of Labour was not to founder, which was a real possibility at the time, it would have to be refitted. (You may recall that in the UK the Tories seemed to be re-elected at will and labour couldn't find a way back into power.)

 

However - and I know I'm coming across as a boring c*** (but this wee s**** needs to be told), the ship was not refitted. Under the impact of what it saw as the Thatcherite economic revival, New Labour swallowed the ideology, or rather the theology, of global free-market fundamentalism whole. Britain deregulated its markets, sold its industries to the highest bidder, stopped making things to export (unlike Germany, France and Switzerland) and put its money on becoming the global centre of financial services and therefore a paradise for zillionaire money-launderers. The tax-avoiding crooks I keep going on about. That is why the impact of the world crisis on the pound and the British economy today is probably more catastrophic than on any other major western economy - and full recovery may well be harder if not impossible. (Woody, you'll no doubt disagree!)

 

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think we're all f***** and the mob that are in charge (Woody's mates) are using the state of the economy as a convenient excuse to boot ordinary people in the stones while slashing public expenditure and hammering the public sector - education, social work, public works, health etc. They are hell-bent and intent on preserving structures of inequality and it is fair to say that even Thatcherism never went this far.

 

And to think I only meant to type a quick message to say: "Never trust a Tory...or a Liberal or a member of New Labour! (I know I've not mentioned the SNP but they've not annoyed me as much as the Westminster boy's club.)

 

Feel free to rip into me by the way; I probably deserve it after this offering.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Meister Jag

[alx]

Summarise that in a sentence for fooks sake. I'll will, vote SNP.