Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    The working class would NOT include "the super-rich working to grow their wealth and build relationships on the golf course".
    That is what is wrong with Marxism....
    Many, many of the rich were not rich when they began building wealth, and it is thru hard and smart WORK that they earned their wealth...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

      Marxist solutions
      What a paradox!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

        Marx used the term "working class" to describe the world as he saw it under a capitalist system. A world divided between those who are required to work to earn a living, and those who are not. Whether or not you support Marxist solutions, please let us not confuse the terminology. The working class would NOT include "the super-rich working to grow their wealth and build relationships on the golf course".

        Have I got that correct Bob A.?
        What is not working is Marxism, anywhere it has been tried.

        Comment


        • Bringing the discussion back to climate change, I found this interview interesting about the "billionaire media".

          ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8d...rsityofChicago

          Comment


          • Weekly Stats: CT Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Thread

            Week # 6 (22/2/3 – 22/2/6 - partial)

            ................................................2022 Average..................................................................... 2022 Average

            .......................Last Week's.... Views/Day ......................................Last Week's...........Responses/Day

            Views/Day..... Views/Day...... (To date) ......Responses/Day.... Responses/Day .........(To date)

            65......................... 70............... 102 ........................3.................................. 4 ...........................6

            Analysis

            As we discuss this topic, we are teasing out side issues, and getting closer to the core issue of how to get society to perceive the issue as URGENT, as it is.

            Society is seeing World Capitalism chugging right along, and is being lulled into a sense that all will be well, despite the bad statistics being put forward. Or alternatively that “SOMEHOW” we'll miraculously solve the problem at the last minute, just before climate change suicide begins. As one CT'er noted here, Capitalism is very good at solving problems. So although Capitalism is not going to give up short-term profit by implementing solutions to climate change yet, when its profits are shown clearly to be at risk, it will solve the problem.

            I, personally, do not share such optimism....when Capitalism decided to forego short-term profits, and tackle climate change, it will be too late, even for vaunted Capitalism to save us.

            It is getting harder for the thread viewers to come up with points of discussion as we hone in on the core problem. Thus our stats this week lag behind last weeks, and further behind the 2022 daily stats per day to date.

            ~ Bob (T-S/P)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
              Bringing the discussion back to climate change, I found this interview interesting about the "billionaire media".

              ​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8d...rsityofChicago
              Thank you for the link, Bob G.
              The commentary rightly points out: 1. The illegitimate power of the super-rich corporations 2. The abuse of power by governments 3. The corruption in the media.
              So: Can we 1. Reduce the power of money by making capital freely accessible to all with capability, thereby providing enormous competition to the current super-rich, and simultaneously creating a great demand for the services of Marx's 'working class', thereby improving their income 2. Reduce the power of governments (because politicians just cannot avoid abusing it) 3.Accelerate the current information technolgy's transformation away from the CNNs and Foxes of the world and towards alternate sources of information...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                ....when Capitalism decided to forego short-term profits, and tackle climate change, it will be too late, even for vaunted Capitalism to save us.
                ......

                The super-rich, whether they be capitalists or not, have absolutely no intention of "saving us". They all own private bunkers that they will flee to when the shit starts hitting the fan. These bunkers are safe from everything, including nuclear radiation, and are stocked with several years' supply of fresh water, food, vitamin supplements, medicines, movies for entertainment, and probably even toilet paper (3-ply LOL).

                I think many of them are likely even relishing the coming collapse, so that they can put their feet up and relax. I am sure they even have slaves in readiness to go with them.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                  Thank you for the link, Bob G.
                  The commentary rightly points out: 1. The illegitimate power of the super-rich corporations 2. The abuse of power by governments 3. The corruption in the media.
                  So: Can we 1. Reduce the power of money by making capital freely accessible to all with capability, thereby providing enormous competition to the current super-rich, and simultaneously creating a great demand for the services of Marx's 'working class', thereby improving their income 2. Reduce the power of governments (because politicians just cannot avoid abusing it) 3.Accelerate the current information technolgy's transformation away from the CNNs and Foxes of the world and towards alternate sources of information...

                  Exactly what are you proposing with your first suggestion? There is money available right now in most developed nations, via loans, via angel investing and venture funds etc.

                  What new mechanisms of funding for ideas are you proposing? And especially, how would you see decisions being made as to what is a reasonable idea for funding? Right now what entrepreneurs generally do is prepare a business plan, would you do away with that and just give money to any idea at all? The devil is in the details.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                    That is what is wrong with Marxism....
                    Many, many of the rich were not rich when they began building wealth, and it is thru hard and smart WORK that they earned their wealth...
                    An amazing part of American Capitalism is the rags to riches story. There's like 8 million multi- millionaires, 89,000 over 50 million, 788 billionaires. But for every early investor in Microsoft or Facebook, there were investments in 1,000s of other companies that blew up. There's timing, location and luck involved.

                    Over 60% of the wealthiest come from wealthy White families. They may be "self-made" richer than their parents, but their families had the money to put them through school: lawyer, accountant, engineer, performing artist, or athlete. Gave them a car. Hired them in the family business. Or invested in their business start ups. And some rich kids failed and got bailed out. And networking at private schools lead to future business contacts, marriages into money, insider business funds, and off-shore banking.

                    Most people do not have access to that level of financial support. The rich kids can also sit on their wealth and real estate and let managers do the work of investing it. When one has capital (such as a bank or investment fund) it is profitable to research and invest in those poorer people developing new products. Big companies can donate to politicians and influence government policy, get government contracts, buy out and close down competitors (destroying the economic base of a small town) and run monopolies.

                    Yes, small-business entrepreneurs work their ass-off and risk losing money. 60% go bankrupt within 3 years. But everyday working people also work very hard for long hours, often at jobs that will cause body damage. There is no correlation between hard work and wealth.

                    Jeff Bezos has stated that his success wouldn't have been possible without the technology advancements already in place, the telecommunication network, US Postal Service, and credit cards. And consumers with money and time to shop. Money is not made in a vacuum but in a community maintained by a government.

                    Customers want low prices. Amazon and Wal Mart also use very-low paid workers and third world factories. Profits can also be increased by throwing out waste and polluting the environment. To make money that way isn't being smart, but ruthless and vicious.

                    Most people won't make $1 million in their life.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Erik Malmsten View Post

                      But everyday working people also work very hard for long hours, often at jobs that will cause body damage. There is no correlation between hard work and wealth.
                      Thank you Erik. This is the best post I have seen in a long time.
                      The entire post is a gem, but this is my favourite passage.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                        That is what is wrong with Marxism....
                        I had an interesting political discussion with a friend yesterday. We got onto the topic of Marxism and Libertarianism.
                        I am certainly no expert on either, in fact my friend began with "but Bob, you don't understand" to which I totally agreed.
                        He went onto explain that Marxism and Libertarianism share much in common.

                        He claimed that "both propose to do away with government completely."

                        That concept fully blows my mind. I can't even envision a world without some form of government.
                        Now I presume there must be a spectrum of Marxism and Libertarian viewpoints: spanning no government to some form of limited government?

                        Anyway, if anyone wants to comment and explain how a world devoid of government is even possible or desirable. Explain it to Bob G.

                        And how would it help us tackle climate change?

                        Comment


                        • Marx did not suggest no government.......what he wanted was a socialist government by the workers (He used the term Communism as the type of socialism; USSR Communism is a heresy of Marx thought - it does not follow his main line of thinking on democracy)......the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is pure theory that the proletariat state will at some point be so perfect that it will wither away. Democratic Marxism puts no value on this speculation.

                          Here is the explanation of the state "withering away":

                          The State Withers Away


                          P. Stuchka, The Last Act of the State: It Withers Away. 1926


                          Original Source: From Uchenie o gosudarstve proletariata i krestianstva i ego konstitutsii (5th ed. rev.; Moscow-Leningrad 1926), 288-91.
                          From our definition of the state as an apparatus of class domination it follows that the existence of the state will come to an end simultaneously with the disappearance of classes, i.e., with the introduction of a classless society. Engels used the expression “withers away” to describe the disappearance of the state. In doing this, he stressed the fact that the disappearance of the state will not be an instantaneous event but a protracted process.
                          This is simply a logical conclusion of the whole history of class society:
                          When at last the state becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as class rule and the individual struggle for existence based on our present anarchy in production disappear, and along with them the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary … State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and withers away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not abolished; it withers away (Engels, Anti-D hring).
                          Communists are not alone in demanding the abolition of the state. Anarchists, too, demand its abolition. However, as Lenin stated:
                          We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, temporary use must be made of the instruments, means, and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the annihilation of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his position against
                          the anarchists: when they have cast off the yoke of the capitalists, ought the workers to “lay down arms” or ought they to use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against the other, if not a “transitional form” of the state (State and Revolution).
                          From this it follows that there is a great difference between the “fall” of a bourgeois state and the withering away of the Soviet state. According to Engels, “The bourgeois state does not ‘wither away’ but is ‘destroyed’ by the proletariat in a revolution. And it is the proletarian state or semi-state that withers away after that revolution.”

                          http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/...-withers-away/

                          ~ Bob A (T-S/P)

                          Comment


                          • I am no expert on Marxism, though I have studied it and did take a course on it. It seems to me that individuals, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, for example, did use Marxist ideas/principles to take power, but once they obtained power they proceeded to throw the book out the window. The ideology was used to motivate the lowly masses, but these same masses were tossed to the dogs once the ideology had successfully allowed the strongmen to take power.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                              Marx did not suggest no government.......what he wanted was a socialist government by the workers (He used the term Communism as the type of socialism; USSR Communism is a heresy of Marx thought - it does not follow his main line of thinking on democracy)......the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is pure theory that the proletariat state will at some point be so perfect that it will wither away. Democratic Marxism puts no value on this speculation.
                              Thanks Bob, good answer. So the whole state withering away is a lot of incomprehensible theoretical nonsense.

                              Comment


                              • Bob G - yup - purely utopianism (Common at the time) creeping into Engels thinking, and less so into Marx'. It is a nice dream, that's all....in my understanding of Democratic Marxism.....like John Lennon's Imagine.

                                Bob A ( T-S/P)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X