LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFirstly, you don't have to be a marxist to believe these things. I'm not a marxist by the way. Also, I'm not going to pretend who Panneok is, I don't know him, but probably should know.Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass
Firstly, you don't have to be a marxist to believe these things. I'm not a marxist by the way. Also, I'm not going to pretend who Panneok is, I don't know him, but probably should know.
''A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that cost and risk are socialized to the extent possible, while profit is privatized.'' Noam Chomsky
Apologies! If I had read more of the thread rather than dipping in and out I would probably have a better grasp of what you are arguing.
Yes you are right, these are ideas that are not exclusive to Marxism and as you say, Marxist suppressed genuine workers councils/soviets.
That indeed was Pannekoek's (proper spelling!) argument. He was advocate of councils and strong critic of Leninism/Stalinism.
As I say, there are interesting overlaps between some of that sort of thinking and some of the 'third way' distributists and coperativists.
All well and dandy except "wealth" is not something you find scattered over the ground. It is created by people.
This isn't feudal time any more. Invariably those who have the "wealth" created the wealth or were given it by someone who did create it.
Your proposal is one of taking the "wealth" from those who create it and giving it to those who don't.
Do i have to point out the fatal shortcoming in all this? Hint: it is the same as that which is the core of the failure of communism and socialism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Tombo, distributism does recognise that wealth is created by people who make things although it is obviously broader than that. You can be creative intellectually, managerially etc.
One of the roots and main aspects of the current crisis is that finance capital does not create anything. Yes, there is a need for investment but as we have seen here much of that investment is not productive and it could be argued that finance capital is anti social and anti productive.
"Finance capital" - nice one
Say what you mean. You mean savings. You mean taking people's savings - people who create wealth and then prudently save it - and giving it to people who don't create it or who simply consume it.
I vote that "distributism" start with you. Cough up all your savings and hand it over...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Have you ever heard of "micro-distributism"??
That is when an idle layabout, who spends all his spare cash on booze and weed, mugs you on your way home from a hard day's work and take the €200 you were planning to put into you savings account.
Nice one.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
You obviously do not understand finance capital particularly well. JP and the boys must be great savers
We have all been victims of 'macro distributism' - been mugged by international financial speculators.
Some tasty "distributism" has gone their way. But not all is attributable to that.
Indeed. "Distributism" is pretty stupid isn't it, whichever way you run it.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Third Assessment Report: “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
</p>"Finance capital" - nice one
Say what you mean. You mean savings. You mean taking people's savings - people who create wealth and then prudently save it - and giving it to people who don't create it or who simply consume it.
Losing patience with people who see the 'distribut' part of 'distributism' and conclude it's about income redistribution. Tombo, if you'd bother to research the topic you would realise that the 'distribute' part of distributism regards how productive power is distributed, not necessarily income. As Chesterton wrote, the problem with capitalism is not that there are too many capitalists, but too few. Distributists detest both dependence on welfare and dependence on large corporations for employment as tantamount to servility. The theory emphasises individual responsibility for economic survival and success, but regards massive profits with great suspiscion and believes there is such a thing as 'enough' - something the Ayn Rand-loving crowd will never get their heads around.
Reply With Quote