The Economic Crisis: Is it the end?

[kyser_soze]

My point is that ultimately we all rely on faith; sometimes that faith is buttresed by a huge and complex structure of belief in science, the scientific method, the capability and honesty of those involved in said effort; sometimes it's based around nothing more than simple belief that there is something more than us in the universe that's got our best interest at heart; sometimes it's based around the writing of a German-Jewish expat who had a boil on his bum and a big beard.

It's still faith tho. It still requires you at some point to say 'I cannot have perfect information to make my decision, but I must make a decision'. The gap between the information you have and that decision or choice is faith.

 

[Carousel]

It’s not so much a question of global warming’s existence, more one of whether the suffering it creates really matters. The left wing tradition assumes a reverence for the sanctity of human suffering at the core of our being, which in the cold light of democracy, and secularism, isn’t quite as universally held as they’d imagined.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah. But then proper communists would view ResistanceMP3’s “democratise production” position as rank self managerialism. The abolition of property on the other hand would certainly solve global warming. Those doe eyed communist social relations would magically heal the earth.

that's what I'm talking about, the abolition of property. Workers' control, through workers' councils. What's the point in replacing one class system, with another class system? have no desire to manage state capitalism, wouldn't solve many problems, and SW in particular wouldn't be fucking capable.

 

[TremulousTetra]

These things are only problems to those who subscribe to particular values concerning human suffering or the survival of the species.

if you went to a psychiatrist and said you wanted to commit suicide, with no rhyme or reason like intolerable suffering from illness, he wouldn't just consider you illogical, he would probably consider you insane. In that sense, to seek to survival seems logical. For a species to wilfully contribute to its own extinction, is illogical. (to me, the moral issues are a bonus to that logical argument.)

Even if we assume they’re problems axiomatically, there’s no logical path that renders socio-political equality as their solution.

wilfully ignoring the logical exploitation of the forest resources in America, and poisoning large swathes of land is a necessity to the logging companies. There is massive financial gain to be made by a minority who own and control the company. If the people who live there, worked there, and had families and the future there controlled the exploitation of those natural resources, in the short term and long-term the interest would be to exploit that resource as efficiently as possible. Now just multiply that to every aspect of life.

It's already democratic. The masses just want something different from their supposed liberators.

It is not democratic, it is the dictatorship of the dollar.

 

[Carousel]

What's the point in replacing one class system, with another class system?

There is no point in anything.

if you went to a psychiatrist and said you wanted to commit suicide, with no rhyme or reason like intolerable suffering from illness, he wouldn't just consider you illogical, he would probably consider you insane.

Typical petit bourgeois "expert". In fact, you were just trying to live fast and die young for the sake of life-as-art.

It is not democratic, it is the dictatorship of the dollar.

We are not history's slaves but its unwilling and irresponsible creators.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There is no point in anything.

agreeeeeeed, just an observable logic.

We are not history's slaves but its unwilling and irresponsible creators.

well done, at last. thats what I said.

my opinion on your general topic is that the choice is either socialism or barbarism, with the latter becoming more likely every day.

I just wondered what you would make of these

 

[Carousel]

an observable logic.

Perhaps, but more along the lines of Olson's Logic of Collective Action rather than Hegelian (or, for that matter, Marxist) dialectic.

If the people who live there, worked there, and had families and the future there controlled the exploitation of those natural resources, in the short term and long-term the interest would be to exploit that resource as efficiently as possible.

Not so sure. Their interests, and for that matter the meaning of “efficiency”, is inseparable from their essentially contestable values. Exploiting the resource as efficiently as possible could as easily mean exhausting their resources by throwing a huge party in honour of some cargo cult celebrity and then throwing themselves into the sea like lemmings.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Perhaps, but more along the lines of Olson's Logic of Collective Action rather than Hegelian (or, for that matter, Marxist) dialectic.

Olson's Logic of Collective Action? Illumninate.

Not so sure. Their interests, and for that matter the meaning of “efficiency”, is inseparable from their essentially contestable values. Exploiting the resource as efficiently as possible could as easily mean exhausting their resources by throwing a huge party in honour of some cargo cult celebrity and then throwing themselves into the sea like lemmings.

I have only steered clear of moralism and values, because you initially suggested that was all my reasoning, so I have tried to illustrate there is A logic. But of course, we can observe that values etc. are inseparable from the decision-making on the paths humans have stumbled upon. Given historical precedent, it seems fair to suggest human beings will choose other than suicide/extinction, IF they first choose logic and taking control of their destiny rather than superstition and following a minority.

 

[Carousel]

Olson's Logic of Collective Action? Illumninate.

You have to do your own homework comrade.

it seems fair...

There is no such thing as fair.

...to suggest human beings will choose other than suicide/extinction

Behaviour doesn’t correlate to some objective standard of survival. There is no objective standard of survival. If there was, there would be a point to existence. There isn't.

 

[LLETSA]

I'm closing this thread now.

Enough is enough.

 

[Carousel]

Petit bourgeois temperance morality.

 

[LLETSA]

Petit bourgeois temperance morality.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Y

 

[Jonti]

The abolition of property on the other hand would certainly solve global warming.

I take it you've done the math?

linkie?

 

[MikeMcc]

IMVHO, they should;

1. Bin claims for mortgage interst payments that Maggie brought in.

2. All rented second homes should be rented via the HoC, the size of the property should be related to the family circumstances of the MP.

3. All expenses should be dealt with in terms of benefits in kind unless related to a business case - just like the rest of us.

The furore is due to a number of problems:

1. MPs set the rules and declared most of the benefits to be tax free - unlike the rest of us.

2. Flipping is legal for everyon who has 2 or more homes, that loop hole should be eliminated.

3. MPs have been able to claim for a range of services that are not 'for the public good', i.e moat cleaning, 'servant's quarters, outragous home cinema systems, over the odds gardening, etc. MPs should realise that this should be for vital resourses need to do the task.

They must be seen to live by the same rules as the rest of us.