"Economics for a crowded planet" needed?!?

[gorski]

[This is the same Sachs who crippled various economies, especially the "have nots" around the world, with his "transition strategy" of "free market economics", Gawd help us... But this, I am told [haven't read it yet], is "something else, worth a read"...

So, let's have it as a starting point, against eugenics and Holocaust of various kinds... Anyone read it already? Here's an outline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs]

Common Wealth: economics for a crowded planet

Speaker: Professor Jeffrey D Sachs
Chair: Professor David Held
This event was recorded on 2 May 2008 in the Old Theatre, Old Building

Jeffrey Sachs argues the need a new economic paradigm—global, inclusive, cooperative, environmentally aware, and science based—because we are running up against the realities of a crowded planet. The alternative is a series of cascading threats to global well-being, all of which are solvable but potentially disastrous if left unattended. Prosperity must be maintained through new strategies for sustainable development that complement market forces, spread sustainable technologies, stabilize the global population, and enable the billion poorest people to escape from the trap of extreme poverty.

Available as: mp3 (23 mb; approx 102 minutes)
Event Posting: Common Wealth: economics for a crowded planet [LSE events bit...]

=======THE OTHER STARTING POINT=======

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html - Hans Rosling shows the best stats you've ever seen!!! A "MUST SEE/HEAR" if ever I saw/heard one....

Please note that this guy really puts in question the lot of "eugenics" presumptions and all sorts of needs for a "crowded place management techniques/strategies"...

Just gis' some "development", "industrialisation" and "modernisation" and we'll fix it, maaaaannnn....

[Btw, he has another one on poverty - enjoy:

Hans Rosling's new insights on poverty]

 

[gorski]

Too challenging to address one's presumptions [= the mother of all fookups!!!]???!!!???

 

[revol68]

the answer is communism, it has always been communism and it will win!

NOW FUCK OFF YOU CUNT!

 

[gorski]

There's nothing in that notion/word, except a kind of password, used by vain and useless demagogues, into which anybody can put their own content.

Hence [judging by you alone], of cunts, used only by cunts for cunts... you get the idea...

Now, run along to your playground pub...

...there's a good chappy...

 

[eoin_k]

Well that last post is proof if anyone needed it that some people get the intellectuals they deserve. Why don't you run along and find out what your reformed neoliberal hatchetman has to tell us about transforming the world economy into something nicer. Prick.

 

[gorski]

...or maybe you should grow up and inform yourself about somebody before you attack him/her... Snotty twat! Had you read a few more of my posts...

[Achhh, never mind... wasted words...]

 

[Jonti]

[This is the same Sachs who crippled various economies, especially the "have nots" around the world, with his "transition strategy" of "free market economics", Gawd help us... But this, I am told [haven't read it yet], is "something else, worth a read"...

I'm guessing no-one else has read it yet either.

Maybe if you read it, you could summarise why some folks think the piece is worth the time.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

I can't make head nor tail of what Gorski posts. And I don't think that's because I'm 'thick' either.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think he's asking if anyone's read a book, and then provided an alternative view addressing the same problem, and asking if anyone's read either of them, what do they agree with about them etc.

 

[gorski]

Of course, KZ!

CH, you're talking about the last one which is deliberately a small provocation [how Capitalism pits us against each other, so even the Commies and Anarchists behave in a good ol' Hobbsian manner...]...

Never mind...

 

[revol68]

how else will capitalism be destroyed other than through class struggle red in tooth and claw?

 

[fela fan]

how else will capitalism be destroyed other than through class struggle red in tooth and claw?

Individual revolution.

We need an economics based on health not wealth. Pursue a life that leads to individual health, and this will in turn lead to a healthier planet. Any individual can start today, no need to wait for others.

No rocket science or political revolution needed. No destruction or violence needed. Just a nice easy peaceful transition, all put in motion by the magic ingredient of awareness.

In fact, millions and millions have already started the revolution, it's all happening now. But don't let any capitalist or venturist or economist or banker or politician get away with any of their bullshit. It's all about greed and/or ego with them, however much they try to dress it up otherwise.

 

[gorski]

It can also be non-violent, evolutionary, much slower, of course and no guarantees, needless to say - but no "wise and all-knowing Leadership", with all that it entails...

Or have you seen the future, revol, came back and having gone through all the potentialities, all the exigencies, all the variables, all the infinite possibilities, you're here to take us by the hand and lead us to the only viable option there is, that only you and your party members know?

Which is exactly the kind of thinking Bolsheviks went for, culminating in Stalin's state terror, against anyone who was "deemed" even remotely against that kind of thinking, the kind of thinking the sur-real "socialism" founded itself in and many of us suffered from it greatly... Are you aware of the difficulties of such a position?!? Can you put our minds at ease you do not have that in mind and what exactly do you have in mind, to replace it with???

What kind of

ideology, giving rise to a

movement, which results in a

political party, that would found and perpetuate an

order

do you have in mind?!?

 

[kyser_soze]

I always felt 'socialiam or barbarsim' weren't enough options for the future.

 

[eoin_k]

It can also be non-violent, evolutionary, much slower, of course and no guarantees, needless to say - but no "wise and all-knowing Leadership", with all that it entails...

Taking Marx's critique of capitalist economics seriously doesn't require an uncritical attitude to Bolshevik political tactics and to suggest this shows a fairly shallow understanding of Marx.

How do you propose that we gradually and non violently transform capitalism into something more humane?

 

[gorski]

Cut the crap, blood-thirsty shisters!!! Maybe you should switch your own brain on, instead of trying to hold onto something literally, like a drunkard holds onto a lamp-post?

For starters, Marx has a bit of a problem: neither Slavery nor Feudalism have been demolished by slaves or peasants uprising...

Also, how do you make a non-violent society by violence? Marx's context and ours are not exactly the same, you know... [surprise-surprise...]

So, show me the revolutionary subject of our time and space!!!! No BS!!!

And I mean transforming radically, not establishing yet another violence based society, so the same BS is continuing, in various guises!!!

Secondly, have you traveled a bit? Say, at least Scandinavia... Maybe if you had an open mind...

I mentioned it here a few times: "Politics against markets" by Esping-Andersen to begin with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gøsta_Esping-Andersen

http://www.esping-andersen.com/

Decomodification of labour is not merely a dream.... Social Democracy is a very real force and a very strong option for the world. The Q is how to build it with some bite, as it were. The social substratum of Social Democracy is very strong in Scandinavia and in so many ways it is showing the way!!! Not exactly perfect, it is a human invention, after all - but when compared with other such inventions....

 

[fela fan]

How do you propose that we gradually and non violently transform capitalism into something more humane?

You don't, can't.

You transform yourself into a non-capitalist non-consumer debt-free citizen. To whatever degree possible. You can't transform an 'ism'. Just concentrate on yourself.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

How is that possible, when living in a capitalist society, you berk.

 

[fela fan]

How is that possible, when living in a capitalist society, you berk.

How is what possible? I put forward three possible actions, and i'm not sure which one you're referring to. If you are referring to the first one i mentioned, you missed my rider that you do it to whatever degree possible.

Everything is possible really, just depends on one's mindset.

 

[revol68]

fela fan fuck off this discussion is well over your head, stick to boring poor fuckers down the pub with your homespun wank.

 

[revol68]

It can also be non-violent, evolutionary, much slower, of course and no guarantees, needless to say - but no "wise and all-knowing Leadership", with all that it entails...

Or have you seen the future, revol, came back and having gone through all the potentialities, all the exigencies, all the variables, all the infinite possibilities, you're here to take us by the hand and lead us to the only viable option there is, that only you and your party members know?

Which is exactly the kind of thinking Bolsheviks went for, culminating in Stalin's state terror, against anyone who was "deemed" even remotely against that kind of thinking, the kind of thinking the sur-real "socialism" founded itself in and many of us suffered from it greatly... Are you aware of the difficulties of such a position?!? Can you put our minds at ease you do not have that in mind and what exactly do you have in mind, to replace it with???

What kind of

ideology, giving rise to a

movement, which results in a

political party, that would found and perpetuate an

order

do you have in mind?!?

Yes because revolutionary politics begins and ends with bolshevism? Have you any understanding of the Russian revolution, of the role of the Soviets, the factory committees and the revolutionaries persecuted and suppressed by the Bolsheviks who wished to set the limits of revolution, who mistook state capitalism and technocratic management of the economy for socialism. The bolsheviks were social democrats in a country that offered no room for gradual reform, but which was spiralling to revolution, this meant they were forced to run with the revolution in order to head it off and reassert their social democratic statist politics.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I always felt 'socialiam or barbarsim' weren't enough options for the future.

they are, essentially, the options on offer. Something that becomes more apparent day-by-day.

 

[kyser_soze]

No, it's just that no one has thought of another option yet. Heh, it's socialists own little version of TINA really, that phrase.

 

[Lo Siento.]

No, it's just that no one has thought of another option yet. Heh, it's socialists own little version of TINA really, that phrase.

Personally, I think we have, and will continue to choose barbarism.

The alternative, whatever word you want to use, is democratic societies, using resources to best meets the needs of the majority.

 

[gorski]

Yes because revolutionary politics begins and ends with bolshevism?

First, I must notice you did not give us your big idea....

Second, I keep pointing to the fact that "Mensheviks" [Minority] were actually the majority in the Party - but as Stalin kept pointing out, his "Bolsheviks" [Majority], even though they were actually a minority, were better placed and started dominating the Party. It ended as it ended.

So, I know. But my questions to you remain. Please, answer them, so we can get down to the meaningful discussion on the issues, with less dogma and more of the nitty-gritty, i.e. actually getting to grips with the Qs I posed.

Have you any understanding of the Russian revolution,

I studied it a bit, yes. Together with some other revolutions, too. Noticed some striking similarities - to make everybody worried?

Especially the bit where "ideas" are "translated" into "action"...

So, what are the structures, processes etc. of mediation that you would use in order to avoid the pitfalls of what you advocate, i.e. violent revolution, with people at the top wielding great power over life and death, building a society on foundations of violence and bloodbath?!?

of the role of the Soviets, the factory committees and the revolutionaries persecuted and suppressed by the Bolsheviks who wished to set the limits of revolution,

So, since you advocate a "violent revolution", i.e. "nature red in tooth and claw", how do you intend to avoid these beastly moments arising, when one deploys violence, murder, executions on the spot or via kangaroo-courts etc. etc.?!?

who mistook state capitalism

That's a myth behind which lies complete misunderstanding of the Revolution's baby - quasi-communist state. There was no Capitalism to speak of in Stalin's state!!! The principle of politics [production of surplus-power] over economy [production of surplus-value] was all too obvious for anyone with any brains and not desperate to try to defend... well, what exactly?!? My questions to you still stand!

and technocratic management of the economy for socialism.

That was not "Socialism", as far as I can tell. As for "technocracy" - depends on one's understanding of the state established by Bolsheviks.

The bolsheviks were social democrats

Eh????????

in a country that offered no room for gradual reform,

Indeed, it needed a bourgeois revolution first.

but which was spiralling to revolution,

Well, it didn't need a "socialist revolution", that's for sure, as it was essentially a Feudal society!

this meant they were forced to run with the revolution in order to head it off and reassert their social democratic statist politics.

That's simply incorrect [and quite frankly a meaningless attempt at trying to salvage something that I still don't really know what that is, as you are not revealing anything at all], by any studying I have done. Your usage of those categories has nothing to do with anything, either historically or politically.

I repeat, my Qs to you are still there, unanswered....

 

[fela fan]

fela fan fuck off this discussion is well over your head, stick to boring poor fuckers down the pub with your homespun wank.

With the level of sophistication shown by your good self, your advice may be worth considering. I'm obviously well out of your league, and that is obviously good news for me, for it's a most ugly looking division. Cheerio mate, and enjoy your acid and bile choking in your throat. Blimey, what kind of character are you to be speaking in this way?? In fact it's your level of conversation that reminds me why i left the country. Ta ra mate, it's all yours.

 

[Blagsta]

With the level of sophistication shown by your good self, your advice may be worth considering. I'm obviously well out of your league, and that is obviously good news for me, for it's a most ugly looking division. Cheerio mate, and enjoy your acid and bile choking in your throat. Blimey, what kind of character are you to be speaking in this way?? In fact it's your level of conversation that reminds me why i left the country. Ta ra mate, it's all yours.

lol

 

[Random]

For starters, Marx has a bit of a problem: neither Slavery nor Feudalism have been demolished by slaves or peasants uprising...

Many historians would say you were wrong. The very successful Caribbean slave rebellions played a major part in the ending of the trans-atlantic slave trade. And feudalism, if we accept that it existed, was formally killed off by the French revolution, which many now see as largely a peasant revolution.

 

[gorski]

You must be joking, Random! Slavery fell down because slaves rose against their owners?!? Because that's MY point. YOUR point has NOTHING to do with it, whatsoever!!!

Besides, that has happened within Capitalism, by any definition...

Who are the many who see a bourgeois revolution as a peasant revolution?

Who framed it, who gave it the ideas?! Peasants? FFS!!!!

Workers, peasants etc. were a part without which the Revolution wouldn't succeed, sure but....

[Wow!!!]

 

[Random]

Why are you incapable of writing a coherant sentence? Are you on drugs?