"The generally accepted view..." Who says this?

Eh, Ernest Mandel?

It sounds like a characterization of social Darwinism, which was probably the "generally accepted view" when Marx was writing in the late-19th century, but was very much out of fashion by 1967 when Mandel was writing. The Nazi regime helped bury that idea. Maybe Mandel was thinking of Ayn Rand, but if her views were ever "generally accepted" outside of college libertarian clubs, then that's news to me.

I've run into people outside of college libertarian clubs that accept Rand's views. There is a wide and diverse population of people in this world.

I suppose in the Republican Party you can find at least Paul Ryan and Ron Paul/Rand Paul (named after Ayn Rand) who have claimed to be fans of Ayn Rand, but even they stop well short of endorsing social Darwinism. My point is that the author of the quoted language appears to be attacking a straw man. Sure, some Republucans might support cutting the welfare state, but they say they are doing it for policy reasons, not because they think science and the laws of nature mandate class divisions.

@Widkle, what is the defining distinction?

I want to know what differentiates Ayn Rand's creed of greed, from Neo-liberal policy and from Social Darwinism?

I know a lot of neo-liberals believe in self-sacrifice for the state, but much of the policy also focuses on corporate entities selifshly promoting their own profits over any other social good. But based on the idea that greed itself is good for society.

Social darwinism as a term is unpopular due to Nazism, but what about the ideas which make it up?

Intellectually, I would say the biggest difference between neo-liberalism and social Darwinism is that social Darwinism claims a scientific basis for class divisions, implying that class divisions can never be overcome, while neo-liberalism claims that liaissez-faire economic policies benefit society as a whole, even if these policies allow class divisions to continue. The famous phrase summarizing neo-liberal thought is "a rising tide lifts all boats." The focus of inquiry for neoliberals is economic and perhaps sociological, but not scientific.

Practically, I would say the difference between the two is that we (meaning the U.S., as a stand-in for neoliberalism) have regulations, public policies, and a robust private litigation system which helps curb flagrant abuses. We have a welfare state and programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (smaller than other Western nations, but still) that only the most radical right-wing Republicans want to dismantle. In our system, the pursuit of profit is permitted, but I wouldn't go so far as to say our society hails profit as the highest good. In fact, the rise of companies committed to social betterment as well as profit shows the two goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

And obviously, we don't have a "final solution" like Nazi Germany.

"social Darwinism claims a scientific basis for class divisions, implying that class divisions can never be overcome, while neo-liberalism claims that liaissez-faire economic policies benefit society as a whole, even if these policies allow class divisions to continue."

Fair enough, one comment, i think you mean biologically rather than scientifically - i presume modern science would say class divisions are socially constructed/enforced - and thus sociology would still be 'scientifically'.

I guess the similarity is that both would end with the result of not bothering to do anything about class because they are happy for evolution or competition to take it's course. (Though perhaps neo-liberalism would find a way to justify doing something to reinforce the powers that be - whoever they happen to be - because power protects itself)

And yes, you could say that state programs are all contrary to neo-liberal ideals - except the military, which is used to expand markets by destroying those who oppose the US ( thus allowing an easier time bullying countries into good trading terms).

Practically, i imagine most neo-liberals would not oppose medicaid/medicare due to it being political suicide - but in principle they did oppose Obamacare, i think that they'd oppose other similar policies if they could.

I do like to hear the US is seeing a rise of 'social enterprise' (for want of a better name) i'd inherently see that as a move away from neo-liberal ideals - at least as i understood them, though perhaps neo-liberals are moving aswell...

And yes, there was no 'final solution' in the US; though you have to consider what the final solution was in the historical context.

What other solutions had been tried. Hitler had made a plan to send all the Jews to Madagascar, but in general previous camps in Africa had been used for relocating native populations and maybe worked / educating them.

Nazi work camps are also criticised, their main purpose may not have been to kill, but i've no doubt that many died. The Soviets famously worked perhaps millions to death. Meanwhile the US has in it's history Indian reservations, the trail of tears, Japanese internment camps and today's example of guantanamo bay.

All part of the same system of ideas of 'solving' the social problems with native populations. Started possibly by the British in australia and the surrounding islands (if my memory is correct)

I could talk about forced sterilisation... But i will stop there.

"We have a welfare state and programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (smaller than other Western nations, but still) that only the most radical right-wing Republicans want to dismantle."

Hate to break it to you, but this isn't radical Republicanism. It's Republican orthodoxy.

Spain used internment camps in the 1800 and Britain used them in the Boar war at the turn of the 1900s. I don't think Australia counts as internment camp as the people sent there by the Brits were criminals. As an aside my family were involved in both boar war and Australian convict deportation. A relative died fighting in the boar war and another relative was sent to Australia. He got drunk, stole wine from a church as was sentenced to death. That sentence was commuted to deportation overseas.

Sorry, thread about Marx. I think Marxism is useful but also limiting.

It examines social systems in terms of class, which can be a useful perspective, (like feminism examining gender) but ultimately limiting - if you know the answer to any problem is social class - then the task of marxism becomes shoehorning class into being blamed for the given problem.(similar criticism of early feminism)

That said, i haven't read marx, so i may be doing it some injustice - in fact Marx probably didn't try to apply his theory to all issues, he may have focussed on the original problems which his theory was developed to address.

"Hate to break it to you, but this isn't radical Republicanism. It's Republican orthodoxy."

Republican orthodoxy on this issue is "Reform entitlements in order to preserve them for future generations," not eliminate entitlements altogether. I'm not aware of any Republican presidential candidates that have called for eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and this field includes many so-called "fringe" Republicans as well.

The claim that Republicans want to eliminate entitlements is probably one of the most effective scare tactics used by Democrats. But Republicans are not stupid enough to alienate one of the largest demographics (senior citizens) that votes at a high percentage.

Reading
Tuesday 24 November.

"Modern capitalism is the product of three basic economic and social transformations:
(a) The separation of the producers from their means of production and subsistence. This separation took place in agriculture through the expulsion of small peasants from the seigneurial lands which were transformed into pastures; amongst the artisans by the destruction of the medieval corporations; by the private appropriation of the reserves of virgin lands overseas; by the private appropriations of the community-owned land in the village, etc.
(b) The formation of a social class which monopolises these means of production: the modern bourgeoisie. The appearance of this class presupposes first of all an accumulation of capital in money form, and then a transformation of the means of production which makes them so expensive that only the owners of considerable money-capital can acquire them. The industrial revolution of the Eighteenth Century, which based all future production on mechanisation, brought about this transformation in a definitive manner.
(c) The transformation of labour power into a commodity. This transformation results from the appearance of a class which owns nothing but its labour power, and which is obliged to sell this labour power to the owners of the means of production in order to subsist.
'Poor and needy people who possess nothing other than what they can earn through the work of their hands', this excellent description of the modern proletariat is an extract from a late Sixteenth Century petition, drawn up in Leiden (the Netherlands).
Because this proletarian mass does not have the freedom of choice -- except the choice between selling its labour power and living in permanent starvation -- the 'working class' is obliged to accept the price dictated by the normal capitalist conditions of the 'labour market' as the price for its labour power -- that is to say, a sum of money just sufficient to buy commodities satisfying only those 'basic needs' which are recognised socially. The working class is the class of those who are obliged by this economic constraint to sell their labour power in a more or less continuous fashion."

--Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Marxism

The last of the three transformations outlined above, the transformation of labour power into a commodtiy (wage labour), is seen as the most crucial:

"The capitalist can appropriate to himself the advantages of [any subsequent] growth in the productivity of labour because labour power has become a commodity, [and] because workers have been placed in conditions such that they no longer have access to their own means of production or of livelihood."

--Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Marxism

"The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

--Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

From now on please try to fully attribute quotes with sources/references. I'll do the same.

Today's reading:

"It is not by chance that the labour movement has been in the forefront of the struggle for democratic freedoms in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. By defending these freedoms, the labour movement at the same time defends the best conditions for its own advance. The working class is the most numerous class in contemporary society. The conquest of democratic freedoms allows it to organise, to gain the assurance of numbers, and to weigh ever more heavily in the balance of forces.
Moreover, the democratic freedoms gained under the capitalist system represent the best way to school the workers in the great democracy which they will enjoy once they have the overthrown the rule of capital. [...] But it is precisely because democratic freedoms have such a great importance in the eyes of the workers that it is so necessary to grasp the limits of even the most advanced bourgeois parliamentary democracy.

First of all, bourgeois parliamentary democracy is indirect democracy, within which some thousands or tens of thousands of mandated persons (deputies, senators, mayors, local councillors, etc) participate in the administration of the state. The vast majority of citizens are excluded from such participation. Their only power is that of putting a ballot paper in the box every four or five years.

Secondly, political equality in a bourgeois parliamentary democracy is purely formal, and not a real equality. Formally, both rich and poor have the same 'right' to launch a newspaper -- with running costs totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds. Formally, both rich and poor have the same 'right' to purchase air-time on the television, and thus the same 'possibility' of influencing the elector. But as the practical exercise of these rights presupposes access to powerful material resources [of capital; wealth and power], only the rich can fully enjoy [these rights]. The capitalists will succeed in influencing a large number of voters who are materially dependant on them, will buy newspapers, radio stations and time on television thanks to their money. The capitalists 'control' parliamentarians and governments through the weigh of their capital.

Finally, even if one ignores all these characteristic limits of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, and wrongly supposes that it is perfect, the fact remains that it is only *political* democracy. For what is the use of political equality between the rich and poor -- which is far from the case! -- if it goes hand in hand with permanent, enormous economic and social inequality, which is growing all the time? Even if the rich and poor did have exactly the same political rights, the former would still have enormous economic and social power which the latter lack, and which inevitably subordinates the poor to the rich in everyday life."

--Ernest Mandel, Introduction to Marxism (London: Link Inks, 1982), pp. 97-98.

That's quite well written, but it doesn't teach me anything new. The three points it makes are obvious. I am not a fan of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, it must be said.

We might forget that there are large swathes of the population who are almost completely dis-engaged from the political process. They don't vote, they don't think voting has any effect (sometimes they're right), and they often don't even know who their elected representative is. A poll for the BBC in 2013 found that over 70% of British adults did not know the name of their own Member of Parliament.

Are these people actually supporters of western democracy? Or do they simply view "democratic" government as something completely outside of their influence? I'd argue the latter.

Borgeois parliamentary democracy as it is practiced in the UK or USA is a fundamental tool of public dis-enfranchisement. It is used by the establishment to preseve the status quo by tricking the slightly more awake and intelligent members of society into thinking they have a voice.

Hi Jamie, thanks for getting involved.

The three points made by Mandel in the above quote might be 'obvious' to someone like yourself, but it's clearly not obvious to the great many people that plod along in western democracies, not only the people dis-engaged from the political process but even those who engage with it on a surface level, those who consume but don't critique.

"Borgeois parliamentary democracy as it is practiced in the UK or USA is a fundamental tool of public dis-enfranchisement. It is used by the establishment to preseve the status quo by tricking the slightly more awake and intelligent members of society into thinking they have a voice."

That's partly what Mandel is saying -- the ultimate dis-enfranchisement comes from lack of access to (and opportunity to gain) wealth and power. Democracy is useful in its recognition of principles of political equality, but the capitalist economic system hinders the effectiveness of those principles by perpetuating a hierarchy that will always favour the rich, where wealth creation is reliant on exploitation of others, namely the poor.

Yes.

Friday 27 November:

"Marxism, more clearly than any other kind of thinking, has shown us that we are in fact aligned long before we realize that we are aligned. For we are born into a social situation, into social relationships, into a family, all of which have formed what we can later abstract as ourselves as individuals. Much of this formation occurs before we can be conscious of any individuality. Indeed the consciousness of individuality is often the consciousness of all those elements of our formation, yet this can never be complete. The alignments are so deep. They are our normal ways of living in the world, our normal ways of seeing the world."

--Raymond Williams, ‘‘The Writer: Commitment and Alignment,’’ in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism, ed., Robin Gable (London: Verso, 1989), 77–87 (85-86).


Here Raymond Williams is talking about our 'alignment' to specific social perspectives from the social situation within which we are born into, which forms our default ideological alignments and political positions. Such alignments are inherited and normalised and we do not always question our positions and perspectives. In this way, it is common for people to accept as fixed or permanent the systems of organisation that they find themselves in, such as the current capitalist system of economic organisation.

Should I start my own anarchist thread?

Here's a quote:

"Everything the state says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen." -Nietzsche

I think about food literally all day every day. It's a thing. -Taylor Swift

"Knowledge and the communication of knowledge have evolved within a horizon of social relations which codetermine the course of research and inquiry. [...] A large number of the achievements of science and technology have benefited aggression and destruction, or have served as gadgets, as toys, and sports for the compensatory interests of the dependent population and their gratification, and have reinforced subaltern consciousness. The unity of progress and repression facilitates the management of the politico-economic contradictions within the global structure of late capitalism. The question "For how much longer?" cannot be answered rationally: theory is not prophecy. Nonetheless, it remains true (and the facts point in the general direction) that capitalism produces its own gravediggers."

Herbert Marcuse, 'Proto-socialism and Late Capitalism', International Journal of Politics, 10: 2/3 (1980): 25-48 (pp. 40-41).

Dearest Maniac,
I would recommend the book " Arthur Phillip, Sailor, Mercenary, Governor, Spy" by Michael Pembroke,
Or the DVD " Arthur Phillip, Governor, Sailor, Spy"
There were several factors that led to the decision to create a settlement in New South Wales, not simply the need to find a dumping ground for convicts after the loss of the American colonies for that purpose.
There was a strong desire to secure a strategically placed support base for the Royal Navy in the Pacific, plus the desire to prevent rival European nations seizing the newly discovered ( to Europeans ) east coast of Australia, by getting in first.
The colonization of Australia was an expensive operation, so it wasn't done for the simple reason of "we need somewhere to dump these convicts"
Alternatives to the lost penal settlements in Virginia etc were discussed, and included options in Africa that would have been far less expensive than the New South Wales option.

There was also considerable interest in trying a "noble experiment" in rehabilitation with the settlement in New South Wales, that convicts who behaved, worked hard would be given remissions of sentences and land grants.
"We'll turn villains into villagers" sums it up.

Ironically this "noble experiment" in rehabilitation came at great cost to the indigineous inhabitants who were dispossessed of their land.

So the book and dvd, as well as informing the reader / viewer about Arthur Phillip, provide substantial information about the causes for the settlement expedition.
I liked the metaphor used to describe the First Fleet expedition
" it was like sending a group of people against their will to establish a colony on the moon"
Giving an idea of the relative cost/investment, and degree of difficulty

Phillip did a fantastic job, the death rate for the first fleet was about 2%, when the death rate for the much shorter trip of about 6weeks to the Americas was often 10% or higher
I rate Phillip and Macquarie as the two best Governors by several country miles over the others such as Bligh et al

And it was the Boer war, not the Boar war.
Remember that you may describe someone as being a bore in both spellings and meanings, which implies they are both a bore and a boar.
A boar being the male swine or pig.
And of coarse there's always the contradictory but still amusing
He may be a greater bore, but of lesser calibre

So, Boer, Bore and Boar.
Remember, it's the language used by Shakespeare, Keats, Wilde, Sheridan, Dickens, and Wordsworth, please don't mangle it in my presence

Oh Mitchell you can be so boering sometimes.

wjessop will bring communist thought to the world through webdip and we shall all be saved!

It was probably the self correcting script software that probably changed his spelling of Boer , so yeah I was being nitpicky and boeareing