Your Political ideology?

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not presuming anything, I’m merely accepting the evidence of millennia of human history and the failure of every revolution in that history to change humanities propensity for self-interest.

We don't need to change from acting in our own self interest, all we have to do is realise that our own self interest is best served by working together with others and through collective action and not through competitive individualism.

We have not always been so individualistic, it is a relative recent development, and it is by no means natural, it is taught and imposed on us increasingly.
There are parts of the world where to this day, people live with a sense of mutual aid and community.

there are certain artificial institutions that lead people towards individualist capitalism. Our concept of private property is one of those artificial institutions. Previously land belonged to the community and was owned in common, now land is a commodity which people can accumulate and use as a cohersive force and to accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

We don't need to change from acting in our own self interest, all we have to do is realise that our own self interest is best served by working together with others and through collective action and not through competitive individualism.

People don’t though. A good example of this is with what are known as giveaway budgets, that are designed to effectively bribe an electorate with short term gains which will end up harming them in the long run.

We have not always been so individualistic, it is a relative recent development, and it is by no means natural, it is taught and imposed on us increasingly.

Quite the opposite, in that it is the suppression of individualism that is the unnatural practice. Individualism has to one degree or other been suppressed throughout history using a myriad of methods ranging from religion through to feudalism and nationalism. Indeed the history of human civilisation is a history of the compromise between the individual and society.

There are parts of the world where to this day, people live with a sense of mutual aid and community.

Certainly you’ll find a sense of mutual aid and community everywhere (we’re not all bad) to some degree, but if you mean truly selfless societies, then you’ll have to cite some examples for us.

there are certain artificial institutions that lead people towards individualist capitalism. Our concept of private property is one of those artificial institutions. Previously land belonged to the community and was owned in common, now land is a commodity which people can accumulate and use as a cohersive force and to accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

That really is the most dreadful rubbish. The concept of private property has been around for millennia; the Romans codified it over two millennia ago and the Hebrews even attributed divine protection towards it in the Ten Commandments.

It is possible that one could go as far back as primitive pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer tribes to cite an absence of private property, but it would be simplistic to liken that with even slightly more complex societies.

freddyfreeload

Playing the “let’s make a vague accusation about the integrity of the poster” card, I see.

Nope... that's your game.

Yet Albert and Hahnel have already pointed out that ParEcon as an economic theory should be accompanied by an alternative political and cultural vision, that it (by their own definition) lends itself towards political ideology.

Operative words being, "lends itself towards" not yours which were "is overided by". See the subtle difference now?

Seeing as you cited Wikipedia earlier, it cites Keynesian economics specifically when discussing left-wing politics:

It also cites him as the "saviour of capitalism." And "pro-business and pro-entrepreneur."

So Keynesianism is left of centre, just (apparently) not left wing enough for you.

Quite. Or do I mean right of socialism, but not (apparently) right enough for you?"

FF: I have not seen you cite a realistic example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy?
TC: I’ve given one. You’ve ignored it. Repeatedly.

I'm sorry. If you'll remind me of the "realistic example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy" I promise to do my best to respond.

However, I suspect I already covered this in my last post when I said:

Originally Posted by Freddyfreeload
Sure, some people could put in for more of something than they need. From my understanding, this would a). be picked up by the Iteration Boards, and b). be noticed by the workers/producer councils who would want to know why a particular individual/group of individuals are demanding more that they are due. It's rather ingeniously self-correcting in that regard.

As for would be politicos dominating consumer councils, it simply doesn't work like that. Everyone HAS to take part in the consumer councils, either physically or remotely. If you don't take part you don't eat. Each individual is responsible for making inputs of what they need/want, which is balanced against the effort they have sacrificed. It's simple, you can't get out more than you put in.

Cry me a river.

How predictably trite.

In the West, where it is established, it works well enough. In the developing World it simply is not established

It's the capitalism we practice in the west that creates these very inequities. You'd have to be blind, stupid or both to miss that, for example:

1. Western govs levy massive duty on imports of manufactured chocolate forcing developing nations to focus on non-value-added supply of raw cocoa.

2. A handful of massive multinationals dictate rock-bottom cocoa prices to growers.

3. Growers cannot supply at these prices and make a living, so they resort to capturing and enslaving migrant workers.

4. Said multinationals, delighted with their increased profits, launch a new product, then look for ways to cover their marketing budget by exerting even more pressure on cocoa prices.

5. Go back to 3.

– indeed many of these failed economies have been practicing planned economies, which is part of their problem.

Hmm... I keep reading and re-reading this bit and... nope, I don't detect even a hint of irony...

Sadly you're right. Far too many African economies have been planned into the ground by those paragons of free market economics, the World Bank and the IMF.

...you seem to be making the assumption that it is solely because of Capitalism that these inequities have arisen,

I would say, almost solely.
Because let's face it, capitalism is inequity by definition.
Without inequity, it would be socialism.
Or have you not worked that one out yet?

making the tired old mistake of believing that the developing World is not in any way responsible for it’s actions.

Actually I believe the developing world is entirely responsible for its own actions. You're making the tired old mistake of assuming they're also responsible for the actions of western governments and corporations. Which they're not.

The ordinary people of developing nations don't have the power to protect themselves from this degree of predation, while the corrupt leaders the west imposes on them are only too happy to sell them out for a new palace and a few Mercs.

You’re just suggesting another distopia.

Woah, you're a real confused little puppy... first you say I'm a Utopian, now it's dystopia. Which is it?.

All I'm actually doing is pointing to the fact that human nature is only predominantly selfish when presented with incentives to be so.

And vice-versa, if the incentives are there for un-selfish behaviour.

Nothing whatsoever to do with your nonsense about the "extreme application of the Tabula Rasa theory." I'm talking about all of human history.

FF: Make sure you scroll down to get the country by country results.

TC: Your point?

To ensure you went further than the topline result and saw that in certain locales/circumstances, 100% of people are capable of acting unselfishly with virtually no incentive. Those influencing factors are many, and varied, and are probably beyond us to nail down with satisfaction. The point is that in the absence of incentives to be selfish, it is basic human nature not to be.

I have acknowledged the difference - I’ve never claimed it was a centrally planned economy (which you falsely accused me of),

No, I didn't. This is getting extremely semantic, but still: what I "accused" you of was inferring that what goes for a centrally planned economy also goes for a Participatory Economy. In discussion about the ability of Parecon to distribute goods and services efficiently you said:

"I saw supermarket shelves in both planned and free market economies and I can tell you that the latter were not the ones that were consistently empty."

It is syllogistic to assume Parecon will be inefficient just because some planned economies are.


Metaphor

Or that it was a poor or false metaphor.

Or that you missed it,
or don't understand it,
or are in denial about what it means,
or that it just makes you uncomfortable enough to want butt in to a post that wasn't directed at you,
or maybe none of these things.
Maybe it just isn't there... for you.

It is the hallmark of the evangelist that people who disagree with them do so not because they may be right, but because they simply have not seen the light.

Great logic TC! Let's take a closer look, putting the boot on the other foot...

I have disagreed with you.
And you can't possibly think I'm right or we wouldn't be debating.
So it must be that I haven't yet seen the light.
Therefore you must be an evangelist too.:)

See... it just doesn't work does it. By this yardstick, "to disagree with someone you think is wrong is to evangelise." You have a true gift for syllogism.

And anyway, as I have already pointed out on so many, many, occasions: while I believe in the potential of Parecon, and that it "could(please recheck my original post)" be the way of the future, I am certain of nothing. There is no light to see, only varying shades of grey.

And I'm sorry if my search for a world less overshadowed than the one we currently live in offends you...

... but then it is the hallmark of prigery to scorn anything that challenges its clinging love and smug defense of conformity.

ff

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

Playing the “let’s make a vague accusation about the integrity of the poster” card, I see.

More to the point (from my perspective), playing the "let's make a vague accusation about the integrity of the moderator" card. ff, we've had this discussion in PM. If you comment on moderation one more time on this board, you will be banned.

democrates

The Corinthian and FreddyFreeload, I haven't enjoyed reading such a spar since Socrates 'Apology' as retold by Plato (to me personally, I'm that old).

Whatever role each plays, prig and evangelist in raw terms, keeper and explorer in broad brush diplomatic terms, it's to the benefit of other thread readers like myself to witness, and in life both are valued and ever set to conflict. Neither the print media or the chat show format can hope to match a good boards.ie thread.

In addition I'm personally glad a post-capitalist alternative ideology is getting good opposition. It's healthy to test anything, if everyone agreed I'd be worried something was missed, whereas scepticism expressed allows satisfaction that some downsides have been considered. Being in IT I'm nonetheless aware that while you can't test quality into code, neither can you indefinitely defer going live.

It seems obvious that there is significant demand out there for an alternative to the encumbent ideology.

Akrasia

democrates wrote:

The Corinthian and FreddyFreeload, I haven't enjoyed reading such a spar since Socrates 'Apology' as retold by Plato (to me personally, I'm that old).

Whatever role each plays, prig and evangelist in raw terms, keeper and explorer in broad brush diplomatic terms, it's to the benefit of other thread readers like myself to witness, and in life both are valued and ever set to conflict. Neither the print media or the chat show format can hope to match a good boards.ie thread.

In addition I'm personally glad a post-capitalist alternative ideology is getting good opposition. It's healthy to test anything, if everyone agreed I'd be worried something was missed, whereas scepticism expressed allows satisfaction that some downsides have been considered. Being in IT I'm nonetheless aware that while you can't test quality into code, neither can you indefinitely defer going live.

It seems obvious that there is significant demand out there for an alternative to the encumbent ideology.

I would also like to add that from an anarchist perspective, the Parecon proposals are not set in stone, they are supposed to be a framework but if they were ever applied in a real world situation, there would be differences between the theory and the practise, for better or for worse. Anarchists in general don't support dogmatic political theories, mainly because every situation is different.

The basic idea of Parecon is a good one but some of the mechanisms outlined within probably wouldn't suit real world application, but this does not mean the whole idea should be thrown out, it just means that people would find other ways of doing things. the worst thing for Parecon would be if it was implimented word for word without active community participation and input from the bottom up.

freddyfreeload

The basic idea of Parecon is a good one but some of the mechanisms outlined within probably wouldn't suit real world application, but this does not mean the whole idea should be thrown out, it just means that people would find other ways of doing things. the worst thing for Parecon would be if it was implimented word for word without active community participation and input from the bottom up.

Here, here...

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

Essentially, I'm of the opinion that there is no politics, only economics. Politics is merely the art of controlling economic power.

This fundamentalism really bugs me.
I remember an economics student giving me the "economics explains everything" line in a pub. In spite of the fact that usually economists usually explain very little and one has as many economic theories as economists it just bugs me as arrogant!

I mean does economics explain why people fall in love or have children?
does it explain the golden rule of christ to "treat others as you would treat yourself" .

Before the tirade on "economics of the family unit in society" and "fair trade" let me ask what you say to people who say "science explains everything" or "religion explains everything" or "it is all in the bible"? And after that do you really believe that economics is sufficient to explain all social political and cultural phenonema? And if sufficient is it even then possible?

Dirk Gently

ISAW wrote:

I mean does economics explain why people fall in love or have children?
does it explain the golden rule of christ to "treat others as you would treat yourself" .

I don't think that's a fair point ISAW, unless Freddy says otherwise I assume he was talking about politics and economics only. You have now attempted to debunk him by using examples which have nothing to do with either.

I wouldn't be in full agreement with Freddy when he says "there is no politics, only economics" but I do see the point he is making and where he is coming from. Religion and emotions are a matter for the individual and are not relevant to his example of economics over ruling politics unless of course political leaders interfere in matters of the individual such as personality and religion. When Freddy says there is only economics I read that as him saying there is only economics when it comes to politics / economics, not matters of the person such as a belief in gods, religious dogma or personal relationships.

Dub_Ster

its said that a true buisness man can invision his own sucess.

Its true to say that Irish politics is a joke and a half.

personally i feel its this way all the old people shouldnt be aloud to vote over the age of 60 . il tell you why

the ideals of a, a 60 yr old and the ideals that this country need are two very different things.

For instance , Genrall run of the country doesnt seem to benefit any one over the age of 40 , genrall consen's of young people like my self is that politcal members of any party are money grabing bank robers.

I meen they drive around in the fat cat mercs which cost , about ???
145,000 euros for a top notch one ... whats the matter with a opal vectra ?

look at it this way they get payed quite a bit and do very little , why dont they take pay decrease's to help the country get on its feet but no we cant do that , yes they can the amount of ar tax's that got to the fat lazy coke head anoying people , is not right .


personally i think irelands a young country and run dymanicely and more like a buisness and less like a school , they say irelands a great place to live , its not

we have **** hospital's .

we have brutal public tansport that should be privateised , but no the unions are affraid that these people might actully have to do some work :eek:

we have **** unsafe roads , that are contarbuting to wards accdents .

we have all these huge industrial esstaes half of them are empty .

we have abasaloutly no facilitys for anything in this country other then GAA , or football , Ireland is run like a bad school and its getting worse .

which is shame because ireland could be marketed with the nautral resources alone to aattract so many more tourists yet they dont they pump there money into gaa and ****ty sports that dont make much money theres f00 mile of some of the best surf europe is it used to its full potentiol , there's the moutain ranges , all this to attract tourist is it used no ...

as is said use what in front of you to make money .

they dont they just spend moeny on irelivant crap that could be put to better use ...


what can i see from this country in later life


a big econmic depression !!!!


any one look at whats booming in this world right now extream sports are , not oonly are we seeing more and more people getting into it but its growing at an alarmingly huge rate yet the government are saying well we could improve the facilitys in these places to help attract more people which meens more money which meen more jobs that are study becasue as well ano weve got one messed up climet so there weather reliable . as we all no we have one messed up climet how baout the country starts ueing that to our advantage ....

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

I don't think that's a fair point ISAW, unless Freddy says otherwise I assume he was talking about politics and economics only. You have now attempted to debunk him by using examples which have nothing to do with either.

I wouldn't be in full agreement with Freddy when he says "there is no politics, only economics" but I do see the point he is making and where he is coming from. Religion and emotions are a matter for the individual and are not relevant to his example of economics over ruling politics unless of course political leaders interfere in matters of the individual such as personality and religion. When Freddy says there is only economics I read that as him saying there is only economics when it comes to politics / economics, not matters of the person such as a belief in gods, religious dogma or personal relationships.

First, religions are political. they have social agendas just as political parties do.
I think anyone would admit that political theories should have a central basis in economics. If that is the only point then it is trite. What I am saying is that political views do not boil down to just economics. Yes one can say that the main job of a government for example is to tax people and spend money but there are other things which they can also do. I am not talking about "how much will it cost" examples. Was the vote given to women for economic reasons? Were slaves freed for economic reasons? In fact keeping people slaves might have economically suited people. were they freed so that the Union could have a workforce or because it was the right thing to do?
what about court decisions? are they all made on the basis of "how much will this cost"? What about sports? A child only has the time to play GAA or Rugby and they both cost the same. Is it an economic decision that people play certain sports?

Yes economics has a vital role in politics. Yes governments (and TNC's and Unions and the civil service) regulate the economy. But politics goes much further than that. To say "sort out the economics and everything else will fall into place" isn't good enough. Render onto Caesar...

Dirk Gently

@ ISAW:
I agree there is more to politics than just economics but it does play a major role, more so than people care to admit. My only point that I raised in my earlier post was that you unfairly rebuked Freddy by challenging him on a subject he didn't actually raise (as best I can tell), unless we view politics as an absolute dictating every individuals personality, logic and emotions .

There's not much a government can actually do without manipulating economics. Certainly Socialist styled governments have major social policys and generally work on the principle of equality and fairness but social programmes all need funding so they tend to manipulate economics to better serve the nation universally. More neo-liberal styled governments manipulate economics in a different way and tend to privatise the economy and let the market sort out any problems while not being big on public spending.

Your point about law is exactly that, a point about law. Your point about religions was a point about religion. In a nation with separation of state and religion it does not apply. Your points about sports are sport related but yes economics does factor in what sports children take up as some sports are funded drastically more than others and therefore offer facilities that other sports cant provide. That’s why a lot of our Olympic sports people are forced to train in other countries as the more popular sports get all the funding.

Anyway it's not my place to speak for him so I'll let Freddy himself make the next reply and I agree with both of your view points in parts but neither in full. Just thought you were jumping the gun a bit with your initial rebuttal and not really addressing his point but rather making a new point of your own.

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

@ ISAW:
There's not much a government can actually do without manipulating economics.

I dont disagree that economics is not central but it is not everything. governemnts may also effect social legislation or regulation. smokeless zones for example. did they come about because the government realised that workers would live longer or because the health bill would be lower in twenty years time or did they come as result of people coughing up their lungs and demanding change? It may well have been in the US economic and military interest to bring in more regulation to do with security but it was politically untenable until 9/11.

Certainly Socialist styled governments have major social policys and generally work on the principle of equality and fairness but social programmes all need funding so they tend to manipulate economics to better serve the nation universally.

socialism is basically a strategy as to how wealth should be alloted. In that sense Bertie IS a socialist and socialism is an economic theory.

More neo-liberal styled governments manipulate economics in a different way and tend to privatise the economy and let the market sort out any problems while not being big on public spending.

But this is just defining "left" and "right" isnt it? i.e. government regulating trade vs the market regulating trade. As such you are DEFINING politics as economics. Surprise surprise when you then conclude "politics is economics"?

Your point about law is exactly that, a point about law.

Governments make law! politics is also about making new laws. And Not just laws to do with the economy.

Your point about religions was a point about religion.

Yes. which says religions are also political. political decisions are not ALL dependent on and explainable by economics.

In a nation with separation of state and religion it does not apply.

Of course it does! By the very fact that religion is seperate it is recognised! Likewise the constitution may seperate the military and the government but that does not mean the military are therefore removed from economic or political implications does it?

Your points about sports are sport related but yes economics does factor in what sports children take up as some sports are funded drastically more than others and therefore offer facilities that other sports cant provide. That’s why a lot of our Olympic sports people are forced to train in other countries as the more popular sports get all the funding.

Why should elite sports get more funding than non elite ones? Surely it is better to fund those who participate than those who achieve? Anyway my point was people do sports because of social reasons not only because of economics.

Just thought you were jumping the gun a bit with your initial rebuttal and not really addressing his point but rather making a new point of your own.

thank you for you thoughts on the issue.

freddyfreeload

Yeah, slight misunderstanding here. Don't take me up the wrong way but... this is a politics board, not a love and relationships board. The topic is political ideology, not, "why people fall in love have children and believe in God."

In the context of the subject at hand i.e. the political arena - what I'm suggesting is that when you boil "Politics" down to its essence, what you have left is economics.

Not as in the hackneyed cry of "It's the economy, stupid." I don't mean, look after the economy and all else will follow, the way that economists do. Not at all.

What I mean is, to a homeless man on the street, or a single mother trying to raise a family and hold down a job, or a married couple with 2 incomes, 2 kids, 2 cars and a mortgage, or a CEO with 2 houses, 2 yachts and 2 golf club memberships, or a property tycoon with a portfolio worth €1billion, their political imperatives lie in electing people who represent their economic interests.

Therefore: all politics is essentially economics. The media circus we know as politics is merely the game played by those who control the economic fortunes of individuals and groups within society.

This is not fundamentalism. It's just a take (right or wrong) on the world around us.

ff

oscarBravo

freddyfreeload wrote:

What I mean is, to a homeless man on the street, or a single mother trying to raise a family and hold down a job, or a married couple with 2 incomes, 2 kids, 2 cars and a mortgage, or a CEO with 2 houses, 2 yachts and 2 golf club memberships, or a property tycoon with a portfolio worth €1billion, their political imperatives lie in electing people who represent their economic interests.

How well does that theory explain people who vote for (say) Sinn Féin or the Greens?

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

to a homeless man on the street, or a single mother trying to raise a family and hold down a job, or a married couple with 2 incomes, 2 kids, 2 cars and a mortgage, or a CEO with 2 houses, 2 yachts and 2 golf club memberships, or a property tycoon with a portfolio worth €1billion, their political imperatives lie in electing people who represent their economic interests.

You are rigging the sample. all the examples are economic and to do with material things. What about a man being tortured or a prisioner of concience or someone who wants an institution to admit to child abuse? The changes of their situation are all subject to politics but I submit it is possible none of them may be motivated by their economic position.

Therefore: all politics is essentially economics.

You cant pick three particular economic examples and conclude a sweeping generalisation that "all politics is economics".

The media circus we know as politics is merely the game played by those who control the economic fortunes of individuals and groups within society.

But you are now restricting politics to "elements of politics as reported in the media"

This is not fundamentalism. It's just a take (right or wrong) on the world around us.

there is more to life than having things. The is more to politics than just economics.

freddyfreeload

Hi, how's things? Nice to chat outside of PMs

How well does that theory explain people who vote for (say) Sinn Féin or the Greens?

Probably not completely, but...

A vote for Sinn Fein has always been a de facto vote for a socialist republic. The process may be political, but the essential call is for the redistribution of wealth (from British ruling class hands to those of ordinary Irish citizens).

And the Greens (of which I was once a member) are also about economics if you think about it. Yes, they want a cleaner environment and an end to global warming. But they don't wish these things for political reasons. They wish them for moral and economic ones.

If oil and gas run out and our sea ports are destroyed by rising oceans, the most dramatic effects in this part of the world will be economic in nature: restricted transport, restricted trade, restricted electrical supplies, rising manufacturing costs & prices, etc. The idea of carbon taxes and carbon neutrality is the economics of counter-balancing our consumption of fossil fuels by channel revenue into renewables in order to offset these environmental costs? You could say that under the woolly cardigans, Green politics is all about the control of economic power in order to benefit the local and global environment. A higher calling than that of many politicians, but (to a certain extent at least) an economic one all the same.

If you get the chance, go and see Al Gore's movie "An inconvenient truth." As he says, "this is a moral issue, not a political one." I would add that it is also an economic issue. The economic implications of ignoring global warming are just as staggering as the moral ones, and for the many people out there who don't seem to give a damn about the planet, they might ultimately be the factor that motivates them to change their ways.

ff

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

If oil and gas run out and our sea ports are destroyed by rising oceans, the most dramatic effects in this part of the world will be economic in nature:

Hee is where I disagree. The effects will be physical. the cost of changing the sysem may be calculated by economics. But saying "all politics is economics" is a vacuous to me as claiming "all science is mathemathics" or "all art is mathematics". On a similar note what economic theory can correctly predict the price of an art work?

The idea of carbon taxes and carbon neutrality is the economics of counter-balancing our consumption of fossil fuels by channel revenue into renewables in order to offset these environmental costs?

One could claim that some forms of energy are finite resources. As such the price increases. We can measure it in dollars. But the amount of energy from a barrel of oil remains the same. We can measure that in Joules. One could base a currency on the energy dollar i.e. the cost of extracting a joule of energy from the environment. Given pollution is just a wasted form of energy one can then cost all green issues and all green politics can be expressed in economic terms.

If you get the chance, go and see Al Gore's movie "An inconvenient truth."

Saw it last week.

As he says, "this is a moral issue, not a political one." I would add that it is also an economic issue. The economic implications of ignoring global warming are just as staggering as the moral ones,

what is the price of a human life?

and for the many people out there who don't seem to give a damn about the planet, they might ultimately be the factor that motivates them to change their ways.

some people just dont care about the rest of the world.

freddyfreeload

What about a man being tortured or a prisioner of concience

This is a human rights issue, and a political issue, but if you follow it to its core, very likely an economic issue too. Prisoners of concience are generally imprisoned by elites (of one political hue or another) that control the economic structures within their societies. Most prisoners of concience are people campaigning for the rights of the majority to control, ultimately, their own economic destiny. The primary reason these elites imprison such people is that they pose a threat to the economic status quo, currently tipped in their favour

or someone who wants an institution to admit to child abuse?

This is a social and possibly a legal issue, not a political one. And what is the reason some institutions refuse to admit to their failings? I think you'll find it's economic. And the politicians who defend them, or prevaricate on their behalf are using their political position of power to protect the economic interests of those institutions.

You cant pick three particular economic examples and conclude a sweeping generalisation that "all politics is economics".

Okay, you pick a real-life example of an individual and I'll try to show why I believe politics is essentially economics. Please note, I am not beligerently saying I am right and you are wrong here, it's just the way I happen to see things, and I will genuinely do my best to show why.

P.S. I know it sounds sweeping, and I hated it when I first heard it too. But after a while it began to make sense.

But you are now restricting politics to "elements of politics as reported in the media"

No, I'm saying that politics is "essentially" about the control of economic power. And that power can be exercised to the benefit and/or the detriment of various elements of society. Political exclusion is de facto economic exclusion. Political advantage is de facto economic advantage. This si why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Or not, depending on who happens to be controlling economic power.

there is more to life than having things.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I'm into Participatory Economics: the equitable distribution of economic power.

The is more to politics than just economics.

Yes, there is much more to the practice of politics than economics. But the way wealth is distributed throughout society, where and when money is spent, the power to enrich the already rich at the expense of the poor, or the reverse, the power to build hospitals or roads, warplanes or railways etc, etc... is in the hands of the people we elect to government.

Therefore the political process is the route to the control of economic power. QED - Politics is essentially economics.

ff

democrates

ISAW, my post 144 played a part in this turn in the analysis:

I think the point as to whether the parecon site is more political than economic or visa versa is a diversion, it deals with both in depth, what benefit accrues from calculating the precise ratio?

If we had a pure free market politics would be rendered irrelevant. The only reason politics exist is because the people see it as a means to control the economic machine so that it delivers a just society. When we're talking about political ideology it's our view of what makes for a just society is what we're really talking about.

I take your point that we use politics today for many issues that we consider from a moral rather than economic perspective. But if you think about it FreddyFreeload has a fair point, it's also possible to see an economic dimension to every moral issue that politics deals with, since morals enshrined in legislation relate to our actions, and economics can affect ones capacity to act. I can't think of any law or political measure that economics can't affect.

This isn't about putting economics on an altar though, rather to point out that politics is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, a just society. While economic justice is a subset of justice, the vast majority of demands that people have of the politicians they elect are directly economic in nature, and there are economic dimensions to varying degrees for the rest.

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

This is a human rights issue, and a political issue,

human rights are political

but if you follow it to its core, very likely an economic issue too. Prisoners of concience are generally imprisoned by elites (of one political hue or another) that control the economic structures within their societies. Most prisoners of concience are people campaigning for the rights of the majority to control,

and most politics may be to do with economics but you are claiminf ALL politics is economics. Saying most isn't good enough. In any case where is your evidence most prisioners of conscience are imprisioned because they believe in majority rule?

ultimately, their own economic destiny. The primary reason these elites imprison such people is that they pose a threat to the economic status quo, currently tipped in their favour

You would have to convince me that cannibals pagans and religious fundamentalists put people in gaol only because they see them as an economic threat. They don't!

This is a social and possibly a legal issue, not a political one. And what is the reason some institutions refuse to admit to their failings? I think you'll find it's economic.

this is a climb down. note some institutions not ALL institutions and everyone else as you claimed?

It isnt for me to find anything. It is for you to prove it! You claimed it. You prove it! Also, whether or not the institutions are greedy money grabbers is a wholly separate issue to whether the victim is taking the case for economic reasons. Clearly the victim is motivated by socio political issues and not necessarily economic ones. whay cant you accept economics isnt everything?

And the politicians who defend them, or prevaricate on their behalf are using their political position of power to protect the economic interests of those institutions.

Conspiracy theories abound! Couldnt it be a politician is influenced by religious belief rather then money?

Okay, you pick a real-life example of an individual and I'll try to show why I believe politics is essentially economics. Please note, I am not beligerently saying I am right and you are wrong here, it's just the way I happen to see things, and I will genuinely do my best to show why.

the fact that something can be explained by economics or has an economic effect does not mean it depends on economics. Also because economics might explain something doe not mean economics caused it. Galileo may have been the first to publish the fact that the Earth moves but it didnt bigin to do so because he published. It is called a genetic fallacy I think.

P.S. I know it sounds sweeping, and I hated it when I first heard it too. But after a while it began to make sense.

Not a very strong argument there. One can say the same for any fundamentalist belief. Believe as you wish but please dont come here and claim it is absolute without any evidence.

No, I'm saying that politics is "essentially" about the control of economic power.

Power politics of nations maybe but not all politics. If you claim the politics of a marriage are all dependent on who controls the money then you have much to prove. If you claim the political system of a monastery is based on the control of resources then ditto. Of course religious communities like that are basically communist in their economic system but their society extends beyond the economics.

And that power can be exercised to the benefit and/or the detriment of various elements of society.

This is just saying that the whole regulation of society is economic in nature. suppose we have a virtually unlimited supply. suppose we land on a planet which has abundant resourceswe could all have whatever we want. Gold, land
whatever. It still would not stop people from wanting to hold sway over others for non economic reasons.

Political exclusion is de facto economic exclusion. Political advantage is de facto economic advantage. This si why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Or not, depending on who happens to be controlling economic power.

Yes wealth cedes power but it also cedes responsability. But having wealth and power is not what life is about. Nor is giving everyone the same amount of income.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I'm into Participatory Economics: the equitable distribution of economic power.

"To each the same" is a system with drawbacks. Threre isnt enen enough for the first world to live with what they have let alone the developing world to live at their standard.

Yes, there is much more to the practice of politics than economics. But the way wealth is distributed throughout society, where and when money is spent, the power to enrich the already rich at the expense of the poor, or the reverse, the power to build hospitals or roads, warplanes or railways etc, etc... is in the hands of the people we elect to government.

No it isnt! most private wealth is inherited. Most public wealth is not controlled by elected people but by career beaurocrats, generals, spooks, etc.

Therefore the political process is the route to the control of economic power.

It is A route to controlling SOME economic power.

QED - Politics is essentially economics.

It is not demonstrated. politics is not just the political process. and a process to control a resource is not the resource itself.

Akrasia

Call me mad, but here's what seems to be really obvious to me: The economics of any country is fully dependent on the political decisions that are made. Economics is a social science, but it does not explain anything in a vacume. Economic theories and laws all start out with assumptions and if these assumptions are not applicable, then the economic law won't apply either.
Economics is a social science, it studies people and societies. Political decisions alter how people and societies interact, therefore economics is dependent on politics, just as much as politics is dependent on economics, and just as there are many different kinds of politics, there are many different kinds of economics.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

therefore economics is dependent on politics, just as much as politics is dependent on economics, and just as there are many different kinds of politics, there are many different kinds of economics.

I can see people take this as a "chicken and egg" academic issue but let me exp[lain why it isnt. This thread is about ideology. People on the right and left think that a free market will solve all the problems or a state controlled economy will do the same. the point I am making is that no economic theory will solve all the problems of society or create a utopia simply because economics is not sufficient! Blind faith that some "correct" economics will solve all the problems of society is useless.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

I can see people take this as a "chicken and egg" academic issue but let me exp[lain why it isnt. This thread is about ideology. People on the right and left think that a free market will solve all the problems or a state controlled economy will do the same. the point I am making is that no economic theory will solve all the problems of society or create a utopia simply because economics is not sufficient! Blind faith that some "correct" economics will solve all the problems of society is useless.

I didn't mean it as a 'chicken and egg' scenario, I mean't pretty much what you just said. Economics is not a hard science, no matter what kind of society we have, as long as there is any human interaction, there will be an economic system. the economic system will be different in every political system. Economic theories can't solve any problems without strong political and social support, and even with such support, some economic theories that claim to be the solution to global poverty and deprivation, do not bear even the most basic challenges

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

I didn't mean it as a 'chicken and egg' scenario, I mean't pretty much what you just said. Economics is not a hard science, no matter what kind of society we have, as long as there is any human interaction, there will be an economic system. the economic system will be different in every political system. Economic theories can't solve any problems without strong political and social support, and even with such support, some economic theories that claim to be the solution to global poverty and deprivation, do not bear even the most basic challenges

Indeed. But it is also possible that science isnt enough either or sociology or politics or religions.

democrates

Akrasia wrote:

Call me mad, but here's what seems to be really obvious to me: The economics of any country is fully dependent on the political decisions that are made. Economics is a social science, but it does not explain anything in a vacume. Economic theories and laws all start out with assumptions and if these assumptions are not applicable, then the economic law won't apply either.
Economics is a social science, it studies people and societies. Political decisions alter how people and societies interact, therefore economics is dependent on politics, just as much as politics is dependent on economics, and just as there are many different kinds of politics, there are many different kinds of economics.

You're mad (joshing).

Maybe if I come at this politics/economics discussion from another angle:
Mick: Hey Paddy, you're wearing odd socks.
Paddy: No I'm not.
Mick: Yes you are, one's blue and the other's white.
Paddy: Yeah but to me they're the same 'cos I go by thickness.

Similarly, most of what we talk about when it comes to political ideology today has both a political and economic dimension. Parecon necessarily deals with both, as it seeks to describe an alternative direction that many of us believe is a better than the road we're on.

Capitalism has been busy pushing among other things it's privatisation agenda and reducing the role of the state and thereby the influence of our democratic vote in the economy which we all know has a fundamental impact on our lives. Parecon seeks to strengthen the political machine with participation, but does so in order to ensure the economic machine serves the many, of course it's up to the many to express their priorities based on their own moral code.

All of the socio-political realities we desire which ISAW has quite rightly raised, require us to decide on what is right and wrong, the lesser of two evils, or for the greater good, this is an implicit precursor to deciding how the economic cake is divvied out. Parecon involves a set of discussion fora benefitting from a more representative sample of views than would a debate limited to Dail Eireann, I think that would be an improvement. Based on that we can prioritise health and education or electronic voting machines, bertie bowls and the like as we see fit, but our decisions need to be backed up by economic resources or they won't materialise, like so many unenforced laws over the years.

The capitalist argument is that we as a nation are better off if we are successful in all out competition because we'll have a bigger cake to share out, but that strategy can't be extrapolated globally, we're just grabbing a far bigger slice of the global cake than a per capita portion would indicate, it's far from any concept of justice, just the law of the jungle. It disgusts me.

In case anyone reading this thinks I'm arguing for everyone to become bleeding hearts, take a vow of poverty, and surrender all freedom to a nanny state, that's absolutely not the case as a reading of my posts should reveal. I saw an example on Eddie Hobbs where a couple were on 27k of welfare, versus 24k when the guy was working. I think I'd be with the majority in voting against a setup that rewards people for sitting on their asses with their hand out looking for something for nothing. Due respect to the couple involved, the guy rightly saw no future in slacking, was determined to get back to work and did so.

The contentment of self-worth you get from work is what enables full joy from recreation, I've felt the difference in the pub after a sh1t day in work versus a great day, and again I believe I'm in the majority with that general experience. That kind of commonality on the fundamentals of life is why I am working towards participation from the grassroots, we all want basically the same things and know when we're happy and content, or not.

There'll always be divisive dilemmas as ISAW rightly says, highlighted in the divorce and abortion referenda, but it's fair to note that in days of yore only some women could afford to go to England, without commenting on the rights or wrongs of it there is invariably an economic dimension in practice, so what, no big deal.

There'll always be a few who act the scumbag, but those who poured petrol on children in the back of the car in Limerick and set them alight represent a new low. Murder rates are far higher than in the unemployment ridden early 80's. For those who insist capitalism will deliver us all from every evil, this trend within the second richest country in the world on the back of capitalist ideology is another inconvenient truth.

I don't suggest that under a parecon style system that human nature itself would change and we'd all suddenly be born good eggs, but since I lay part of the blame for this social decay at the door of the capitalist greed culture of competing to get what you want regardless of how it affects others, and the relative deprivation of it's inequity which fuels resentment, it's no surprise that I think a culture of giving a sh1t about your fellow man is less likely to contribute to nurturing such atrocities.

Despite any circumstances of nature or nurture, the perpetrators of that Limerick crime are not deprived of free will or the knowledge of right and wrong, so should face the full force of the judiciary. If the public are to fully support the gardai and dpp in their collecting testimonial evidence for court, the community needs to know the gardai will be resourced to watch their backs against retaliation. But to protect political careers and party interests, we won't see tough enough measures because the opposition and media would sieze upon them and point out how dire the situation has become under the current government, so instead we'll get half-measures and the long term decline will continue.

If I had a vote on how to deal with what have become no-go areas, I'd favour a crackdown and purge of criminal elements with the help of the army if necessary, 10pm curfew, equip the gardai with decent riot control equipment like tazars and tranquiliser rifles for processing marauding youth mobs terrorising the neighbourhood, and so on. The long term solution is not showering with handouts, but a program to get them educated and working to make their way responsibly in life. I'd only have one vote so the end result would reflect general opinion.

freddyfreeload

Okay, I think we have a few issues to clear up here.

What I actually said:
I have never claimed that "Economics is everything", I think that was someone you met in a pub. Not me. In my initial post to democrates on this issue of Politics vs Economics I said: "boil it right down and the only thing that matters is economics, left, right or centre. Politics is merely the means by which individuals or groups of individuals control economic power."

My right to say it
This was a conversation between me and another poster. I'm not quite sure how this justifies you wading in with comments like: "Believe as you wish but please dont come here and claim it is absolute without any evidence."

1. I don't claim it's absolute, merely that it's my opinion.
2. I've already acknowledged that though I hold it, it could be wrong.
3. I'll believe as I wish without your consent, and without feeling the need to justify myself to you.

Your need for proof

Originally quoted by ISAW
It isnt for me to find anything. It is for you to prove it! You claimed it. You prove it!

This is really very silly. I claimed nothing. I stated an opinion. Do I have to prove all my opinions to you before I can post them on this site?

And what about you? Do your "claims" have to meet the same measure? Like, for example, is it okay for you to blithely state: "Human Rights are Political." Without "proving" it. Why not give it a go, I think you'll find that they are not.

Incidentally, I didn't pluck the notion out of thin air. It's been articulated by both Karl Marx and Adam Smith, as well as writers like Joseph Conrad and Robert Tressell.

Social Issues
Try to bear in mind that the conversation you butted in on was about Politics vs Economics. Not about civil rights, teenage pregnancy, drug dependency or the drink culture.

Social issues are just that, social issues, and though politicians of varying hues display a variety of views on all manner of social issues (many of which are vitally important and which I myself hold very dear) they are neither central to the way most people vote nor to most of the people who hold and control political power.

They should be, but they aren't. Most people vote in their own personal self-interest (often mistakenly). Most politicians act in the economic interest of an even narrower subset or peer group.

The result is that our government is dominated by economically motivated self-interest groups representing a very narrow section of the population. They can obfuscate this disparity by bamboozling the electorate with where they all stand on social issues. But the essence remains the same. If it were not this way, our government would be properly funding solutions to the real social issues that plague our society - like the environment and child abuse - instead of building unsustainable privately controlled road networks and superdumps and protecting the financial interests of the institutions that have covered up child abuse without regard to the human cost to the victims.

ff

ISAW

freddyfreeload wrote:

Okay, I think we have a few issues to clear up here.

What I actually said:
I have never claimed that "Economics is everything", I think that was someone you met in a pub. Not me. In my initial post to democrates on this issue of Politics vs Economics I said: "boil it right down and the only thing that matters is economics, left, right or centre. Politics is merely the means by which individuals or groups of individuals control economic power."

Above you state:

freddyfreeload wrote:

QED - Politics is essentially economics.

My right to say it
This was a conversation between me and another poster.

No it was not! If you wanted a proivate convwersation then you should have PM ed him. Otherwise it was a posting to a public group for all to read.

I'm not quite sure how this justifies you wading in with comments like: "Believe as you wish but please dont come here and claim it is absolute without any evidence."

as you just pointed out I have every right to post what I like. I I make a claim I support it. If it is only an opinion then one can not claim it as a theory that others should believe in. Do not forget it was posted in a thread about ideology. As such, if one is to claim an Ideology as valid one should support it.

1. I don't claim it's absolute, merely that it's my opinion.
2. I've already acknowledged that though I hold it, it could be wrong.
3. I'll believe as I wish without your consent, and without feeling the need to justify myself to you.

You dont have to justify yourself to anyone foir your beliefs even if they are totally at variance with reality. But if you claim yur theiries are valid you should be able to support them with reliable evidence. Otherwise why bother to tell the public what they are?

Your need for proof

This is really very silly. I claimed nothing. I stated an opinion. Do I have to prove all my opinions to you before I can post them on this site?

Nope. But you do have to support them if you claim an ideology to be correct such as " economics is all we need to know to solve all the political problems of the world".

And what about you? Do your "claims" have to meet the same measure?

Yes. I I claim anything to be a fact and not an opinion.

Like, for example, is it okay for you to blithely state: "Human Rights are Political." Without "proving" it. Why not give it a go, I think you'll find that they are not.

Where did I state that? If I did so I did in understanding that the process of ascribing and proscribing human rights under law came about as results of politics. some of the evidence for this is the Declaration of Human rights or the Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen produced at the time of the French Revolution. But this is a counter claim to something like "human rights came about because of ecomonic reasons" which is the point I was arguing against.

Incidentally, I didn't pluck the notion out of thin air. It's been articulated by both Karl Marx and Adam Smith, as well as writers like Joseph Conrad and Robert Tressell.

That is just argument from authority.

Social Issues
Try to bear in mind that the conversation you butted in on was about Politics vs Economics. Not about civil rights, teenage pregnancy, drug dependency or the drink culture.

I just pointed out that I didnt but in it is a publuic discussion. and I also pointd out that the point being made was "all politics is economic in nature" I just pointed to some counter examples of politica which is NOT economic in nature and which attacked the notion that "economics is the ONLY thing that matters"

Social issues are just that, social issues, and though politicians of varying hues display a variety of views on all manner of social issues (many of which are vitally important and which I myself hold very dear) they are neither central to the way most people vote nor to most of the people who hold and control political power.

So AIDS and slavery dont affect how people voted? Of course you may now redefine these as "economic issues" and we are back to a "one true scotsman" arent we?

They should be, but they aren't. Most people vote in their own personal self-interest (often mistakenly). Most politicians act in the economic interest of an even narrower subset or peer group.

So the referenda on abortion were all about money were they?

The result is that our government is dominated by economically motivated self-interest groups representing a very narrow section of the population.

Our government is dominated by Fianna Fail which represents probably the broadest political economic and social views of any party in the world. Hardly narrow is it?

They can obfuscate this disparity by bamboozling the electorate with where they all stand on social issues.

the people are all fools now are they? Fo course you are the only one who knows the truth. Well that is your opinion but if you claim lots of people know the "real story" then please produce evidence to support that.

But the essence remains the same. If it were not this way, our government would be properly funding solutions to the real social issues that plague our society - like the environment and child abuse -

What do you propose they do and what have they not being doing?

instead of building unsustainable privately controlled road networks and superdumps and protecting the financial interests of the institutions that have covered up child abuse without regard to the human cost to the victims.

Protectinf what financial interests of what institutions. You are ranting now.
ff[/QUOTE]

democrates

freddyfreeload wrote:

instead of building unsustainable privately controlled road networks and superdumps and protecting the financial interests of the institutions that have covered up child abuse without regard to the human cost to the victims.

ISAW wrote:

Protectinf what financial interests of what institutions. You are ranting now.

I think he's talking about the government cutting a deal to limit the catholic churches exposure to the compensation for abuse victims while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the rest of the tab.

I think I got that because I sought to understand, not misunderstand. Frankly, with regard to other elements of the discussion, I think it's a waste of time to pick any sentence out of context and argue it to the death as if it were a candidate for 11th commandment.

freddyfreeload

Hmm... okay, let's try a new tack, see if you can cop on.

• What I have stated is an opinion.
  
• Not a theory.
  
• Not an ideology.
  
• Not absolute.
  
• Not new, nor original, nor even mine.
  
• Perhaps not even right.
  
• Just an opinion I happen to hold.
  
• And you disagree with it.
  
• Which is cool.
  
• You have your own opinions.
  
• Which is also cool.
  
• I'm really pleased for you.
  
• I wouldn't want it any other way.

Now watch as I don't throw a prissy little tantrum with you for holding and airing them.

ff