tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post4841388483874496873..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Poulantzas and Marxist Approaches to the StatePhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-76871251123290161052016-02-25T07:56:10.191+00:002016-02-25T07:56:10.191+00:00Close but no cigar BCFG!
We're talking about...Close but no cigar BCFG! <br /><br />We're talking about macro things here. As I said I'm no expert, not even a student, of this area, which is why I enjoy reading Phil's posts, and indeed do learn quite a lot in the process, but I was simply providing my observation - that from a historical perspective, the principal impulse that appears to drive human relations is scarcity and the battle for resources, along with the hard-wired selfishness of the human animal. <br /><br />In ancient days, this led to slave economies (and indeed, even much more recently capitalists had no hesitation in using slaves) and this system of trade has continued to the common day. Human beings are intrinsically selfish, presumably for evolved reasons, and it was clear in how not only the USSR had to make concessions to capitalism, but also created its own elites in effect little different from the capitalist world. <br /><br />However, I do not think this cannot be mitigated - and here I think the likes of John Gray go too far - because the social democracies of Europe are probably the best and fairest places to live ever, but they have still been created by the power of organised labour (recognising) and pursuing its interest, not out of the milk of human kindness. <br /><br />And we see this now, for example over the Scottish and Europe debates, which will see the economic argument trump all, the way that the mass of Britons more often choose Tories over Labour, despite only Labour seemingly explicitly representing their interests, etc. Or the massive indifference the rich world pays to the poor, which it relies on for its cheap goods. So i agree with Phil - it's complicated, but I don't think it is necessarily doomed - but I doubt people respond to the idea of the collective (unless, as I suspect, many politicians see it as a way of coming into power, just as the rich support the Tories) rather to identify one's individual well-being with the well-being of others, which was the genesis of Labour, as opposed to now when people associate others well-being (say refugees) with their own loss. Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-39093327107465371432016-02-24T17:03:32.188+00:002016-02-24T17:03:32.188+00:00You cannot analyse the state from a purely economi...You cannot analyse the state from a purely economic position to explain every single one of its actions, you have to accept that when you do this you are abstracting in order to highlight certain things. But in reality the actual working and composition of the state are a mix of political, cultural, historical, economic factors and probably a whole host of other things. <br /><br />But by highlighting the economic factor you blow away some of the bullshit. So if you want to explain the state in general then use economics, if you want to explain specifics then trace its dependents. So fundamentally I think you can directly link the general workings of the state to the idea that Joan Robinson put forward, namely the state keeps the show on the road. The show being capitalist relations.<br /><br />Though I am not sure how I would analyse Donald Trump other than to say the US Empire may have fond its Caligula! And that would be a fitting culmination of a nearly two decades of war mongering and liberal left decency!<br /><br />On that note the state should not be analysed in isolation from the world imperialist system.<br /><br />The question for speedy is what is natural and what isn’t? You have to infer from what speedy says that everything that exists is the result of natural events except those things speedy says are not natural, and anything that tries to tamper with these natural events is unnatural. Am I the only one who sees a black hole size paradox here? Or does everyone see speedy’s idiocy?<br /><br />It is as if we can list every event in human history and put into either the natural or unnatural category.<br /><br />Battle of Waterloo – natural<br />The killing of unarmed protestors during Black Sunday – natural<br />The unrest as a result of the Black Sunday massacre – unnatural<br />The Cheeky girls – natural<br />Billy Bragg – unnatural<br /><br />Am I close?<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-13600414244774477612016-02-24T10:04:29.241+00:002016-02-24T10:04:29.241+00:00You're supposing that there are snappy answers...You're supposing that there are snappy answers. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.<br /><br />Consider the problem. We want to transform our society. We want to displace private property in the means of production and build a different kind of society. How do you do that?<br /><br />I don't know about you, but I haven't the foggiest. Though I suspect looking at past attempts, identifying forces tending in this direction, and looking at the balance of power at any given time might be a start. Which is why I'm writing this series of posts in the help to get people to <i>think seriously</i> about this problem rather than relying on glib formulas and trying to force human behaviour to conform to some utopian plan.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-78967890200006120262016-02-24T07:44:38.107+00:002016-02-24T07:44:38.107+00:00Fair enough, but isn't Marxism long on analysi...Fair enough, but isn't Marxism long on analysis and short on answers? <br /><br />"suggests pressure can be exerted over the state for it to act against the interests of capital." Not if it is in the interests of Capital to act? <br /><br />I don't know much about these things, but it seems Marxism provides a good analysis of the evolution of things, but like evolution, it is unwise - if not highly damaging - to try and impose an alternative version of what has happened naturally in real-life. Hence the bloodshed and ossification of the USSR - this was not a "mistake" but what happens when theory hits reality. Speedynoreply@blogger.com