tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post1082553788996253746..comments2023-12-22T08:42:36.132+00:00Comments on Gaian Economics: Living Within Our MeansMollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12845612174674783187noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-60373377919263466522010-10-11T23:41:45.289+01:002010-10-11T23:41:45.289+01:00You've missed everything, alas.
'We DO li...You've missed everything, alas.<br /><br />'We DO live in post-industrial society. We’ve exported it, remember?'<br /><br />Our 'society' is not limited to our national borders. The world is our society. Without workers slaving away in inhuman conditions in factories around the world, our current lifestyle (or at least that of many people) is simply not possible. Postindustrialism is a fantasy promoted by the neo-liberals and supported by many a postmodern theorist. <br /><br />We have more industrialism in the world today than ever before - it is the cause of climate change, remember?<br /><br />'“Left-Right” – Yes, I sometimes find it necessary to speak to people in their own language.'<br /><br />So you can't just invent a new paradigm then? Funny that.<br /><br />'ie Feudalism to Capitalism in your example. They change because individuals change the record. They have an idea, they see an opportunity they invent something or discover something – ie they think differently first and then implement it second.'<br /><br />In what sense did the change described happen in this way? <br /><br />Technological changes make certain modes of production possible, or make them more profitable - the change from homeworkers to factory workers in the cloth trade during the early industrial revolution, for example.<br /><br />O.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-72270930832549350082010-10-10T21:12:42.499+01:002010-10-10T21:12:42.499+01:00Sorry Owen, not ignored, just missed. Reviews thre...Sorry Owen, not ignored, just missed. Reviews thread…..<br /><br />@ 16 September 2010 17:29:00 GMT<br /><br />You may define the GND as “left”, I don’t. Caroline was elected because of a lot of hard, sustained effort by those on the ground in Brighton. That’s where the credit lies. That she is an excellent politician, [I’m not saying here I agree with her on everything] is irrelevant. Plenty of excellent politicians don’t get elected. Generals are nothing without troops.<br /><br />We DO live in post-industrial society. We’ve exported it, remember?<br /><br />“Left-Right” – Yes, I sometimes find it necessary to speak to people in their own language. As for your specific example you’d have to ask them. <br /><br />@ 19 September 2010 07:19:00 GMT<br /><br />“Aneurysm and Tosh” – Not sure what point you’re making here. So I’ll repeat mine in a different way. Things do not usually change by chance, ie Feudalism to Capitalism in your example. They change because individuals change the record. They have an idea, they see an opportunity they invent something or discover something – ie they think differently first and then implement it second. <br /><br />I find it ironic that those who complain about “Business as Usual” are stuck in the very same mode.<br /><br />@ 19 September 2010 07:23:00 GMT<br /><br />“Book” – I didn’t say I agreed with it and I certainly haven’t read it. But it still looks interesting.<br /><br />Have I missed anything?weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-10382123773365610422010-10-08T13:02:31.384+01:002010-10-08T13:02:31.384+01:00I notice that Weggis has completely ignored all of...I notice that Weggis has completely ignored all of my points...when in doubt, stonewall.<br /><br />Tom Chance: fantastic post (and interestingly from a non-socialist pov) - you hit the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Owen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-8455801815693861982010-09-29T14:40:53.518+01:002010-09-29T14:40:53.518+01:00@ Ben Hartshorn. "I am completely stumped for...@ Ben Hartshorn. "I am completely stumped for anything on the right. Genuinely."<br /><br />The right-wing people who founded the movement that was to become the Green Party!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-6885927488489248632010-09-25T19:16:44.290+01:002010-09-25T19:16:44.290+01:00Political compass puts the Green Party and BNP on ...Political compass puts the Green Party and BNP on virtually the same point on the Left/Right axis, but poles apart on the authoritarian/libertarian axis. <br /><br />http://croydongreens.blogspot.com/search?q=cooperative+party<br /><br />Politics is not one dimensional, or indeed two dimensional – the Green Party is a green party!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-61154450457077836442010-09-23T19:40:23.186+01:002010-09-23T19:40:23.186+01:00There's something about blogs that means peopl...There's something about blogs that means people don't properly read what's written. I didn't compare sustainability to genocide. I said that an act of genocide could be described as contributing to a sustainable future.<br /><br />In fact, bumping off the whole human race would also do the trick if it's just the planet we're looking to save.<br /><br />But it's not, it's really about people.<br /><br />And, I didn't say those values are exclusive to the left. I'd just like you to give some examples of right-wing regimes that are (or were) keen on human rights?Ben Hartshornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10823813231935270041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-78338323637373509302010-09-21T22:12:58.290+01:002010-09-21T22:12:58.290+01:00Of course you disagree Ben. You have defined yours...Of course you disagree Ben. You have defined yourself as “left” and that quote challenges your chosen identity. That can be very uncomfortable for some.<br /><br />And since when have the values you mention been the exclusive property of the “left”. <br /><br />Your comparison of genocide with sustainability is below the belt.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-36236977621093160122010-09-21T14:34:08.696+01:002010-09-21T14:34:08.696+01:00Er, I disagree! There are plenty of things that ar...Er, I disagree! There are plenty of things that are 'sustainable' but abhorrent.<br /><br />You could argue that genocide is 'sustainable' in some cases - reducing resource depletion.<br /><br />You need an ideology and other values to support sustainable development. Tolerance, respect for human rights, social justice, for example.Ben Hartshornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10823813231935270041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-42673865958501675212010-09-21T13:25:09.602+01:002010-09-21T13:25:09.602+01:00So is this from "Make Wealth History".
...So is this from "<a href="http://makewealthhistory.org/2010/09/20/a-post-growth-economy-faq/" rel="nofollow">Make Wealth History</a>".<br /><br /><i>"Nature draws no distinction between ideologies, and the world doesn’t fit into our political constructs. Something is either sustainable or it isn’t, and neither capitalism nor socialism is ‘the answer’."</i>weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-4647439979915529932010-09-20T09:44:40.929+01:002010-09-20T09:44:40.929+01:00Tomchance, I said 'positive developments'....Tomchance, I said 'positive developments'. Are you really saying, as a Green, that privatising the railways was a positive development? We can all list what the right (and left) have done. But what would you be proud of as a Green?<br /><br />As for drug companies being the foundation of good health, if profit-driven motives are the only way forward, I'll give up now.<br /><br />I don't doubt clever people have found great ways to make money (something I've not been very good at, I'll admit!). Try getting generic medicines in Malawi. This is an interesting read<br />http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-researchBen Hartshornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10823813231935270041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-61791774520814187932010-09-19T13:39:11.235+01:002010-09-19T13:39:11.235+01:00@ Ben Hartshorn
18 September 2010 13:36:00 GMT
Th...@ Ben Hartshorn<br />18 September 2010 13:36:00 GMT<br /><br />The NHS does not and has never operated within a vacuum. It has relied on the private sector to research, develop and provide the medication, drugs and specialist technical equipment, not to mention all the other more mundane stuff like ambulances and helicopters [the London air ambulance has just landed in the field at the back of my house] to give the service it does. <br /><br />The NHS is indeed the bedrock but your increased chances of survival today are down to the private entrepreneurial sector, not the NHS itself.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-10995088411236516042010-09-19T12:06:27.356+01:002010-09-19T12:06:27.356+01:00Ben, you are not bothering to think very hard if y...Ben, you are not bothering to think very hard if you cannot think of any achievements that the right might crow about. A Conservative might say: Privatising the railways, energy, etc; making any left party that doesn't accept capitalism unelectable (i.e. defeating socialism and communism); staying out of the Euro, and winning the rebate on money sent to the EU; etc.<br /><br />Molly, you can't have paid much attention to my speech against your motion if you want to ascribe all of the opposition to "an influx of socialists" from the Labour movement. I am not a socialist, I am a Green, but I spoke against your motion because it was premature, badly worded and unnecessary.<br /><br />Premature because any synergies between the Green New Deal, the 2010 manifesto and our committment to steady state economics would be extremely general. There are a handful of economists who have worked on de-growth, we simply cannot describe an economy that wouldn't crash and burn around the poor and vulnerable yet. The motion puts our one MP and our party in a position of having to engage in a highly theoretical discussion that is not the business of politicians. It is for academia and the party to debate at workshops and in policy working groups.<br /><br />It is badly worded because it draws a highly simplistic link between the economic events of recent years and ecological overconsumption. In doing so it comes close to suggesting that governments can't run deficits analogous to the finite resources of the planet, and gives some the impression that we think there is a conflict between protecting the vulnerable (which was largely the aim of the 2010 manifesto) and living within ecological limits. It is the sort of policy a political opponent would dream of. Caroline, sat in a TV studio, would be skewered.<br /><br />Finally, it is unnecessary because we have policy committing us to steady state economics. We all know the Green Party is committed to that. Rather than submit this motion to conference, it would have been much better to set-up a working group with policy committee and economists to work up some talking points for Caroline and Adrian in time for the spring conference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-8952937385337507372010-09-19T11:04:46.658+01:002010-09-19T11:04:46.658+01:00Owen Clayton:
Exactly. The motion misses an absol...Owen Clayton:<br /><br />Exactly. The motion misses an absolutely key issue. You can't end economic growth without changing the economic system. I agree a zero growth type economy is required, but that isn't just a growth-based economy but with no growth (i.e. what we have now).<br /><br />The imperative for growth in profits is at least partly why there are cuts to ordinary people's living standards whenever growth pauses. The economic engine can't get overall growth in the economy, but still has to grow to avoid catastrophic failure, so it scrabbles desperately around for other sources of wealth - e.g. money previously allocated for maintaining a minimum living standard for the poor / disabled.<br /><br />If you prevented growth without changing the growth-based system, what you would get would not be likely to be pleasant to live in for most.junglenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-29212263476880652262010-09-19T08:23:09.121+01:002010-09-19T08:23:09.121+01:00Weggis - As for the book you have linked to, it ap...Weggis - As for the book you have linked to, it appears to argue for a permanent coalition government! This just shows the true ideological colours of those calling for an end to the left-right spectrum. I'm sure the ConDems will thank you for doing their work for them.Owennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-58481713482009192302010-09-19T08:19:07.830+01:002010-09-19T08:19:07.830+01:00Ben - exactly.
Weggis - you seem to believe that ...Ben - exactly.<br /><br />Weggis - you seem to believe that you can undo the existing political and economic system by simply thinking hard enough. This might give you an aneurysm; it is unlikely to change the world.<br /><br />'Change the paradigm [spectrum] change the system [economy].<br />It doesn't work the other way round.'<br /><br />Tosh. Feudalism didn't become capitalism because a load of merchants decided 'we need a new paradigm'. It changed because of the underlying economic and political conditions - peasant revolts, increasing global trade, better technology, the discovery of new markets, etc. Obviously i'm generalising but you get the point.Owennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-91233737779743721442010-09-18T14:36:37.403+01:002010-09-18T14:36:37.403+01:00If you're not sure which side we're on, tr...If you're not sure which side we're on, try a pretty simple exercise. Take a piece of paper and make two columns, one (on the left!), for all the positive developments that have come out of the politics of the left in the past 100 years. On the right... you get the point.<br /><br />I've got comprehensive education, the NHS, minimum wage, end apartheid, national rail network on the left. But, I am completely stumped for anything on the right. Genuinely. Please, somebody give me something comparably to those.<br /><br />Ben Hartshorn (not anonymous - can't remember my Google account!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-25108144147904812072010-09-16T20:26:33.677+01:002010-09-16T20:26:33.677+01:00I've not read this, but it sounds interesting....I've not read <a href="http://dizzythinks.net/2010/09/back-is-way-up.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, but it sounds interesting.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-69487539535443028962010-09-16T20:20:14.942+01:002010-09-16T20:20:14.942+01:00@ Owen 2
Not on a one-way street! :)
As I've...@ Owen 2<br /><br />Not on a one-way street! :)<br /><br />As I've said: change the parameters.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-31470009829504572682010-09-16T20:12:31.417+01:002010-09-16T20:12:31.417+01:00Anon 1 @ 16 September 2010 17:29:00 GMT
"The...Anon 1 @ 16 September 2010 17:29:00 GMT<br /><br /><i>"The Left-Right spectrum is still relevant because our economy is still run on the same principles. When it no longer is, then perhaps this spectrum will no longer apply."</i> <br /><br />Exactly, we are stuck in the same old left/right paradigm. Change the paradigm [spectrum] change the system [economy].<br />It doesn't work the other way round.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-9644900818741654722010-09-16T18:31:09.407+01:002010-09-16T18:31:09.407+01:00Also @ Weggis:
To shift metaphors mid-stream: if ...Also @ Weggis:<br /><br />To shift metaphors mid-stream: if you stay in the middle of the road, you are bound to hit something.<br /><br />Owen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-91506154237156631272010-09-16T18:29:47.614+01:002010-09-16T18:29:47.614+01:00@Weggis - and yet, with a leftist policy of a Gree...@Weggis - and yet, with a leftist policy of a Green New Deal, and a leader who was prepared to say on national TV that she was a socialist, we now have our first MP, despite the enormous squeeze suffered by all of the smaller parties. Yeah, really hurt us that, didn't it?<br /><br />The Left-Right spectrum is still relevant because our economy is still run on the same principles. When it no longer is, then perhaps this spectrum will no longer apply. <br /><br />'Neither Left nor right but ahead' is a Blairite delusion, based upon the false supposition that we live in a post-industrial society, when we do no such thing.<br /><br />Btw: how come those who refuse to use the Left-Right spectrum still frequently refer to those on the 'Right' or 'Far Right'? I heard the proposers of this motion do exactly that. If 'Left' no longer applies then surely 'Right' also does not?<br /><br />Owen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-33913042145284087432010-09-16T18:25:04.935+01:002010-09-16T18:25:04.935+01:00@ Adam
So get rid of the fence.
It's called ...@ Adam<br /><br />So get rid of the fence.<br /><br />It's called lateral thinking, try it sometime. It works.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-24403697467025432512010-09-16T11:14:04.229+01:002010-09-16T11:14:04.229+01:00@Weggis - you can't identify with people by si...@Weggis - you can't identify with people by sitting on the fence. Time to get off of the high horse and realise that economics is either left and forward or right and backwards. Steady state economics is left economics ultimately.Adam Pogonowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-8830391012014689822010-09-14T19:15:17.684+01:002010-09-14T19:15:17.684+01:00Adam @ 14 September 2010 10:09:00 GMT
One could e...Adam @ 14 September 2010 10:09:00 GMT<br /><br />One could equally argue, and I frequently do, that it is those members who identify with the "Left" and cling to an outdated, adversarial political construct which is no longer relevant or useful, are the ones who "put people off our party". <br /><br />A severely embarrassed number 82 in the Top 100 Left-Wing blogs.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5889026769761133073.post-3582136917478018322010-09-14T16:58:08.681+01:002010-09-14T16:58:08.681+01:00It may be scary to know, but some of us socialists...It may be scary to know, but some of us socialists have been in the party for 25 years (or more!).<br /><br />As for my 'descent from over-consumption', it's been rather rapidly brought forward by a public sector contract being canceled two years early.<br /><br />Is this an opportunity? Are we all really sharing in the pain?<br /><br />Seems to me that there's already a good label for steady-state economics that are pro-poor and redistributive (which you fail to mention here would be a big feature of any no-growth economy) - it's 'socialism'.<br /><br />The space between left and right is the 'fence'. It may be time for some Greens to get off it!Ben Hartshornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10823813231935270041noreply@blogger.com