Book by Peter Joseph

[moderator1]

Review of book can be found here:  http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/new-human-rights

Introduction here:  http://www.thenewhumanrightsmovement.com/why-this-book/

[ALB]

I'm half-way through reading it and actually it's rather good. Peter Joseph has come along way since his first Zeitgeist film and its conspiracy theories. He now openly identifies capitalism and its production for sale on a market with a view to profit as the root cause of most of the problems facing society, even contrasting "the ownership class" with "the wage-working majority" and talking of a "class war" of the "upper class" against the "lower class". He also argues that it is ultimately futile to try to change this system as it can be changed to work in any other way than it does, so "only deep system changes will prove to have long-standing effects". It's almost as if he's taken on board some of the criticisms we have made of Zeitgeist, e.g. that it's not a question of convincing enough people of good will to bring about a non-money, non-market society but that it's going to have to involve a struggle against a well-entrenched privileged minority. I know what his alternative to capitalism is going to be but am reading on to see what he is going to suggest as to how to get there.

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

I'm half-way through reading it and actually it's rather good. Peter Joseph has come along way since his first Zeitgeist film and its conspiracy theories. He now openly identifies capitalism and its production for sale on a market with a view to profit as the root cause of most of the problems facing society, even contrasting "the ownership class" with "the wage-working majority" and talking of a "class war" of the "upper class" against the "lower class". He also argues that it is ultimately futile to try to change this system as it can be changed to work in any other way than it does, so "only deep system changes will prove to have long-standing effects". It's almost as if he's taken on board some of the criticisms we have made of Zeitgeist, e.g. that it's not a question of convincing enough people of good will to bring about a non-money, non-market society but that it's going to have to involve a struggle against a well-entrenched privileged minority. I know what his alternative to capitalism is going to be but am reading on to see what he is going to suggest as to how to get there.

I have a strong suspicion his way of getting "there" will be similar to the Civil Rights Movement in the US.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I have a strong suspicion his way of getting "there" will be similar to the Civil Rights Movement in the US.

In that case, perhaps you can elaborate on just what that is politically and how different it is from a mass movement for socialism, describing the strengths and weaknesses of such a civil rights movement campaign for socialism.(incidentally, can you say who would be the MLK and Malcolm X of such a civil rights movement )

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

I have a strong suspicion his way of getting "there" will be similar to the Civil Rights Movement in the US.

In that case, perhaps you can elaborate on just what that is politically and how different it is from a mass movement for socialism, describing the strengths and weaknesses of such a civil rights movement campaign for socialism.(incidentally, can you say who would be the MLK and Malcolm X of such a civil rights movement )

Until I've read the book it would be foolish of me to elaborate on my suspicions.  My suspicions are based on PJ's admiration for the CRM and their appeal to the human condition and social values and the way they organised the struggle for equality..Note in this respect PJ is placing the emphasis on Human Rights not Civil Rights.  

[alanjjohnstone]

It is unlikely i will read the book until it is placed on the net for free but i do believe that there are aspects of the civil rights movement that we should try to emulate…the grassroots organising, the civil disobedience, the mass protests, even the manner of expressing solidarity…marches in Selma etc.  Such tactics would be fruitfully combined with industrial action and the electoral activity. And i have no doubt that some survival strategies such as co-ops will arise.But i still feel we have to properly present our prediction in how the revolutionary process actually will play outSome things can be foreseen even if circumstances and situations may demand a variety of paths to take.The idea that we make socialism a human rights issue is an interesting one.The mere mention of the word "rights" raises the hackles of some socialists who insist we have no rights – i recall how we disparaged those who talked of the right to work,  but is this a positive response when the issue of the right to food, the right to housing, the right to good healthcare is brought forth..Isn't socialism all about demanding the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"In fact, shouldn't it be brought right down to the religious precept – the golden rule “do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or as we would say in modern parlance – economics of reciprocity….seeking a cooperative commonwealthWhen it comes down to it…the UN Universal Convention on Human Rights, Child Rights etc   all with a bit of tweaking represent our own socialist aspirations…and Zeitgeist's.Once you complete your reading ALB you can perhaps explain Joseph's approach to politics.

[ALB]

moderator1 wrote:

I have a strong suspicion his way of getting "there" will be similar to the Civil Rights Movement in the US.

Sort of. He sees the movement for a non-market, non-money, post-scarcity society (let us call it "socialism") as having to be based on the activism of  "the raw masses", the "average majority" and that, to triumph, it will have to eventually have majority consent. In this event, he suggests various transitional measures, such as universal basic income (to begin to break the link between work and consumption) and making "free (without direct purchase) goods from as many industries as possible". These would correspond to the list of (now completely outdated of course)  immediate measures in the Communist Manifesto, i.e measures to be implemented once the battle of democracy had been won.It's where the movement has not yet got majority support that ambiguity comes in. He suggests that the movement should still demand and exercise pressure for them "upon the existing power structure, coercing change from the bottom up". This, even though he knows that these run counter to the logic of the capitalist market system:

Quote:

Political influence, whether through grassroots protest or institutional lobbying via NGOs, will naturally be important. This is the arena of democracy that most people think of, though often they misunderstand its limitations. Public appeals to directly reduce socioeconomic inequality and stop environmental degradation are always going to go against the grain within a market system, which will resist every step. Regardless, we should constantly demand things such as Uni­versal Basic Income; maximum wage and wealth caps per person, government subsidies to incentivize cooperative businesses rather than hierarchical ones, universal standardization of goods compo­nents by industry sector to reduce waste, and other socializing and income/wealth equalizing means. Basic public-health services, as common to Nordic countries, should also be pushed to ease social stress while larger strides are made. These are not solutions in and of themselves, but they will help.

These would correspond to the "minimum programme" of the pre-WW1 Social Democratic parties.Gradualism is ruled out.:

Quote:

. ..even if only partial transitions were made toward the ideal goals expressed, it would still improve things. However, the more one examines the implications ol these changes, the more it will become clear how they work against the current economic system's incentives and structure. This means the ideal of a step-by-step transition (and improvement) is improbable. Rather, it will likely take large and dramatic leaps to move from one state to another, revealing the need for serious activism to get things done.

So, "large and dramatic leaps" (revolution) rather than gradual reform.He seems to have reached the same position, and to face the same strategic and tactical dilemmas, as the pre-WW1 Social Democratic movement from which we emerged with our view that the socialist movement should not have a programme of immediate demands to be implemented within capitalism. We know, from what happened to the Social Democratic parties, that the measures he sees as "helpful" will tend to attract people who just want them and not the complete change to a non-market, non-money society and so derail the movement for this.Still, there is no other modern book that discusses these choices in relation to the movement for the sort of society we want to see established. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is unlikely i will read the book until it is placed on the net for free 

Perhaps we should organise a book club. To exchange eBooks?  

[Ozymandias]

I just hope the party could arrange a forum or a debate with him whenever he's next in London. Not sure if he would accept though. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Yes, Ozy…and in the meantime, a friendly book review in the Standard and comradely reaching out to him by those in the Party who have established contact with Zeitgeist.I know we have our differences since it is such an amorphous organisation but they have succeeded in building quite a network of supporters that we should try and tap into.First thing on my shopping list when i am next in the UK, Vin, is a Kindle and exchanging ebooks i am told is a very easy process. Libcom has advice  https://libcom.org/library/using-e-book-readers-or-kindles-libcomorg

[ALB]

moderator1 wrote:

Introduction here:  http://www.thenewhumanrightsmovement.com/why-this-book/

Just realised that this, already on the internet, contains this passage which reflects, consciously or not, the Marxist approach to social systems;

Quote:

A social system is defined as the means by which a society organizes itself to facilitate survival, prosperity, and, ideally, peaceful coexistence. (…) However, any challenge to the integrity of the system is really a challenge to the integrity of its core foundation, and that core foundation is economic. How a society organizes its resources, labor, production, and distribution is by far the most defining and influential feature of culture. This is why when people discuss social systems in general they usually refer to them by their economic modes.

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Introduction here:  http://www.thenewhumanrightsmovement.com/why-this-book/

Just realised that this, already on the internet, contains this passage which reflects, consciously or not, the Marxist approach to social systems;

Quote:

A social system is defined as the means by which a society organizes itself to facilitate survival, prosperity, and, ideally, peaceful coexistence. (…) However, any challenge to the integrity of the system is really a challenge to the integrity of its core foundation, and that core foundation is economic. How a society organizes its resources, labor, production, and distribution is by far the most defining and influential feature of culture. This is why when people discuss social systems in general they usually refer to them by their economic modes.

PJ is conscious of the fact he's taking a materialist approach.  Yet theres no mention in the intro of a class struggle taking place.

[ALB]

Not in the introduction, but there's a whole section in Chapter 3 entitled "Class War", defined in the Glossary at the end as:

Quote:

In Marxist terms, class war is considered an economic and political power struggle between capitalist owners and workers. More broadly, as argued in this book, class war is a structural inevitability of the market system's incentive psychology and competitive procedural dynamics, creating a constant state of imposed economic and political deficiency upon the lower classes while the upper classes are naturally supported by the structure, in contrast. This outcome occurs without personal intent to oppress or elevate.

And, while I'm at it, here's his definition of "Capitalist Ownership":

Quote:

Also termed the "ownership class," this highlights the traditional labor role separation between workers and owners in capitalism. Underscoring this relationship is socioeconomic inequality. While often classified as a Marxist concept, the phrase is merely the observation of power imbalance and how there are hierarchy-enhancing aspects of market economics, along with incentivized state policy in favor of power and wealth consolidation for the upper class overall.

 

[alanjjohnstone]

Is he echoing Solidarity and Paul Cardan.that part of the issue is ideological control by the ruling class and not just their economic power being a key element of explotation?

[ALB]

Not really (and of course he's better than them as he wants socialism and they only wanted some workers-controlled market economy).To tell the truth, I don't think he has the same definition of class as we do, i.e relationship to the means of production (in capitalism between owners and non-owners). Or rather sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. At one point he talks of "wage slavery"  and "the general economic slavery of the majority".but most of the time he sees class as defined by wealth and income levelHe sees the inequality of wealth, power and esteem built-in to capitalusm (and in fact to all class societies) as resulting in the "oppression" of the "lower classes" by the "upper class" (his terms), i.e of those at the bottom of the heap by those at the top. This oppression, he says, takes the form of the poor having worse health and living less long than those at the top (this of course is a confirmed fact). He calls this "structural violence" and sees it as a "war" of the rich against the poor. So his "class war" is one initiated by the rich against the poor rather than the "class struggle" we see initiated by the producers against the owners. One criticism of this approach is that it leaves out those who are neither the rich nor the poor, those in the middle of the heap, the majority in developed capitalist countries.

[Author]

Posts