alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My point in posting was i thought it was interesting that someone who had become politicalised to what he considered to be socialism had not heard of us, much less the full socialist case, but felt that SPEW and SWP represented the ideas of socialism. Our concept of socialism shared by those anarcho-communists at Libcom was something he did not associated with "real socialism" but as an anarchist utopia.Our SPGB history of socialist thought has described how our objective was shared by many but our means of achieving it was not. What has happened is that our goal is no longer recognised as such by those who call themselves socialist these days. Even Trotskyists have forgotten the aim of what their mentors taught,
Quote:"…money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption – whether by money or administration – will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody! Such a time has not yet come, though America will certainly reach it before any other country. "https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htmAnd James Cannon
Quote:But after a certain period, where there is abundance and even superabundance, the absurdity of strict wage regulation will become apparent. Then the gold will be taken out of Fort Knox and put to some more useful purpose, if such can be found. When people will have no further use for money, they will wonder what to do with all this gold, which has cost so much human labour and agony. Lenin had a theory that under socialism gold could be used, maybe, to make doorknobs for public lavatories, and things like that. But no Marxist authority would admit that in the socialist future men will dig in the earth for such a useless metal. The accounting arrangements automatically registered by money wages based on gold will at a certain stage be replaced by labour certificates or coupons, like tickets to the theatre. But even that, eventually, will pass away. Even that kind of accounting, which would take up useless labour and be absolutely purposeless, will be eliminated. There will be no money, and there will not even be any bookkeeping transactions or coupons to regulate how much one works and how much he gets. When labour has ceased to be a mere means of life and becomes life’s prime necessity, people will work without any compulsion and take what they need. So said Marx. Does that sound “visionary”? Here again, one must make an effort to lift himself out of the framework of the present society, and not consider this conception absurd or “impractical”. The contrary would be absurd. For in the socialist society, when there is plenty and abundance for all, what will be the point in keeping account of each one’s share, any more than in the distribution of food at a well-supplied family table? You don’t keep books as to who eats how many pancakes for breakfast or how many pieces of bread for dinner. Nobody grabs when the table is laden. If you have a guest, you don’t seize the first piece of meat for yourself, you pass the plate and ask him to help himself first. When you visualise society as a “groaning board” on which there is plenty for all, what purpose would be served in keeping accounts of what each one gets to eat and to wear? There would be no need for compulsion or forcible allotment of material means. “Wages” will become a term of obsolete significance, which only students of ancient history will know about. “Speaking frankly”—said Trotsky—“I think it would be pretty dullwitted to consider such a really modest perspective 'utopian’.” The ethic of capitalism and its normal procedure, of course, are quite different. But don’t ever, dear comrades, make the mistake of thinking that anything contrary to its rules and its ethics is utopian, or visionary, or absurd. No, what’s absurd is to think that this madhouse is permanent and for all time. The ethic of capitalism is: “From each whatever you can get out of him—to each whatever he can grab.” The socialist society of universal abundance will be regulated by a different standard. It will “inscribe on its banners”—said Marx—“From each according to his ability—to each according to his needs.” I speak now of the higher phase of socialist society, which some Marxist authorities prefer to call communism.I can find similar descriptions of our aims in Hyndman and Keir Hardie and others…all forgotten now…and our objective reduced to the Merriam-Webster definition.
If they are using Merriam-Wbster they are certainly not being exposed to our interpretation of socialism
Quote:a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies Full Definition of socialism1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.Usage Discussion of socialismIn the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as “democratic socialism,” in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.Examples of socialismShe is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, “it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.” —Stephen Pollard, New York Times Book Review, 18 Jan. 2009Lenin's great genius, of course, was for ideology, which was redefined all too often to support the tactical requirements of the moment. But owing to his fanatical conviction of his own righteousness, especially where socialism was concerned, and also to the Promethean force of his will, his pronouncements were enshrined by his followers as universal truths. —Michael Scammell, New Republic, 20 Dec. 1999"Socialist Party of Great Britain sues The Socialist Party of Great Britain over intellectual ownership" ….makes a great headline and may attract some publicity as well as a lot of derision. I note that the comments function is disabled…isn't that contrary to custom and practice that debate and discussion is to be permitted, regardless of the medium of the message.
I always had a feeling that we never really tried to be part of academia's debates on socialism. We rarely used our academic members cedentials to gain entry into the seminars and symposiums. Often one reason was the fees that were involved to participate. A month to submit something…i'm sure we could if we tried…even if its merely re-formating and re-editing stuff we already have.
What you say is ideological, Lbird. There is no "truth" in what you post. My comment is just as true as yours. I demand a vote !! If what i say is not as true as what you say then i'm taking my ball home and not playing with you anymore
Call it the Liverpool Socialist Discussion Group, shortened to the LSD Group, and you never know, the membership might expand as much as the mind might….
I came across this quote today, LBird, that i think you might appreciate if you aren't already aware of it
Quote:Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake, within 30 years, to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the state. – Bertrand RussellAs you said …facts even of physical science can be ideological and change to suit a ruling class, eh?
I think the idea that any government can be trusted to provide full free health-care is misleading. It is an unachievable aspiration which was within a few years of the establishment of the NHS was abandoned by the Labour Party who introduced the first NHS charges.But i think the idealised picture of socialised health service is something we can focus upon in our case for free access socialism…"according to needs"…But as this charity appeal story reflects, what we have is not quite there yethttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/give-to-gosh/researching-rare-diseases-can-be-a-lifesaver-for-children-a6771701.html
This first came to my notice a few months ago in an article that i read.Israel tried to justify this medical aid as humanitarian but declined to comment if they offered such humanitarian medical services to Hezbullah and Syrian government wounded. They were also accused of safely ushering rebel forces through the Occupied Golan Heights. I have often wondered why Al Qaida and ISIS have never ever launched any of their terror attacks directly against Israel. Are we to presume thier intelligence and security arrangements are so superior that such actions are simply not possible and the only terror attack possible is some teenager wielding a knife or driving a car into people?
democratorshiphttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/12/poland-thousands-march-warsaw-against-democratorship-government
Once again the price places this item out of my reach.But sadly it is too late for the Party to send out the Standard to its subscribers wrapped in it …perhaps an idea for next Marxmas time.
Apparently the earlier news-stories weren't quite accurate about Finland and the UBIhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/10/finland-universal-basic-income-ubi-social-security
"the people was quite firmly against."That's a matter of opinion.55% No – 2,001,926 45% Yes – 1,617,989…All the polls from 2011 onwards were for the No but the Yes clawed its way back until September 2014 showed a narrow support for Yes (in just two polls only out of many others) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#2011Since the referendum 25 polls have been taken and 17 – Putting 'No' ahead, 7 – Putting 'Yes' ahead, 1 – Equal split for 'Yes' and 'No'. On average, these polls have (after leaving aside Don't Knows) put support for Yes at 48%, and for No, 52%. So not much change over the year. The 2015 general election polls showing a SNP landslide were moreorless accurate, give or take the one seat LibDems got and the one seat Labour got.
