alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ask for financial recompense for the cost of those wasted leaflets…you might just get a bunch of free stamps to hand over to HO
The practical real-world consequence of the under-consumptionists is that adopting of the theory leads to what we would consider reformist solutions to the economic crisis problem, the platforms of SPEW etc. and the invitation to have government intervene with high spending policies to stimulate the economy. Can it be explained to me what the actual practical consequences be of accepting Kliman's version of Falling Rate of Profit be for the workers/trade union/socialist movement. What political policies or approaches do they lead to? If there is an impact – is it positive on the class struggle or a negative influence?If there in little or no effect – would Andrew Kliman's analysis still mean he would have to forego it to join the WSM and ascribe fully to our accepted disproportionality theory or that we would refuse his membership if he applied to join for holding his view?How different is his from the Paul Mattick's interpretation which inferred the falling rate of profit creates a situation where capitalism collapses offering a window of opportunity of intensified class struggle the working class can take advantage of to establish socialism…. (or so i may mistakenly believe to be the revolutionary conclusion of it to be)Also This 1971 review says about Mattick's argument (dare say also his son's)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/books-and-pamphlets-marxian-economics
Quote:" It would presuppose, for a start, a fantastically high degree of capital accumulation, automation and labour productivity (which would mean, as Marx once pointed out, that the price system would break down because commodities would be so cheap that they ought to be given away free)."Isn't that exactly a stage we are either approaching or on the verge of approaching with all that Singularity debate and Zero Marginal Cost discussions going on.Same article the SPGB counter Mattick by saying
Quote:Second, government spending has been undertaken not so much as to avoid slumps as to provide essential services for the capitalist class as a whole (education, health, defence), though this has incidentally affected the overall level of production and employment and has been financed out of profits and by inflation.Hasn't recent spending been to bail-out capitalism (QE etc) to avoid the continuation of a slump and the cuts have been to the essential services. Isn't Mattick proved empirically right on this (albeit not on the defence budget) We say "Mattick [and i assume by association Kliman too] is undoubtedly right in stating that “Marx’s theory is not a theory of underconsumption” and in placing profits rather than markets as capitalism’s big problem. "I'm stumbling about blindly here, never having read in any depth and only superficially skimmed economic theory just raising a few question i have from this thread so would appreciate where i am going wrong. I could do with someone clarifying things for me in a simpler way.
What about this Ireland one, then?https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/wsp-anglo-irish.pdf
I did warn in an earlier post to watch out for unscrupulous postal workers off-loading the leaflets. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Should we officially complain?
Shame Robin won't make it to the meeting, Darren, otherwise Andrew Kliman could have happily sat back and watched an entertaining argument take place before him. Which brings me to raising this aspect of our public meetings. Because of the internet and email, we could have written prepred questions and not just from the those attending from the floor. Andrew could see them beforehand and perhaps either deal with it separately or refer to it in his talk. Or Robin and others could place their questions in advance and the chair could read them out for speakers to reply to. Not too complicated to do and advances our internet interaction just that one more step forward. One day we may have meetings shown on Skype and questions and answers via video…but it won't be tomorrow, will it so this improvement may be a temporary fix?
I think DJP has a point but it is a very narrow line for members to walk and sometimes we understandably fall offThere are many issues that i have very strong personal feelings and emotions about and always have to be careful on the blog. Luckily we have the facility of deleting or re-editing and one of the bloggers performs a very useful role of looking over our shoulders to make sure we do not substitute individual opinion for party views. (It has happened so i readily confess mea culpa)As Howard did with his signing off omitting the The in Socialist Party candidate and quickly correcting it, i see no problem, Steve, that if a similar question arises, you take DJP's point on board you explain the Party's non-commital position, or indicate the divergence of opinion within the party and express your own private view. Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)
Quite liked that promo video by the hustings organisers…enjoyed the music…we can be heroes…a modern anthem…(as an aside i noted one occupy themed political advert..scored out NO Leaders…and replaced with WE ARE ALL Leaders…i wonder if that is a more positive message to offer, just as equally demanding to explain fully though) Once again the video highlighted our policy of pic or no pic. Was the fact our logo was depicted more effective than a photo of Cde Cox…no matter how flattering it might have been?Its something we will have to discuss in what i hope will be a lengthy and in depth debate on our whole learning curve of this (for us) unique experiment of electioneering. I really think we should have special event for this discussion, rather than crowd it into ADM or Conference…perhaps beginning with an online exchange and then an actual proper face-to-face general meeting at Clapham….
Or perhaps influenced by the ex-SPGB John Crump's similarly titled, "The Origin of Socialist Thought in Japan" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1983/no-951-november-1983/book-review-origins-socialist-thought-japan
Sorry, i mean making one party video out of the five videos clips…I also note that Howard has taken aboard the earlier exchange on the Party's name, signing off now as THE Socialist Party candidate just to make it even clearer with a special emphasis
Howard performed very well on those videos. Please pass on my congratulations and appreciation to him …we got the last word in the first video and we got the first word in the second clip plus as well as the last word. The editors of the video obviously understood the value of his contributions.The 3rd and 4th video clips also showed his skill in explaining politics and economics, very much on par with such an experienced politico MP as Caroline Lucas. Can we now edit those 4 videos into one featuring Howard alone and have this available before polling day?
Chimps have human rights…at least in this legal casehttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/21/historic-ruling-pair-chimpanzees-recognized-legal-personsAlso for those following the threadhttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/30338-commodified-and-caged-still
Regard the name of ourselves, do you think the general public understand this rather pedantic grammar lesson we are trying to make, to differentiate two separate distinct parties with the same name?SPEW will often write in their articles and promotion material that they are "the" Socialist Party…and we are countering by emphasising that we are "The" Socialist Party…I think the man and the woman in the street would rightly not appreciate the difference. Actually to be even more pedantic…aren't we simply "a socialist party"…(all small letters) in the context of the wider world socialist movement or what will become so. In some of my longer blog posts, i endeavour to use all three common usage terms for ourselves…the full name at first …the Socialist Party of Great Britain, then the abbreviation, the SPGB, and then the Socialist Party (i rarely capitalise the) and hopefully if the blog topic is appropriate i also get the opportunity to call ourselves the World Socialist Movement (or WSM). I think we can have our cake and eat it and use all the titles. We have precedents for changing our name…the Workers Socialist Party of the United States became the World Socialist Party (WSPUS) and the Socialist Party of Australia becam the World Socialist Party of Australia… the Irish and the New Zealand comrades adopted the 'World" because there already existed a local "Socialist Party" when they were set up. Like ourselves, the Socialist Party of Canada endeavours to protect their historic legacy by retaining , having returned to the name of the SPC after it broke up and then was re-constituted. Some critics will claim the old and present SPCs are not the same but we will counter that they do indeed share the same tradition, history and principles. I think what we have to decide…are we a party more concerned with our past….or a party for the future…If the latter then i suggest we can dump some of our old baggage and seek a new identity…if we choose to opt to base our politics on our history, this means a completely new way of presentation…and can be formulated in the slogan…"back to the future" or "return to the future" or whatever…in some ways we try to explain the importance of socialism by exactly that…expounding on "primitive communism", countering human nature arguments by emphasising our communal past. I'm not saying we MUST change our name…Or that it is IMPERATIVE that we do. Only saying we have to (as we have done before) discuss the pros and cons of re-branding our organisation every several years. As Andrew Neil said we are what it says on the tin…some suggest that we add qualifiers…"natural, organic, wholesome" to the label…well, at least "world." Apologies for off-topic…i won't respond here to any replies to the above, moderator.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
I recall the best public place for placing stickers are …toilets…You stand at a urinal, making sure your gaze doesn't stray sideways, staring at the wall, reading the VD hospital contact info and the hygene advice to wash hands afterwards….A sticker is always guaranteed to be read in such locations…every single word of it to the last drip and final shake.
Steve, i read a few pages that were available online of your book link. My question for you is a simple one. Why do you think it necessary to create such an elaborate construct for what is a fairly basic problem.I am always for the premise that simpler is better. In the history of humankind the prevailing society was based upon a very simple model…we worked producing what we needed cooperatively for no personal reward other than the respect and esteem of our peers and we shared what we produced for no gain. This was the way we lived for tens of thousands of years. The principle "from each according to ability to each according to need" was practiced in daily life among communities around the globe. It was for everybody's mutual survival and it worked. The development of agriculture and private property gradually ended that style of living (but even then it took centuries and still has not totally made The Commons disappear.)Socialists seek to re-establish this voluntarist association of producers, albeit understanding the numbers involved have grown incredibly but so has the technology developed immensely. There is nothing complicated really about making socialism practical and feasible…and it needn't be founded on scarcity or austerity…Even taking into account the environmental impact and the requirement to minimise affecting the eco-systems and maintaining their sustainability, we can produce abundance for everybody in the world. That is a scientific fact…not political opinion. All it needs for all this to come about is for people to have the confidence and trust in themselves that they can share and live in solidarity with one another. Socialists believe people can and cite history and anthropology and other social sciences to say it is possible. This maybe where you can justifiably charge that ours is mere opinion and differ with us but it is also incumbent upon you to try and prove your counter-claim. So you see, Steve, our position is that we cannot see the need or purpose for any artificial medium such as being proposed by a conflated multi-currency system to run a socialist society. This is what i think you will have to spell out for us in easy understood terms. Why is Bitcoin or similar required? What's it purpose? What is it a substitute for? To sum up, just why do we need it?
Once more nail in the coffin of the co-op "ethics"The co-operative group famed for its commitment to Fairtrade has told its members it will be unable to continue its pledge to stock the products because fierce supermarket competition makes it economically unviable.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/19/co-op-group-competition-means-we-cannot-fully-commit-to-fairtradeI'm not surprised since the co-op is now headed by ex-Royal Mail boss Allan Leighton who contributed prominently to the demise of any community role of the post office when i worked for them.
