ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps “suggests” was a bit too strong; “doesn’t rule out” might have been better.
Cohen’s theory doesn’t rule out socialism either but, by abandoning the concept of “value” (which only exists when there is buying and selling), it leaves open — and provides a justification for — that what could be envisaged is workers control in a market economy; what might be called “workers control of value”. The contradiction in terms that is “market socialism”.That 2022 article sets out GA Cohen’s argument that you don’t need the concept of “value” to explain how workers are exploited. At one level this is true. In a society where those who don’t work live in luxury while those who do just get by, it is obvious that the latter are exploited by the former. You don’t need any theory to tell you that. But you do need one to explain how and how to end it.
Cohen’s theory is basically that the workers are exploited because what they produce is not controlled by them but undemocratically by some minority. This suggests that the way to end this is for workers to have democratic control over what they produce. It provides a theoretical justification for “workers control” — but of what? Of what is produced for sale. The way out is workers’ cooperatives producing for a market not socialism.
The Labour Theory of Value introduces the concept of “value” as the form wealth takes in a society producing goods and services for sale. Value expresses itself as exchange value (price) and so is tied the fact that articles of wealth are produced to be bought and sold. Exploitation results from the fact that the wealth workers produce as value belongs to the employer as part of the class of those who own the means of production. Part of this value is given back to the workers as their wages; the other part is kept by their employer as “surplus value” which economic forces subsequently divide into profit, interest and ground rent.
You can’t properly explain how capitalism works without a concept of “value”, as the form wealth takes when it is produced for sale. And it leads to the conclusion that value will exist as long as goods are produced for sale.
So, in Cohen’s scheme, workers would still be producing value and still be forced by the operation of the law of value to allocate part of it to accumulate as more capital. They would be democratically exploiting themselves.
The Marxian version of the Labour Theory of Value leads to a different conclusion — to socialism as the common ownership of the means of production and their (democratically controlled) use to produce to directly meet people’s needs. Production directly for use replaces production for sale with a view to profit. Wealth ceases to take the form of value and “value”, and so “surplus value”, disappears.
Here is our candidates comment on the Brixton Buzz report of that meeting:
“As the Socialist Party candidate for Brixton North, I was at this meeting. It’s ironic that while the night was billed as “breaking free” from party political shackles, our members were banned from leafleting those going in. Apparently, “freedom” only extends to those willing to play the tactical voting game.
While Brixton Buzz readers might see the photo of Ruby from Shake It Up with Andrew Feinstein as a sign of radical change, we see it as more of the same. Groups like Shake It Up and Roger Hallam aren’t offering a way out—they are just another attempt to manage capitalism instead of getting rid of it.
On Palestine: We reject nationalist solutions. Our position on Israel-Palestine is based on class solidarity, not supporting one state over another. We want a world without borders, not new ones.
The Alternative: We aren’t interested in “shaking up” a failing system or “tactical” deals with reformists. We advocate for common ownership and a world without the wages system, money, or states.
If you’re tired of “poxy party political games” and want a genuine socialist alternative that doesn’t silence dissenting voices at its own front door, come and find the Socialist Party (GB)
YFS Ana Krycek for Brixton North”.In the meantime pre-election leafletting has begin in the other ward we will be contesting in Lambeth, Clapham Common & Abbeville.
There is a short piece in this month’s Socialist Standard on the Labour Theory of Value:
Local media report on the meeting:
Jewish Voices drop Labour as anti-apartheid veteran backs Lambeth tactical voting
The person next to Andrew Feinstein is Ruby Bukhari who is standing a candidate for Roger Hallam’s group of “independents” calling itself “Shake It Up”. Which may be a clue as to who might be behind “Vote Palestine 2026”.
Here is SPEW’s position on this May’s local elections:
““This May TUSC has agreed that we will not be standing against Your Party candidates and, if there are Green councillors or candidates who sign the trade union petition to Zack Polanski, we will not stand in competition with them too. We can’t know in advance what position Zack will take on the petition’s call – we would very much welcome the Green Party throwing its councillors into the battle against austerity but that will very probably not be his stance – but if a prospective Green candidate is prepared to sign the petition that’s a better indication that they might resist the pressure for cuts from the council officers (and their less determined fellow councillors) than any amount of verbal ‘opposition’ to austerity in general.
“Of course, it is true that petitioning Green and Your Party candidates to take a stand is not the same as trade unions having their own candidates running, directly subject to the democratic accountability of the union members. It puts the working class and its organisations in a similar position to where we were at the end of the 19th century, without a party of our own and seeking out individual ‘friends of labour’ to articulate workers’ interests.
“That’s why TUSC will be stepping up its support for the campaign in the trade unions for them to take the necessary measures to establish their own political voice; including by encouraging as many trade unionists, socialists and working-class community candidates as possible to stand in May’s elections – alongside Your Party and genuine anti-austerity Greens”.
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/147421/04-02-2026/greens-must-pledge-no-cuts-to-services/
Like the accompanying picture of what the Greens stand for — “We have a plan” and “Fair Taxation now”.
Three branch members leafletted a meeting in Brixton (in one of the wards we are contesting) of an organisation called “Vote Palestine 2026”. Near the time when the meeting was due to start we are asked by one of the organisers to stop leafletting as, she said, all other parties which might be contesting had agreed not to. Not wanting to create an incident with Palestine Solidarity Campaign we stopped and went into the meeting.
We wished we hadn’t agreed to stop leafletting as it turned out that, although the PSC agreed with “Vote Palestine”, they weren’t the organisers themselves. Under the “Vote Palestine” plan candidates are to be asked to sign a pledge to support “self-determination for Palestine” and, in particular, to get the council not to invest its pension fund in companies helping Israel. “Vote Palestine” would then campaign for those who signed the pledge and against those who didn’t. The basic aim seemed to be to kick the ruling Labour Party in Lambeth out of office. According to their leaflet:
“Lambeth Council continues to funnel our pension funds into the genocide in Gaza. Meanwhile, Lambeth public services are chronically underfunded. This May 2026 election, we’re voting in councillors that invest in Lambeth instead of investing in genocide!”
This is either confused or populist demagoguery. The money in question is that paid by the council as employer and by its employees into a fund to provide pensions for them. While the council could decide not to invest in firms helping Israel they cannot use the money to fund council services. If they did, the council’s employees would be up in arms protesting about money set aside for their pensions being used for some other purpose. This would be unlawful anyway and any candidate promising this, or accepting support from people who are, will not be able to do this.
One of the speakers at the meeting was Andrew Feinstein, the former ANC MP in South Africa, who stood against Starmer at the last election and who has been involved in setting up the Your Party. He revealed that in Camden, the Camden Peoples Alliance and the Greens had reached an electoral agreement not to oppose each other, but, in multi-councillors wards (as all wards are in London boroughs), for example in two-councillor wards, to each put up one candidate in the expectation that supporters of both parties would cast one of their votes for each of them.
The Greens in Lambeth will probably make a similar deal with YP supporters here who are calling themselves the “Lambeth Independent Socialists”. The situation in Lambeth is complicated by another group of anti-Labour “independents” organised by Roger Hallam, of Just Stop Oil notoriety, seeking to stand candidates. The Greens may do a deal with them too. They certainly want to do a deal with the Greens.
There is also this from last year:
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2025/04/cooking-books-guns-before-butter-2025.html
Body “fascism”! And there are some people here who think that “fascism” has some meaning outside its specific historical context. There must be a better term to describe what you have in mind. Anyway it’s not a term we should encourage being used.
It’s more convoluted than that. The YP Conference voted down a motion for an absolute ban on being a member of another party in favour of :
“Members shall be permitted to hold membership in other national political parties where they have been approved by the CEC as aligning with the Party’s values, to include those with whom the Party cooperates electorally. The approved list shall be subject to ongoing CEC review and annual ratification by National Conference.”
The argument against Nellist’s candidature is that his party (SPEW), in fact no party, can be covered by this because the CEC has not draw up an approved list.
A bit of a Catch 22 position perhaps, but Nellist (and many others) will have joined under false pretences as to join you had to declare that you were not a member of any other national political party. Nellist was probably expecting to be barred because he openly and prominently declared on his nomination that he was a member of SPEW.
There doesn’t seem to have been any move to expel the others who have dual membership, so they will have a vote in the CEC elections.
It’s going to depend on the composition of the CEC whether SPEWers will be allowed to stay in.
A whinge from SPEW about not being allowed free range to enter and recruit members from the Your Party:
This article by Michael Roberts is quite good on why Chavism failed. The price of oil fell.
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1568/their-days-were-numbered/
Just for the record, here is an idealised version of how Venezuela’s “socialism of the 21st century” is meant to be a peaceful transition to “socialism” based on popular, local communes:
Of course real power rests in the hands of the chavist political and military bureaucracy. But at least they are not Leninist and are not claiming to be Marxist.
One of the articles there, on the campaign for free transport in London, is by Simon Pirani, an ex-Trotskyist (WRP) who has written a couple of good books about how the workers fared under the Bolsheviks when Lenin was still alive. Here’s his free transport article:
https://theecologist.org/2024/mar/19/fair-free-fares-london
And our reviews of his books:
Book Reviews: ‘Armed Madhouse’, ‘The Shock Doctrine’, & ‘The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24’
