[ALB]

You mean you did on those 4 or 5 threads ! So the jury is still out on the "conspiracy theory".

[ALB]

Except that it happened yesterday on 4 or 5 General Discussion threads all within 5 minutes of each other at around 6pm yesterday,  which Ponzi is not or cannot have been on (one has the last contribution in 2015).

[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 These would correspond to the list of (now completely outdated of course)  immediate measures in the Communist Manifesto, i.e measures to be implemented once the battle of democracy had been won.It's where the movement has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. 

[ALB]

I couldn't open that but the idea of eliminating money was discussed by the Bolsheviks. Here's what Bukharin wrote in The ABC of Communism by him and Preobrazhensky:

Quote:

The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. 'How can that be?' some of you will ask. 'In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?' The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. 'But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?' Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.

But here's what Preobrazhensky, echoing Lenin's false distinction between communism and socialis (which Bukharin didn't make here), wrote in his part on "Money and the Dying-out of the monetary System":

Quote:

Communist society will know nothing of money. Every worker will produce goods for the general welfare. He will not receive any certificate to the effect that he has delivered the product to society; he will receive no money, that is to say. In like manner, he will pay no money to society when he receives whatever he requires from the common store. A very different state of affairs prevails in socialist society, which is inevitable as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Here money is needed, for it has a part to play in commodity economy.

In any event, the disappearance of money was discussed by the Bolsheviks in the early days after their coup.

[ALB]

IdPnSD wrote:

if you remove money from the present system, called central bank economy (CBE), it will immediately become MLE. There is no need to change anything.

We are not advocating the abolition of money as such but the establishment of a system of society, based von common ownership of the means of wealth production, which, among other things, will render money unnecessary and redundant. So we are not advocating just abolishing money and leaving everything else unchanged as you are advocating including private ownership of means of production, i.e in effect capitalism without money. That would cause chaos because capitalism could not function without money.To repeat, what we want is to replace class ownership of the means of production by common ownership by the whole community. Then money, along with wages, profits, interest, rent, etc become redundant and disappear.

[ALB]

This Canadian pilot project is not really about a universal basic income. It's about an unconditional basic income for people who would otherwise be on some other, means-tested state handout, i.e. it doesn't apply to everybody but only to those on below poverty line incomes. And although the payments won't be means-tested the recipients will be pre-selected on this basis. So, more a reform of the poor law than a step towards breaking the link between work and consumption. Which is the most "UBI" will amount to if it is ever implemented.

[ALB]

moderator1 wrote:

Granted at one time Pozzi was deliberately bumping his posts to advertise his link.  However, the last time he posted on that thread was 11/04/17 and it contained no advert.  The thread was then bumped up by Marcos on the 12/04/17.  

But why is it now showing that Marcos sent something today at 1.41pm when there's nothing there since 12.04.17?

Quote:

by mcolome124/04/2017 – 1:41pm

[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.

[ALB]

Looks as if we've attracted another one. Zeitgeist, for all its faults, is streaks ahead of this mystical mumbo jumbo.

[ALB]

We were in the Guildford High Street opposite Tunsgate Arch again today. A "town ranger" asked if we had permission from the council to hold a stall. We said we didn't need one and anyway this was election activity. She took a photo of a proof of who we were (a Party membership card) and said she would check with her boss. Nothing happened so presumably her boss understood the position. We were accosted again by god-botherers who told us that only Jesus could bring about what we wanted. We replied that he couldn't even if he existed (which he doesn't) as only humans can improve the only life they have, this one on Earth. A busker having a rest read our leaflet and told us he agreed with it, saying he knew about getting rid of money from Zeitgeist. Somebody bought a Socialist Standard. We will be back again on Mayday, Monday 1 May.

[ALB]

This is what happens if you don't send a photo. Mind you, in this case they didn't ask for one though they were sent our manifesto. Scroll down to Guildford West:http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-county-council-elections-who-12911967Here's a photo of the Labour's Party "radical", Corbynist manifesto (Guildford Labour Party supported his leadership bid). Actually that gives me an idea — I'll have a photo taken of me holding our logo.

[ALB]

I know Party opinion is divided on this but, as in previous elections, West London branch has not taken such a rigid attitude. We don't offer a photo or personal details of course, but if a paper asks for a photo we supply one, especially as a face (or, yes, an emblem if they'll accept it) draws attention to the text which otherwise might be lost amid statements from other candidates with a photo.

[ALB]

Interesting but Marx didn't reciprocate  (but then he was not writing an obituary), i.e he didn't think much of the Georgist panacea of a single tax on land values (still plugged today by some):http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/6420876

[ALB]

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2017/04/20/take-pick-guildford-divisions-candidate-lists-scc-election/Scroll down to Guildford West see the case in 125 words (and the face, of five years ago):

Quote:

I am standing to make the point that local problems arise from the economic system of production for profit that exists everywhere and that they cannot be solved unless this system is replaced by one based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. The main issue facing Surrey County Council is a lack of funds to provide decent care for the elderly and vulnerable but also to even keep the street lights on. Most of its funding comes from central government, and the “Great Recession” following the “Crash of 2008” required the government to cut back on its spending to relieve the pressure on profits. These cuts have now trickled down to local level. That’s why capitalism is to blame.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

We have been invited to participate in a 'Brexit' hustings in Guildford on Tuesday, 25 April at The Guildford Institute between 7.15 and 8.30pm.

News item about this in the online newspaper The Guildford Dragon here:http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2017/04/19/63382/

[Author]

Posts