ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Osama Jafar wrote:The problem of marx is that he was more commeted to his findings (which are obvious) than society, & that is a drawback for him & for SPGP.over night socialism with or without majority wont happen, the proper road is to begin practicing socialism whatever small in level & number its society is. So SPGB isnt SOCIALIST TOO; SPGB is catching well the idea of what socialism is?!. what i propose isnt utopianism or reformist; its transformationism! & practicism!.
This is an argument about how to get to socialism which has been going on since Marx's day (and before): between those who emphasised the need to win control of political power to bring about society-wide social change (who included Marx) and those who were in favour of setting up socialist/communist communities outside the capitalist economy which would eventually spread until they became the new society (an idea associated with people like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier).The trouble with the second position is that you cannot escape from capitalist society. Most of the socialist colonies set up in Marx's day failed. So have those since. Those that haven't failed, such as the kibbutzim is Israel, have adapted to capitalism, selling their products on the market and employing outside wage-labour. In any event, establishing socialism involves establishing social control over the big industrial means of productions (factories, railways, etc) which can never be taken over by socialist colonies or outcompeted by them.The only way to socialism is via a socialist-minbded majority winning control of political power. Once this majority has come to exist socialism can be established very quickly. What cannot happen "over night" is the emergence of that majority. That's what takes time.
Osama Jafar wrote:* could parties that arent socialist (member by member) convect socialism & itd experience?We don't think so. That is why we only admit to membership of our party those who inderstand what socialism is (a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production) and why we campaign only for socialism and not for any reforms to present-day, capitalist society of minority ownership and production for profit. If we didn't do either of these things we would end up as just another party out to reform capitalism and be of no use for furthering the cause of socialism.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:p.s. do you know of any way to remove this topic entirely and change the headline?Only the administrators can do that (e.g move to off topic or rubbish) but you can use the edit facility to delete the content of all the posts you sent.
1. Why would anybody want to hoard anything when they could always get what they needed when they needed it. It wouldn't make sense. George Jackson put the case against the likelihood of hoarding in conditions of abundance and free access in one of the letters published is Soledad Brother:
Quote:Consider the people's store, after full automation, the implementation of the theory of economic advantage. You dig, no waste makers, nor harnesses on production. There is no intermediary, no money. The store, it stocks everything that the body or home could possibly use. Why won't the people hoard, how is an operation like that possible, how could the storing place keep its stores if its stock (merchandise) is free?Men hoard against want, need, don't they? Aren't they taught that tomorrow holds terror, pile up a surplus against this terror, be greedy and possessive if you want to succeed in this insecure world? Nuts hidden away for tomorrow's Winter.Change the environment, educate the man, he'll change. The people's store will work as long as people know that it will be there, and have in abundance the things they need and want (really want); when they are positive that the common effort has and will always produce an abundance, they won't bother to take home more than they need.Water is free, do people drink more than they need?2.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Doesn't signal the amount of demand. One person might really really want a toaster they'll use everyday and another person might just think a toaster looks nice and they'll use it once a year.That could happen now, under the capitalist buying and selling system where you have to pay for a toaster, and no doubt does. You've suddenly changed the definition of "demand" from "paying demand" (what economists cynically call "effective" demand) to meaning what people need (which of course is a secondary consideration under capitalism). Both money and what people take can be signals as to what to produce but of course with money the amount signalled to produce will be less as most people's "effective demand" is rationed by the amount of their wages or salary.
John McDonnell also played to the home crowd but then he's a Scouser himself. The trouble he has a rather limited imagination:
Quote:In the birthplace of John Lennon, it falls to us to inspire people to imagine.Imagine the society that we can create. It's a society that's radically transformed, radically fairer, more equal and more democratic. Yes, based upon a prosperous economy but an economy that's economically and environmentally sustainable and where that prosperity is shared by all.That's our vision to rebuild and transform Britain.In this party you no longer have to whisper it, it's called Socialism.Still not convinced that the only possible Socialist position in all referendums is to write SOCIALISM or WORLD SOCIALISM across the ballot paper. It is possible to conceive of some referendums where a different position could be adopted, at least by individual members if not by the party.On the question of abstention or write-in vote, one reason for the latter is to show that we value the existence of the ballot as a means for the working class, when socialist, to win control of political power for socialism. Abstention on principle is more for anarchists who don't think this. Also in Australia voting is compulsory. No need to risk having to make a donation to the state for abstaining (though I'm not sure that people there are actually prosecuted for not voting).
Meanwhile just heard Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, proclaim:
Quote:Capitalism, comrades, is not the enemy.That's a more accurate and honest statement of the Labour Party's position.
Of course it's a gesture but the purpose is not to convert the vote counters. What's important is that, in saying during elkection times that we're going to do this, we are making the political point that we reject all the parties on offer because they all support capitalism in one form or another. (Actually, in practice, I suspect that many of our Party members don't do this. They simply abstain. ) But what are you suggesting we do: vote for a so-called "lesser evil"? Or would you right something else on the ballot paper".You are really raising a broader question which we have often discussed and that is whether we should continue to describe ourselves as "socialist" and say we stand for "socialism". We're not likely to change this for all sorts of reason (including emotional) and, if we did, when we described what we do want, some people (more than you suggest) are going to say "ah, but isn't that socialism".The fact that some Labour leaders are now talking again about "socialism" works both ways. It confuses what "socialism" is but, like Bernie Sanders in America, allows us to get in on the debate by saying what socialism means or should mean. There's some mileage in us saying "oh no, McDonnell doesn't stand for socialism but state capitalism. Here's what socialism really means".
What do you propose that socialists write, then? Actually, we ought to discuss McDonnell's use of the word "socialism" on another thread.
This must be the passage from Engels that Pearce must have been referring to:
Quote:As men originally made their exit from the animal world—in the narrower sense of the term—so they made their entry into history: still half animal, brutal, still helpless in face of the forces of nature, still ignorant of their own strength; and consequently as poor as the animals and hardly more productive than they. There prevailed a certain equality in the conditions of existence, and for the heads of families also a kind of equality of social position—at least an absence of social classes — which continued among the primitive agricultural communities of the civilised peoples of a later period. In each such community there were from the beginning certain common interests the safeguarding of which had to be handed over to individuals, true, under the control of the community as a whole: adjudication of disputes; repression of abuse of authority by individuals; control of water supplies, especially in hot countries; and finally when conditions were still absolutely primitive, religious functions. Such offices are found in aboriginal communities of every period — in the oldest German marks and even today in India. They are naturally endowed with a certain measure of authority and are the beginnings of state power. The productive forces gradually increase; the increasing density of the population creates at one point common interests, at another conflicting interests, between the separate communities, whose grouping into larger units brings about in turn a new division of labour, the setting up of organs to safeguard common interests and combat conflicting interests. These organs which, if only because they represent the common interests of the whole group, hold a special position in relation to each individual community—in certain circumstances even one of opposition—soon make themselves still more independent, partly through heredity of functions, which comes about almost as a matter of course in a world where everything occurs spontaneously, and partly because they become increasingly indispensable owing to the growing number of conflicts with other groups. It is not necessary for us to examine here how this independence of social functions in relation to society increased with time until it developed into domination over society; how he who was originally the servant, where conditions were favourable, changed gradually into the lord; how this lord, depending on the conditions, emerged as an Oriental despot or satrap, the dynast of a Greek tribe, chieftain of a Celtic clan, and so on; to what extent he subsequently had recourse to force in the course of this transformation; and how finally the individual rulers united into a ruling class. Here we are only concerned with establishing the fact that the exercise of a social function was everywhere the basis of political supremacy; and further that political supremacy has existed for any length of time only when it discharged its social functions.It does not quite say what Pearce says but has more in common with what our pamphlet speculates about those carrying out a technical social functions evolving into a ruling class (as well).
It could only denote a "proto class". Anyway, I'm searching for what Engels actually did say.Here's how the section on 'The Emergence of Class Society' in Chapter 3 of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet speculates on how class society might have arisen from another once purely technical social role, storing surpluses once agricultural evolved (rather than defence):
Quote:The existence of a common store becomes another aspect of the society's material conditions of production and requires a social arrangement for managing this store – collecting and redistributing the surpluses. The usual arrangement seems to have been to confer this responsibility on a particular family. Arguments can go on as to whether being given this responsibility made the head of the family concerned "the chief" or whether this responsibility was conferred on a family whose head had already acquired this status for other reasons – perhaps military or religious. But the fact remains that this role of collecting and redistributing surpluses was one that had to be filled if all the members of the society were to be able to meet their basic needs as of right.The Emergence Of Class Society It is easy to imagine how over time this coordinating role in distribution could become a source of privileged consumption for the chief and his family. The duty to contribute any surplus products to the common storehouse could become a duty to contribute this to the chief, and the chief and his family could come to consume an excessive amount of the stores at the expense of redistributing them to those in need. This tendency for what was originally a necessary technical function to evolve into a social privilege would have been even more pronounced when the technical coordinating role concerned production rather than simply distribution, as was the case when large-scale irrigation works had to be managed so that agriculture could be practised. This was what happened with the agriculture that was practised, for instance, in the Nile, Euphrates and other river valleys.Your link to Pearce's article doesn't seem to work. This (hopefully) does:https://www.marxists.org/archive/pearce/2002/xx/asiaticmode.htmlI wonder if Engels was just making a point about a situation which eventually led on to the evolution of a state (as, presumably, armed bodies of men over and above the rest of society at the service of some minority)
Found another article on a referendum in Australia from Socialist Comment, in the May 1948 issue. Here's part of what it says:
Quote:Late this month we shall be asked to say "yes" or "no" to the question of the "Rents and Priccs— including Charges” amendment to section 51 of the Constitution.This is not because the Government has any respect for the opinion of the Working Class, (except on Polling Day!) but because no Government, Labor, Liberal, or Country Party, could make any alteration to the Constitution without the consent of the people by a direct democratic vote.Since we, the Working Class, are the majority of the people, both sides in this contest are frantic in their efforts to convince us that our interests depend on supporting their case.Quote:So much for the Parties in the limelight, and the reasons for their support or opposition to the amendment. But since we have a vote on this matter, how will it effect us, the Working Class?Quote:The choice before us boils down to this,—the possibiiity of inflation without controls, or the granting of constitutional powers to peg wages with controls tighter than those the Government has already.In other words, between scarlet fever and diphtheria!The Socialist will decide to have none of them, but will leave the master class, sections of which think they have something at stake, to fight it out with the help of those of the working class they can continue to fool.Those of us who recognize the contest for what it is will seize the opportunity to wrlte across our ticket, once again, the change we DO want, and will go on working for until we get it, SOCIALISM.So, the question of the socialist attitude to referendums has posed itself in practical terms before, and been answered on specific referendums.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:how do you decide how many toasters need to be produced without a market mechanism to signal demand and a reliance on central planning.If , as you seem to be proposing, this is signalled by the total number people buy using money, digital or not, why not judge this from how many people choose to take under conditions of free access , i.e why can't what people take be the signal of demand and so of what should be produced? That avoids both the market and central planning. It' would just be a question of stock control, and it is not as if enough toasters to supply everybody's need for them couldn't be produced.
