ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Osama Jafar wrote:Thank you all, you may find me wrong if you clinged to words; i hope you focus on "positive" critic to come up with simple practical scientific plan to offer to public, & i think if this thread continued we may get to it.Can we begin with the zietgiest movement:I got the phrase positive critic some were & i liked it
The coming into being and spread of the Zeitgeist movement showed one of the points we have always made — that the growth of socialist ideas does not depend entirely on socialists spreading them, but they are thrown up by the capitalist system as they are the obvious solution. As far as we know, TZM came up with the idea of a moneyless, stateless world of abundance quite independently of people like us.So, this was a welcome development. The trouble is they are not at all clear as to how to get there. Our Summer School in Birmingham was on the theme of Money and, as they too stand for a money free society, we asked them to send a written contribution in answer to some questions we put to them. David Dann replied on their behalf. Here are the first three questions and his answers:
Quote:How do you erwisage a money-free society coming about? Spontaneous evolution? Gradual reform? Mass political action?Honestly, it's hard to say how the transition will unfold. A specific strategy can be planned but the economic, social, technological or even ecological climate can rapidly change, then that plan may not be viable any more. All we can do is average out various scenarios and act accordingly.Global social movement tactics would become critical to put pressure on the existing system, along with helping change the intents and values of the culture itself by vast education and communication projects. The culture needs to learn that we are all bound by the same natural laws; we either align our values and beliefs with these scientific understandings as they unfold, creating harmony, health and prosperity or we suffer the inevitable consequences.As technological unemployment will be increasing, creating parallel systems like mutual credit systems, time banks and community sharing systems would be needed. It would combat two things:It would help those who are in need, especially for those who have got skills but are poor, andas governments and corporations look the other way to the mounting problems,this will put pressure on them as it will create less money circulating in the economy.Do you see any place for electoral action in the struggle for a money-free society?Within the current electoral process there are two ways I look at this. If the majority doesn't vote (as a great amount already don't) then it could send a message to the government and the world the lack of confidence the public has in this system, which in turn could lead people to be more open to the idea of a different system. But on the other hand, if someone running for office could greatly help facilitate a big positive change like unconditional basic income or reduction of the working week or the country running on 100% clean renewable energy, then one could say that there may be some merit to it. We can't rely on electorates, as the self-preservation mechanisms of profit and growth of the market system stop any real structural change from happening but we should do whatever we can.Referendums should be protected as they can act as a form of direct democracy even though they are guite minor in their outcomes.Why do many TZM members and supporters seem to see banking and monetary reform as a move in the right direction? How can mending the money system be a step towards ending it?If we had debt forgiveness where it becomes obvious to the point where an individual or country cannot be tortured, it would take a lot of stress off people that is so desperately needed at the moment.Another intermediate step, which might be possible, is to create a currency not based on debt if we used technology to track its value, not based on floating exchanges but actually attribute it to the value of goods produced. So with an advanced tracking system it would possibly enable a position where it's less necessary to have money because it could make all the calculations and feedback, which would increase efficiency.A big disappointing really.
Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854
The latest issue of Kittens mentioned in the Announcements section here contains a definitive criticism of the Universal Basic Income reform from a Marxist perspective:https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/Here's an extract where thet criticise the position of "post-autonomist Marxists" who campaign for this reform:
Quote:In the name of realism these radical supporters of a Universal Basic Income want to end capitalism while presupposing its continued existence. If people are free from any compulsion to work for a capitalist company, this would destroy the capitalist mode of production. This, after all, relies on the workers to produce the products which are turned into profits. It also relies on the exclusion of workers from these products so that they can become profits. However, at the same time, the same supporters also ask the same capitalist firms to produce the profits to pay for freedom from them in the form of a Universal Basic Income. They want both: the continued existence — for now — of the capitalist mode of production where the reproduction of each and everyone is subjugated to profit and the end of this subjugation by providing everyone with what they need. They want companies to make profits, which relies on and produces the poverty of workers, while at the same time ending mass poverty. They want to maintain the exclusion from social wealth through the institution of private property and end this exclusion by giving everyone enough money.Not possible of course.
After their definitive demolition of the Bitcoin reform, in their latest issue they demolish the Universal Basic Income reform:https://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/I'll mention this on the thread here on it.
He's resurfaced again. Here he is talking (eventually) about "communism" though the interviewer seems to have a clearer grasp of what it is (and isn't)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc5Vuucx640
Actually, that's not the exact wording of the floor resolution carried at ADM. It's:
Quote:“This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen.”It was carried 8 votes for, 2 votes against, with 3 abstentions.As you say, it's not binding, i.e is only a recommendation not an instruction. However, there is a Conference Resolution (from 1986) stating that if an EC decides not to follow a floor resolution they have to explain why to the Party:
Quote:This Conference affirms that although Autumn Delegate Meeting recommendations are not necessarily binding on the EC, they are more representative of Party opinion than EC resolutions. Therefore the EC should take cognisance of such recommendations and give reasons for its failure to put such recommendations into effect.I would add that, as someone who was present, my impression was that the mood of the meeting was that it was the "indefinite" rather than the suspension itself that was considered to be unfair.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:What about passing a single law that said corporations and business were not people legally (in the USA that means overturning citizens united, AFAIK).and didn't have the rights of people. this is something that might pass in the US, and people keep keep trying).This would be tantamount to abolishing limited liability. Capitalism used to exist without this (until the middle of the 19th century), which meant that capitalists were only individual persons or partnerships of persons who were wholly liable for their business's debts. If it went bankrupt they lost everything including their homes, their personal possessions and savings and could end up in a debtors prison. Then capitalists really were risk-takers !Capitalism today could not exist without limited liability companies because of the growth of the amount of capital needed for a capitalist enterprise (as Marx writing at the time saw and saw would continue), which shows that the individual private capitalist has become functionally redundant (as Marx also pointed out).But it also shows that a capitalist company or corporation is a legal construct. Anarchists and other "direct actionists" don't realise this and advocate taking and holding workplaces while these constructs still have the backing of the state. They seem to think that capitalists possess means of production in the same way that they possess their clothes and their tooth brushes and that all that needs to be done is to organise and use brute force to take these off them.Socialists are more realistic (and more direct). We advocate winning control of political power (through elections) and using it to end the legal status of these corporations. Then they no longer have the protection of the state and in fact no longer exist. As YMS points out, then there is no obstacle to the socialist-minded worker majority taking possession of the workplaces that formerly belonged to the corporations.
To play along too. Declare all stocks and shares, bills and bonds, property titles and incorporations of companies null and void. The state would then no longer uphold the basis of capitalism and productive resources would become the common heritage of all. That would be the end of capitalism and the beginning of socialism. But of course it would require majority understanding and participation to bring about. It couldn't just be imposed by a minority, however well-meaning.
You haven't really done that, have you Vin? I hope not as it would be completely irresponsible from the Party's point of view. It would be like a member caught fly-posting and disowned by the EC insisting to the authorities that they did have Party authorisation. Besides, the facts are wrong. Only the first 3 on your list are from the BBC, 2 are from another TV channel, 2 others are not from TV channels and nobody will be able to guess where the last one came from. If you have approached the BBC please don't make things worse by approaching Channel 4 too.
Here's something on this from our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?:
Quote:Because MPs themselves say they are representatives and not delegates, some anarchists have felt compelled to draw a rigid distinction between “representation” and “delegation”: “In a democracy it is natural that we will appoint people to do certain things – this is a vital division of labour that must be used. But this appointment should be on the basis of delegation not representation. Delegates unlike representatives are subject to recall (if they don’t do what they were asked to do by the assembly, they can be relieved of their mandate and their actions reversed)” (Parliament or Democracy?, p. 41). “…delegate democracy . . . strongly contrasts with representative democracy (such as Parliament) where, an MP having been elected, he/she then takes decisions on personal, party and ultimately ruling-class grounds, with little reference to the working-class part of the electorate” (Anarchist Federation, Against Parliament. For Anarchism, 2000 edition, p. 54). This is broadly a valid distinction, but it is a distinction rather between accountable and non-accountable representatives. It seems an over-narrow definition of “delegate” to say it is someone given a single specific mandate; this may be the case in some instances but we don’t see why delegates need to refer back to those who mandated them for every decision – that would be as unworkable as direct democracy without any delegation.So, what do you understand by "delegate" in the term "participatory delegate democracy" that you introduced?
lindanesocialist wrote:But the SPGB cant be charged for the Intro Video as it was disowned by the EC.Lucky they did it then, like we used to disown, for the record, members caught bill-posting
I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but someone has posted in another section here that the BBC are charging £1000 for every minute of material from their archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/dennis-skinner-filmDon't know if it's the case. Hope not.
