ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Im not entirely convinced that the distinction between primate and human behaviour is quite as cut and dried as it may seem. Frans de Waal's work is quite seminal in this regard – books such as Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (2007) and Chimpanzee Cultures (1994)
The trouble with arguing from the cooperative behaviour of other animals to try to show that humans can be too (as Kropotkin pioneered in Mutual Aid) is that those who argue that socialism won't work because humans are innately aggressive, etc can also apply the same argument to back up their case.Of course other animals do behave cooperatively and that's part of their "nature" (and we can use that to counter those who claim that all nature is red in tooth and claw). But human behaviour is very different because nearly all of it is learned from the human-made environment. Human behaviour is flexible and adaptable in a way that no other animal's is. We are unique and the behaviour pattern of other animals is irrelevant when it comes to what we are capable of.
I agree it is possible to have a moneyless class society with a state (a number have existed in the past) but not that it is possible to have a moneyless capitalist society (a cashless one perhaps, but that's not the same).Capitalism is a buying and selling society in which the human ability to work is bought and sold and results in the capitalist firms that employ them appropriating a surplus from their work, a surplus which takes a monetary form and most of which is re-invested as more capital. A society which exploited the producers but where the surplus extracted from them did not take this form would still be an exploitative class society but not capitalism
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Because Sociologist who study primates tell us humans have the abiity to behave in ways primates behave.Of course we have and a lot more other ways too. But the point is that they can't behave in the ways we can and do.
I hadn't realised this before but the write-in vote tactic is allowed in the US and has been successdully applied in an election to the US Senate as recently as 201). See here.So, in advocating it we are not advocating something completely outlandish. It's a legitimate election tactic under certain circumstances. Of course in Britain it would be counted only as a spoilt ballot paper. Nevertheless.
Osama Jafar wrote:What happened in Russia is party state capitalism, but what SPGB propose is workers state capitalism the highest & Rudest Stages of capitalism which we are already in.Thanks for you all, i have no further addition.You can't make an outrageous suggestion like that and then refuse to discuss it or try to back it up. Needless to say, we don't stand for any kind of state capitalism which is just the management of the wages system and capital accumulation by state officials. I thought you accepted that we stood for a
Osama Jafar wrote:* could be over night find yourself in moneyless, stateless majority led society?How can there be state capitalism without a state and capitalism without money?
Osama Jafar wrote:The HOW to get has a broad arsenal of options; for example, like marx i support wining political control even with a minority; but even that need real socialist by character at least, & that what i ment not just seting communs though that communs was a valuabe experience.Winning political control "with a minority" won't lead to socialism either (it wasn't Marx's view and it's not ours).If we credit them with really wanting socialism, this was the view of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and people like Castro and Che Guevera: a minority who want socialism seize power and then use it to try to educate the rest of the population into becoming socialists. It didn't work out like that as in the meantime the minority in control of political power has to ensure that production keeps going and, without the conditions for socialism, this can only be on the basis of capitalism — extracting a surplus from the working population who are paid wages. In the end in Russia (perhaps not so much in Cuba) the minority emerges as a new privileged, ruling class. No, the only way to socialism is through the democratic political action of a majority of socialist-minded workers.As to communes, we don't have any objection to people going and living on one if they want. It's one way to survive under capitalism. But you don't have to live on one to be a socialist (and living on one doesn't make you socialist).
Why are we talking about the behaviour of chimps, baboons, etc when what distinguishes humans from these and other animals is that our behaviour, including sexual behaviour, is not just governed by biology but is overwhelmingly culturally-determined? We have a wide range of possible behaviours. They don't.
I wonder when they are going to release any files on any of our members or are/were these files only kept by the ordinary police.
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).
