[ALB]

Interesting, and perhaps revealing, speculation in the papers a couple of days ago. Because a Leave vote would be a vote simply to "leave" the EU and not do anything else (not even "regain control of our borders") and as Parliament has a large pro-EU majority, Parliament might decide to do just the minimum, i.e withdraw from the EU's political institution but remain in the single market on the same terms as Norway even if this means paying something to the EU and allowing the free movement of labour (as Norway does and has to).  If this happens, it really will all have been a fuss about nothing.This, incidentally, is why a referendum is not necessarily the best way to make a decision. There are rarely only two choices.

[ALB]

That's the wrong link. I think you must have meant this:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/dictatorship-of-proletariat-1979.html

[ALB]

Someone has drawn our attention to this week's podcast by the New Economics Foundation on "Fully Automated Luxury Communism".No "Von Mises was right" crap here. It also has some relevance to other threads here too, eg moneyfree, basic income.

[ALB]

KAZ wrote:

He's a clever old boy, ALB, ain't he? Ye ramble on for days (both of ye buggers are wrong incidentally) and he pokes in something to stop ye dead!

That wasn't me. It was Robbo. Anyway who are the buggers thou sayeth are wrong?

[ALB]

According to a short repoer on this in today's Times

Quote:

Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.

The things they say.

[ALB]

I see that Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected this useless reform — useless because unnecessary in socialism and unworkable in capitalism (or, rather, would work in an unintended and not necessarily beneficial way). Even as reforms go, free services would be better:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36454060

[ALB]

Found that quote from Dawkins. It wasn't in a note to the first edition but in the text of the opening chapter and retained in later editions:

Quote:

The individual-selectionist would admit that groups do indeed die out, and that whether or not a group goes extinct may be influenced by the behaviour of the individuals in that group. He might even admit that if only the individuals in a group had the gift of foresight they could see that in the long run their own best interests lay in restraining their selfish greed, to prevent the destruction of the whole group. How many times must this have been said in recent years to the working people of Britain? (emphasis added)

It is in the endnotes to the 1989 edition that he explains:

Quote:

I must add that the occasional political asides in this chapter make uncomfortable rereading for me in 1989. 'How many times must this [the need to restrain selfish greed to prevent the destruction of the whole group] have been said in recent years to the working people of Britain?' (p. makes me sound like a Tory! In 1975, when it was written, a socialist government which I had helped to vote in was battling desperately against 23 per cent inflation, and was obviously concerned about high wage claims. My remark could have been taken from a speech by any Labour minister of the time. Now that Britain has a government of the new right, which has elevated meanness and selfishness to the status of ideology, my words seem to have acquired a kind of nastiness by association, which I regret. It is not that I take back what I said. Selfish short-sightedness still has the undesirable con­sequences that I mentioned. But nowadays, if one were seeking examples of selfish short-sightedness in Britain, one would not look first at the working class.(emphasis added)

[ALB]

Thanks.[Edit]Forgot to add that we know Lord Desai and he knows us as we debated him in January 1994 on "Which Way to End Poverty?" Can't remember if he was making the point at that time that we have to put up with capitalism (and poverty) till it is "fully developed".

[ALB]

You don't have to discuss with me but I thought you might have had the politeness to discuss with the others who have shown an interest in and commented on your ideas rather than dismissing them by saying haven't got the time.

[ALB]

Then why should we bother to discuss your idea? But it does mean that I don't need to finish ploughing through that interview to try and understand what you're trying to get at. I suspended my reading about a quarter through because up to then most of it came across as pretentious waffle and name dropping.

[ALB]

Here's our review of Desai's book:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1179-november-2002/book-reviewsand what it said on this issue:

Quote:

According to Desai, Marx argued that socialism could only be successfully established when society's productive capacity had been fully developed under capitalism. This was certainly not the case in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Desai, however, maintains that capitalism is still far from having reached its potential. Although, he entertains the possibility of genuine Marxian Socialism, he relegates it to a distant future.

In the meantime, while waiting for capitalism to fully develop, Desai sits in the House of Lords for the Labour Party.But capitalism is already developed enough, and has been for many years, for society to go over to a classless world society based on the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, with production for use not profit and distribution on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

[ALB]

We did mention "the abolition of money" in the early days, as in this article the July 1913 Socialist Standard:

Quote:

With the abolition of private property, wages, and money, it will be very easy to assure that each person shall perform his or her share of the necessary labour of production, and the "problem" of distribution then would be no problem at all — as we shall see in a future contribution.

And there's this article from May 1910 entitled "Tariff Reform, Free Trade or No Trade? The fiscal fraud exposed" which ends:

Quote:

Economic development has made trade an anachronism, and the next step in social evolution, that is Socialism, means a system where trade “free” or “protected”, is rendered impossible by the fact of the common ownership of the means of wealth production. Socialism therefore – a society wherein we have the free and equal association of the wealth producers, operating the means of production they commonly own, making everything for use and for use alone – is the next stage in social progress. Onward! Speed the day!

This article from 1934 makes it quite clear that, in our view,  socialism involves the disappearance of money:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1934/no-354-february-1934/money-business

[ALB]

Nearly all currency cranks (except for those who want to go back to the gold standard) are underconsumptionists, on the basis of varying theories, and so propose the state printing more money (claims on wealth) to overcome the chronic shortage of purchasing power they believe is built-in to the existing economic system. It's not just Major Douglas and Social Credit.Here's John Keracher on the "money bugs" (the US word for currency crank) of his day (mid-1930s) in his Economics for Beginners:

Quote:

In some parts of Michigan and Indiana, the “Direct Credits” movement has kindled a new flame in the old bimetal lamp and is attracting quite a few money bugs. Direct Credit for Everybody is the title of a small book, chock-full of economic errors, the author of which is one Alfred Lawson, who modestly tells his readers that his book “is as close to the truth as it is possible for the human mind to make it.”This Lawson is the pole star of the “Direct Credits” movement which aims to abolish interest and leave rent and direct profits. This is to be achieved by the government printing unlimited quantities of currency and providing without interest “direct credits for everybody.” Lawson conceives of money as being nothing but a government stamp, anyway. In some of the western states a similar movement calls itself “Social Credits.” The “Liberal Party” is another small group, led by “Coin” Harvey, which aims to remedy all social ills by reforming the monetary system.

I'm not sure if helicopters existed in those days but the idea of money from heaven did..

[ALB]

Michael Tom West wrote:

SPGB's position : Neither be part of a European imperialist bloc nor become an offshore centre for usury capital under the umbrella of US imperialism and to expose this with an "active boycott"

For the record this is the RCG's formulation not that of the SPGB, although our position is clear enough as you say: don't take sides. See:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1342-june-2016/problem-not-eu-%E2%80%A6-it%E2%80%99s-capitalism

[ALB]

How naive can you get? Hand out free money to everyone and expect this to have no effect on either wages or prices. And this is just plain wrong:

Quote:

The bankers haven’t raised much interest here but they are the elephant in the room. One which British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn recognized with his proposal of a “People’s Quantitative Easing” in which the Bank of England would channel new money directly to citizens, not leave it up to the banks to do with as they please. In other words: take the control of money away from the banks, and in doing so, alleviate poverty and create a multiplier effect on job creation.

I don't think Corbyn promised that the Bank of England should "channel new money directly to citizens", did he, only directly to the government. He may be an old-fashioned leftwing Keynesian reformist, but he's not a currency crank.

[Author]

Posts