[ALB]

You're right. Had Marx drawn up a detailed model of how a socialist (or communist, the two words meant the same to him) society might have worked, it wouldn't be of much practical use today, just of historical interest .After all, he knew nothing of the internal combustion engine or radio let alone atomic power and electronic computers or anything electronic. In fact this was one reason why he always refused to draw up a blueprint for socialism or, as he put it, write recipes for the cook-shops of the future.So he limited himself to saying what the basis of such a society would be, i.e common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, production directly to satisfy human needs and not for the market and so the disappearance of money, profits, working for wages, banks, etc. And of course democratic control involving the election of councils to run things. See here.We take the same position, though we have gone into more detail in this pamphlet as to how society could organise the production and distribution of useful goods and services with having recourse to markets and money:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeEven this is outdated as it was first published in 1987 but have a read of it as it does deal with some of the questions you raise about how a moneyless society of abundance might work today.

[ALB]

I wonder whether, over this particularly vote, we shouldn't simply advocate abstention (ignoring) because the referendum is an irrelevant waste of time rather than our traditional practice of writing "WORLD SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Regarding the EU.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH21LEmfbQ

And this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqgGood for ordinary elections too.

[ALB]

One thing we do share with anarchists — or rather they share with us — is aiming for a society without a coercive government machine ruling over people (the State). We say this is only possible in a classless society based on the common ownership of productive resources. We envisage the State being replaced by an unarmed, democratically elected and controlled central, regional and local administration.Some anarchists want to get rid of the State directly by taking it on in a head-on collision or by an armed uprising. Here's the same group as Socialist Punk recommends on where this would lead them:https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22I+fought+the+law+and+the+law+won%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

[ALB]

I still think, from the journalist's wording itself, that it's a reference to a US paper, which he says linked to us in Britain. According to this, there was a Deleonist publication of that name, published by the Industrial Union Party:http://www.deleonism.org/text/pf000002.htmActually, their platform there is no too bad. I'm not quite sure of its relationship to the New Union Party (I think they merged or something) but here's something from the January 2001 issue of the NUP's then paper the New Unionist which might explain why someone might confuse them with us:

Quote:

The solution to money problems therefore has nothing to do with changing the way money works — and must work—in a capitalist system, but doing away with die need for money, which means doing away with capitalism.In an economic system owned by all the people we'd produce goods and services for our own use. Since we, as a community, would own the product of our labor there'd be no need to buy what already belonged to us. Goods and services would be distributed directly to individuals on the basis of need and the individual's contribution to the labor of society.Without exchange there would be no money, only a rational organization of production and distribution made possible by the abundance created by modern technology.

What Bernie (mis)understands by socialism is of course far removed from this. 

[ALB]

imposs1904 wrote:

 A barrowload of Hardy articles and book reviews:Link: Edgar Hardcastle

And here too: https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/index.htm

[ALB]

So the day to go fishing is Thursday 23 June. If we take part in the campaign I think we should concentrate on attacking those calling themselves socialists who are on the Leave side, for encouraging nationalism. Saw George Galloway on TV last night addressing a meeting of UKippers and League of Empire Loyalist types and raising a laugh by starting "Comrades and Friends".

[ALB]

I had a vague recollection of a breakaway from the De Leonist SLP of America publishing a magazine called "Socialist Republic" and thought I had a copy but couldn't find one. So I checked on the internet, which came up with this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_Socialist_ReconstructionIf this is what Bernie subscribed to, then the Torygraph is not all that wide of the mark because they'd be referring to another group ultimately derived from the same "Impossibilist" stable as us (though of course not having any connection with us).If that's what he subscribed to he could have done worse, e.g subscribed to some Trot rag.More on New Union Party here. Not bad except that they are dyed-in-the-wool Deleonists ("Socialist Industrial Unionists").

[ALB]

I think we should have a separate thread on the EU deal and referendum so I'm starting one.

[ALB]

I thought that oil and gas had to be involved somewhere in Turkey's opposition to Syria:http://www.naturalgasasia.com/turkey-kurds-in-duel-over-energy-17741After all, it couldn't just be Erdogan's desire to impose sharia law on Syria at the end of a bayonet.

[ALB]

G'day. Actually you are preaching to the converted. We have been advocated a moneyless world society of abundance before Peter Joseph and even Jacque Fresco were born !Here for instance is the blurb on the back of a booklet written by two of our sympathisers during the last World War:

Quote:

The new social system must be world-wide. It must be a WORLD COMMONWEALTH. The world must be regarded as one country and humanity as one people.All the people will co-operate to produce and distribute all the goods and services which are needed by mankind, each person, willingly and freely, taking part in the way he feels he can do best.All goods and services will be produced for use only, and having been produced, will be distributed, free, directly to the people so that each person's needs are fully satisfied.The land, factories, machines, mines, roads, railways, ships, and all those things which mankind needs to carry on producing the means of life, will belong to the whole of the people.

There's also this article from even further back:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1934/no-354-february-1934/money-businessAs to class, it wasn't meant as a criticism to say that TZM has eventually come round to recognising it. That's a good thing, though TZM seems to see the inevitable class struggle in a class-divided society as one social problm amongst many others. Whereas we see it as the motor and agent for changing from the capitalist wages-prices-money system to a classless, moneyfree society of production for use and distribution in accordance with the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to need". I should add that in our view the working class is not only those who work in factories but anybody compelled by economic necessity to try to sell their mental and physical skills to live, i.e the vast majority of the population. So by class struggle we mean this vast majority v the tiny minority who currently own and control the means of production and who benefit from this. Or if you like, nearly everybody v the oligarchs (Greek for the rule of the few).

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/crime-terrorism-and-tax-evasion-why-banks-are-waging-war-on-cash?CMP=twt_guPaul mason pedicts the end of cash, as a possible emergency government response to prompt investment:

Others have also speculated on the possibility of a "cashless society'':http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1318-june-2014/cooking-books-towards-cashless-society

[ALB]

That's as bad as the Trotskyites ! Some don't seem as bad as the others. For instance, the Ahmadists (slogan "Love for All, Hatred for None")  and the Ismailis (the Aga Khan's lot) seem relatively reasonable, at least in their everyday attitudes as do the Alawites (or Nusaryi as the Sunni sectarians like IS and Al Nusra call them before killing them). And then theres's the Sufists (who IS execute as witches). The Ismailis and Druze in Syria are also trembling in their boots at the prospect being ruled by bloodthirsty phoney Sunni caliph.It is a tragedy of history that the world's biggest oil reserves should be in an area controlled by a particulary obnoxious variety of Islam, the Wahbis of "Saudi" Arabia, providing them with a parasitical income to spread their intolerant doctrine into other Muslim areas. But it's in an area inhabited by Shiites, so expect trouble at some later point in (perhaps not so distant) history.I always thought, given what happens in Iran and Saudi Arabia, that the difference between Sunnis and Shiites (mustn't forget the second i), at least between their obscrurantist priests, was over who shall throw the first stone at an adulteress or how many fingers you chop of a thief's hand.But I don't suppose ordinary nominal muslims believe what their priests say they should any more than ordinary nominal christians do (virgin birth, transubstantion, resurrection of the dead, who really belives that bollocks).

[ALB]

I'm out too. In fact I should have kept to my previous decision to do this.

[ALB]

Quote:

ALB, you must be able to tell the difference between an educated critic with whom you disagree (at the present), and a dishonest liar.

Normally I can but I've my doubts in this case since what else can I conclude when someone repeats in almost every post that we subscribe to the view expressed by Lenin in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that the mind essentially reflects the outside world ("matter") and calls us "Leninists" (which they know will infuriate us in view of our consistent opposition to Leninism since the beginning) whereas we have repeatedly said that we share with the same sort of criticism Pannekoek made of this "mechanical" or "bourgeois" materialism in his Lenin As Philosopher.  SP suggests that this is the action of a troll. Not necessarily, but it would be cruel to spell out the alternative explanation.Basically, for whatever reason, you've cried "Englesist", "Leninist" once too much. Enough is enough.

[Author]

Posts