[ALB]

Here's something for the new study group to get there teeth into. Part of a talk by Peter Joseph on how the production and distribution of wealth could be organised without money, price or exchange:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9FDIne7M9o#t=1h11mIt's full of graphs and formulas, as modern economists like.

[ALB]

Whether or not Marx was right to make the development of a "polyvalent worker" a precondition of socialism/communism (and I'm inclined to favour his other speculation that it requires a collective workforce capable of applying science to production, which we've already got as, after all, workers now collectively run production from top to bottom),  I don't think it can be said that he thought that this was something that workers could choose to themselves become within capitalism.There is a long exposition of his position in section 9 (on the health and education clauses of the Factory Acts) of chapter 15 ("Machinery and Large-Scale Industry) of Capital in which the following passage occurs:

Quote:

But if, on the one hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly destructive action of a natural law that meets with resistance at all points, modern industry, on the other hand, through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, consequently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently the greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the mode of production to the normal functioning of this law. modern industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, grappled by life-long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.

It looks as if Engels wasn't the only one to talk of material conditions imposing themselves "after the manner of an overpowering natural law" on society ! But then Engels too was the joint author of the German Ideology and part of the "we" in the less deterministic quote Robbo gave from it.In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what Marx or Engels wrote or thought as socialism/communism does not depend on that. They were just a couple of 19th century socialists whose views on what socialism/communism would or should be like are no more authoritative than those of  any other socialist.

[ALB]

You're right. This is wrong. As you say, the author is confusing "labour power" and "labour" (the exercise of labour power). Fairly common but generally the other way round, as when people talk of workers selling their "labour" for a wage or salary.The second bit about a reduction in the value of the commodities produced enabling the capitalist employer to extract more surplus value is odd too. Wouldn't this simply mean that the same new value would be distributed amongst a greater number of commodities (so that the price of a unit would go down)? But, other things being equal, this wouldn't alter the total amount of surplus value created either.  The rate of exploitation would remain the same.This could be a confused reference to what Marx called "relative surplus value", when a fall in the cost of living due to a cheapening of the products workers consume to reproduce their labour-power results in a fall in the value of labour-power (though not necessarily a fall in what workers consume) and so to an increase in the proportion of new value created being surplus value. But this applies across the whole economy, not to a single employer (and would only apply when the cheapened commodities are ones consumed by workers)..

[ALB]

Imposs1904 has just posted on his Socialist Standard Past and Present blog the review we did in 1964 of Harrington's book The Other America when it was first published in Britain:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/michael-harringtons-other-america.html

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Actually there was no other option,IMHO, but an accommodation with capitalism as a world system. Mandela was indeed a true Thatcherite.."There Is No Alternative"

True, the post-apartheid government under Mandela did have "no alternative" but to accommodate with world capitalism. But if this makes him a Thatcherite it makes a lot more people one of them. Lenin, for instance, who said in 1921 that the development of capitalism under the control of the state was the only viable way forward for Russia. Even us, who said that Lenin was right given the continued existence of world capitalismOr perhaps that woman should be called a Marxist? Her mistake was to say simply "there is no alternative" when the real situation was "there is no alternative under capitalism". TINAUC.

[ALB]

Something reasonably sensible (and comprehensible) from Zizek for a change:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/mandelas-socialist-failure/?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Quote:

Is this, however, the whole story? Two key facts remain obliterated by this celebratory vision. In South Africa, the miserable life of the poor majority broadly remains the same as under apartheid, and the rise of political and civil rights is counterbalanced by the growing insecurity, violence, and crime. The main change is that the old white ruling class is joined by the new black elite. Secondly, people remember the old African National Congress which promised not only the end of apartheid, but also more social justice, even a kind of socialism. This much more radical ANC past is gradually obliterated from our memory. No wonder that anger is growing among poor, black South Africans.South Africa in this respect is just one version of the recurrent story of the contemporary left. A leader or party is elected with universal enthusiasm, promising a “new world” — but, then, sooner or later, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to “play the game”? If one disturbs these mechanisms, one is very swiftly “punished” by market perturbations, economic chaos, and the rest. This is why it is all too simple to criticize Mandela for abandoning the socialist perspective after the end of apartheid: did he really have a choice? Was the move towards socialism a real option?

He means "towards state capitalism" of course but it's still a perceptive observatuion..

[ALB]

imposs1904 wrote:

Maybe it's just me on the thread, but I'm glad he outlived Thatcher.

Yes, I suppose the tone of this thread is a bit churlish considering the man spent 27 years in prison for something we wanted and welcomed. i.e. the end of apartheid and the coming of one person, one vote, even if this was because apartheid had become a barrier to capital accumulation in South Africa and even if he supported capitalism. If only Thatcher had spent 27 years in prison.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

At a SWSS meeting in 1987 about Apartheid at my Poly, we had a black guy from South Africa in attendance.

While we're reminiscing about Mandela, South Africa, etc, a few years later the Socialist Party had a debate with the Inkhata party of Chief Buthelezi. Their speaker came armed with their tradional knobstick and played the Zulu warrior. He said Mandela was ok as he came from an offshoot of the Zulu tribe, but that Archbishop Tutu wasn't as he came from a slave tribe.

[ALB]

This should probably be in the joke section, but then most things Boris says probably should be. But in today's Times (of all places) there's an IQ test for the Rich drawn up by Deborah Ross. Here's two of the questions she puts to Boris and other rich people who think they are rich because they are cleverer than most people:

Quote:

If the gap between the rich and poor in the UK has widened to the extent that it is now visible from space (sit on that, Great Wall of China!) then the rich must simply be getting cleverer while the poor must be getting thicker.True • False •

Quote:

If we accept that the Royal Family and the entire cast of Made In Chelsea must be especially clever in some way, and possibly geniuses, then we must also accept that the Duke of Westminster, who was born clever, suddenly became a lot cleverer after his father died.True• False •

 

[ALB]

There's a revealing explanation here as to how, contrary to the intention of those who presented LU's draft constitution, it came to be amended to allow permanent factions that are allowed to publicly campaign against the party's aims and policy. Scroll down to point 2 of Jara Handala's 2 December contribution:

Quote:

The draft (section 7b) allowed members to get together without the prior permission of anyone else, & it called them caucuses (Conference re-named them tendencies when the Lambeth amendment was passed). But the members weren’t to be totally free in how they chose to associate: the draft asked Conference to ban permanent factions; to restrict caucuses to promoting “certain specific concepts, ideas or policies”, thereby excluding contestation of LU’s aims; & forbad caucuses from publicly campaigning against LU policies or aims. http://leftunity.org/29248/  (draft Constitution, with proposed amendments)All these restrictions were rejected by Conference –  the Sheffield & Cardiff amendments. (The Commission, prior to Conference, had accepted the Hackney amendment to allow public campaigning against LU policy –  but not against aims.)Interestingly no amendment challenged the need for caucus meetings to be open to all LU members, something that Cardiff didn’t mention. However one speaker at Conference, Jack Conrad, did. He said “we” will have private meetings –  whatever the Constitution says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2xPJsh1HU  (vid #027, 7:15)He was ambiguous as to whether he meant either CPGB members of LU or the Communist Platform which they helped initiate but is also signed by non-members of CPGB. In either case a gauntlet.

No doubt the Sheffield and Cardiff branches are stuffed full of the various infiltrating Trotskyist groups.It looks like the revenge of the daleks. They now have a free hand to behave as they wish. It is clear that LU will be their second priority and that they will simply be using it as just another place to propagate their ideas and recruit new members. As usual.If I was a LU member I know who I'd expel first and which group to proscribe first: Jack Conrad and the "CPGB". His brazen declaration that he won't accept the constitution's requirement that faction meetings have to be open to all LU members can be found 6minutes 50 seconds into the video clip Handala links to.

[ALB]

I think this applies more to the People's Assembly than to Left Unity. But I'd still expect LU members and maybe LU officially to say "Vote Labour" when there's no LU or other left-of-Labour candidate.  That will satisfy the Labour politicians as all they want is votes (however obtained and whatever the reason).Voting Labour is what most of them will have been doing up to now, thoughsome will have been voting for the Green Party.

[ALB]

Here's a couple more accounts of what happened at the founding conference.This from those behind the "Socialist Platform". They don't seemed to be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and are staying in a party then accept aims to manage capitalism:http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2636I noticed of couple of things:

Quote:

Tina Becker moved an amendment from Sheffield enabling caucuses (platforms) to organize public campaigns against the overall aims or policy of the party was clearly agreed, as was a Cardiff amendment for caucuses to be allowed to be permanent.  An amendment from Lambeth on replacing the words sections and caucuses with caucuses and tendencies was also agreed. [Their bold]

I think the new party might live to regret this which gives carte blanche to the rival Trotskyist sects to behave in the new party as they do in the trade unions.And this requires no comment (once again, their bold):

Quote:

Before the vote on the amended Constitution was taken, Richard Brenner moved against its adoption because of a reference in the IDCC Aims to win a mandate to govern based on “a democratically planned economy… within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives, or under public ownership, operate in ways that promote the needs of the people”.  The objection, if that was what it was, was overruled, and the amended Constitution was overwhelmingly carried on a hand vote.

The other report is from the leader of the breakaway from the SWP:http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/left_unity_a_report_from_the_founding_conferenceHe makes this point:

Quote:

This is the problem that Left Unity faces.  The UK has no significant communist or far left parties equivalent to those in Greece, France or Portugal.  It is therefore impossible to do what Left Unity wants to do unless there is a realignment in which a sizeable chunk of the Labour Party, including MPs and councillors, splits.

How likely is that? It looks as if the new party may be reduced to acting as an external faction of the Labour Party just as UKIP is of the Tory Party. After all, Ken Loach did appeal for  a leftwing equivalent of UKIP to be formed. 

[ALB]

We don't think much of Holloway's politics, but perhaps this will help:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1274-october-2010/book-reviewsWritten incidentally by someone who is now a member of the Left Unity party.

[ALB]

I don't think we should be kicking somebody when they're down so let's get back to discussing the topic of the thread, where there seems to be a lack of clarity as to what is meant by the word "labour" in the phrase "division of labour". Does it mean division of the work or of the worker's (producer's) time?I would have thought that it was obvious that work processes will continue to be divided in socialist/communist society (that's the basis of the modern technology that can provide plenty for all). But a producer's worktime will be able to be divided between different work processes instead of being tied to one as is the case today under capitalism (unless, that is, he or she wants to stick to one job).I can't see that the "abolition of the division of labour" can mean anything but this. I don't think it implies either that everybody will be able to any job, only that they will be free (if they so choose) to work at different jobs in the same day or week or month or whatever.

[ALB]

These remarks by current Labour MPs on begging has prompted me to dig out a press cutting from 1994 which I'd filed under "lying promises":

Quote:

Labour to end beggingBegging will be consigned to the history books under the next Labour government, Labour's London spokesman, Nick Raynsford, told a meeting of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour Party in Swiss Cottage.Mr Raynsford, MP for Greenwich, said that begging was the most disgraceful indictment of the present government's policies. "Our task has got to be to eliminate begging in London and create a memory of how bad life was in the late 80s and early 90s."He proposed a scheme to build more houses, using finance from both the private and public sectors.(Camden New Journal, 7 July 1994)

They didn't do it of course. In fact it got worse and still is a "disgraceful indictment" of capitalism and of parties that claim to be able to tame capitalism. It was also a lying promise. 

[Author]

Posts