[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. 

[ALB]

I'm afraid he won't be able to reply for a week as he's been suspended.

[ALB]

I wish I hadn't responded to this thread and just let it die the instant death it deserved. Now look where we are (again).Moderator, can't it be removed to the "Rubbish Bin" section and be continued there.

[ALB]

As the 1978 Lambeth by-election has come up here and also on Ian Bone's blog I've just posted our candidate's recollections of this in the World Socialist Movement section here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/1978-lambeth-election

[ALB]

Gramsci is supposed to have said "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will". I've always thought that the opposite applies to us, i.e. "optimism of the intellect, pessismism of the will".Not sure what the political implications of this are, except that Gramsci's version is one for the Leninists as it sums up well their tactic of knowing that reformist campaigns won't succeed but telling workers that they can. We, on the other hand, don't doubt that the workers can establish socialism, but know that we can't establish it for them.

[ALB]

Yes, navel-gazing. Socialist comradeship is something you do, not endlessly analyze. It has to be spontaneous and can't be contrived. So there's no point in drawing up guidelines about how to do it or trying to convince people to do it. You might as well gaze at your navel instead.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

now we need the input of admice, and other newcomers, to enter the conversation with their opinions.

Of course, but since she seems not too keen on "working class" and "comrade" I doubt if she's going to like "proletarian" !

[ALB]

I hate this sort of navel-gazing, but for those who enjoy it there is this article on organisation from an Irish anarchist group:http://www.wsm.ie/c/solidarity-engagement-revolutionary-organisation-anarchismActually it does have some interesting ideas about organising in this age of social networks which we might be able to use, e.g we have more members of our facebook page, most of whom can presumably be classified as sympathisers to one degree or another, than we have paid-up members. How can they be further involved in spreading socialist ideas without necessarily have to join?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Surely there'll be 'democratic organisation' within the proletariat prior to the 'glorious day'?

Of course, but now you're changing the meaning of the word "proletarian". Originally, you used it to refer to the sort of democracy that would obtain in a classless, socialist/communist society (extending beyond administration to the workplace). Now you are using it to refer to working-class organisation within capitalism. In which case "proletarian democracy" simply means workers organising democratically. Good idea.This opens another discussion (probably for another thread) on the usefulness of using the word "proletariat" and "proletarian" to describe the working class. We never have and any writer for the Socialist Standard who uses either of them risks getting it edited out. The same goes for "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" in relation to the capitalist class. We've got to be able to put over the case in simple everyday language, not as if we are 19th century French revolutionists.

LBird wrote:

Once more, perhaps a matter of 'only words', but I prefer the term 'economic democracy', because all workers can understand that they'll be running their workplace. 'Social democracy', in contrast, sounds a bit hippy-ish, let's be 'social' and nice to each other.

It doesn't sound hippyish to me. It means that socialism/communism would be a "democratic society" in which democracy would apply beyond both administration and work to other aspects of society too, e.g. science. "Economic democracy" has its drawbacks too as it could suggest "one person, one vote" in enterprises producing for the market, e.g. co-operatives.We'll get it right in the end. Society-wide participatory democracy? Or even "true democracy"?

[ALB]

Fair enough it's only words, but I'm still not convinced that "proletarian democracy" is the best way of describing the opposite to "bourgeois democracy" (still because there will no longer be a proletariat when it's achieved).In fact, I'm not even convinced that "bourgeois democracy" is the right word either (too dismissive, as one person, one vote is an important gain for workers). The contrast is between limited, "political democracy" and full, dare I say it, "social democracy".

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

General Ludd’s Triumph:His wrath is entirely confined to wide framesAnd to those that old prices abate.[….]Till full fashioned work at the old fashioned priceIs established by Custom and Law.

Does this not confirm that this was a movement of independent producers seeking to prevent machine-produced products undercutting theirs rather than a movement of propertyless wage workers? In fact the latter would probably, rightly or wrongly, have been on the machine-owners' side as work in their factories provided them with paid employment.Still, it is always good to see a group put up a last-ditch fight even if doomed to fail, like the miners 30 years ago and the P&O ferry workers not long after, rather than just roll over and die (or take to alcohol).

[ALB]

You're right. It's a massive vote of no confidence in what they called "representative democracy".

[ALB]

The council have just confirmed that 539 of the 1055 postal ballot papers were returned (or 51%). That means that 539 of the 2206 votes cast (or 24%) were postal votes. Which also means that less than 16% of the 10,563 non-postal voters voted. That must mean something. Not sure what for the moment.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

Except that once again the word socialism has been reinforced in people's minds as a mere reform of capitalism rather than as a fundamental alternative to it.

Of course. But the mere fact that the word is no longer taboo means that we have an entry to say what it really is. Same with Occupy and "capitalism" and Russell Brand with "revolution". Other words we've traditionally used that are being re-introduced into mainstream circulation. As I sad, that can't be bad.I see they also ran an openly reformist campaign in Minneapolis which their candidate narrowly lost:http://www.tymoore.org/ http://www.theuptake.org/2013/10/13/socialist-alternative-minneapolis-ward-9-council-candidate-revives-citys-socialist-heritage/ Criticism of it here from a rival Trotskyist group and from a local blogger: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/05/moor-n05.html    http://betterproblems.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/socialism-in-minneapolis-thinking-about.html

[Author]

Posts