[ALB]

OMNIA SUNT COMMUNIA sounds like a slogan we could use, though I see it is also been used by the free software movement..  According to this blogger:

Quote:

It was their article of belief and they wanted to establish this principle, ‘All property should be held in common’ (Omnia sunt communia) and should be distributed each according to their needs as the occasion required. Any prince, count, or lord who did not want to do this, after first being warned about it, should be beheaded or hanged.” – Thomas Müntzer (1488 to 27 May 1525), a leader of the German Peasants’ War of 1524 to 1526, his Eighth Article of Confession, Confessed Under Torture Before Execution.

I wonder who, or which group, in Sussex was behind the choice of this slogan.

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

Karl Marx did describe Simon Bolivar what he really  was: A slave driver and a political opportunist,.

I didn't know this before: that Marx had written something about Bolivar and that he was highly critical of him. We should make more use of this to counter the claim that you can be both a "Marxist" and a "Bolivarian".An internet search brings up this as the article Marx wrote criticising Bolivar's "Bonapartism":http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/01/bolivar.htmAlso, an interesting commentary on it by Hal Draper, written in 1968:http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1968/winter/bolivar.htm

[ALB]

Looks like the SWP is getting a dose of its own medicine. After "No Platform for the BNP" a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign seems to be developing. Seriously though, I don't think this is a healthy development, especially as the organisers of the Delhi Conference invoked "threats of disruption" for disinviting Callinicos The same excuse invoked by other conference organisers for disinviting Salman Rushdie.

[ALB]

Meanwhile in Tuesday's Morning Star:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/131061

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is sad our Indian comrades and ex-comrades cannot make their presence more known on the internet.

They're trying their best. See:http://www.worldsocialistpartyindia.org/http://www.facebook.com/gorachand.paramanikhttp://www.facebook.com/snkrsarkarhttp://www.facebook.com/binay.sarkar.5http://www.facebook.com/groups/328364997178353/There is also this person in Bangladesh who doesn’t agree with us (anti-parliamenary) but who is resolutely anti-Leninist and who posts regularly on our facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/shahalam2012HIs site is here: http://icwfreedom.org/I don't think we need worry too much that Leninism is not being severely criticised in this part of the world by people living there.

[ALB]

I listened in to this. Clifford was good, emphasing the need to take political action to end the market-profits-money system before anything lasting can be done. It was  a bit disappointing that so many of the ZM people there appeared to be more into changing their individual life-style ("I am the change", said one) and local initiatives rather than propagating the need for their movement's declared aim of a world resource-based (as opposed to a money-based) economy.Much of the discussion was about "political action". Most of them, understandingly, rejected politics as irrelevant, which in its current form of it is. They didn't seem to realise that the schemes they favour (beyond individual life-style changes)  as a "transition" to their goal (which is not so different from ours) such as more renewable energy and even the monetary reform some of them favour depend on government decisions and that to implement them they wouid have to either lobby the government or win control of it. Actually, some did seem to take this point as, like in the debate with Federico Pistono, the M5S movement in Italy was cited as the sort of political action they might countenance. Basically, they haven't worked out how the "transition" from the present system to a moneyless world resource-based economy could take place. Or perhaps don't have a common position on this or don't see the need for one. Most seem to see this as gradual process while others are banking on an economic collapse they see as coming in the next few decades (one of them doubted that the present system would still be going in 35 years time).

[ALB]

It seems that the ex-Muslims have got things well in hand on their front. Good luck to them.

[ALB]

Another interesting example of how Marx's ideas are making headway in Asia at the expense of Lenin's which up to now they had been mistaken for:http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=449041&catid=39

[ALB]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct?

Not quite. Since we are talking about a socialist society where nothing will be bought and sold the question of selling a factory just won't arise (though closing it might). Basically, in a socialist society, no individual or group of individuals (including the state which is also a group of individuals) will exercise "ownership" rights over factories, etc. These will in fact belong to nobody; which is the same as saying that they will belong to everybody. In short, the concept of ownership (which is a legal concept) in relation to them disappears. They are simply there to be used in accordance with procedures for their use that socialist society will have decided, democratically.

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct?

Yes, that's right. And no banks, no wages, no profits.

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?

Wrong. While there will be a central administration under democratic control (as well as regional and local administrations) it will be unarmed and so won't be in a position to use force against people. In other words, it won't be a "state" which is a central administration "with a monopoly on the use of force" within a given territory. Here's how we described how we envisage the position the last time we discussed this in detail (at our Conference in 1991:

Quote:

That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.

[ALB]

Here's what happened after we left. Incidentally, Nick Wrack mentioned while we were still there that over 2500 people already had signed Ken Loach's appeal for a new United Left Party since it was launched on 16 March. Don't know if anything will come of this initiative but it will be worth keeping an eye on developments.

[ALB]

Two of us went to this meeting (today, Saturday) but it wasn't what we expected. All the same it was interesting and very revealing.It wasn't a public meeting at all but an internal meeting of the Independent Socialist Network. This, as we learned, is one of the four constituent parts of TUSC, the other 3 being the RMT, the SWP and the ex-Militant Tendency calling themselves SPEW. They seem to be individuals and groups who are not members of any of the other three.We should have realised that it wasn't a public meeting when, to get it, we had to text a number and say who we were, but once in we couldn't find an opportunity to leave so we stayed until after half-an-hour or so the chair asked those round the table to say not just who they were but who they represented. As soon as we said we were from the Socialist Party, the real one, the main speaker (Nick Wrack) interrupted to say we couldn't stay. We didn't have an objection as we had come under a misunderstanding and said so and left without creating a fuss.The explanation Wrack gave that "this is not a meeting for political parties" wasn't the real reason, at least not for him. For him (ex-Militant, ex-Socialist Alliance, ex-Respect) it would have been because we were "the SPGB". If we'd been some other party or group, I'm sure they would have been pleased to let us stay. As it was there was a representative of the "Anti-Capitalist Initiative" (a breakaway from Workers Power, it was actually, for the sake of trainspotters here, Simon Hardy himself, their main theoretician) and Lewisham People before Profits. But what was revealing was that Wrack  had just given a talk in which he called for a new, open, democratic Leftwing party that wouldn't be structured like the SWP or SPEW and here he was insisting on a secret meeting. We were even asked to hand back the documents that had been on the table before us.What we learned was that Wrack had come to the conclusion that TUSC was not going to be the new Leftwing party he wanted (because it was controlled by SPEW) and that what was needed was a new party which individual "independent socialists" could join. I'm not revealing any secret here as he's already stated this on his blog. One of the documents we'd have liked to have taken away was the Minutes of the last meeting of the TUSC Steering Committee. I can't remember what it said now but I think one of the decisions was to refuse an application to join TUSC from "Socialist Resistance", another Trotskyist group (the old IMG). Apparently Bob Crowe and the RMT don't want more Trotskyist groups to join. Can't say I blame him as they've all got their own agenda.It was worth going to but I wish, JohnD, you'd check whether the meetings you mention here really are public meetings. We didn't give any leaflets away but we did sell one Socialist Standard (to the guy from Lewisham). There was a delegation from a group in Rugby there who may have been surprised by the vehemence at which Wrack and other ex-Trotskyists there insisted that we couldn't stay (not that we really wanted to, though it would have been interesting to listen to the rest of the discussion). They've probably never heard of us, but we'll try and contact them to explain and counter what might have been said about us after we left, emphasising that we don't hold secret meetings.

[ALB]

Here's the views of Francis Wheen on this, mentioning Marx's 1842 article on "freedom of the press" when he was not yet a socialist but still a radical bourgeois democrat and editor of one of their papers.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-the-us-constitution-and-karl-marx-can-agree-on-a-free-press-why-cant-we-8545432.htmlHe doesn't mention Marx's remark in the same article which has been variously translated into English as:

Quote:

The primary freedom of the press lies in not being a trade.

and

Quote:

The first condition of the freedom of the press is that it is not a business activity.

By this criterion the self-proclaimed "free press" in this country is not a free press at all but a profit-seeking business opposing restrictions on its particular profit-seeking activities just like any other business would.

[ALB]

Interesting old blog item from three years ago here on the origin of the undemocratic slate system which all Leninist groups employ for electing their executive committee under which the outgoing committee proposes a slate of candidates to be voted on en bloc for the new committee.The author makes the same point that we do in our leaflet that this system is contrary to the more democratic procedures practised in the wider working class movement:

Quote:

The leadership-recommended slate system for internal elections to the national leadership is used in most leninist groups. It is not a natural system arising from the workers own experiences and democratic instincts but something artificially imported into the workers movement. In theory, the slate system can be used to recommend a list that consciously includes a good balance of talents and personalities. In practice, it gives the existing leadership a tremendous advantage in elections and experience has shown that it has allowed leaders to secure their continuous re-election along with a body of like-minded and loyal followers.

[ALB]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

I see now that what you meant with the equality of decision-making power was the common democratic idea of every person having an equal part of decision-making power in the context of a democratic process (as the full decision-making power is divided between all individuals that are concerned by the specific issue).

Thanks for the precision. I can go along with that but am not entirely sure it can be skipped in any discussion about the "values" of socialist society as a democratic decision-making structure will be an essential part of it.

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

As for the other value, I am a bit confused… Let's say I have a means of production, i.e. a printing press (let's assume I built it or got it in some other legitimate way). Can somebody else "claim" a right for the use of this machine? Does it depend on my will, as the "owner" of that good? Or does it depend on the will of say, the community in which I live or is it perhaps even a legal question that's for a court to decide?

I thought that you wanted a high-level philosophical discussion but this is the sort of question our speakers used to get in Hyde Park!Technically, a printing press is a "means of production" even if a miniscule one. So is a garden spade. But we're talking about farms, factories, plant, machinery, railways, ships, and other socially-operated workplaces. These are too big to be "possessed" by an individual in the same way as your printing machine or my spade.So, the sort of answer we would have given at Hyde Park would be this. In socialism nothing would prevent someone constructing their own printing machine, car or boat. They would even have free access to the materials and tools they needed to carry on this hobby. Maybe too they could use their printing machine to print things for friends and neighbours who might prefer this to going to some communly-owned print shop which might not be conveniently placed for them. Who knows? One thing is clear though. There would be no point in the print-machine maker trying to charge for the use of his machine since he wouldn't have any customers as they'd be able to get any printing done free at the communally-owned print shop. The most that might happen is that I might give him some of the vegetables I have grown in exchange for him printing some new year cards for me. Trivial really and hardly a philosophical objection to socialism

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

I'm not sure how it should be worked out who has the right to use what. Could you elaborate or lead me to an article where that is explained in detail?

Basically, everyone would have the right to use what they had taken from the common stores for their personal consumption and anything they might have made or grown for their own consumption or pleasure. So, you will be pleased to know, you will be able to keep and have exclusive use of or control of who uses any printing machine you might makeAs for more heavy, theoretical stuff, have a read of this ,especially the opening sections which discuss the concept of property and why "trade" will disappear in a socialist society. This other article deals with the origin of the concept of "property rights" which you've mentioned more than once:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1988/no-1007-july-1988/1688-and-all

[ALB]

Here's the result (more or less what we anticipated):Labour 1343 (61.9%)Green 381 (17.6%)LibDem 276 (12.7%)Con 120 (5.6%)BNP 31 (1.4%)Socialist 18 (0.8%)

[Author]

Posts