[ALB]

Brian wrote:

It's already starting to contradict itself by attempting to distance TZM from "class war" when not so long ago Peter Joseph acknowledged in a tv interview on Russia Today that TZM like the Civil Rights Movement it models itself on is a participant in the class war.

I'm not so sure about this. Already in the passage already quoted they recognise that the vast majority are oppressed (subject to "indirect violence") by "social stratification":

Quote:

TZM's advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advancements in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally posses.(their emphasis)

Earlier on, on the first page of the introduction in fact, they had said:

Quote:

For instance, the current social model, while perpetuating enormous levels of corrosive economic inefficiency in general, as will be described in further essays, also intrinsically supports one economic group or "class" over another, perpetuating technically unnecessary imbalance and relative deprivation. This could be called "economic bigotry" in its effect and it is not no less insidious than discrimination rooted in gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. (their emphasis again).

It could also be called "exploitation". OK, this is apparently only placing class discrimination on a par with other forms of discrimination but it's a start.

[ALB]

Ayn Rand was a fruit cake and nasty with it. Her ideas and those of other "libertarians" such as Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises were popular in the 1980s and 1990s but have since been marginalised again even though she seems to still have a following in US Tea Party circles, as also mentioned in this article from last December's Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1276-december-2010/can-tea-party-save-american-dreamWe clashed during their heyday with their supporters in Britain, the Libertarian Alliance, Free Life and Libertarian Student. They seemed to like debating with us as we were the only group calling themselves socialist that was prepared to take up their criticism that a moneyless society couldn't work by arguing that it could.You can get a flavour of the debate from these:http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn046.pdfhttp://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-6-4-7.pdfThere's also this debate with them.To tell the truth, although these debates were entertaining basically they only allowed us to hone our anti-capitalist arguments. Most people out there can see that they are nutters without us needing to point this out.

[ALB]

This talk of TS3, etc reminds me. What happened at the UK chapter meeting a week or so ago that Brian and Socialist Punk were going to take part in?

[ALB]

Quote:

TZM's advocated benchmark for decision making is not a Moral Philosophy[65], which, when examined at its root, is essentially what Marxist philosophy was a manifestation of.TZM is not interested in the poetic, subjective & arbitrary notions of “a fair society”,”guaranteed freedom”, “world peace”, or “making a better world” simply because it sounds “right”, “humane” or “good”. Without a Technical Framework that has a direct physical referent to such terms, such moral relativism serves little to no long term purpose.Rather, TZM is interested in Scientific Application, as applied to societal sustainability, both physical and cultural.[66]As will be expressed in greater detail in further essays, the Method of Science is not restricted in its application within the “physical world”[67] and hence the social system, infrastructure, educational relevance and even understanding human behavior itself, all exist within the confines of scientific causality. In turn, there is a natural feedback system built into physical reality which will express itself very clearly in the context of what “works” and what doesn't over time,[68] guiding our conscious adaptation.Marxism is not based on this “calculated” worldview at all, even though there might be some scientifically based characteristics inherent. For example, the Marxist notion of a “classless society” was to overcome the capitalist originating “inhumanity” imposed on the working class or “proletariat”.

It is ironic, even amusing, that ZM should be in effect answering our characterisation of them as "Utopian Socialists" by adopting a more-scientific-than-thou attitude.This has some relevance to the debates we have had here and elsewhere as to whether socialism is a "moral" or "ethical" issue as well as a "class" and "scientific" one.  Rejecting "moral philosophy" and "moral relativism", ZM argue that the case for a classless, stateless, moneyless world society (which they call a "resource-based economy" and we call "socialism" or "communism") is based on a scientific understanding that "the capitalist/market model" is against empirically observed and scientifically validated "human nature":

Quote:

TZM's advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advancements in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally posses[69]. It generates an unnecessary form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by implication, technically unsustainable.

An interesting approach which we have been tempted to adopt but never have since we've been reluctant to accept any theory of a behaviour-determining fixed human nature.I wonder whether ZM has debates about whether the case for a resource-based economy is an ethical as well as a scientific issue. Probably not because their "Train of Thought" commits them to the view that there is only one answer to every problem and that this is to be found by scientific enquiry, conducted by scientists, and not by popular debate and vote. A legacy of their Technocracy origins.

[ALB]

It will be interesting to see how, when it's published in full, this new Orientation Guide differs from the previous one. In the meantime here's how the new one tries to differentiate TZM from "Marxist Communism" (a must in America, it appears). It's a bit tortuous and even accuses Marxism of being a "Moral Philosophy" (which some here might like):

Quote:

The “Prima Facie” FallacyThe first is the “Prima Facie” association. This simply means “upon first appearance”; “before investigation”.[63] This is by far the most common type of objection.A classical case study is the common claim that the observations and solutions presented by TZM are simply rehashed “Marxist Communism”.Let's briefly explore this as an example. Referencing “The Communist Manifesto”[64] Marx and Engels present various observations with respect to the evolution of society, specifically the “class war”, inherent structural relationships regarding “capital”, along with a general logic as to how the social order will transition through “revolution” to a stateless, classless system, in part, while also noting a series of direct social changes, such as the “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”, “Equal liability of all to labour.” and other specifics. Marx creates players in the schema he suggests like the ongoing battle between the “Bourgeoisie and Proletarians”, expressing contempt for the inherent exploitation, which he says is essentially rooted in the idea of “private property”. In the end, the accumulated goal in general is in seeking a “stateless and classless society”.On the surface, reformations proposed in TZM's promoted solutions might appear to mirror attributes of “Marxism” if one was to completely ignore the underlying reasoning. The idea of a society “without classes”, “without universal property”, and the complete redefinition of what comprises the “State” might, on the surface, show confluence by the mere gestures themselves, especially since Western Academia commonly promotes a “duality” between “Communism” and “Capitalism” with the aforementioned character points noted as the core differences. However, the actual Train of Thought to support these seemingly similar conclusions is quite different.TZM's advocated benchmark for decision making is not a Moral Philosophy[65], which, when examined at its root, is essentially what Marxist philosophy was a manifestation of.TZM is not interested in the poetic, subjective & arbitrary notions of “a fair society”,”guaranteed freedom”, “world peace”, or “making a better world” simply because it sounds “right”, “humane” or “good”. Without a Technical Framework that has a direct physical referent to such terms, such moral relativism serves little to no long term purpose.Rather, TZM is interested in Scientific Application, as applied to societal sustainability, both physical and cultural.[66]As will be expressed in greater detail in further essays, the Method of Science is not restricted in its application within the “physical world”[67] and hence the social system, infrastructure, educational relevance and even understanding human behavior itself, all exist within the confines of scientific causality. In turn, there is a natural feedback system built into physical reality which will express itself very clearly in the context of what “works” and what doesn't over time,[68] guiding our conscious adaptation.Marxism is not based on this “calculated” worldview at all, even though there might be some scientifically based characteristics inherent. For example, the Marxist notion of a “classless society” was to overcome the capitalist originating “inhumanity” imposed on the working class or “proletariat”.TZM's advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advancements in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally posses[69]. It generates an unnecessary form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by implication, technically unsustainable.Another example is TZM's interest in removing Universal Property[70] and setting up a system of “Shared Access”. This is often quickly condemned to the Marxist idea of “Abolishing Private Property”. However, generally speaking, the Marxist logic relates the existence of private property to the perpetuation of the “bourgeois” and their ongoing exploitation of the “proletariat”. He states in the Manifesto “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.”TZM's advocated logic, on the other hand, relates the fact that the practice of universal, individual ownership of goods is environmentally inefficient, wasteful and ultimately unsustainable as a universal practice. This supports a restrictive system behavior and a great deal of unnecessary deprivation, and hence crime is common in societies with an unequal distribution of resources.At any rate, such “prima facie” allegations are very common and many more could be expressed. However, it is not the scope of this section to discusses all alleged connections between Marxism and TZM's advocated Train of Thought.[71]

[ALB]

Maybe we've jumped the gun but here's what we've said on our blog this morning:http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/marx-on-leveson.htmlIn other words, Marx said it all and we can leave the government and the press barons (and their employees) to slog it out over the issue of freedom of trade for newspaper sellers. It's not a "freedom of the press" issue.

[ALB]

I'd have thought we're already in something like it and have been since 2008. According to some pundits in today's papers "austerity" could last for another 6 years:http://www.channel4.com/news/austerity-george-osborne-cuts-institute-for-fiscal-studiesIf you mean that GDP is going to fall even further I don't think we can be certain about that. It may turn out to be a Great Stagnation where GDP doesn't increase and just bumps along the bottom. It's still, 4 years on, 4% below what it was in 2008.

[ALB]

I think he (James Sexton, a leader of a dockers' union) meant that he would vote for socialism as long as it was only a pious resolution at some conference but not in parliament or to get elected there. He did in fact become a Labour MP.  I see from his wikipedia entry that he was also later knighted. So we shouldf be calling him Sir James Sexton.Mind you a couple of the English trade unionists who were on the General Council of the IWMA with Marx (and would have heard "Dr Marx" give his talk on Value, Price and Profit) later became (Liberal) MPs. William Cremer and George Howell. Cremer became Sir Randal Cremer.The British ruling class has always been good at co-opting "labour" leaders. Maybe Labour Uncut will be doing an article on this as it's an essential part of the history of the Labour Party.

[ALB]

I've been in correspondence with one of those we met at the New Putney Debates and here's an extract from one of his emails:

Quote:

I do not think Occupy was formed as an anti-capitalist movement. We polled it at the beginning and it did not self describe as anti-capitalist. That is more how other people have described it – similarly as being primarily anti the austerity measures. The only issue that it definitley was formed around was the bankers rip-off, this was something that you could realistically say was an opinion probably shared by 99% of people. It quickly morphed into other levels of corruption in corporations generally.Its general statements (at http://occupylondon.org.uk/about/statements/statement-on-economy)  there is no mention of being anti capitalist. It was felt that if we were to "represent" the 99% we would not do so if we were to state it in those terms altho the statements are very critical of the effects of capitalism. Quite a few in Occupy are anti capitalist though and it has sparked many conflicts and divisions.

This confirms what we thought had happened last year when the "Capitalism is Crisis" banner suddenly disappeared from the St Paul's camp (see message #23 here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/occupy-movement?page=2 ). It might also explain why we got a better reception at the stall we ran there for 6 weeks from visitors who had come to see it rather than from occupiers themselves. It doesn't alter the fact that, whether they intended it or not, they did put the question of capitalism back on to the agenda.

[ALB]

Yes, we did try to record it but don't know whether we did. See report elsewhere on this forum (message #12):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/comments/unpatriotic-history-second-world-war-clapham-600pm?page=1

[ALB]

We've been sent this at Head Office:http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/occupy-looking-back.htmIt seems to be a level-headed analysis of the Occupy movement (in America). Especially revealing is the answer to the first question which confirms that the movement has slid towards "localist activism" (which seems to apply even more so to the movement in London) rather than evolving towards a more global understanding of capitalism and the limits of what can be done within it (as once seemed a possibility, at least in theory).A comrade recommended No Local. Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won't Change The World by Greg Sharzer. The first couple of chapters are good and what we need to recommend to the currently dominant tendency within Occupy. (The other chapters are no good as Sharzer is unfortunately some sort of Trotskyist who thinks that eventually workers, ie for him factory workers and those who live on housing estates, will have to take up arms to get rid of capitalism, a position where Occupy is far in advance of him and his ilk, as can be seen from the analysis above by the Bureau of Public Secrets).

[ALB]

I hadn't realised that I was providing a link to a site where you probably have to pay the second time you look at it. Anyway, here's how I found the statistics. I went here:http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/03/03/01/index.html;jsessionid=3lr9owoj37ivj.delta?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2011-24-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/htmland clicked on "Indicator in PDF" in the top right hand corner. The document is entitled "Labour Productivity Levels" and the source is given as OECD Factbook  2011-2012 Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics.Hope this link works (long enough) this time. If not, here's how productivity is defined:

Quote:

Labour productivity is measured as GDP per hour worked.

and from wikipedia on the OECD's definition of productivity:

Quote:

Labour productivity is equal to the ratio between a volume measure of output (gross domestic product or gross value added) and a measure of input use (the total number of hours worked or total employment). (Freeman 2008,5)labour productivity = volume measure of output / measure of input useThe volume measure of output reflects the goods and services produced by the workforce. Numerator of the ratio of labour productivity, the volume measure of output is measured either by gross domestic product (GDP) or gross value added (GVA). Although these two different measures can both be used as output measures, there is normally a strong correlation between the two. (Freeman 2008,5)The measure of input use reflects the time, effort and skills of the workforce. Denominator of the ratio of labour productivity, the input measure is the most important factor that influences the measure of labour productivity. Labour input is measured either by the total number of hours worked of all persons employed or total employment (head count). (Freeman 2008,5) )

Obviously, Marx could not have used figures for this since these statistics were not available in his day. The nearest he came to this is what TWC refers to, i.e. GDP/total wages paid. The OECD has produced some statistics on this too (see: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/employment/oecd-employment-outlook-2012/labour-losing-to-capital-what-explains-the-declining-labour-share_empl_outlook-2012-4-en 0Actually, what they measure is total labour income/national income as a percentage. What the figures show is that between the early 90s and the late 2000s the average labour share in all OECD countries fell from 66.1% to less than 62%. Or TWC's "social productivity" (national income/total wages) rose during this period from 1.51 to 1.62 which is not a very rapid rise over 20 years. By coincidence, there'll be a short article on this in the December Socialist Standard

[ALB]

Thanks. I've found it. It's message #21 from you here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/marx-bbc2?page=1

Quote:

Full Complaint: As a Marxist and a member of the oldest Marxist party in the UK I found the program was absolute rubbish. Why did you not consult the oldest Marxist party? The program wrongly claimed Marx didn't really have an alternative to capitalism (it was fair enough to say he didn't have a blueprint, but that's not the same thing of course). There was also no critical examination of Marx and the so-called 'Communist' countries, the link between the two being taken pretty much for granted, with a couple of very minor caveats. Bizarrely, she also put forward the workers 'can't buy back' theory of crises at great length, though in fairness explaining Marxian economics in less than an hour for the uninitiated isn't the easiest of tasks! It got 5 out of 10 at best though. The level of scholarship wasn't great – she repeatedly claimed without any evidence that Marx thought capitalism would collapse, but I honestly don't think she understood what she meant by this claim herself (conflating collapse with the abolition of capitalism). Marx NEVER claimed capitalism would collapse.

[ALB]

It looks as if a "write-in" vote is becoming more and more acceptable:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/16/police-commissioner-spoilt-ballot-papersThis, surely, must have been the best election result ever in Britain with both record abstentions and record write-in votes.Glad to see that the best result was obtained at one polling station in my home town of Newport where nobody turned out to vote for the pro-capitalist non-entities on offer.

[ALB]

Actually, nobody among the 20 members and 10 non-members at the meeting revealed themselves to be one of the "state-capitalist brethren". It was a very good and facinating talk and was recorded (but might not be of good enough quality since we pressed the wrong buttons on the recorder). The only quibble would be that the speaker sometimes used the word "socialst" in a way we wouldn't but we all knew what he meant.As for Donny Gluckstein of the SWP. He argues that the Second World War was both an inter-imperialist conflic for a redivision of the world and a people's war against fascism and so ends up supporting it:

Quote:

The Second World War was different in essence from, for example, WWI or the Vietnam war. In its volatile combination of disparate elements it was unique, not only in the sheer scale of its wanton violence against civilians, but as a war worth fighting to end the scourge of fascism and Nazism. ( http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/conferences/annual9/submit/a-peoples-history-of-the-second-world-war.-resistance-versus-empire )

This is not the view of James Heartfield who like us sees the war as an inter-imperialist conflict not worth the shedding of a single drop of working class blood. His book vindicates the position we took up at the time.

[Author]

Posts