[ALB]

Whoever drafted that reply did know something about Marx and discussions about his views. I wonder who it was. But can you also post the letter you wrote them?Incidentally, Flanders herself has not replied to our "official" letter.

[ALB]

Here's a more accurate description of the origins of the Labour Party, from the 1905 Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, here on this site:

Quote:

The Labour Representation Committee came into existence chiefly, as far as the rank and file of the trade unions were concerned owing to the Taff Vale and Quinn v Leatham decisions, and as far as the trade union officials were concerned, because they saw a chance of Parliamentary jobs. At the first meeting of the L.R.C. Mr. John Burns opposed putting the movement on a working-class basis. Mr. James Sexton, of the Liverpool dockers, said that the Socialist resolution was magnificent but not war – not conductive to Parliamentary jobs, he meant – and he would vote for it anywhere but there. This position is characteristic of most alleged Socialists in Britain – they would vote for Socialism anywhere but where a vote would help it. Mr. Steadman said they should elect those who had borne the heat and burden of the day – i.e., men of the Steadman stamp. At Newcastle Mr. John Ward stated that they wanted to get their feet on the floor of the House of Commons and would not be particular how they did it. Mr. J. Keir Hardie said they did not want Toryism, Liberalism, or Socialism, only Labourism. Wonderful to narrate, this is the same Keir Hardie who sits as a delegate on the International Socialist Bureau.The L.R.C. constitution states that they should not support the Liberal or the Tory Party, but for every seat that has hitherto been contested the candidate put forward by the L.R.C. has been a Liberal-Labour hack, so much so that Mr. John Morley stated he would welcome them into the House of Commons, as they would always be found voting as Liberals. Last year Messrs. W. Crooks, D. Shackleton, and A. Henderson supported Mr. Benn, Liberal candidate for Devonport, and Mr. Bell, ex-chairman of the L.R.C, got his seat in the House of Commons by an arrangement with the Liberal party. Mr. D. Shackleton is a defender of child labour, and Mr. Henderson is an opponent of the legal reduction of the hours of labour. After all their cry of independence and after all their falling out with Mr. Burns, who told them they were selling themselves for two hundred dirty pieces of gold, they selected as Chairman of their Parliamentary group the same Mr. John Burns, the defender of Asquith (the murderer of miners at Featherstone), thus choosing as their leader one of the most bitter enemies of the working-class. The Labour Representation Committee is not the party of the workers.

[ALB]

At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);

Quote:

Religion has moved from being regarded as a matter of truth and authority to being seen as a "leisure activity" with grave possible consequences for society, the future Archbishop of Canterbury said last night …. he said that the change from "religion as truth" to "religion as lifestyle" was well documented…. Recalling his previous career with an oil company, Bishop Welby said: "One of my better memories of the oil industry was my boss saying at one point, when he asked what I was doing one weekend and I said I was going on a church weekend, 'Ah, fascinating, the different hobbies people have in this company.'"

I would say this is a good development that Archbishop Canute won't be able to turn back. In other words, the battle against "religion as truth" has been won.

[ALB]

I don't think Hardy was arguing that productivity didn't increase in the intermediate stages of production. He was talking about the average productivity of a whole economy which is calculated by dividing total output (as measured by money) by total man-hours. Here's another article of his on the subject:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/risingprices.htmThis brings in the depreciation of the currency which explains why prices have risen when, with increased productivity and so less labour input per unit, they should have fallen. Once you take out currency inflation the price of most products has fallen and continues to fall (this is particularly the case with electronic products). But not all. As Hardy pointed out here, there are certain products (coal, oil and other mined products) where the labour content has risen because of more difficult geological conditions encountered as more is extracted. Also, there is the cost of training and maintaining labour-power (education, training, health) which is comparatively labour intensive and costly. There is also the waste of the labour that under capitalism has necessarily to be expended on arms and on the whole business of buying and selling, money counting and shuffling.I think all these factors explain the relatively slow increase in average productivity under capitalism. At the moment average productivity in a country like the UK has fallen because output has but the total number of man-hours worked has fallen less.Note Hardy's estimate here that, with the elimination of capitalism, production could be doubled in a comparatively short period of time with the same total labour force, i.e. a 100% increase in productivity.Anyway, what do you mean by "social productivity" as contrasted with the sort of productivity that Hardy and in fact government statisticians and bourgeois economists talk about? For a definition of (labour) productivity and recent figures for various countries see here.

[ALB]

Thanks, Brian,. I see that James Phillips was billed on the advertising for the meeting as representing the Venus Project as well as Zeitgeist. That would explain why the meeting seemed to be a regression to the time when Zeitgeist was linked to the Venus Project of establishing a circular city in the Amazonian jungle financed by the UN or some friendly capitalist. I thought TZM had abandoned this silly idea. In any event, the report of the meeting will give you and Socialist Punk a clue as to where to put the accent in your discussions with them on Monday.

[ALB]

Two members did attend the Zeitgeist meeting in London on Tuesday, but haven't yet got round to reporting what happened and what they thought beyond saying that "funny money" and decision-making by technocrats came up.

[ALB]

Just read the one on the SDF. It's crap.

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

I have never read an article in the Standard concerning regional accents and how they have impacted on the class divide.

Maybe because the accent divide does not correspond to the class divide. In the 19th century capitalists spoke with a regional accent. So, apparently, did the aristocracy. Here, for instance, is what the Dictionary of National Biography says via wikipedia about the 15th Earl of Derby (1826-1893) who was an MP and Cabinet Minister:

Quote:

He lived much in his own county, spoke, like his father, with a Lancashire accent

His father, the 14th Earl, was three times Prime Minister  in Victorian times. So the 14th Mr Wilson was not the first Prime Minister to speak with a northern accent.I'm not quite sure why we're discussing accents in a thread on Zeitgeist since, being in the Technocracy tradition, they probably think we should all speak like Stephen Hawking.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

In actual human production, we only need to swamp costly human labour by cheap robotic labour to approximate humanless production — to approximate a valueless condition of capitalist production.Valueless capitalist production would, of course, be catastrophic for capitalism and for the capitalist class, as a capitalist production process only generates value through human labour and not through robotic labour, which [if truly humanless] is valueless in Marxian terms.(…)If social labour at all stages of capitalist production ever becomes predominantly robotic, then consumer products become predominantly valueless. In a competitive capitalist economy — one which through competition enforces strict value production — the prices of consumer goods would plummet.

You are right. Marx did speculate about this in a passage in the Grundrisse where he says, after discussing the deplacement of direct labour by machines in production:

Quote:

As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of penury and antithesis.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm )

Incidentally, this is (I think) the only passage where Marx uses the word breakdown ( "zusammen") in relation to capitalism. What he is saying is that if capitalism continued long enough it would eventually reach a stage where, thanks to mechanization, an individual product would have so little labour (indirect as well as direct) embodied in it that its value, and so its price, would be virtually zero. At which point the change-over to production to give away or take freely would become a necessity for the survival of society.I don't think that Marx thought that this stage would ever actually be reached, but was merely extrapolating trends discernable under capitalism to their logical conclusion (a bit like he did too with his mathematical demonstration that eventually the rate of profit must fall). Capitalism is nowhere near this stage now over 150 years since Marx wrote and, despite robotics, is still (very) far away from it. Hopefully, the workers will have put an end to capitalism long before it reached this theoretical breakdown point. Marx must have thought so too. Otherwise why was he active as a socialist in his day?Basically, then, we are still living in the stage of capitalism described by Hardy not the end-days of capitalism as extrapolated by Marx in the passage above.

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

Does the party have one single stance on this?

I'm not sure about a single stance, but this classic article from 1965 by Comrade Hardy put exaggerated claims (either way) about automation into perspective. The same applies to robotics:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/automation-perspectiveComrade Hardy had already made the same point in an article dating from 1934:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/production_productivity.htmAs he pointed out, productivity (which automation, computerisation, robotics, etc increases) only increases relatively slowly, at between 1 and 2% a year. This is because what needs to be taken into account is not the labour saved at the final stage of the production of some product but the labour saved on producing the product from start to finish. This is just Marxian economics and an application of the labour theory of value..It has also been borne out by the facts about what happened since 1934 and 1964. None of the dire threats or promises predicted at the time and mentioned in the articles materialised.Just read the claim made in 1934 that "that mechanical progress has gone so far in the direction of increasing output per head that we are within measurable distance of 'one immense robot factory, employing no workmen at all'". And the "forecast" made in 1964 that "'before the end of the century,' in every industrial country, certainly in the West, most of the essential work will be performed by about 20 per cent of the people – chiefly the most intelligent".I suspect that the same will be seen in 50 years about what some are saying today about robotics — unless of course socialism has been established by then.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I think I'll give the TZM Team Speak 3 a go on the 22nd.

You realise that they can't understand a North East English accent in America, don't you? Look what happened to Cheryl Cole. But good luck all the same.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

Just checked the link to the Minneapolis Chapter web site and it appears that their Mission Statement is the one by Peter Joseph.  Luckily I had saved their old one:

Actually, they are both there. The good one which you reproduced is under About/Resource Based Economy here:http://www.zeitgeistminneapolis.com/RBE

[ALB]

http://votingforjesus.com/writein.htm is interesting as it shows that the situation in many US States is much more formally democratic than here. A write-in contest between "Darwin" and "Jesus" would be interesting. The trouble is, in the US, "Jesus" would probably win.A write-in vote has no basis in UK electoral law. If you write anything on the ballot paper it is regarded as an invalid vote (and, curiously, classified as "voter's intention uncertain", even though in many cases it is quite clear what the voter meant). They don't (and won't) make provision for a box for "None of the Above" either.  In Belgium, where voting is compulsory, there is provision to cast a "blank" vote, even with electronic voting machines.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

If the speakers earlier referred to from TZM UK are advocating monetary reforms as a solution then they are at odds with the movement goals

In the ZM Mission Statement that Brian referred to it says:

Quote:

The range of The Movement's Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication. The long term view, which is the transition into a Resource-Based Economic Model, is a constant pursuit and expression, as stated before. However, in the path to get there, The Movement also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct Community Support. For instance, while "Monetary Reform" itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity.

In other words, officially they see "Monetary Reform" (incidentally, without defining exactly what) as a transition to a money-free society.We have been plugging away amongst ZM members in London to show that seeing monetary reform as a step towards getting rid of money altogether is illogical and inconsistent. This leaflet suggests we may have made some headway. It says (on the back);

Quote:

Even if reformed, the Monetary System is incapable of becoming the tool to build the kind of egalitarian emancipated societies we need in order to thrive. Why? Because going back to the gold standard, outlawing interest, letting governments distribute money debt free and such like, have logical merits, but the Monetary System, in whatever form, still maintains resource and equality imbalances and holds back our progress, while creating by its fundamental design, poverty and scarcity of basic needs. This is the underlying problem that needs to be solved.

This is  the same point (minus the concession that the monetary reforms listed "have logical merits", which they don't) that we've been making in the discussions at the Occupy New Putney Debates. In this respect ZM is ahead of Occupy.Incidentally, I can't believe that Peter Joseph wrote that wordy and jargon-filled Mission Statement since he is normally a good communicator. Anyway, here's a much better ZM statement (and much nearer to what we say):http://www.zeitgeistminneapolis.com/RBE

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Now as ALB has pointed out the SPGB have voted in favour of TZM being seen as a political party

That's not what I pointed out or what the resolution said. It said that Zeitgeist was to be regarded as "a political organisation within the meaning of rule 6". It does not say that Zeitgeist is a political party and nobody has claimed that it is. You yourself accept that there is a difference between a "political party" and an organisation that can broadly be considered to be political. What I said was that the resolution(s) meant that no one can be a member of both the SPGB and Zeitgeist. This was in fact the context in which the debate took place. Whether or not Zeitgeist is a "political party" is a different debate which didn't take place, maybe because nobody could reasonably argue that it is. So, yes, you are mistaken or rather have got the wrong end of the stick.

[Author]

Posts