[ALB]

In the end only two of us went to this meeting. It was organised on the "open space" principle, ie no fixed agenda just a general theme (in the instance "capitalism is crisis") with people attending posting on a board something they wanted to talk about and for others to choose to go and listen to them and join in the discussion there. It worked very well. Perhaps we could experiment with it at our summer school.Those present, fifty or so, were a variety of "anti-capitalists" (including, oddly, Joseph Choonara, the SWP's expert on Marxian ecnomics). Most seemed to be concerned with acting now to create alternatives to capitalism today inevitably within capitalism to start with, such as local democracy, community trusts, co-ops and other not-for-profit or profit-sharing mutual societies. We pointed out that whatever might be the merits of these they could only be marginal within capitalism and would never be able to outcompete and take over "the commanding heights of the economy" currently controlled by capitalist corporations, which would require political action (via the ballot box). They also talked about introducing laws to permit this and to stop that, without thinking how these might come about without political action of some kind that would bring them up against the vested interests of the capitalist corporations and their owners and political representatives. The SWP continued to insist that the focus of struggles today should be the workplace rather than local communities. They also insisted that the only way to get control of the state was by violent insurrection, which didn't find any echo at all amongst those present. Tha is clearly not what present-day "anti-capitalists" are into.The trouble is that they are not into what we advocate either (democratic political action to win political control to end capitalism). The aim of the whole series of New Putney Debates is to draw up a New Agreement of the People. A draft for this gives an idea of their general approach. Basically, it's a draft for a new constitition for Britain which would be fully democratic (and so republican) with the usual civil and political rights guaranteed. The economic part reads:

Quote:

* the right to co-operative ownership in place of shareholder control* the right to democracy and self-management in all areas/activities of the workplace* the right to common land ownership in towns and rural areas.

Forty years ago this might have been described as "self-managed socialism" but "socialism" is not a word that modern anti-capitalists seem to like (though some will admit it privately). The criticism we made of a self-managed market economy of worker-controlled workplaces put forward by such groups as Solidarity in the 60s and 70s applies to them, but our problem is how do we get across the need for some degree of centralisation and for political action. Another drawback is that, unlike those we argued with at that time, modern anti-capitalists are not using the same language that we are used to (socialism, working class,class struggle, Marx, etc). But at least we've haven't got the baggage of vanguardism and insurrection that the SWP and other Trotskyists have.

[ALB]

Went to a meeting in the London Occupy's New Putney Debates series last night. It was on Land and Democracy. About 100 people there in the same church where the original debates took place. The speakers were George Monbiot, Natalie Bennett (new Leader of the Green Party) and someone from a new "Digger" camp in Runnymede.What was revealing was how the Occupy moderator introduced the Green Party speaker. He said that Occupy didn't  normally associate with political parties but that the Green Party had supported them. When you think of it, this was going to be the most likely place Occupy activists would find congenial. The audience appeared to be natural Green Party supporters.As to the substance of the talks and discussions, they seem to have a vague idea that the land should somehow be commonly owned (or at least more equally distributed) and/or democratically controlled, but no hint that the same ought logically to apply to all wealth since this comes from the land (nature) in the first place. Henry George got a mention. Plenty of praise for Gerrard Winstanley. So, hopefully, our leaflet based on this will have gone down well.Three of four of us are planning to attend the one on "Capitalism is Crisis" on Sunday mentioned in message #300 above.

[ALB]

I see that the article in this month's Socialist Standard on the Rastafarians says:

Quote:

The yearning for righteousness is a very human ideal born of the suffering endemic within the exploitation of Capitalism (the Babylon System) and is shared by Socialists.

Wow, so now we are "the righteous" too!

[ALB]

Thanks. Just booked to go. In the meantime I see that the book's argument is that the Second World War was a war to re-divide the world amongst imperialist powers, but that unlike the First World War was still "a war worth fighting" as a way " 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

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

I wonder how it compares with A People's History of the Second World War by SWPer Donny Gluckstein (book launch 10th November)

Sounds as if we should review the two books together. From this it appears that the SWP one will take a quite different approach, ie support for the war as an "anti-fascist" war. But where is the book launch taking place?

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

Have just watched this latest interview with PJ on Russia Today. He has had quite a few opportunities to appear on TV…opportunites the WSM would NEVER have, yet I have never heard this guy state on TV that he advocates a world without Capitalism, money, governments etc etc. He never ever comes out with it.

This is just not true. On a number of occasions Peter Joseph has explicitly argued for a world without money. For instance in this interview with RT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr7-Qbbrwywand in this one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYH57Cw644kThere's also this hour-long demolition of the so-called "Economic Calculation Argument" against a moneyless economy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTwNor would I describe the video you criticise as "waffle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOyEil_o38&feature=relmfu)It's actually quite a good explanation why voting within what he calls "the market monetary system" never gets anywhere and the "Global Redesign Institute" he mentions at the end sounds as if it will be doing the work of our Production for Use Committee for us.OK, he doesn't use the same language as us but much of the time he is saying the same as we do.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

How can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage?

According to this BBC report, Andy Haldane, Bank of England Executive Director for Financial Stability

Quote:

told a meeting organised by Occupy in London that protestors had touched a "moral nerve".

The Times today reports him as telling the meeting last night that

Quote:

He applauded the protestors for being correct, not just in a moral sense, but also for the quality of their analysis into the causes of the banking crisis.

Oh dear, we seem to have lost the moral highground to the Bank of England. Or is this a case of how easy it for mere "moral outrage" to be co-opted by the system?

[ALB]

James Heartfield's talk on his book has now been fixed. It will be the next in the series of Sunday evening talks at 52 Clapham High Street. The date is Sunday 11 November (Armistice Day) at 6pm. Copies of the book should be on sale at a reduced price. See http://www.heartfield.org 

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

  And the moment you say, for example,  that exploitation is wrong and that capitalism is morally bad this places on the working class a moral obligation to overturn it.  As socialists though, we don't rely on the capitalist class fulfilling their moral obligation to us, and I'd be rather reluctant to tell members of the working class that they were failing in their moral duty by not being socialists.

Interesting counter-argument (the killer one?) against using the language of morality. Much better (warning: joke) to talk of the working class having a "historic mission" to overthrow capitalism.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Listen up!I will repeat, once only, that I do not nor have I ever advocated that socialism or the case for socialism be based solely on a moralistic appeal.

Noted, but keep your hair on. Nobody here has suggested that you do or ever did. The argument here is, as in so many cases, about definitions and language. All socialists are outraged at what capitalism does to people (that's no doubt why we became socialists), but the question is whether or not we think it would help the socialist case to add "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", "wrong",  "bad" to the adjectives we throw at capitalism. Most Party members think not and prefer to stick to "can't work in the interest of the working class", "irrational",  "anti-social", etc.Supposing we did adopt these terms, people would turn round and say "why is capitalism immoral, unjust, bad, etc?" and we'd have to answer "because it can't work in th interest of the working class", "because it doesn't advance human welfare", even "because it degrades humans into things".  As I said, some Professors of Moral Philosophy would regard these as "moral judgements". Maybe they are, but they are not appeals to some vague, abstract eternal principles of Morality and Justice.

SocialistPunk wrote:

In my opinion, based on experience and observation, "scientifically" sidelining such here and now human concerns, such trivialities as morality, right and wrong, is a mistake.

Who is sidelining people's protest or outrage at what capitalism does to them and to other people? It's basically a question of what language is used to express this.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Now can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage?

I can't see what's "harsh" or "obsessive" about having a scientific mindset. Presumably in view of your opening statement above you too think that the case for socialism is based on a scientific examination of the facts. I imagine many in Occupy do too. But where have we ever said that Occupy were wrong to be outraged at capitalism and its effects? In any event, a scientific mindset will go down a bomb with Zeitgeist (they even argue that what's right and what's wrong can be discovered scientifically).

[ALB]

Just been reading an article about the "water footprint" of different countries, i.e the amount of water used in them to produce their national product. We've all heard of "carbon footprints", i.e. the amount of CO2 released in producing something.  What this shows is that the Technocracy people are right in saying it would be possible to calculate the "energy footprint" of products too. Just checked and this is being done too. I'm not sure of the implications of all these calculations, except that they are calculations in kind, not money.What you would seem to be envisaging, Young Master, is calculating the "labour footprint" of products? A useful calculation no doubt but why should this particular calculation in kind be considered more important than the other ones?

[ALB]

Hud955 wrote:

The scientific stance is the only thing that can create a conscious movement for socialism and keep us on course; ethics cannot distinguish between socialism and reformism, and tends to lead to the latter because it overwhelmingly focuses on single issues.

Hud955 wrote:

I think we can certainly use capitalist morality against capitalism itself, but it is a dangerous weapon and needs to be used carefully, because on its own it leads directly to reformist solutions not to socialist ones.

I think we should be careful not to overdo this line of argument. For two reasons.First, because it is possible to imagine a "moral" argument against capitalism which would not lead either to reformism or to single-issueism. Only some moral arguments lead to this, i.e those that criticise capitalism from its own standpoint (for not being "fair" to all workers), because capitalism can, has and is putting this right: minority groups don't have to be discriminated against.Second, even an argument based on class analysis can lead to reformism. After all, the classic Social Democratic and Old Labour case was that their parties were defending the interests of the working class within capitalism.The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change. It's classes acting in their own class interest. That's how it's been in the past and how it is likely to be in the future change from capitalism to socialism, especially as this change will be one brought out by the majority class acting consciously, which will involve an understanding of what it is doing, i.e acting in its own class interest.

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle not the struggle for 'justice' or improved 'morality', whatever they may mean

Exactly.

[ALB]

We are always criticising capitalism for being "irrational", "insane", "crazy", "anti-working class", "anti-human", "anti-social", etc. (just read any issue of the Socialist Standard). What benefit would we get if we started saying that it was "immoral", "unjust", "unfair", etc?No doubt a professor of Moral Philosophy would say that both sets of criticisms are "moral judgements", but this is to ignore the different connotations of the two sets of phrases. The second suggests mere namby-pamby whingers. The first science-based class warriors. There is a difference and we need to make it clear which we are.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

some critics of Leninism even those calling themselves Marxist socialists just want state-capitalism.

Of course, Karl Kautsky would be a prime example.  Social Democrats tended to see that what was wrong with Russia was a lack of political democracy not the state ownership and control of industry. For them, if political democracy had existed there it would have been socialism. In other words, they stood for the impossible dream of a democratic state capitalism. So did many on the left of the Labour Party. In the olden days.

[Author]

Posts