Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hmm. A bit elitist to only include those who attended the talk at Clapham. Places the likes of myself out of the conversation, doesn’t it!!!!!!!!
I would check with HO before you part with any of this literature. Having boxed many of the old Socialist Standards I do know that some of the 1918-40’s are in short supply.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Hmmm seems a bit mechanistic despite its logical interplay.Explain. There doesn’t seem to be anything deterministic in there to me.By the way I paraphrased this from a book by Bologh, no need to read the other 250 pages now!
All formulations are mechanistic by default.
DJP wrote:[Here’s a little formulation for you:1. Treat concepts as coming from a historically specific mode of life2. Treat individuals as coming from a historically specific mode of life3. Treat a mode of life as a totality of internal relations.4. Changes in a mode of life are the result of the interplay of those internal relations.Hmmm seems a bit mechanistic despite its logical interplay. Damn and here’s me thinking the dynamics of class struggle was all about the variety of dialectic expressionism. Oh well back to the drawing board.
So there’s nothing “automatic” on how the contradictions and decreasing conditions play out. In fact if they were automatic it infers the class struggle is a purely mechanistic reaction of the inherent contradictions. Damn and there’s me thinking I had it all worked out and that the dialectic is not much use in illustrating how to grow some vegetables for free. LolBut seriously, lets not forget such projects like Incredible Edible could be a reaction against the decreasing conditions of capitalism and may in the long term have some positive effects in relation to grasping the whole picture with a corresponding change in the mindset.
DJP wrote:Gog_ wrote:I didn’t say that it was.Glad to know it.Though of course the movement for socialism does arise out of the contradictory conditions of capitalism. It’s just the ‘automatically arising out of decreasing conditions’ bit I don’t agree with.
And if not why not? Are not ‘the contradictionary conditions’ and ‘decreasing conditions’ one and the same thing? An explanation would be appreciated.
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:A comrade who actually lives in Todmorden but who is not subscribed to this forum has asked for this contribution to be posted here:With reference to Eat for Free and the Todmorden Incredible Edible, we have one of the free access food tubs in Todmorden so I thought I might make a few comments.The Incredible Edible people are fairly on the ball, much more so than Brian in the “Socialism at Your Fingertips” posting. No one here claims (or should claim) anything more than that the project can further local sustainability in food production. Certainly there have been no “amazing results” (excepting propaganda coups such as the recent visit of Bonnie Prince Bigears) and it definitely does not involve the whole community. Mostly it’s ‘middle class’ in-comers and vegetarian types, who are responsible for the project. While some of the better off locals are involved at a lower level, the substantial Asian origin minority and the white estate dwellers are largely indifferent, as indeed one might expect. Doubtless they have more important worries, such as working out how to keep head above water. So far as “community well-being” is concerned the results are nil. Todmorden demonstrates the whole gamut of modern anti-social behaviour engendered by late period capitalism, from lippy kids to pedo-pervs and nazis, and probably more than most places due to its cotton based economy being smashed long ago.Let’s be very clear: There are absolutely no implications for socialism, no “lessons” to be learnt. Providing a bit (and it is a very minor bit – try to live on it and you’ll be Musselmanned in no time) of fruit and veg free cannot lead to a free society, even incrementally with other, more half-arsed, schemes such as the LETS. It’s not the “either/or thing” of Robbo but a “something else entirely thing”. It’s irrelevant (I should know – I do it!). After all, what have these glorified allotments to do with the means of production? Sweet fuck all. They’re not even peripheral. Neither is it some sort of ‘socialism in miniature’, a guide to human behaviour under “free access”. Such an attitude is the purest utopianism.Hmm. It appears you attributing claims to me which I never made. Indeed I’ve kept an open mind on the project and am well aware that embellishments and exaggerations are par for the course with your contribution being no exception. Nevertheless, when I eventually get round to making a visit to Todmorden your criticisms will be noted along with the rather oblique positive remarks which somewhat confirm my suspicions that although the project is working towards involving the WHOLE community they still have some way to go in that respect.However, sniggering and complaining from the sidelines with mostly negative comments is not in my opinion applying the scientific method to a project which is worth investigating for its attempt at community integration, coordination and cooperation. Surely – at the end of the day – that is what socialism is all about?So please get on here so we can all establish what can be gained from such projects. I would hate to think that yet again the party have thrown out the baby with the bath water!
Quite Robin. All social revolutions require preconditions and prequisites and its foolish to dismiss practical examples which in some small way illustrate what is possible to achieve cooperatively, collectively and democratically. Despite the barriers the Incredible Edible project is seemingly making headway in respect of production for use and free access.
What you are suggesting is already being tried here:http://www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk/ Its outcomes are with the exception of a reduction in anti-social behaviour difficult to quantify but its success in developing an intergrated, cooperative and coordinated project dedicated to localised food production are plain to see. This particular template is rapidly being developed throughout the UK with some amazing results for community wellbeing and collectivity. It needs to be emphasised this is a project which involves the WHOLE Community with no exceptions! I’m keeping a close eye on it to see what lessons can be drawn from it for socialists.
Hopefully the occupy movement will mature into condemning the capitalist system rather than merely complaining.
“But does anyone know what he means by socialism? Is it the same as us?” Why not ask him and build an article around his reply?
“To tell the truth, I sometimes find myself reluctant to express this view when discussing with people who believe this as it could demotivate them and makes us appear less anti-capitalist than them. Still, the truth must be told.”I know the feeling but the fact is – truth?- that capitalism is going to eventually collapse but not the way the collapse theorist envisage it. From the standpoint of social evolution it’s a fact that a revolutionary transformation in the mode of production only occurs once society starts withdrawing support from the old mode of production. The pace of this withdrawal gathers strength once the benefits of the new mode of production become understood, apparent and obvious – and are brought into being. Resulting in the eventual collapse of the old social relationships.However, you have to explain also that the collapse of capitalism is not inevitable and this is a lazy persons approach. In short, with this explanation demotivation rarely occurs but is focused on the necessity for engaging in the revolutionary process. Why? Because you have provided the realisation that unless people engage in the revolutionary process the collapse of capitalism only remains a possibility not a probability. And in effect you have changed a negative into a positive.When I’ve used this approach on ts 3 TZM and at chapter meetings not once did I have a rebuttal. In fact it encouraged questions on the details of the revolutionary process (how, why and when).So in fact capitalism is going to collapse once a majority in society no longer support it. And that only becomes a truth once it has occurred.
ALB wrote:Of course wealth (useful things fashioned from materials that originally came from nature) will continue to exist in socialism. It’s only exchange value that won’t exist (won’t come into existence since wealth will no longer be produced to be bought and sold). Wealth and use-values are the same or, rather, wealth is made up of use-values.The thing about use-value is that it is subjective in that what is considered (valued as) useful by one person or group of persons is not necessarily so considered by another person or group and so can’t be measured in a common unit in the way that exchange value can.Socialist society will have to decide what it is useful (what use values) to produce and then individuals can decide what is useful to them and take this from the distribution centres without the goods (use-values) being priced and without having to hand over money or use a card.Quite so. But I was hoping Darren would reply to my question because it appears he’s assuming that a needs based society will not be producing wealth or value through default. In regards to use-values being subjective and therefore not capable of being measured into a common unit I have to disagree. What about the calculation in kind solution being used has a form of measuring use-value? Roughly speaking that is because I have no desire to get into a discussion on whether or not its necessary to calculate the entire resources of the planet in detail.
