Forum Replies Created
January 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm in reply to: Workers create all the “wealth” (SPGB, SWP) or “value” (CPGB)? #87549
At the risk of repeating some that has been said above…In capitalist society workers, in acting on the materials provided by nature produce all the wealth of society, yet not all workers actually produce ‘value’.It gets rather technical here, some sectors do not directly produce ‘value’ but siphon it off from other value producing sectors. This is not to say that the labour of non-value producing sectors is useful (though some of it may only be useful in the context of a capitalist system). In common usage the word ‘value’ means something different than it does in the Marxian sense.It is also worth noting that (intrinsic) ‘value’ and ‘exchange-value’ are not the same thing. To also further complicate things, as far as I know Marx did not use the term ‘labour theory of value’ to describe his theory, the labour theory of value really belongs to Smith and Ricardo. Some people think that Marx’s theory implies that commodities exchange at their ‘value’ equivalents according to necessary labour time, in fact this is what Ricardo not Marx claimed.If I’ve got it right Marx’s theory would not hold IF commodities exchange at value, in a capitalist society they generally exchange at price of production + average rate of profit, which is what Marx said. Marx’s theory is more to do with how labour is regulated in an economy governed by the law of value.Wealth and value are not the same thing, like as has been said a non-market economy would be governed by need, not socially necessary labour time.Clear? As mud
Had a look through this, nice looking video but the charter falls down on the first hurdle.1. “The highest concern of humanity is the combined common good of all living species and biosphere.”If that where true perhaps they should be starting a campaign to bring the small pox virus from extinction and tell people to stop using bleach as it kills micro-organisms…That said from point 3 onwards it’s not too bad, shame they trip themselves up early on.January 11, 2012 at 11:40 pm in reply to: Tackling objections and misconceptions about free access and a world without money #87533J Surman wrote:I’m not good with labels and don’t like attaching them but I suppose this one is anarcho-communist. Please put me straight if I’m wrong.
Not sure, but you’re definitely in the right ball park. They / she / he might instead use the label ‘libertarian communist’ the site libcom.org uses artwork from the same artist, not that that necessarily means anything. The pamphlets on the site are from a variety of people / positions.January 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm in reply to: Tackling objections and misconceptions about free access and a world without money #87528
I’m not sure if I’ve made my mind up about this but maybe starting from the point of ‘abolishing money’ is the wrong way to go. It’s like your presenting the conclusion first when really you should be explaining the arguments that led to it.There’s a common cause to all the problems you mention, perhaps showing this in an accessible manner is the way to go. There’s a new book out called ‘The Housing Monster’ this starts from looking at the process of how houses are constructed then spreads out into a full description / critique of capitalism, now the book will have it’s faults no doubt (I’ve only read exerts as yet) but perhaps this is a good angle to adopt. Start from a commonly experienced social problem and show how the causes run back to the same thing…Anyway, just throwing some ideas around.January 10, 2012 at 3:40 pm in reply to: Tackling objections and misconceptions about free access and a world without money #87526
OK. I’ve been having online discussions with some ‘Occupy’ people about this recently. I think the danger of saying that problems are caused by money (or the lack of it) is that that the most logical conclusion following on from this statements would be to just have more money.I agree we have to put our arguments forward in a way that can be easily understood. But over simplifying things always runs the risk of being misunderstood.January 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm in reply to: Tackling objections and misconceptions about free access and a world without money #87530J Surman wrote:…More and more people struggle to or can’t get by because of the reduction in buying power for the world’s majority – it’s MONEY (or lack of) that’s the problem….
This all seems a bit cart before the horse to me. The problems you mention are the result of private ownership of the means of production and production for profit. Money is the RESULT of such an exchange economy and likewise the rendering obsolete of money will be the RESULT of common ownership and production for use.The solution is not to ‘remove money from the system’ but to transform the basis of the system itself, one of the effects of which will be the end of exchange value and money.We need to be really careful and precise in our expressions. “Abolish money” isn’t a meaningful phrase (though on the other hand “abolish the money SYSTEM” is to me ok since it emphasizes the systematic aspects of it all)
OK, I hear you better now.
I guess the question is “for a socialist society to operate does it require a majority in the technical sense (50%+1) or a vast majority?”
I’m thinking it’s the latter.
Seeing as 97% of the people share the same position in society do you really think it conceivable that the amount of people favouring socialism would reach the 50% mark and then suddenly stop? It seems to me they’d be some kind of ‘tipping point’ that would be much lower perhaps 20% or less…The european murder rate is currently 3.5 per 100,000 and fascist parties are marginal, so where you get the idea that half the population are potential racist murderers is beyond me.I do not share your judgmental outlook on the world, there are no such things as ‘cretins’ or ‘thugs’ or ‘shitheads’ just people and circumstances.Feeding the world is a problem that technically has long since been solved. Racism and other mistaken beliefs can only be solved by education.
Ignoring the fact that it is impossible to dictate to people of the future…A few considerations:If society has reached the stage of socialism the masses will have had to recognise there common heritage and acted co-operativly to bring about a vast transformation in the nature of society, this makes ‘racism’ seem unlikelyPeoples actions are largely the result of there environment, the alienated and atomized society that is capitalism potentially lends itself to these kind of behaviors…It seems to that sadism is a form of mental illness, so I guess a socialist society would treat such people as they would anyone else requiring psychiatric help.
Looked up who it was who came up with the ‘state as monopoly on violence’ idea thinking it was one of the anarchists, but seems that one comes from Weber, the godfather of sociology and enemy of socialism.The thing with ‘justice’ like all words is a hard thing to tie down, depends in what context it is being used. Besides retributive justice “an eye for an eye” there’s also amongst others distributive justice, which is to do with fairness. But what is seen as fair of course depends on a persons social background and cultural conditioning. Since there is no such thing as an objective moral truth (as far as I can work out) it all comes down to different groups trying to put their beliefs onto others, how people come to agree on the game and the rules of the game if you like….dogmatic wrote:I agree with you on everything except the bold part which has been proven wrong : Okishio’s theorem is a mathematical theorem formulated by Japanese economist Nobuo Okishio. It has had a major impact on debates about Marx’s theory of value. Intuitively, it can be understood as saying that if one capitalist raises his profits by introducing a new technique that cuts his costs, the collective or general rate of profit in society – for all capitalists – goes up.Okishio  establishes this theorem under the assumption that the real wage – the price of the commodity basket which workers consume – remains constant. Thus, the theorem isolates the effect of ‘pure’ innovation from any consequent changes in the wage.
Actually Okishio’s ‘proof’ is not as strong as you might think and is actually logically inconsistent and so has been junked several times. I don’t have the time to write a full response just yet but will refer you to chapter 7 of Andrew Kliman’s ‘Reclaiming Marx’s Capital’
I watch this channel a lot. It’s interesting in that it gives a different perspective than is on the other channels, but they clearly have there own agenda, don’t know who finances it? Peter Joseph was singing their praises when I saw him on there, which I thought was a little naive…December 31, 2011 at 5:35 pm in reply to: Link Between Airlines’ Profitability and Accident Rates #87245
Another example how production for profit fails to account for real human need, and why state intervention is necessary for preventing the market system from tearing itself apart.I’m half remembering a TV programme I saw last year which said that US airline pilots often have to have a second job as the wages are so low. Don’t know what truth there is in this?There was a book put out in the UK called ‘Murdering the Dead’ which was a compilation of the leftwing-leninist Bordiga’s writing on similar subjects, don’t know if it’s still in print thoughBrian wrote:Currently there’s a few members in the UK Chapter on TS 3 also advocating the use of edemocracy in a RBE. They are also into the so called ‘transistional period’ arguments and consequently getting bogged down with a plethora of possibilities. Which means I’m finding its an uphill battle trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I could do with some help in this respect so the sooner some of you get the courage to venture onto TS 3 the sooner the discussion can broaden into the aspects of the revolutionary process.
If anyone’s interested in this TZM team speak thing more information is here. I might give it a go soon, if I can get a microphone rigged updogmatic wrote:I think the state as it currently exists is way too centralised and undemocratic to be used as “transitional”.
The SPGB does not advocate using the state to manage a ‘transitional society’. The ‘transition’ begins now, and you’re taking part in it, with people talking about and considering the possibilities of a new kind of society. Once the majority understands and wants this new kind of society we can exploit the ‘Achilles Heel’ of so-called democratic society and instigate the measures needed to transform society in as peaceable a manner as possible.For more read these:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamenthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1287-november-2011/what-wrong-using-parliament