Forum Replies Created
..Another high point was when I found myself in a minority of one for not agreeing that Money = Debt.Perhaps next time I’ll do a presentation on Leibniz Law of Identity!
Went down to the Occupy Norwich camp last night for their ‘monetary reform’ working group.There was a fair amount of amicable discussion, though with the majority in favour of some kind of ‘monetary reform’ (perhaps not surprising as this was the subject for the meeting)I made some comments, well quite a few, and ones about the fractional reserve being a red herring and how commercial banks going bust disproves that they can make money out of fresh air, got funny hand signals which are a kind of silent applause.Unfortunately the idea of a Norwich pound seemed quite popular.There where also two local people present who today I have found out have written a book critiquing banking from a Muslim perspective.I intend to go down again. This is definitely something worth persisting with and a good forum for discussion. How often do groups of people gather outdoors to discuss the nature of the society we live in?
If anyone’s interested Positive Money’s proposals can be read here
Should be meeting some people who are impressed with these ideas tonight. I feel a standard article is in the pipeline
Possibly. The other books I read by him where quite good.
Perhaps the Simon Clarke’s book Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology may have some relevant stuff.Or this article.’The law of diminishing returns’ is a piece of bunk that is taught in economics lessons but especially in relation to corporation size and efficiency doesn’t really have any bearing on the real world of business.To be honest though, to me it seems like you heading down a dead-end ally…ALB wrote:Pity you couldn’t make it since it seems to have been a bit of currency cranks convention, with only one person saying anything sensible:
There ‘monetary reform’ group meets every wednesday so hoping to come down next week. They may also be starting a group to discuss capitalism in general.
Didn’t make it to the meeting in the end. But if anyone is interested a transcript is hereMight see if they’ll have me to do some speaking.
I guess the problem is that ‘money’ has come to mean more than M0. The Bank of England even stopped publishing M0 data in 2006Perhaps a better approach today is to talk about ‘credit’ and ‘wealth’?An expanision in bank loans is an expansion of the money supply (in terms of M1, M2, M3 and M4). But is this necessarily an expansion of wealth? Obviously not.Definitions of money are here
The ‘New Economics Foundation’ have a book out called ‘Where does money come from?’Here’s a video about it:
‘Occupy Norwich’ have invited Green Party currency crank Rupert Read to speak on the virtues of banking reform. I intend to turn up tommorrow and tell the other story. http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-norwich-to-discuss-financial.htmlstuartw2112 wrote:You have a touching faith in the idea that “our theories” will be of any use to any bugger. I’m afraid it’s not a faith I share. It’s a peculiarly arrogant view when you compare what we have achieved in the past century with what Occupy Wall Street achieved in one month. It would be more fruitful by far if we studied their theories and actions, and figured out what we can learn from them.
If you think what the socialist party says is of no use then you may as well give up.What concrete things has the occupy movements actually achieved?It may be drawing in lots of bodies, but so have loads of other mass movements in the past which in the end turn out to have a reformist agenda.
I think it is essential to continually go back and review what was thought previously and to avoid getting sentimentally attached to old ideas should new evidence go against them.It is foolish to think that the socialist party is the source of revolutionary consciousness. It is equally foolish to think that these ‘Occupy’ camps will automatically lead to an upsurge in socialist understanding.As I said before consciousness is an expression of material circumstances. Therefore, there is as much to gain (in fact more) by communicating with people who are not involved in these camps as there is with those that are. Our gaze should be on the population as a whole not just a tiny minority who are making the most noise at the minute.As a group of proles (and some capitalists) who have come to the conclusion that the market system is the root cause and / or an obstacle to the solution of social problems today; we can help ourselves and others who have came to a similar position to clarify their ideas, and so push the direction further. In fact this is the only thing we can do.What in practical terms does ‘solidarity with working class struggles’ actually mean in concrete terms, in terms of action? In reality not much I feel.By keeping alive the idea of a non-market post capitalist society we are acting in the interests of the whole of the proletariat, this is the most meaningful act of solidarity we can undertake.In terms of action then, we should be doing anything and everything that makes our theories easier to be found by those who will know how to use them.stuartw2112 wrote:The occupiers don’t need bloody leaflets or smart arses with all the answers or Socialist Standards — not even the totally brilliant and correct articles by Stuart Watkins — they need practical support.
I think the most worthwhile practical support we can bring to these is a knowledge of the possibilities of going beyond the market system. So Standards and pamphlets are one way of doing this.Quote:Really, what’s not to like? When members say, “It’s not socialist though is it?” they are betraying that they actually believe the old caricature – that the revolution isn’t worth starting till everyone’s read and fully agreed with their copy of the Socialist Standard, and that it shouldn’t start anywhere but parliament.
The party has never claimed that ‘the revolution’ can start in parliament without first starting in the minds (and therefore actions) of the masses. Both revolutionary and reactionary-reformist forms of consciousness can be explained by the contradictory nature of social life in capitalist society.Revolution is of course a process and not an event, but if the Occupy camps represent a tipping-point in this process I’m not yet convinced.
Some good notes. Perhaps your friend would like this article also:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/lenin-socialist-analysisMartov’s ‘The State and Socialist Revolution’ and Pannekoek’s ‘Lenin as Philosopher’ are historical texts containing good critiques of Lenin’s philosophical and political thought.It’s a shame that in the early 21st century there are still people taken in by this stuff…