[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

To say socialist consiousness arises out class struggle is execatly what the materialist conception of history tells us. To say that the job of the SPGB is to teach workers about socialism is to make us look elitist and idealist. How did we become socialist if not from the material conditions of capitalism.

Well, it’s not quite as simple as this. Consciousness arises out of material conditions. The material condition of class society is the class struggle. So ALL forms of consciousness in a capitalist society arise from it’s antagonistic conditions, so we have contradictory forms of consciousness; fascism, reformist, socialist, religious….In other words socialist consciousness does arise out of the class struggle, but so does fascism (including it’s ‘communist’ variants)By education we should mean spreading our positions as widely and as clearly and accessibly as possible. But it is only because of the material conditions that we have these ideas in the first place. And it is only because of these conditions that other people will relate to them. Ideas do not magically appear out of the sky (or the socialist standard or Das Kapital).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.

[DJP]

Please bear in mind that anything we say about how a future society is speculation only, ultimately it will be up to the people at the time to decide how to organise things, not us in the socialist pre-history.

ladybug wrote:

 … I made the assumption (noted above) that the community would be involved in these decisions of how to allocate scarce resources. But I don’t think this would be possible because it would be too many meetings. So although no seperation between workplace and community is the ideal, I don’t think it can be met totally in every case, and some boundary will need to remain. But there definitely needs to be more community input/control in workplaces, such as for environmental standards, product health and safety, etc.

The thing is it is entirely possible to co-ordinate production without any meetings at all. In fact meetings are a very ineficiant way of organising things. In the age of electronic communications it only takes a few seconds to communicate ‘hey guys we are getting low on copper’ across the whole world. Productive units will be in constant comminication with each other and so can adjust production schedules as requirements change. 

ladybug wrote:

Plus I’m not convinced about SPGB’s electoral strategy. I don’t entirely dismiss it either, as I think it might be possible, but I put more faith in revolution.  

Perhaps then this is another area where we can change your thinking. What is a revolution? A total change in the material basis of society. This is what the socialist party seeks to bring about.Now what is socialism? A society in which the producers co-operativly and freely co-ordinate their labour for the good of all.Now can you have a socialist society before the majority want it and are willing to put it into practice? Can you force people to co-operate? I would seem to me that the answer is no.Therefore it is impossible to have a socilaist revolution until the majority support it.So with this in mind and considering “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class” can you come up with a practical reason as to why a socialist majority should not use the democratic process to neutralise any possible counterattack from a pro-capitalist minority?

[DJP]

 

ALB wrote:

 I challenged him to a bet that his predicted deflation wouldn’t happen (to be called in in 2017).

Wasn’t there also prediction in Zeitgeist Addendum that the US would have defaulted on its national debt by now? Will look it up….

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

DJP  Other   SPGB!!?

You really have been missing out on all the fun!http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/

[DJP]

Thanks Mr Whistle thats good to know.You’re right there must be thousands of people coming to conclusions simular to ours. That’s why I think I main activity should consist in making ourselves as easy to find as possible.Morris said “make socialists” I think this is wrong, it is capitalism that makes socialists not the feeble actions of a small minority group, therefore I think our motto should be instead “find socialists!”.

[DJP]

Does anyone know if all the occupy groups practise(d) consensus and an open membership policy? That would explain their difficulty in coming to a decision. Also as far as I know there is no mechanism for co-coordinating the various groups, so ‘Occupy’ is really just a collection of disparate and independent groups.

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.

What’s an underwater mortgage? Like what you need to buy a submarine?

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

The Occupy movements are not political parties and nor were the Miners in 1984. We were working people at war with the capitalist class

I wonder how much you’ve actually participated in this Occupy stuff? The most popular currents within it (at least in the UK) seem to be for a land tax ala Henry George and monetary reform ala Postitive Money / NEF as well as some Green Party type ideas.. These are things that Socialists should be criticising and ridiculing!The trouble with the Occupy thing is that it’s so amophous for it really to represent a cohesive organisation, but where it to become one, I feel alas it would be necessary to oppose it.SOME of the actions associated with the wider occupy movement, and mostly in the US, are inspiring particularly how it worked together with various trade union / workplace activities – I’m not sure if this happened so much in the UK?Reform or revolution does not mean that we should oppose all reforms (as the other SPGB seem to think) but that we should oppose reformism, the illusion that you can get to socialism by gradually stacking reforms one on top of the other.

[DJP]

…In short I think the rule should be: PARTICIPATE, but do so without illusions.

[DJP]

Stuart, I don’t need to patronise the poorest people in ‘our’ country (I thought workers had no country though) with my compassion, I am one of them and I have an ABSOLUTE awareness of where my interest as a member of the working lies, in the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with socialism RIGHT NOW.Of course workers should resist attacks on their conditions, we have no choice but unless we want to get caught up in an endless struggle we have to move beyond this. If the last century is to show us anything is that not the futility of following reformist illusions? Reformism is a barrier that the revolutionary movement will have to overcome.

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Seems to me that they are part of an effort (a global effort, more successful in some places than others, depending on the level and militancy of such efforts) to impose the losses (inevitable devaluation) of the crisis more on the ruling class than on the working class. Good luck to them.

The point is if this is the ONLY thing they end up doing then they are wasting their time. Another crisis will come along and they’ll have to do it all over again. Further more, despite their aparant militancy, all they are doing is pandering to the state to make a petty change in its taxation laws. If they where to succeed, they will not have changed the underlying situation one jot. But when considering WHY this is the case it could be likely that some of them will end up at socialist type conclusion.So, all that can be done is to carry on a dialogue explaining that the only way to ultimately resolve the situation is to change the fundamental conditions that underlie it.In short, it’s the classic reform versus revolution argument again…

[DJP]

Just to re-iterate gnome’s point. We need people that realise that the way society is structured is the result of peoples actions as they come together to produce the material things they need to exist, nothing more and nothing less. Belief in some super-natural force that steers it all would be counterproductive to say the least.

Ed wrote:

…religion is a product of and sustained by class society 

Actually that’s probably not quite right, I would have thought primtive hunter-gatherering people (i.e before the advent of private property and class society) would have had some type of religion, though perhaps someone can correct me.

Ed wrote:

someone could recognize their belief in a deity as just that a belief with no supporting evidence

I’m not sure if this is quite the case either. Most religious people will point to something to support their belief, even if it is just some vauge mystic ‘feeling’, religious experience or ‘miracle’.I’m not sure that a person that believes in anything without evidence would make a good party member anyhow. We need people who can critically understand the world and not get led along by conmen with their own agendas.

[DJP]

The party will have to continue ‘ridiculing and attacking’ counterproductive and mis-informed IDEAS so long as they obscure the case for socialism. Mere ‘disgruntlement with capitalism’ is not enough. It is pointless coseying up to any group that stands for anything less than the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with socialism.Myself and other party members have and continue to discuss with people from Occupy and other groups, this is all we should be doing. If people are unable to listen to their ideas being criticised then there’s no hope for us, but I think they can. What I think is more harmful is declaring the eminent downfall of capitalism at the outbreak of every strike or birth of a popular grouping. Surely this distracts from the long slog that is needed and leads to disillusionment and withdrawal.

[DJP]

Meanwhile it seems Occupy Norwich has evolved into the militant wing of the inland revenue

Occupy Norwich wrote:

Dear Friends and Activists alike,At 1 o’clock on Saturday 24th March there will be a rally outside Topshop/man to raise awareness of tax havens and the damage they do to our economy. We will be highlighting Philip Greens Tax negligence as an example of what thousands of other companies are getting away with every year. Tax dodging is standard practice for many multinationals and it’s perfectly legal. In fact 98 of the FTSE 100 companies use tax havens to minimise their taxes. But when companies exploit international loopholes in these ways, we end up paying the price. Figures produced for PCS by the Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. This money could be used to help relieve some of the strain that the relentless government spending cuts are putting on the whole country, but instead it is pocketed by a handful of ultra-rich individuals. Philip Green is one of these individuals. Green is CEO of ‘The Arcadia Group’ which includes Topshop and Topman, BHS, Burton, Dorothy Perkins, Evans, Miss Selfridge, Outfit, and Wallis. Although through this he has a personal income of around £1.2bn a year, the entire group is in his wife’s name. As she is a resident of Monaco (a tax haven) they enjoy a 0% income tax rate on this enormous sum. As a result of this, Green legally avoids paying a UK tax of approximately £285m. This is equivalent to 9000 NHS nurses annual salaries or 32,000 annual student fees that he is hoarding for himself rather than giving back to the people who buy his products and the country he lives in.This is just one example of what hundreds of companies are getting away with, but there is a solution. Taxation must be changed to a system that demands more transparency from these large multinationals so that it is clear how much money they are making, and in which countries this money is being made. These figures could then be taxed according to the laws of the individual countries where the profits were made. This would lead to a fairer business world and less abuse of developing nations. I’m sure you agree that Tax havens are a blinding statement of todays culture of corrupt capitalism. A clear disregard is shown for the welfare and quality of life of many in exchange for extreme wealth for a few individuals. I will see you on Hay HillFrom Occupy Norwich Direct Action

[DJP]

Brian wrote:

And if not why not?   Are not ‘the contradictionary conditions’ and ‘decreasing conditions’ one and the same thing?  An explanation would be appreciated.

Decreasing means a lessening in size, strength or quantity.I was using the word ‘contradictory’ in the dialectical sense, in the sense that capitalism is composed of various opposing tendencies, the central relation being that between wage labour and capital .For example: Competition between capitalists leads them to invest more and more in machinery and less and less in workers (labour-power) but as labour power is the source of profit this leads to a fall in the rate of profit. But there are also other factors at play which counter this tendancy, not least the devaluation of capital which occurs in a crises.So whether the economic cycle is on the up or the down the basic contradiction, and the need for socialism, is the same.So decreasing means down, the interplay of factors that make a ‘contradiction’ can go either way.Fairly basic stuff?

[Author]

Posts