DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TheSpanishInquisition wrote:who pays the people working for the company? Will you just force the original owner to pay even though he no longer receives any benefit from doing so? Will the government subsidise the costs? Will you seek out private investors? Will this leaderless movement somehow pay every employee from its profits alone? If so, how will the amount each person earns be determined? What's to stop the more expendable workers complaining because the more important ones got paid more?
The fact that you are asking questions likes this indicates that you have absolutely no idea about what socialism is. Which is fair enough. But to explain properly would take up a lot of space on a discussion forum. So perhaps here is a good place to start:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-principles-explainedOr the various articles in our FAQ section.There doesn't seem much point discussing until you have some basic knowledge…
Just rediscovered this podcast from a few years back. It's the guy who made those "Kapitalism 101" youtube videos talking about Rick Wolfe and Andrew Kliman. It's pretty informative as to why socialist have to defend the term "socialism" against the likes of Wolfe and his ilk.http://dietsoap.podomatic.com/entry/2011-10-10T13_28_30-07_00
One of the prerequisites of a successful discussion is respect for the other parties. As that is clearly missing I think there is no point continuing…
Sepehr wrote:Commodities will continue to exist even under communism.This sums up your misunderstanding neatly. If everything is held in common how can exchange take place? Do you think it is possible to exchange goods you already own with yourself?
Sepehr wrote:the definition of surplusvalue is any value generated excess to the "necessary labour";What is "value" and is "value" and "labour" necessarily the same thing? If "value" is generated by labour does this necessarily mean that all labour produces "value" under all historical-socio-economic conditions?
Sepehr wrote:"communism", consciously and without mediation of markets and money.What is it that has changed once social production is no longer concerned with the production of commodities and the buying and selling of labour-power? Is it coherent to speak of "value" existing in such a society?
Those comics are funny sometimes but something like this is a better starting point:http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/philosophy-beginners
The email address of the Audio Visual Committee is spgb.av@worldsocialism.org
jondwhite wrote:Haven't we still got an Education Committee?If there is it's a single member. I resigned in September.
Vin wrote:When and where was the meeting held and how was this decision arrived at?Like most all other committees internet committee activity is conducted via email and all decisions arrived at through these means.
Quote:Did the IC have any intention of informing the EC or NERB branch?There would have been no need to inform the EC, though a reply to you should have come sooner.
Quote:Which members of the IC were opposed to NERB's rquest?As far as I recall the decision was pretty much unanimously agreed.If you unhappy with a decision made by any committee you can raise the issue with the relevant committee, or through your branch to the EC. Or even contact the EC as an individual
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Gilbert McClatchie's excellent talk on Materialism and "the dialectic", which clearly and elequently states the SPGB's position on this (if it is still available it is well worth listening to, it was recorded int helate 60s or early 70s)It's not currently available as far as I know. But looking at the list of talks held on reel to reel tape this looks like it could be one of them. Sounds like it will be worth digitising if the tape is still sound.
ALB wrote:but I think that "notional capital" would have been a better term than "fictional capital"I wonder what the original German word was?
ALB wrote:If Positive Money really think that a bank could operate without outside fundingThey don't seem to think this, but seem to be holding two contrary positions at once:http://positivemoney.org/2012/07/if-banks-can-create-money-how-come-northern-rock-went-bust/
dms wrote:I guess the restriction is whether or not the borrower has the ability to repay. Under the PM model of banking the bank only has to ensure their assets (the loan agreements) match their liabilities (deposits in accounts). If they start issuing dodgy loans to people and they get defaulted on then they are at risk at not being able to cover people wanting to withdraw their money.I agree with the description. But don't see how this squares with the claim of loans being created "out of nothing".
