Hud955
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi SS
Thanks for this. It’s an interesting concept. I’ve pottered around a variety of ‘minimalist’ sites and it seems that there is a variety of ideas about what it is. Maybe the real irony is not that, like Socialism, it is misunderstood, but that, like Socialism nobody agrees on a definition. The view you express is clearly a dominant strain within it, though.
Having read up on it a little, I could certainly do with some of it in my life, but from a political point of view, it seems to me that jondwhite’s opening comment nails it: socialism is about production, not consumption. And if socialism isn’t about consumption, it’s not about a style of consumption either, minimalist or otherwise.
If you think about it, minimalist consumption is a lifestyle choice within capitalism – a healthy one perhaps – but still a choice, like how you use your minimalist wages. It’s not a structural element of society or a set of social relations, so I don’t think it has a direct relationship to socialism, either as an idea, a movement or an achieved society. As for the kind of ways people would consume within socialism. Who knows!
I think the idea would make a good jumping off point for an article. Why are so many people not minimalist in capitalist society, in the sense that you describe? Why is it hard to break the habit of consuming for its own sake? What’s missing? How does the system work?Brian wrote:Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?I’m not sure that would do much to further the debate frankly. I don’t think we are engaging with some of the more recent arguments to come out of the money creationist stable. I think what we write tends to establish an alternative point of view, without actually challenging many of the notions that the creationists are advancing. That’s partly because the same set of data is consistent with both views. The creationists, of course, are very slick with their presentations. They are well funded and have the people to research and present their ideas. Books like the NEF’s ‘Where does money come from’, which Francesco also promotes skates very slickly over a number of issues, presents several specious arguments and is still persuasive even though it fails to mount a solid case.
Brian wrote:It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k
Besides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.It’s a well-made film. And yes, he summarises much of what we have been arguing – except of course where it comes to his obsession with the finance and banking sector and the monetary theories he has spun out of it. My heart sinks whenever I hear them being promoted because these kinds of analysis of capitalism open the floodgates for reformist thinking: reform the banking sector, and all will be well! These ideas are also very attractive to those wanting ‘new’ understandings and ‘new’ solutions to social problems. PJ denies the reformist argument, of course, but I’ve never heard him give a good account of why reformism will not work.(Perhaps he has, but if so, not very loudly, I think.)
Hi Stuart
Yes it is well worth reading, at least it was for someone like me who had only the haziest notion of conventional economic theory. He makes a strong case for the irrationality of conventional economics and grounds that in the way that it is taught. A good part of the book is devoted to exploding various essential notions. To give an example of his approach, he demonstrates that though you can mathematically derive an individual demand curve from a few conventional economic assumptions about human behaviour, you can’t generalise it to society (though A level students are told that you can). If you try to generalise it, one other variable fails to disappear – a variable for the distribution of wealth. Give that different values and your social demand curve goes up, down or every which-way, destroying the very foundation of conventional economic thinking. He then points out that the reason economists are able to ignore this is that the mathematics is very complex, and only thosevery few who go on to post-graduate economis studhy ever encounter the problem. By that time they are so steeped in the theory that they can dismiss it by making a few vague assumptions ‘to take account of it.’
You have to allow of that Keen’s attack is upon neo-classical economics as he himself is, of course, a Keynsian. In the latter part of the book he uses the Sraffian approach to critique neo-classical economists and Marx also, demolishing, as he believe,s Marx’s solution to the average rate of profit theory.
Worth a read.
CheersHi, that’s an interesting observation from Clifford and rather supports my previous comment that, given their understanding of capitalism, TZM could easily go down the reformist route. But for now, that’s not the view expressed on their website, nor the general view of TZMers I have spoken to. At the meeting I also recall several of their members speaking out against the reformist approach – whatever Francesco said. TZM is a very loosely knit movement with little if anything in the way of formal rules, so I don’t think we should assume that Francesco feels strictly bound to represent any ‘official’ line in the way a SPGBer would or should.
Whether the movement does or doesn’t eventually turn into a banking reform pressure group, for now they are committed to a ‘resource-based economy’ not a reform of capitalism. And that seems to me a good basis on which to build a dialogue. We don’t know what will come of it, but it would be an opportunity lost if we failed to take it.
It’s very easy for the SPGB to assess other organisations as having little potential for socialism. It’s even easier, once that assessment is made, to assume a hostile attitude to them. This seems to me the pinnacle of black-and-white thinking. It treats members of the working class as though they all belonged either to a socialist in-group or a capitalist out-group. Frankly, the working class are all our in-group, whatever stage of consciousness they are at, and it is our task to encourage a socialist consciousness in them. Taking a hostile stand because this or that group doesn’t fully and absolutely agree with us strikes me as so self-defeating that we might as well all go home and watch the latest episode of East Enders.
I think it’s perfectly fair to offer rational criticism of reformist or currency creation ideas, but SPGBers often go a lot further, making derogatory and dismissive remarks about the people who hold such ideas – as though they ‘ought to know better’ or as though they harboured some malevolent, exploitative or authoritarian agenda. Sometime, perhaps, they do. That’s a genuine assessment which has to be made. But I don’t hear any of that from TZMers. For the most part I think they are a lot of idealistic, well-meaning and perhaps frustrated people who understand that there is a lot wrong with the world we live in and belive that a fundamental change is both necessary and possible. Why should we be hostile? Anyone who is seriously prepared to consider the possibility of a moneyless, stateless, post-capitalist society as the solution to our problems is worth talking to in my book – whatever else they might think.It was pointed out at least three times in the meeting that Francesco was voicing a personal opinion about banking reform, which did not reflect the attitude of the group as a whole. Several other people pointed out that though they thought monetary reform was inevitable, they were not advocating it. I think we have to take them at their word on this until proven otherwise.
I will agree that their analysis of capitalism and ‘the money system’ lends itself to a reformist position and they could go down that route if they get frustrated waiting for capitalism to collapse. But that is not the same thing as saying they are currently reformist in this matter. Let’s wait and see.I agree completely, Janet. Although I tend to think that is true of any organisation it is particularly the case with TZM as they have very little in the way of organisational structure and enbody a wide diversity of opinion.
By the way Steve, though it was your comment that set me off on my last rant, most of my last post was not aimed at you.
Ozymandias, I’m not sure how Zeitgeist is doing harm. But I have to agree that from our perspective it is clear that their ‘official view’ (if they have such a thing) will take them nowhere. They will wait for a very long time for capitalism to collapse.That’s why we need a dialogue. Unlike the SWP they are as open to discussion as any organisation that is commited to a point of view is likely to be. And after all they are members of the working class like ourselves, they are anti-reform and they are eager to look beyond capitalism for a solution to global problems.
It may be true, as we would hold, that they are running up a dead end. But that hardly matters. If we content ourselves, once again, about being ‘right’ about that and turn our back on them, as we do about so many things then we deserve to be called sectarian.
Hi Steve. Well, yes we disagree with a lot of what many TZMers say about the root of our problems. They deny class politics and they believe our social problems lie in the money system not in the class system. But as they are not socialists, why would we expect them to agree with us, or to express socialist views? I don’t understand this kind of complaint. We know most people disagree with us; why should TZMers be any different?
The point of having a debate with any other group is to publicly air socialist views and to get a dialogue going with other people. And that’s not all. We believe that our views accurately reflect the world we live in – we wouldn’t be promoting them otherwise, but if, as we claim, our views are based on ‘scientific’ principles, or at least on evidence and argument, we constantly have to test them out publicly. If we ever stopped and felt content to rest on our laurels, then our approach would just become dead and doctrinaire. And dead things go nowhere.
I don’t think it even stops there. Not by a long way. We are not here to be ‘right’ – whatever that means. Being ‘right’, if that is what we are, is not sufficient. On its own it delivers no more than a big hit of self-gratification. If we are going to help change the world, which I believe is what we claim to be here for, then we need to start looking outwards.
Having confidence in the socialist case is of course, important. But it is only the beginning, and probably also the easy bit. If we are going to help others see that their interests lie in promoting socialism we have to learn good communication. And since we claim our case is an evidenced and reasoned one, we have to use evidence and reasoning to communicate it to others. (A bit of sincere gut-socialism to sauce it up a little doesn’t come amiss though, I think.) Complaining that other people have views that contradict our own is hardly a good way to communicate. Castigating them for it, as we sometimes do, is even worse: it’s self-defeating, and a good way to make us look like a bunch of self-satisfied tossers.
The TZM do not have socialist views but by their own rationalist method they have arrived at a number of conclusions that are remarkably close to our own in several areas. When was the last time that happened? This in itself merits a respectful dialogue and that, in turn, means recognising the differences between us. The hostility clause was never meant to be taken literally – I hope! You don’t have to agree with someone to respect their point of view. And without a respectful and reasoned dialogue you will lose an opportunity to test our your own case and theirs.Hi Steve
I’ve just posted on the Northern Echo thread
A bit late in the day, but the thread is still live. No doubt he will go on a rant over it but there are a few interested posters there who might be interested in a coversation.
Cheers
RichardHi RobinI don’t want to get into a big debate right now so I’ll just pick up on one or two of your points which really go to the heart of this matter.You claim that if the SPGB opened up its membership to people with religious beliefs, the size of the party would swell to the point where take-off would be possible. That suggests that by far the largest number of members would, under those circumstances, have some religious beliefs. As a democratic organisation, that would render your suggestion about placing various ‘bans’ on the membership to stabilise materialist opinion fanciful or at least highly precarious, since a religiously inclined majority could simply outvote such a ban, and might well have a strong motive to do so. If, on the other hand, you are wrong and the membership increase resulting from a relaxation of the ban on religious beliefs would only be small, then such a ban would be feasible (though it would raise a number of tricky issues). The problem in this instance though, is that the limited affect on membership would remove the practical reason for abolishing the religious ban in the first place.For me, the big problem is the power that a democratic majority committed to non-materalist views has to fundamentally alter the character and direction of the party. You say that people would have no reason to do this, but that is speculation. I don’t know about you, but in real life, people constantly surprise me with the things they do and the reasons they give for doing them. Whether their actions are rational or irrational, other people rarely think in accordance with my own paradigms, making it impossible for me to anticipate their views and actions. In this particular case we are, by definition, talking a group of people who take a qualitiative view of the world which can accommodate both religious and materialist ideas. That renders their reasons for doing things even more unpredictable and the anxieties of members on this matter are likely to be well founded.One other point, just very briefly: I think the question of whether religion has, in the past, been able to accommodate some aspects of scientific enquiry into its world view is a red herring. The question is whether religious organisations in all or any of their many social forms would oppose a socialist revolution, and use their power over adherents to prevent its occurence. I think, since any religion of any size invariably becomes a social, hierarchical and economic organism with interests rooted in capitalism, the likelihood is that they would.On the other hand, I have some sympathy with your view that we should look at what constitutes religious belief and make specific recommendations about membership. I also think religious ideas are not so easy to eradicate, and it is likely that a socialist majority will contain a significant percentage of religious believers. In those circumstances I think the working class might just bypass the party (assuming it continues to hold this line) and form an alternative political body to introduce socialism. At which point, if it were genuinely socialist, I would probably join them.I see the religious ban as a pragmatic decision, one that is capable of changing in changed circumstances. At present I suspect it is the right way to go.
I looked him up. His main stand is an anti-war one. He belongs to an organisation that provides a European refuge for American military deserters. He also seems to have a strong religious view (to judge by one of his novels.)
LOL If I recall the ‘pilgrim fathers’ left London for America with their indentured servants. A good start for a ‘socialist’ community I’ve always thought. Still, he looks like a nice,clean-living Texan boy, so there should be no surpirse if a confused and simplistic account of an early American community should appeal to him.
The problem is though, it’s very simplicity makes it effective propaganda among a population already educated to react badly to the word socialism, whatever confused notions are attached to it.Great man? I think Chomsky has a capacious intellect, and I admire him for his tireless work at exposing capitalist ideology, but his reliance on simple rationalism makes his work useful only as a source of information, not analysis.
Having said that, I did follow up some of his references once and found that his scholarship is not always as trustworthy as his adulators believe.
