L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I stood handing out leaflets: in an electorate in Australia- knowing we would also wake up to a liberal government… but we did not despair.
In the seat where we had rallied for a Victorian Socialist candidate we obtained 4.8%- that is between 3000- 4000 people in one area who intentionally and consciously voted for socialism.
socialism counts. Yes we have climate denying ruling parties on the right.
There is a gradual growth in socialism- and it was maybe double the number of Clive Palmer’ s Australian Party (a affluent right winger figure) in this one electorate alone.
This was an election on the right that called to ‘save petrol cars for the tradie’, clean energy mix coal, and so on. But this narrative may be challenged post election.
The positive thing is: thousands in an electorate made the vote for socialism- so I am optimistic.
Regarding research on climate change- I believe there is enough expertise on this forum and on many others, to use social science modelling on future social predictions, and to unpack the capital/socialism and dire warnings against capitalism in the mix. Perhaps the Socialist Standard could promote a section(s) to predictions, not just climate, but societal predictions and harms of capitalist modes.
Stay optimistic, I have tired legs today from standing up handing out pamphlets, 🙂
L.B
Alan: socialism or barbarism.
My life is on socialism- the latter will not prevail, for on the basic level- we are programmed to help one another, and if things get worse, we will spot the sociopathic tendencies of apex predators. The survival of the fittest is a vain, capital ideation, and once the real conditions are seen for what they are, people will awake to it.
I am and will, remain positive.
We all write on this forum, and partake in action- it means something. I have just helped out at an election day for the socialist candidate amid right wing parties daring their numbers- I do it for hope, and for that basic social scientific premise: we are social beings.
It is about time we see climate vandalism as anti-social, pathologise it- it is a different science to climatology, but a science in support of it in relation to behaviours and the environment.
Why do it- well, why not- be positive, we are many but out voice is often ignored- but the active- we are many!
“People are reluctant to take great leaps of faith and that is the only thing we at the moment offer. Our word against the “experts”.
Our case has not been corroborated by the science community. And I doubt it ever will be since who pays the piper calls the tune and we do not finance our own technical research institutes or have PhD students to concentrate on the issue.”
By unmasking the ideology of ‘clean coal’ and the carbon credit- or climate denial, we can shine a spotlight on the capital, and the apex powers, system and point to the socialist mode. So researchers (socialist centred) are thin, but they are there- and the current reports can be used within a socialist narrative. A meta analysis is possible of any data, according to the right research question. The science is there but we need to leap to that faith, in the socialist imaginary.
What kind of questions: socialism does not produce rampant waste/ but capital oversupply does?
Maybe I am naive- but locating the experience effects or peoples lived experience of climate change is crucial.
I started working on a vineyard with a friend, producing pinot noir- the first advice from other workers was “in 5 years time we may not be able to grow it here- the summers have become too hot”. Local producers are aware of the environment, and of climate change- and their concerns are dismissed. They are told by the advisor state boards to adapt, grow something else more ‘sustainable’ and amenable to the market. Right there is conscious awakening- capital will not respond, but adapt, letting others simply ‘go to the wall’-
There has to be a way to connect the data (not the tune) to socialist modes of production- I cannot believe any major research has not been made available- most of it focuses on the impact to the economy… A market eye produces market concerns- it is time for the socialist eye, and a call out for socialist research into productive modes and the environment…
Be kind to you,
L.B
Marcos, you are right on the point!
It is that simple. And complicating it just makes it seem more difficult to change. Direct action should be so simple
A lot of statistics on climate projections are based on- modelling. A capitalist mind will base it on capital projections- and it is profit orientated- that is: profit now; and pay later.
Even now, the notion of ‘carbon credit’ permits resource industries to ‘pay to pollute’ and maximise profit over the environment. It is capturing carbon in profits, and in a capital mode of production, profit is over carbon.
Under a socialist mode the carbons/pollutants would be managed, as profit is eliminated, and human economics centres all activity- it will not cost a thing to manage global warming (in the capital sense of costs). Democratic productions does not rely on costs, but sheer will, knowledge, and activity… and behavioural change.
There is no statistic whiz who will give an answer, for it relies on who pays for them; what their policy is; what their philosophy is… sounds negative- but I live in an electorate that says we can have clean coal… A last gasping breath from the liberal/mining industry- they call it the ‘energy mix’!
L.B
At the end of the day, if we base UBI on capital based monetary values (and in the social totality [both in states, and between them]) we will see it through money. It is capital over labour, and setting a new baseline of basic income/ or basic poverty.
I finally gave up on any hope of change- the capital system is in ruins and it won’t reform. It will hire cheap and sell big. It has no future-
It is the apex predator, and it follows master/slave, lord/serf, and capital/labour power relations. It is old,it is fattened, and it seems enduring! It can change itself to survive- yet it is the same power over.
We need change, but, the voters sleep: putting their vote on the herd that will enslave, or offer their brand of protection.
UBI… it is a beef intervention- a payment to be dormant- a market forgotten!
In the developing world, or developed- it supports the mart- even poverty at UBI level is put to use.
I might rant. But I have reached my tether, and the tether stings.
We are social beings, no more hierarchy in wealth, in society. No to the apex predator.
I am sick of the divide, the fighting and the wealth versus poverty- the division is constructed… and can be reconstructed.
The ubi narrative circulates, but can human economics circulate too, it seems not.
The best option we have is a socialist economy- but it seems so far.
Ubi can feed- a basic nutrient- but it is not a full meal: it is a level above starvation- and prevents it. What a ball to throw.
Signing out,
L.B
I see your point. Capitalism, if it can, will use all available labour as it can in an unpaid form (from parenting to altruism) to end result a profit- this can happen more spectacularly in corporate philanthropy- with donated worker time, and maximising under spending by a ‘small government’ approach to welfare. But generally it is pervasive.
Labour and time takes on new complexes- and challenges the reality that non for profit is a end user for profit.
L.B.
Take care
Perhaps the end result has value- but it can go without pay,
The social totality, or the social practice pertaining the family as an apparatus does have an ‘end user’ for capitalism. Future populations are generated- and then turned into labour/consumers.
But how they came into being is not waged. Women experience this above men. There is a lot of labour time completed without value- and not all of it is waged, but the opposite, it is commodified- pay to be a parent!- but the resulting effects are of benefit to capital, and often to men in the traditional patriarchy.
Sometimes the value is an indirect effect, or a non paid benefit in any totality.
This is a challenge.
There is a waft of feudalism in capital recognition of labour.
To maximise profit by conflating labour with unpaid time:
This is one theme. Labour time is undervalued for a ‘commodity’- and undervalued labour is pervasive. And that is generally undervalued work with little skill or profit, other than its outcome (according to capitalism) in life’s necessary activity (experience effects of engendered work). Raising a family is value, producing future workers, but the one who raises the family is under valued! And the labour buyer profits from it in their workforce.
Okay, that made it sound complicated-
All labour is important, under socialism. Under capitalism, labour time is measured, according to a commodity and product- something that can be sold. Parenting (mum or dad) is not accorded a value in wage, in the act of raising a child/ren, but seen as an expense.
I have moved beyond the thread, but the theme is- time and labour is under an antagonism. The reality is that the technical and material operations/forces involved in undervalued work are being maximised for profit… by producing markets. I will wake up tomorrow and make this less complex..
L.B.
Tell me more about your discoveries JClark, as I may have described the general rather than the particular.
Labour is indeterminate: but are you considering the specialisations in labour and the distributions to the class/gender divide?
Fixing and stabilising the price of commodities requires a shake up of labour- leading to casualisation, and the ‘uber’ self employed.
Perhaps commodity price indexing means labour costs are equally low, and undervalued… even unrecognised!
L.B
Hi J. Clarke,
Diane Elson has been very prolific in feminism and women’s emancipation,
A general thread in her work is the gender divisions of labour. Often the activities and labour participation of women is subalternative to men, and their economic participation.
In capital social totalities, society, and even some traditional older ones, women have been subjected to the male gaze, and their labour limited, even dismissed, even unpaid- like the value of ‘domestic labour’, it has been unrecognised.
I do not want to do a ‘mansplain’ (a man who explains a feminist issue). I am supportive: and men need to challenge and speak out too, or it may lead to collusion with male privilege; silence as complicity!
Her writings often explain that she works with the ‘insider’ who is part of the capital regime, to inform of the disempowerment of women and their labour, while men’s labour seems valued more.
She challenges the binary divisions of gender and work: men’s work valued over women’s, family/domestic chores under profit making chores.
The challenge is: encouraging men to participate and share in the social totality of labour- so it becomes non-binary. women’s work is men’s work: Men’s work is women’s work- then can we get parity.
So if you read her work, it will be a good and challenging read- post note: though she works to educate ‘insiders’ of capital formations, she is not supportive their modes, and is an educator and an activist. The capital seek this division-
But my point… socialism should eliminate this gender division, and production should be non-binary…
L.B
Matthew,
Thanks for that. I read some of the information on Richard Montague- and it was resonating in a really big way: like I was having my thinking spun into words!
To escape the bonds of nationalism, divisive nationalism, is so crucial to universal worker identity (diverse yet common). Oddly enough, it gave me gentle permissions to just let it go (the call to take a stance on green: orange) and see that the intersections and similarities workers share- moving to a better reality of socialism as the mode to end all that sectarianism. You know, capitalism exploits the labour from either side; and maximises its profits without bias to the royal/republic divide, and for certain dividing us reduces organised mass resistance.
Thanks for that,
L.B
Hi Alan,
“Is there anything wrong in saying collective or social ownership, rather than always using common ownership? Are there better alternatives?”
This question really caught me. In capital formations, okay, society, normalising judgements attach themselves to word use: deeming one expression legitimate over another. For example ‘collective’ is considered negative in its use- and ‘community’ is preferred over it. ‘Community’ becomes more legitimised in its usage as it fits with social/community as capital. The terms ‘collective or social ownership’ are the villains in capital thinking as any full on liberal associates them with communism, socialism; and so seeks to ‘abnormalise’ (I know that is a suspect spelling) their usage in popular political speech- subordinating them to impolite usage.
I for one use them proudly ‘collective and social’ ownership- my least preferred term that has taken traction is social capital: now who owns that, and do we have to pay to use it!
Regards
L.B
