[robbo203]

AHS wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism,  the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint.  The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. 

But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism. 

 As BD suggests there is a big difference between advocating reforms (reformism)  and votng on reforms advocated by others.  You cannot simultaneously adopt a reformist and a revolutionary position.  It has to be one or the other.  You cannot seek to both mend and end capitalism.  It is likely though that the trickle of reforms originating from outside the socialist movement  will become a torrent as and when the movement itself becomes a significant force.  While not advocating reforms themselves, socialist delegates can certainly judge reforms on their merits and vote accordinglyAs I  suggested, the larger the movement the greater its impact on the entire social climate and by extension on the nature of the opposition socialists will still have to contend with.  That opposition is more and more likely to move towards a socialist outlook than away from it, in its various aspects. Quite apart from that, I think it is mistaken to focus solely on the impact a growing movement might have within parliament itself.  Some of the most interesting and profound impacts might very well take place outside of parliament – even if parliament itself is the fundamental institution of social legitimation which we would be wise not to ignore

[robbo203]

KAZ wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.

Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?

 I think you have to look at this from the perspective of a dynamic process.  By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism,  the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint.  The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas.  Even opponents. I think the so called problem of the "recalcitrant minority" is greatly overstated.  Relax.  By the time the writing is on the wall for capitalism it will be far too late for any of these folk to do much about it.   The great majority of them will see sense in my view and simply go along with the change

[robbo203]

Thanks Guys.   The problem seems to have finally sorted itself.  So as you say DJP , a temporary glitch

[robbo203]

There are some very useful ideas in this report and the digital app it refers too – though I'm a bit hazy about how it works – sounds like something the Party ought to definitely acquire One of the features mentioned  is an abilty to provide "Profiles for members to contact each other and their branches (almost like a Social-ist Social Media app)".  This could assist implementation of the proposed "buddy system" mentioned in the recent Party Survey.  It would also be very handy to know the particular interests and abilities of  members from the point of view of the Publications Committeee insofar as we would like to widen the engagement of members in various projects that have been suggested

[robbo203]

Rusty Pigfumbler wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

   I think, as I have said before,  we need more in the way of intermediate-type pamphlets with a narrower focus and a more detailed treatment of the subject matter.  General pamphlets on broad themes such as ecology, war, Marxian economics etc  have their place , of course, but they need to be complemented by this more specific and targeted  kind of approach in my view.  

 If by 'intermediate',' narrow' and 'targeted' you mean topical, then this would be going down the wrong road. A pamphlet, say, on the conflict in Syria would quickly become obsolete upon victory for one side or the other. Syria would be forgotten and the pamphlet of little interest. There is an amusing suggestion in message 3. Now, suppose back in the 1960's the Party had produced a pamphlet called 'Wilson'. I suppose today it would have curiosity value, certainly for those who collect these things, but at the time the Party would have wasted its resources. Topicality is for articles in the Socialist Standard and leaflets. Pamphlets set out the broad socialist arguments dealing with the main features and shortcomings of capitalism. In that way they have, if nothing else, a longer shelf-life.

  Hi Rusty What  I have in mind by intermediate type pamphlets could be something to do with a topical subject but it does not necessrily have to be.   To cite a random example –  we have a general pamphlet on Marxian economics but there might be a case for focussing on a particular aspect of Marxian Economics such as the "transformation problem" or "theories of economic crises" within an intermediate type pamphlet.  Similarly, we might have a general pamphlet on the environment or ecology but we might also want  specific pamphlets on say , fracking or global warming. The SS covers these topics but the problem with the SS is that, while what it does is absolutely indispensable, there are obvious space and maybe stylistic constraints that prevent a topic being given the kind of detailed comprehensvie treatment it sometimes requires in my opinion,   The way party literature is currently organised (in the absence of a theoretical journal at any rate)  means that the printed  word tends to fall between two stools in that respect – general pamphlets and the SS .   I think we need different approaches to plug what to me is an obvious gap in our literature.  I say this out of practical experience of engaging with outsiders on various forums I belong to. Often I have referred such people to particular SS articles dealing with particular topics only to get the response that they dont find the article completely satisfactory as it is too generalised in effect (one critic used the term "glib" I recall).   So I have to search for other closely related articles in the hope that several such articles might collectively provide the information that the person is looking for.  It can be quite a pain in the neck! In any case I dont think intermeidate type pamphlets dealing with a subject of a topical nature is necessarily a problem even if it has as you say, a shorter shelf life…

[robbo203]

Wergittep Eki wrote:

Matt wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Well Alan, at least you, me and Vin are keeping the punters entertained.  You and I should start up a double act.

I do not find the subject remotely 'entertaining'. I am sure Alan and Vin do not do so either. It is all very well trying to understand why and where, obnoxious ideas arise from, in order to combat them, but I have some first hand experience of seeing some terrible consequences arising from them.

Do you have any first-hand experience of rape?I've heard that lots of young white women are being raped by the immigrant pets that idiots like you, Vin and Alan want to keep bringing into the West.When do we get to discuss that, fuckwit?And why do you, Vin, Alan Johnstone, Adam Buick and the SPGB hate white women and want white women to be raped?

 This has surely got to qualify as one of the dumbest statements to be made on this forum.   The SPGB  "hates white women and wants white women to be raped".   Oh please.. What planet  do these people come from?

[robbo203]

kenax wrote:

 in any case, i'm still curious about practical implementation. for example, at one point it was said it could not exist if any country adopted capitalism. this would require a worldwide revolution, and i doubt it wouldn't be bloody. i would think it would be a good idea to lay out some sort of a "ten point plan" of how this is supposed to come about. perhaps start on a grass roots level, perhaps akin to the Hamish in north Alberta, Canada, who for religious reasons don't want electricity or any of the gadgets and just live together like a community in kibutz style. if enough of such communities were built from the ground up, with grassroots interest, then i could imagine a world transition/revolution could take place. secondly, even if this first stage was successful, i still do not understand how the day to day functionality would work. running several online business, i guess i look at things from a practical perspective. let me explain.  

 Hi Karel.   The question of practical implementation that you touch upon is a vital one but trust me when I say that all of the points you raise are points that others have raised too en route to becoming socialists themselves.   We have all been through these necessary prelimanry stages of questioing and trying to figure it all out.   In the end I guess it all comes down to one's ideological make  up and motivation as to what one does with the information to hand.Talking of which there is a wealth of information available on this site for you to explore and even if in the end we dont end up in agreement, such information will be very useful to you in your own political development. Can I particularly recommend to you 2 publicationshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-liveApart from that, there is a treasure trove of about 114 yeras worth of articles published in the Socialist Standard.  That will make for a quite a lot of bedtime reading ! 

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The party also  needs a  pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism.  The "Are we prisoners of our genes" pamphlet  is good but does not deal with the argument directly in my view which break down into 3 basic assertions: –  human beings are inherently lazy-  human beings are inherently greedy-  human beings are inherently warlike and aggressive We need to deal with each of these claims once and for all – systematically and comprehensively – within a single publication And Vin, in answer to your tweeter, you could point out  that most work even under capitalism is UNPAID and the so called grey (non-monetary) economy is larger than the official white and unofficial black money economies combined in terms of hours worked 

No doubt you would accept that people can be lazy, greedy and warlike/aggressive; are you suggesting that these attributes – which you assume to be negative – are the result of capitalism alone?

 IkeThe point is that these attributes are invoked as a reasons why socialism is not possible.  I dont say capitalism qua capitalism is responsible for them because I dont actually think they exist by and large or at least not in the sense that they are imagined to exist – as essentialistic features of human beings.  Actually if the workers were truly greedy or lazy why would they put up with a system that exploits them and compels to labour for a capitalist minority?  Why settle for crumbs when you can take  the whole bakery?  There is something distinctly ungreedy about such behaviour My point is that capitalism needs to perpetuate the myth of the lazy greedy or aggressive worker to secure its hegemoney.  It needs to individualise blame, to attribute poverty to the indolence or sloth of individual workers so as to deflect attention from the structural factors that underlie poverty. The human nature argument against socialism appeals to some kind of quasi original sin, some inherent flaw in the human make up that forever denies us the possibility of establishing a decent society.   It is based on a myth and the empirical evidence suppplied by capitalism itself shows it to be a myth

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

A point to consider is that not all employers are capitalists.  I think small and micro business owners have very different interests to larger employers.  The former might bitterly oppose measures such as a statutory minimum wage and higher taxes that have the effect of increasing labour costs, whereas larger employers might welcome and even lobby for such measures because of the burdens they impose on smaller competitors.

 Yes,  I agree..  The standard SPGB definition of a capitalist as someone who posseses sufficient capital to live upon without the need to sell his/her labour is essentially a sound one in my opinion but it does mean that the division between the classes in a Marxian sense is not a sharp one – more a case of one class shading into the other.  The majority of workers are clearly workers and the majority of capitalits are clearly capitalists but there is a grey area in between where you cannot say definitively that someone is a capitalist or not. But that does not matter that much.  All sociological analysis is based on abstraction , generalisation and inevitably a degree of simplification. No sociological model can ever hope to capture within its net the totality of social existence.  For example what consititutes sufficient capital to live upon without the need to labour? Some capitalists might well be content with a very modest standard of living; others not.  Would the former then be truly considered capitalists?  All we can do is imvoke some kind of social average of what constitutes an adequate standard of living from that point of view.  No theory is perfect It is the left who tend to lose sight of the wood for the trees when they go on about the petit burgeosie and the self employed as not being part of the working class.   This is an extension of the ruling class strategy of divide and rule,  In the extreme case where a workerist definition of the working class is invoked ,depicting the working class as nothing more than the cloth-capped blue-collared  industral proletariat and all the rest as tthe so called "middle class", this effectively makes workers a small minority of the population.  If that were truly the case, then the prospect of a working class or proletrian revolution must be considered to be non existent. Such is the reactionary role that leftwing sociological analysis tends to play in buttressing capitalism,   By whittling down the working class to a small residual category through the application of overly narrow criteria it presents a picture of a class numerically in no position at all to mount any kind of revolution

[robbo203]

kenax wrote:

okay, i read the two articles and checked out the video and would like to respond as follows. first of all, i believe we have similar intentions to the degree that people should not have to suffer in poverty while others get filthy rich. in this respect i found jesse ventura's proposal (which he got from someone else) that there be a cap on income, the rest going to taxes. such as 100 million bucks a year. cannot that be enough for anyone? is not a billion bucks a year in income totally obsene when we consider so many starving people around the world, who could all be well fed on just US's military monthly budget in Iraq of some 80 billion dollars (not sure if i remember all the statistics correctly). or apparently in denmark, if you are of certain wealth, taxes might be 105%, meaning you pay out more in taxes than you actually earn. if a person is wealthy he should be happy enough. the problem with the ruling class is based on human nature. these driven, shrewed, highly motivated and often very intelligent and not so honest people become obsessed with a craving for more power, while most of us are happy with some job and loving their families in the evening. those who are obsessed with power can easily despise the poor or common joe. my parents are very driven and i can see how they despise to see lazy people freeloading off the social net in canada while they work hard.so yes, 8 billionaires controlling so much wealth is a crime, i agree, i just cant see the practical implementation of a purely socialist society. without currency? how are we supposed to trade? such as one's labour for a dozen eggs? in your video was surreptiously inserted "people will volunteer their labour". Really? why? what is their motivation? this is why i brought up envy. maybe it's similar to a kibutz, although i have never experienced it myself. i honestly do not want to argue or anger anyone here. i am truly enjoying the discussion.

 Hi Karel The short answer to your  point  is that there is no need to trade in a socialist society and consequently no need for money either.  Trade or quid pro quo exchange implies private or sectional ownership of the means of producing wealth.   As such it is incompatible with the economic foundations of a socialist society where the means of wealth production are the common property of all, where goods and services are made available on a completely free basis and where labour is perfomed on a purely voluntary basis. Its no fault of your own, Karel, that you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick about socialism given the sheer volume of misinformation/disinformation on the subject.  However, it is comments such as yours and countless others I have come across that convinces me of the urgent need for the SPGB to bring out a comprehensive and well reseached pamphlet on the so called Human Nature argument against socialism.  I am convinced this is the major reason why people such as your good self tend to be somewhat skeptical. I hope we can demonstrate to you in due course that this is not at all the barrier to socialism that you might suppose…

[robbo203]

kenax wrote:

 that's at least the story my parents said or what i heard about under communism in czech. without incentive for the means of production, people just get lazy me thinks and things start to rot from the inside out. i've traveled a lot around the world and i find that envy is predominant among most people. if you create a socialst system, people start to get jealous that someone else is working not as hard as them, and everyone starts competing against each other in terms of who can be the most useless and unproductive. as they used to say in czech to the communists: "you pretend to pay us and we'll pretend to work". the communists eventually had to bend so they started giving catholic land to the czechs for cottages in the country in exchange for a little more work. when i arrived to czech after the fall of communism, pratically everyone had an apartment in prague as well as a cottage in the country, with NO DEBT. they didn't even know what a mortgage was, amazing.

Karel, to be quite honest I do think you need to read up a little more on what the SPGB is saying as I detect quite a few straw arguments in what  you say.   As long as you are under the misapprehension that what socialists are advocating is something akin to the so called "communism" – actually, it was just state administered capitalism – that operated in the old Czechslovakia you will miss the point of much of what is being said to you. Classical socialism in the sense that we are talking about is totally different to the distorted Leninist and Labourite version of "socialism".   What you are effectively doing is considering what we have to say through the lens of this latter definition of socialism which we would in fact define as state capitalism Of course people are envious under capitalism.  Capitalism thrives on envy.  Much of what "consumerism"  is about under capitalism is based on the notion of "keeping up with Joneses".   Meaning it is status driven.  In capitalism that is how you acquire status and the esteem of others – though the accumulation of wealth, not what you contribute to society.     Money is the metric by which individuals are accorded esteem and respect.   Money also converts into the currency of political power and as Oxfam has pointed out  a mere 8 billionaires in the world currently own as much wealth as half the world's population combined!  It does not matter what system of democratic voting you have in place, unless you address and overthrow a system that can generate such grotesque and enormous inequalities you will never have a truly democratc society. And then you wonder why people are supposedly "lazy" today.  What incentive is there to work when your work serves to enrich the few at the expense of the majority and when you have little or no control over your conditions of work under the authoritarian system called "waged employment"  (which socialists seek to eliminate)? Actually even under capitalism most work is not paid , disproving the claim that you need a so called monetary incentive to incentivise people to work.   According to some statistics – see writers like Charles Handy – slightly more in the way of total labour hours  falls completely outside of the money economy than inside it.   Also, there is some evidence to suggest that the very fact of monetary payment  itself has a demotivating effect on volunteer work.  In their article  "Does Pay Motivate Volunteers?"  (Review of Economics and Statistics, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich , Working Paper Series , ISSN 1424-0459 , Working Paper No. 7, May 1999)  Bruno S. Frey and Lorenz Goette  argue that monetary rewards actually serve to undermine the intrinsic motivation of volunteers.

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://luxoraleader.com/verified-twitter-liberals-mock-celebrate-vanessa-trumps-powdered-hate-mail-scare/723739/

 "After Trump Jr. announced on Twitter that “Vanessa & my children are safe and unharmed after the incredibly scary situation that occurred this morning,” the Socialist Party of Great Britain also seemingly condoned the attack, posting, “Disgusting people attract disgusting behavior.” Not quite sure how calling such behaviour "disgusting" is "condoning" it.   This sounds like a cover up for a cocaine deal that had been rumbled as some commentators have suggested

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

What society can decide is that each person should have access tohttps://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/reference-intakes-RI-guideline-daily-amounts-GDA.aspxEnergy: 8,400 kJ/2,000kcalTotal fat: less than 70gSaturates: less than 20gCarbohydrate: at least 260gTotal sugars: 90gProtein: 50gSalt: less than 6gSomewhere between 2 and 3.5 litres of clean water per day for drinking (Somewhere around 150 litres per day need for sanitation and hygene).About 18 cubic metres of personal space (a room 3x3x2) as a bare minimum, with appropriate environmental controls and electricity, suyitable to keep it to about 22 degrees C all year round.Environmentally and culturally appropriate clothes (including socialist burkhas, ba-doom tish), which translates into yay much cotton, wool, nylon, etc.etc.This is off the back of a fag packet, and would be the global standard, that specific communes might want to alkter into greater specificity, taking into account food miles, seasonality, etc.The substantive point is any system has to be consumer demand driven.

 Yes that is a good point YMS.  Its  an example of "social influence" in action – the presentation of a norm of what constitutes reasonable consumption and the expectation that people will adapt to this norm out of a sense of empathetic concern for the interests and wellbeing of others upon whom they are dependent. Taking too much for yourself jeopardises their interests and harms your own in the long run    But again this cannot be a top down process  where something called "society" (which will inevitably mean a technical elite given the impossibility of 7 billion people meanfingfully deciding that everyone should be allocated 3.2 litres of water per day – a ludicrous scenario) what you can consume.   That would amount to a rationing society and with that will almost inevitably come a system of compulsory labour and hence the eventual  re=emergence of class society. A  socialist society can proactively take steps to "mould" consumer behaviour but cannot dicate it.  As you corectly say "any system has to be consumer demand driven."  That is the bottom line.   Cooperation has to emerge organically from the bottom up, not be imposed from the top down by an elite purporting to derive their authority form "society" which is what will inevitably happen if you let "society" call all the shots. It has to be a two way thing.

[robbo203]

I think we should be clear on one point  – there is no way whatsoever  in which the magnitudes of literally millions of different types of items can be decided collectively or democratically in an apriori sense by the global population of a socialist society.  Everything is interconnected and to produce 658 million four-inch screws as agreed by a democratic vote would require a democratic vote also on the requsiite magnitudes of materials and inputs required to produce 658 millon four-inch screws.   That is assuming it is even possible to organise a meaningful vote among 7 billion plus individuals! So I wish people would be clearer when they talk vaguely of "society" determining in a socialist society what is to be produced.  There is absolutely no way in which the overall pattern of production can be consciously predeterimined in this sense.  No way at all.  That pattern can ONLY arise spontaneously as the outcome of countless decisions made right across society by individuals, communities and production/distribution units themselves.   There is no other way of organising large scale prpduction without some form of feedback mechanism which is precisely what the idea of conscious society-wide apriori planning rules out.. Of course "society" influences what individuals consume.  Society is not the mere sum of its parts; it is more than that.  But we should be ore precise in our language as how this influence might express itself.  I can certainly envisage social decisions being taken on what would be the priorities of production in socialism and I cannot imagine the manufacture of prestige cars would count amongst these priorities.  In that sense you could certainly say society is shaping its pattern of consumption.  But that is a very different from the proposition of society-wide apriori central planning which is a complete non starter

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The party also  needs a  pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism.  

I agree.But with the experience of the Party's twitter and video reaching to all corners, perhaps a   video introducing the subjects you mention with a referral to the more in-depth analysis in the pamphlet. This tweeter watched the Intro Video but would he have read a Standard or Pamphlet?     

 Thats a good point Vin. Cross referencing across different forms of media wpould be very useful

[Author]

Posts