[robbo203]

I looked at the Harvey interview you linked to above, Adam .  To put the quote in fuller context this is what Harvey said "Or on the monetary question – we need money to circulate commodities, no question about it. But the problem with money is that it can be appropriated by private persons. It becomes a form of personal power and then a fetish desire. People mobilise their lives around searching for this money even when nobody knows that it is. So we’ve got to change the monetary system – either tax away any surpluses people are beginning to get or come up with a monetary system which dissolves and cannot be stored, like air miles.But in order to do that you’ve also got to overcome the private property-state dichotomy and come to a common property regime"I find it quite extraordinary that someone like Harvey can come up with such muddled nonsense as this .  Yes, you may need money to circulate commodities but do we need commodities and commodity production and how is this compatible with a "common property regime"? Taxing away surpluses will only induce capitalists to shift their capital to other parts of the world where taxes are lower – hence the recent Tax reform bill in the US to lower corporate taxes and entice more domestic investment.  As for coming up with a monetary system in which money "dissolves" (I thought you needed it "to circulate commodities")  and cannot be stored, this  is patently absurd.  Its like wanting capitalism without the accumulation of capital that lies at the heart of the systemHow on earth did this guy manage to pass as an authority on Marx and Marxism? 

[robbo203]

alien1 wrote:

The drivel that passes for serious comment on cryto-currency and the Blockchain in particular seems never ending. That the US immediately banned the Venezuelan crypto should tell you all you need to know – they fear it. Porno on the Bitcoin blockchain is a total joke, have you tried to make a transaction recently? The constsnt attacks on crypto and Bitcoin in particular have failed to crack its underlying value to users. You want to launder drug money – use the banks. You want to watch porn use DVDs or the internet or join a club. You want to sexually abuse children join the police or get in to politics! Porno (or just about anything else) on different blockchains is/will definitely happen. To get some idea of the future have a look at where the Steemit project is going. In the future the world, including a socialist world, is going to run on blockchains. If you think the wheel, internet or the invention of god were a big deal then you are in for shock in the relatively short term as this technology mushrooms/explodes. Yes, they'll even design, build, fly, target and drone us using AI machines created and 'living' on the Blockchain!

 An interesting post, alien1, but I wonder if you could elaborate on your point :"To get some idea of the future have a look at where the Steemit project is going. In the future the world, including a socialist world, is going to run on blockchains" It would also be helpful if you could explain in simply layman's terms for folk like me who dont really understand this technology, what exactly blockchain is and what it does.  

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Without Marx’s labour theory of value the marxian enterprise dies.Nothing of value remains, including socialism.[For the discrediting-of-the-discrediting, see Reclaiming Capital by Andrew Kliman https://…Reclaiming-Marxs-Capital.%5D

 A good analysus TWC but I dont think the last inference holds.  There are some "Marxists", for  example, who hold that you can still talk about working class explitation without resorting to the labour theory vof value.  I am not quite sure how they imagine this is possible but presumably in their mind it is.  In principle, you dont need to be  a Marxist to want socialism though it certainly helps…

[robbo203]

  

gnome wrote:

Discussion held at the Victory Pub, Brighton on Sunday, 25 March.Theme of discussion:  'Practical Ways for Spreading the Case for Socialism'Summary of discussionIncrease representation of minorities within membership of the party – including young people, BAME, LGBT+, women etc. This will help us engage with their communities. Our principles and literature is inclusive, but actions speak louder than words. Talk about how capitalism negatively affects these minorities (e.g. commodification of BAME communities, objectification of women etc.) Engage with activism. Short term, medium term and long term tangible goals for socialism – "In 10 years time, we want this to happen… so to get there we need to do this…" We have lots of members and supporters, but only few people show up. What are we offering them? A pint and a chat won't suffice, creativity and goals (maybe branch projects?) could increase engagement. Branch projects include individual accountability for its success, furthers the party and builds branches together as teams a communities. The party is tangible to a certain point (candidates standing in elections) but where does it go from there? We can't shrug it off as, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it". Propaganda and getting our message across is still the first aim of the party, over candidacy. But how do we convince people to join us and how do we measure that? Sponsored advertisement in social media (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc.)? Subscriptions to YouTube channels – YouTube campaign. Younger generations don't trawl through literature, they watch viral videos, short articles, videos, podcasts, "click baits". Bite-sized information and social media campaigns, not socialist standards and books. Audio-visual content is the most effective way of engaging young people – music, videos etc. University and College committee could do more by communicating with student unions to organise talks, meetings, film evenings and debates. Members could leaflet student unions and trade union meetings? Facebook, Snapchat (world socialism filter?) and Instagram stories. – We have uploaded a photo of the discussion meeting onto the event's and SPGB group's Facebook story. Formatting seems to be a problem for Facebook if the photo is landscape. It all comes down to, "Actions speak louder than words" and effectiveness of our actions and goals.Someone in the pub, who we talked to, asked us to change our group name to the "Sexy Brighton Socialists"… it was not voted upon. The next meeting will be on Sunday, 27th May @ 7pm due to the April Annual Conference – no discussion topic has been set for this meeting.Niall M.

  The above all sounds encouraging and positive.  How can it be linked up with recent efforts looking into the Party's reorganisation.  What is happening about the latter?

[robbo203]

This might be of interest.  Any thoughts?https://www.sciencealert.com/bitcoin-illegal-almost-everywhere-after-shocking-blockchain-discovery-child-pornography

[robbo203]

There is also a book by someone who I think was or is on this forumC James Townsend, 2015, "The Singularity and Socialism: Marx, Mises, Complexity Theory. Techn-optimism and the Way to Age of Abunadance"  I havent got round to reading the book yet but the blurb on the back says this:  "From the back of the book: The Singularity & Socialism is an exhilarating fast paced read showing the points of similarity and interconnection between Classical Liberal, Marxist, and Libertarian economic ideology and Complexity Theory/Economics and how they may change with coming technological advancements. The book updates the issues and illuminates many of today’s debates allowing the reader to come to a better understanding of the surprising interrelatedness between ideologies and their eventual convergence at the event horizon of the coming Economic Singularity. The process needed for obtaining an almost zero marginal cost system is enumerated within its pages. Whether you are a: Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian, Marxist, Socialist, Transhumanist, Venus Project enthusiast or a Zeitgeist Movement follower you will greatly enjoy this well written book! If there is one book that frames the debate between the Techno-optimists/Singularitans and Sustainatopians today and transcends the argument between them, this is it! The underlying theme that this book takes up is, “what happens to our present ideological ideas about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Libertarianism and Conservatism when we reach the event horizon of the coming economic singularity.” When abundance breaks out, how does that change our ideas about all of our political beliefs and economic systems that were founded upon a scarcity of resources and the means to fully, efficiently produce them in a new distributed way. The almost Zero cost society is possible with the evolution of Kevin Kelly’s Technium, with a surprising convergence between the ideas found in classical liberal and traditional Marxian economics, coupled with complexity theory/economics and Techno-optimism. This work transcends the oppositional dialectics and seeks to recognize the possible convergence of all presently combative ideologies at the Omega Point we are accelerating toward."

[robbo203]

acke wrote:

 From the one side I see that capitalism will not be able to handle further technological development. E.g. – what about mass unemployemnt due to robotics or due to automation of such professionas as law, accounting, psychotherapy, visual diagnostics (medicine), computational creativity and design etc. etc.? Capitalist pundits are quite calm, they are saying that humans will be able to invent new jobs and the Universal Basic Income is the most progressive idea they can invent in the best case (in the worst case they simply don't see the necessity to responde with any extraordinary instruments). But I can not believe them. Artifical intelligence is giving the exponential boost to the development and that is something that the history of humanity has not experienced before. 

 Hi Acke.   There is quite a long thread  on the subject of  the Universal Basic Income here  that might interest you .  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/left-and-right-unite-ubi-fight

[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

[Author]

Posts