[robbo203]

I am currently reading Paul's Mason's book, "Post Capitalism: A Guide to our Future".  In it, he makes a number of startling claims such as that "banks have always lent out more cash than there was in the safe"  (p.11)  and since 1971 no longer have to contend with legal limits in the form of a fractional reserve.  What are the facts and figures to substantiate or repudiate this claim? I find it quite difficult to peice together all the different elements in Mason' sweeping survey of post war economic developments (particularly since the advent of neo-liberalism)  such as the role of fiat money, financalisation and  QE – though Im still on  chapter 1.  Has anyone read the book and come to any conclusions particularly regarding his comments on banking

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

"The Money Free Party is a political party registered in Great Britain.The Money Free Party is a growing, global political party representing a shift in global values, away from a society based on increasing consumerism, infinite economic growth and aggressive global competition, towards a society based on sustainability, equity and global cooperation. What we do wish is for all of you to realise is how easily a non-monetary world can be achieved, once we have the political will to achieve it. We also want you to be aware how empowering, creative and socially cohesive a money free world would be. So let’s forget all about our socially conditioned, pre-conceived ideas, and put our feet up and watch some movies.We are at the beginning of a new form of politics.Politics made with a single purpose.To facilitate a transition to a global, resource based economy"http://moneyfreeparty.org.uk/viewpage.php?page_id=7My emphasis Clearly the MFP is not nationalist but seeks global change.  I think it may be a case of people being allowed to join the MFP – and indeed stand for them – without showing a full understanding of their case. Which is a vindication of our Form A procedure. All new applicants must show an understanding of our case.It may also be a case of individual control of party manifestos.  Another vindication of one of our practices: Manifestoes must be agree upon by the membership.  "I need your vote to make this change. We in Bristol can show the UK there is an alternative system to today's governance. Thank you and I would appreciate your vote on June 8, 2017.Jodian Rodgers"

 That's a fair enough point,  Vin.  MFP clearly do envisage a resource based economy to be a global one..  However it is is possible neverthless to construe the particular manifesto that Adam posted as implying that you could have common ownership in Britain first and then later on, in the fullness of time, the world as a whole….There are problems with that particular formulation which perhaps need to be addressed

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Here's their candidate in Bristol's manifesto.  They are advocating a "moneyfree economy in one country":

Quote:

UK General Election June 8th 2017 Jodian Rodgers – Standing for a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMYIn June we will be voting in a general election. Are you concerned with the structure of our system of governance? Do you feel that there is no real choice? Or do you abstain from voting? If you answer yes to any of these questions and would like your vote to finally mean real change, please read on.Money Free Party would like to introduce you to a new social structure, a Resource Based Economy. It is a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt and human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalogue of problems inherent in today's world.Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and CAN make available food, clothing, housing, medical care and a relevant educational system. We CAN develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as solar, wind and tidal. It is now possible to have everyone in the UK enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilisation CAN provide. This CAN be accomplished through the intelligent anc humane application of science and technology.In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved, all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all UK's inhabitants.I need your vote to make this change. We in Bristol can show the UK there is an alternative system to today's governance. Thank you and I would appreciate your vote on June 8, 2017.Jodian Rodgers Money Free Party

 Yes it does rather sound like MFP are promoting the idea of  "moneyfree economy in one country": which is a pity because there  is some good stuff in this manifesto which we can go along with wholeheartedly. I  wonder, though, if this is a thought-out position and not just a by-product of the fact that the Party is contest the General Election in the UK.  There is a tendency amongst political parties – though not the SPGB obviously – to think in solely domestic terms, meaning what their policies are supposed to be tailored to the UK population alone.  However,  I wonder if you put the argument to them that capitalism is a global system and can only really be got rid of globally whether they might not readily agree?  I suspect they would.  I suspect, that declaring all resouces to be the common heritage of all UK's  inhabitants is just an unfortunate turn of phrase and they really mean the world's resources should be the common property of the world's population

[robbo203]

 Hi Sympo Yes its fairly familiar argument you are referring  to.  It is grounded in the dogma that free trade is a necessarily a "positive sum game" – meaning both parties to a market transaction must necessarily benefit from it – assuming it is freely carried out without coercion – otherwise the transaction simply wouldn’t happen in the first place.  The seller wouldn’t sell if the price was too low in her view and the buyer wouldn’t buy if the price was too high in his view. Ergo, insofar as they agree on a price they must both be more or less happy with it (meaning it satisfies both their interests). Marx himself noted this argument in Capital vol 1 (I think) and more or less took the view that it was a truism.  Free market types then take this basic argument and extend it into a general statement along the lines that if we had a genuine free market economy this would eliminate the kind of conflicting interests that lead to war.  What would be promoted instead is the mutual interest implicit in free trade, thereby crowding out the prospect of war I think the argument is bogus for several reasons 1)       the fact the both parties to a market transaction benefit from it does not mean , of course , they don’t still have conflicting interests.  This conflict takes the form of haggling. But even when a price is finally agreed it is still the case the buyers’ interests would have been better served had the agreed price been lower and, conversely, the sellers’ interests would have better served had the agreed price been higher.  There remains in other words the seed corn of potential conflict at all times.  To put it simply, if a buyer was in a situation to seize by force something that the seller was selling it is not out of the question that the cost of doing so might be less than the cost of buying it.  That would make war or military conquest an attractive option in some cases e.g. colonialism 2)       As is typical of free market types, they cannot see the wood for the trees.   This is the basic problem with their whole approach which is based on “methodological individualism” .  That means focussing single-mindedly on the single market transaction in question in splendid isolation from everything else that is going on around it.  For instance, a seller and a buyer might strike a deal but this might very well have the effect of damaging the interests of another potential seller, for example who had been deliberately excluded from the proceedings and might feel aggrieved as a result. Here too we see the seed corn of potential conflict that could lead to war 3)       Free marketeers look upon trade as a matter of purely rational self-interest.  The basic argument they put is that it not in the rational self-interest of anyone to engage in war since the costs involved are likely to exceed the benefits gained.  This is naïve because it overlooks that war is not simply a matter of rational self-interest.  On the contrary the drive to war normally engages irrational factors such as nationalistic sentiments to an extraordinary degree and the problem is that once you get locked into the logic of nationalism,  it is all too easy to be pushed over the edge into a war situation by the sheer momentum and fanaticism of nationalist irrationalism itself But our free marketeers don’t seem to understand that you cannot really have a market without a state.   These two institutions are like Siamese twins.  One could not survive without the other – at least not in the modern world of capitalism.  So while it is primarily states that wage wars rather than private business corporations, they both need to each other albeit for different reasons. And that’s the problem. Since you cannot have such a thing as a stand-alone free market economy without a state, it follows you cannot disentangle or detach yourself from what goes with the modern state itself – namely nationalism and by extension the possibility of war that is built into a nationalist worldview

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, and there is a question how much of their feathered nest they could carry away with them if they lost their jobs,a nd there were privately wealthy people too. The point is that some CEOs and bureaucrats are capitalists, but not all, and not by simple means of being a CEO/bureaucrat.

 Agreed.  There is a grey area here as in most things where "working class" shades into "capitalist class".  Some CEOs definitely have a foot on the lower rungs of the capitalist class but, as you say, not all. The CEOs of many small businesses would hardly qualify as capitalists but its a different matter with large corporations. As I mentioned earlier, the average compensation figure of $19.8 million pa for a CEO for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones index  is serious money and I dont think there is any doubt that such an individual would qualify as a capitalist. Regarding the soviet capitalist class – the elite nomenklatura – although  they owned the means of production in de facto terms collectively rather than as individuals, via their control of the state machine , as individuals they could, and did, amass considerable wealth by various means – multiple incomes, payments in kind,  backhanders from black economy, etc .  A sizeable proportion of Eastern Europes' modern day oligarchs were previously highly placed officials in the pseudo communist parties.  In Russia I think the figure is about 40-50%.   These Red capitalists simply used their power and connections to morph onto more conventional capitalists

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top.  Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm).  Senior civil servants are employees…

 The Soviet capitalist class were also technically "employees" of the  state. Some CEOs have compensation packages well in excess of 20m dollars pa   I wouldnt call them working class by any stretch of the imagination

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively  few  are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"

That still doesn't resolve anything. They may well agree that our defintion of socialism is the more accurate, but that doesn't mean they approve of it.

 Thats true but the point of the exercise is surely to bring to their attention that another – actually the orginal classical – defintion exist in the first place that is totally at variance with what they might understand by "socialism".  You cant get them to approve what we mean by socialism unless they know about it in the first place.  Most workers dont unfortunately

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

We want socialism–the system, not socialism–the word. If we start introducing those two arseholes at the end of the list, then it becomes self-defeating. The last name has had more than his fair share of publicity, why should we give him more?

 Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively  few  are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate description of socialism"

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

We want socialism–the system, not socialism–the word. If we start introducing those two arseholes at the end of the list, then it becomes self-defeating. The last name has had more than his fair share of publicity, why should we give him more?

 Sure I understand what you are saying but the probem is people in the main tend to identify socialism "with the two arseholes at the end"; realtively  few  are aware of the Marxian/SPGB defintjion of socialis. The whole pointt of the exercise is to highlight the huge gulf between these different versions of (pseudo)"socialism" and the real thing by encouraging people to see it for themselves with a question like "which do you think is the more accurate descriotion of socialism"

[robbo203]

What about a poll that identifies or lists particular historical figures plus a quote or summary from each of them relating to their particular take on "socialism"?e.g. Marx, Lenin, Tony Blair etc You could then ask people to tick the relevant  box as to which of these best describes "socialism".I think that this would at least highlight the point that what we call socialism – the Marxian defintion – differs from the others in a quite profound way and it might get people thinking…

[robbo203]

I think the guy is from  the Institute of Directors and a bit of plonker with some of his comments.  Danny did well to stop him in his tracks by calling his reference to Venezuela "cheap"

[robbo203]

Bob Andrews wrote:

The WORLD Socialist Movement. All seven of 'em. Which one is Vin?

 Bob Andrews, what exactly is your point? What are you even doing on this forum if not to constantly sneer? The photo is of a branch of the SPGB and some of its members. Duh

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union,  You could argue that if  "working people run society from top to bottom"  then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue.  People who work are not necessarily "working people".  Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalist

The simple, indisputable fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people in all manifestations of capitalism are members of the working class and so, without their collective and socially cohesive day-to-day activities, the system would cease to operate/function/work/run.

 That's true enough Dave but there is a difference between enabling the system to run and running the system.  My point is we shouldnt overlook that it is actual capitalists that run the system at the very top level of decisionmaking but saying "working people run society from top to bottom" rather conceals this crucial point I know what you are saying but is there a form of words that might better communicate what you are saying in the same pithy fashion? 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Nothing wrong with being exact in our language, but with words as always, people have their own understanding. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right. I think the meaning of "working people run society from top to bottom" is clear enough, just as "workers create all wealth" is a truism. 

Hmmm  Not too sure these things amount to saying the same thing. Alan.  "Running society" means more than just creating the wealth of society.  It also denotes social control and the process of overseeing the extraction of surplus value.  The top CEOs who carry out these functions  are defintely not working people. But their input is decisive in running a capitalist society.  They make the important economic decisions albeit to satisfy the interests of shareholders. My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union,  You could argue that if  "working people run society from top to bottom"  then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue.  People who work are not necessarily "working people".  Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalist

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The Money Free Party seems to be particlarly strong in New Zealand for some reason though it appears to operate in 16 countries altogether http://moneyfreeparty.org.nz/index.php/meet-the-people Has the WSPNZ been in touch with them.  It is great to meet people on much the same wavelength

 Have a listen to this. about 1.13minutes in. Very interesting, Difficult to disagree with him. He even deals with your debate with LBird. He says that he is not interested in car mechanics so in a RBE he would have noting to do with it. He would participate and vote on issues of importance to him.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050qjyq More importantly. Why should socialists oppose this party? Apart from the fact that it is written in stone!!Would a party member be charged with action detrimental if he/she voted for the money free party? 

 Maybe this is a prima facie case where some kind of loose, infornal electoral pact or understanding might be called for.  No doubt there are differences between the MFP and the SPGB but they hardly match up to the crucial commonalities.  If I were  resident in the UK I would obviously vote SPGB if there was a candidate in my constituency but, failing that, would definitely vote for the MFP.  They are streets ahead in their thinking compared with any so called Left or Labour Party

[Author]

Posts