[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 This is a version of Brexit Exiting As Name Only (BEANO).  Also worrying is May's view about European nationals.

Not to mention British Nationals in Europe like yours truly…Still not quite sure what the wider implications of Brexit are for us emigrants

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Our comrade Binay Sarkar in India has written an article about "The Bolsheviks and the Abolition of Money":https://www.academia.edu/24449687/THE_BOLSHEVIKS_AND_THE_ABOLITION_OF_MONEY

 Thanks for that very interesting and useful link I dont know if you have come across an article by Paul Gregory and Mark Harrison, entitled, “Allocation under Dictatorship: Research in Stalin’s Archives” (Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLIII , September 2005, pp. 721–761). They make the point that while, in theory, “money was relatively unimportantin the Soviet command system”, in practice this was far from being the case.  In theory, what was supposed to happen was that the planners would set about the task of drawing up their plans, directly allocating producer goods and fixing controlled prices for such goods with the banks supplying “money and credit to ‘follow’ the physical plans”.  This was a process dubbed “planned autonomism”. Money, from this perspective, was purportedly just a means for “monitoring financial flows to detect departures from physical directives”. However: as they put it: "A major surprise from the archives is that money played a much larger role than we expected. Allocation actually began not with physical supply plans but with nominal budgetary assignments to investment and other government uses such as military orders. The Politburo gave much more time and energy to how rubles would be spent than to consideration of the “control figures” for output in physical units (Davies 2001a; Gregory 2001; Davies, Iliˇc, and Khlevnyuk 2004). Budget outlays usually came first because broad-brush supply plans could not fix the detailed assortment of physical products or their final uses. Plans in rubles of output were then calculated at “fixed” plan prices. Plan targets had to be fixed in rubles because most producers supplied many products and output was too heterogeneous to be planned any other way" This last point is highly revealing for it demonstrates all too clearly the underlying capitalist rationale that justifies the need for a single universal unit of accounting – namely, money – to facilitate market exchange

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

it comes under the “Communist subbotniks” movement thing I think? There is quite a bit of it from Lenin around 1919 on it re unpaid gratis labour etc. just one link on it from Lenin below; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/28.htm

 Very interesting link Dave B.  These two passages in particular: We know that in practice such contradictions are solved by breaking the vicious circle, by bringing about a radical change in the temper of the people, by the heroic initiative of the individual groups which often plays a decisive role against the background of such a radical change. The unskilled labourers and railway workers of Moscow (of course, we have in mind the majority of them, and not a handful of profiteers, officials and other whiteguards) are working people who are living in desperately hard conditions. They are constantly underfed, and now, before the new harvest is gathered, with the general worsening of the food situation, they are actually starving. And yet these starving workers, surrounded by the malicious counter-revolutionary agitation of the bourgeoisie, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, are organising “communist subbotniks”, working overtime without any pay, and achieving an enormous increase in the productivity of labour in spite of the fact that they are weary, tormented, and exhausted by malnutrition. Is this not supreme heroism? Is this not the beginning of a change of momentous significance  It would be a good thing to eliminate the word “commune” from common use, to prohibit every Tom, Dick and Harry from grabbing at it, or to allow this title to be borne only by genuine communes, which have really demonstrated in practice (and have proved by the unanimous recognition of the whole of the surrounding population) that they are capable of organising their work in a communist manner. First show that you are capable of working without remuneration in the interests of society, in the interests of all the working people, show that you are capable of “working in a revolutionary way”, that you are capable of raising productivity of labour, of organising the work in an exemplary manner, and then hold out your hand for the honourable title “commune”! Of course "working without remuneration in the interests of society" begs the question as to how then one is supposed to obtain access to the means of living.  In socialism/communism,  the corrollary of "unremunerated work" is free access to goods and services.  You can't have one without the other.  This brings us to the question – if you dont have free access, if you continue to operate an exchange economy, what then does the call to "work without remuneration" – or more specifically to "work overtime without pay" –  really amount  to?  I would suggest it amounts to little more than code on the part of Lenin to signify the desire on the part of the Bolshevik state to step up the rate of exploitation, to increase the volumne of unpaid surplus value extracted from the Russian working class for the purposes of capital accummulation All this talk of the so called "war communism" of the period 1918-21 " is just  sheer bunkum.  Yes Lenin and his associates might have discussed the idea of the abolition of money in relation to the period  we are talking but that doesnt translate into any serious attempt to introduce a communist society which was simply not possible anyway under the circumstances then prevailing,  Talk is one thing ; action is quite another.  Besides, communism signifies far more than just the "absence of money". Money was not abolished though its value was undermined by hyperinflation.  This may have contributed to the practice of paying wages in kind rather than in money and I understand that at the height of the period of "war communism" up to 90% of wages paid to Russian workers were paid in kind.   We also know from Lenin writing in 1918 that the policy of  uravnilovka or income levelling – as a political tactic to gain working class support – had to be discontinued. In an address given in April 1918 (published as "The Soviets at Work") Lenin stated:  “We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed a very high remuneration for the services of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule" With regard to the money component of the wages Russian workers received, it is interesting to note that in the Soviet Union there was a determination on the part of the authorities for this to be paid according to the peice wage form.   This is significant because as Marx had observed: "the piece wage is the form of wage most appropriate to the capitalist mode of production” and that "piece wages become . . . the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds committed by the capitalists."(Capital 1 ch 21) By 1933, peice work accounted for 70% of wages according to Peter Petroff  (February 1938, “The Soviet Wages System”, Labour, p.141-2) Payment in kind continued in the Soviet era though it was disproportionately skewed in favour of the political elite.   Some theorists like Howard and King have argued that a substantial proportion of the soviet workers' wages were provided outside of the market, thus providing grist to their mill that the soviet union was not really a capitalist economy.  However, that claim appears to be based on an exaggeration since according to some estmates the “social wage” constituted less than a quarter – 23.4% – of the income of the average soviet worker – though, during the seventies, this figure apparently grew   (Arnot Bob, 1988, Controlling Soviet labour: Experimental Change from Brezhnev to Gorbachev, M R Sharpe p.36)  The greatest irony of all is that since the so called "fall of communism", payment-in-kind has increased.  According to Tore Ellingsen : Recently, we have witnessed massive domestic barter at the firm level in Russia (and in several of the other former Soviet republics). In Russia, barter constituted almost fifty per cent of industrial sales in 1997, up from around five per cent in 1992 (Aukutsionek (1997,1998)). In the same five year period, Russian firms started to pay their workers in kind on a grand scale, sometimes under tragic-comic circumstances. Hungry workers were paid everything from porcelain and kitchen utensils to sex toys and fertilizer, in the form of piles of manure, instead of their ordinary money wage. Likewise, a large fraction of taxes were being paid in kind rather than cash (OECD, 1997) (Tore Ellingsen, "Payments in Kind", Stockholm School of Economics Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, No 244,  February 10, 2000)    

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

One question has now been answered – what chemical was used http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39648503

Quote:

"Incontrovertible" test results show sarin gas or a similar substance was used in the chemical weapons attack in Syria earlier this month, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says.

Now the matter of what is settled it is now the questions who and why?

Now that the investigation has identified the chemical as sarin the finger must pointing at Assad. As for the why is that relevant in a war situation?

 According to RT at any rate the evidence shows that it could not have been Sarin. With Sarin the victims' pupils are supposed to dilate whereas in this instance the pupils of the victims appear to have contracted. A further point is that Sarin is supposed to be an odourless gas, yet people in the vicinity reported a smell of some sort Personally, though one can never be absolutely sure, I think that, on balance, the weight of evidence points to this being a false flag operation – particularly since Assad had nothing to gain by such a chemical attack and a lot to lose as we have seen

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

In any event, the disappearance of money was discussed by the Bolsheviks in the early days after their coup.

  Yes,  I wouldnt dispute that.  Didnt Stalin  in his 1906 work on Anarchism say something similar – about a socialist society being a moneyless society? However, the question is whether the period of "war communism" represented a genuine attempt, as some have claimed,  to institute a moneyless communist society.  Somewhere in my chaotic computer filing system I have a copy of the front page of – I think-  the New York Times dating from that time which talked of the Bolsheviks wanting to abolish money.  I will try and track it down..The conservative historian, Richard Pipes, argued that "War Communism" was not simply a 'temporary measure' but an ambitious attempt to introduce "full-blown communism."  (The Russian Revolution, Fontana, 1992).  Likewise the anarcho-capitalist,  Murray Rothbard, claimed in his essay "The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists" that: The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.(The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.) Personally I think this is a load of tosh.  I dont believe  there was a genuine attempt  to institute communism although it was politically expedient for both the Bolsheviks and their opponents to suggest that such an attempt was being made.  But even if a genuine attempt had been made there is simply no way it could have succeeded – not for the reasons advanced by the likes of Rothbard and co but rather becuase the preconditions for a comunist society were wholly lacking at the time 

[robbo203]

The data suggests that 1 in 7 workers are self employed in the UK.  Historically this fraction has been declining giving credence to Marx's speculations about the petit or petty (the latter is the english vulgarisation of the  french word for small) bourgeoisie being progressively absorbed into the wage earning proletariat – although more rcently this trend has reversed and seems to be associated with the effects of recession.Here in Spain I think the pecentage is slightly higher and while the official unemplyment rate is also comparatively high, it must be borne in mind that there is a quite a flourishing black economy which is not possible – at least to the same extent – in a closely monitored Big Brother  state like the UK. This would tend to bump up the numbers of self employed

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

The publication from 2015's Summer School is already available from the online shop: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/catalog/non-party-publications/new-perspectives-socialism and I'll look into making last year's one more widely available.

 I didnt realise there was a category called "non-party publications" with a paywall in place. What is the rationale for this?  Would it not be better to make these 3 publications, party publications, with full access to contents as per the Marxism Revisited pamphlet also based on a summer school?  I think visitors to this site would benefit from a wider selection of material being made available and, as mentioned, I do refer people quite often to this site and its stock of literature – as, I imagine, do other people here

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

Thanks for your suggestions, robbo203. The remaining talks are still being planned, and I'll see if your thoughts can be incorporated into them.The last two Summer Schools have been accompanied by pamphlets which include versions of some of the talks (and most recent Summer Schools have had special publications), so there's a chance that something similar will be produced again this year… 

 Hi Mike Yes, it would be useful to produce a transcript of the talks in a proper pamphlet form.  I have often had occasion to refer people interested in socialist ideas who I have met through the internet forums and the like  to the "Marxism Revisited" pamphlet based on the summer school  of 1998 What are the two most recent pamphlets you refer to based on talks given at summer schools? Shouldnt they be listed as part of the pamphlet stock on this site?  The SPGB suffers from a real dirth of recently published pamphlets in my view.  This year you have an opportunity to produce a new pamphlet on the environment and I would urge you to seize that opportunity….

[robbo203]

rodshaw wrote:

I think that wage and salary are commonly understood to cover different types of income, the latter being more 'middle class' than the former, probably paid monthly rather than weekly. By using both we include both types of worker.Self-employed income is a bit more problematic and to include it we'd probably have to use more words not less. Unless we used 'income' to cover everything. But then we'd probably have to use more words explaining that we excluded capitalist income, or income from shares etc.Pensioners are another category not strictly being paid a 'wage or salary' (although we regard a pension as deferred wages, which in itself takes more explaining).Rod

 I guess "earned income"  would cover every contingency but then "abolition of earned income" doesnt have quite the same ring to it as "abolition of the wages system"…

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As someone who makes extensive use of our archive material, some things become very noticeable.In nearly every article we publish we talk of "work for wage or salary".It is repeated ad nauseum in our literature .."work for wage or salary…work for wage or salary….."Can't we use one or the other and not be deemed imprecise. I prefer wage.And what do we use the recompense that the self-employed in the gig economy get?

 Indeed.  Many on the Left talk of the self employed as a distinct class separate from, and outside of, the working class – the so called petit bourgeoisie or small capitalists in the traditonal sense – although more recent usage e.g Nico Poulantzas 's  – widens the meaning of that term to include also  the non productive salariat. e.g.  bureaucrats of all kinds. I dont find that argument particularly persuasive,  As a self employed person I regard myself to be fully a member of the working class.  The notion that I am somehow a member of the (petit) bourgeosise by virtue of the fact that I own small sums of capital – to wit, a 7 year old strimmer, 3 chainsaws and an assortment of garden tools – is frankly laughable considering that many blue collar workers on a regular waged income – probably possess a lot more capital tucked away in various financial investment schemes and savings accounts than I have ever had! But if I dont technically earn a wage perhaps the old Marxian slogan "abolition of the wages system" needs to be re-jigged to be made more relevant to workers like me

[robbo203]

I would be disappointed if some of the other remaining talks did not touch on the subjects of 1) the theory of externalities  and 2) the structural waste of capitalism. The latter, focussing on socially useless forms of work under capitalism – not just the role of the military – is a particularly salient feature of the case for socialism and indeed provides a uniquely socialist insight into the whole question of the sustainable use of resourcesIs there any indication that these subjects might be covered at the Summer School?  Also, will transcripts of the talks be made available perhaps in a pamphlet form as happened in the case of the previous Summer School on Marxism?

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Maybe you should call him up and tell him he doesn't know socialism

Give me his personal phone number and i will, and i'll use the words of Eugene Debs to explain socialism to him. 

His personal phone number is an interesting example of a resource (his phone number) that is nominally free for anyone and the information that is his phone number is not private property.  BUT, still you and I do not have access to his phone number.  So here's an example of what will happen in a world where there is no scarcity and no property and free association.  Notice that Bernies private phone number is free and cost nothing to give away copies of it.  likewise in a world where there is no property as socialism requires, you would still not be able to get bernies phone number.  So under capitalism or socialism you personally can't get bernies phone number for the same reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.  How socialism addresses this "free on paper and no scarcity in principle" vs "nominally free but actually very hard to find and knowing someone who can find his phone number makes it a  scarce resource in practice."So I think we need to talk about what it means to not have property and and how socialism addresses the problem of finding bernies phone number.  As usual I have an exchange theory explanation of this that distinguishes explicitely accessiblity and other kinds of concerns while avoiding the property vs no-property false dichotomy in your thinking.  Things can have other states besides owned and not owned.  They can be accessible or innaccessible.  items on the store shelf, such as bernies phone number,  can be hidden or promoted without being property.   A theory of capitalism and socialism that acknowledges these differences in ownership definitions seems essential to me, but I haven't read anything here about this sort of problem or solutions to the problem of finding bernies phone number. 

 I think it has already been explained to you several times  that by "private property" is meant "means of wealth production", not personal possesions,  and that by "exchange" is meant "quid  pro quo market exchange". These features cannot logically exist in a society in which the means of producing of wealth are owned in common – by everyone.  So "property vs no-property" is hardly a false dichotomy unless you chose  not to understand what is meant by property in the economic sense

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No, i don't think it is a crack-pot idea but i do believe it will be easily defeated but it will not be the first time the party has been dinosaurs and refused to recognise that times are a-changing. We have an opportunity to make the monthly Standard an online weekly or even a daily propaganda medium – the aspiration of our founding members for the Socialist Standard …a daily commentary on capitalism and a daily advocacy of socialism. One which goes beyond even their imagination in that it can incorporate video and music and podcasts. We struggle to find outlets for the Standard yet we have a world-wide platform that is forever growing and becoming more accessible. It is not a time for sentimental attachments and nostalgia for days gone by.YouTube has replaced Hyde Park Speakers Corner. I think there is an amendment which will ensure a yearly printed omnibus of the Standard. Although it is not specific, i think it should be the "Best of.." and not necessarily annually…it could be twice a year or quarterly.Surely, a de facto published book a few times every year is a good substitute and alternative and maybe – just a maybe- a better chance of getting it on the shelves commercially.And when a hard-copy is required for any special events, it would not be difficult to print a Special edition of the Socialist Standard with a dedicated theme and as i have said before – hand it out free. What is embarrassing is our leaflets that we distribute, always very general and because of the demand of space, omitting much of our case and its nuances. Those who remain fixated of the printed Standard,  apart from the occasional street stall, have any member or branch did what was regularly done in the past – stood on the street-corner selling it? I think this will be something we will return to every few years and when we do eventually adopt an e-zine format for the Standard we will be Johnny-come-latelys with all the associated problems.

 No I would respectfully disagree Alan The case for retaining the printed version of the Standard does  not in any way detract from the need to fully exploit the internet.  In fact, there is already. in effect, an e-zine version of the Standard which appears every month on this site. Rather,  the argument is that there enormous danger in the SPGB becoming mainly, if not entirely, an internet-based organisation.  I predict it will lead to an increased sense of atomisation and alienatiom among the membership leading to a significant decline in said membership without the solid underpinning of physical activity.  And so much of the actual physical acitvity that the SPGB does is bound up with the existence of printed SS as the main bearer of socialist ideas by the organisation.  If you remove the printed SS, you cut out a substantial part of what makes the SPGB what it is.  The internet cannot really substitute for face to face interactions Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say.  Of course,  develop the internet side of things but also develop the real world physical approach to activity as well.  For starters, seriously think about a new campaign to promote the SS via retail outlets and coordinate  this with the wider advertising campaign in various newspapers/journal that I have heard about  which is about to be launched.  But you can't really encourage  people to get in touch with you without some kind of inducement – namely the special offer of 3 free issues of the SS in printed format.  That is another very powerful reason for retaining the printed version of the SS –  It provides much more significant feedback data than any amount of anonymous internet hits

[robbo203]

I guess I imagined that that the decision to shut down the Socialist Standard in its present format was a foregone conclusion and for which reason a campaign to "Save the Socialist Standard" had been launched.  Hence my sense of dismay.  I am mightily relieved to hear that it is simply a proposal by a branch that is up for discussion amd a vote at conference.  I would urge the comrades behind this proposal to think again – to widen their thinking about the role and significance of a journal like the Socialist Stadard to an organisation like the SPGB.  This is a clear case of the folly of adopting a narrow accountants approach to the subject.  The availability of the SS in a physical form is closely bound up with all sorts of other activities that make the SPGB what it is and without which, I believe, the organisation would succumb to an irreversible decline Literature lies at the heart of socialist political activity and with that in mind, I would I seriously recommend the SPGB think about my earlier suggestion – about  signficantly stepping up the output of pamphlets in particular and publishing much more in the way of "position papers" and educational documents such as those featured on this site,  I can assure you these items are enormously helpful to individuals first coming into contact with socialist ideas as I know from my own interactions with such individuals having referred them to this site

[robbo203]

I think discontinuing the printing of the SS  would be frankly disastrous for the SPGB and  would sharply diminish its profile in all sorts of ways.  Think of all the kinds of actvities that are actually facilitated by having physical copies of the SS around, What would be the point in going to political events and possibly meeting people on the same wavelength there without a supply of SSs? It would reduce the SPGB to a collection of atomised computer nerds  It would also reduce both the usefulness and  the incentive to hold public meetings when youve got no literature  available at such meetings for visitors to browse through If SS sales are declining you need to be thinking of ways to arrest and reverse this decline  rather than abandon the SS in its current format.  The Party has a fair bit of money.  How about using some of it in a big campaign to get retail outlets throughout the UK stocking it on very favourable terms to them?Seriously, this is a crazy idea. Who thought of it? Have they thought of all the ramifications for other kinds of activity?  I believe the SPGB is currently mounting a campaign to raise awareness of the organisation.  Well, how are you going to respond to enquirers who write in in the absence of the 3 free copies of the SS offer.  What are you gonna do? Refer them to the the website? What incentive would there even be for them to write in if they can simply google "SPGB".   The volume of contacts and interactions will diminish significantly if you become little more than an internet phenomenon.  Obviously I am not  saying dont make full use of the internet but dont abandon the more "physical" approach in the process.  These thing should complement not preclude each other While Im on the subject what about pamphlets?  Frankly the Party should be churning these out every year – a dozen or so at least per year.  If a tiny outfit like the Libertarian Alliance can produce literally 100s of pamphlets covering all sorts of subjects, topical and otherwise then, for sure, so can the SPGB. Think Big and adapt. You are selling yourself short with all this negativity.  Its as if the SPGB doesnt believe in itself anymore.  With the wholesale decline of the left and its attachment to state capitalism the SPGB should be gaining ground not losing it,  It should be standing out as a beacon of socialist enlightenment, a  vibrant  centre of socialist research and debate  and an increasingly well known reference point, nationally and internationally,  for any worker beginning to show an interest in socialism.  But it is not .  Why not?

[Author]

Posts