[robbo203]

Meel wrote:

Bit surprised about the cover of your June Socialist Standard.Quite a catchy headline as it stands, but unfair to lump Corbyn in with the conservative leaders.  Many on this forum, and out there among voters, think he is basically “a decent man”, and a principled one.McDonnell and Corbyn may well think that they can “chain the beast” that is capitalism and will find out in time that they cannot.  They will be forced to make unpleasant compromises.  I know this, you know this.But I just don’t think you will win any friends in waters you may want to fish in with this cover.There is a qualitative difference between Jeremy Corbyn and the leaders you have lumped him in with.

 Yes I would agree.  Corbyn is not a socialist as we understand the term and he leads a party that is unequivocally pro capitalist  Nevertheless he comes across and is widely regarded (even by his opponents) as a decent and principled man but, according to his opponents, lacking in the qualities that make him a strong leader, For socialists, of course, that hardly constitutes a defect. On the contrary. It is pretty disgusting the way the media have been treating Corbyn.  The negativety is unprecedented.  According to my newsfeed today:Earlier Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, became the most senior party figure to call on Corbyn to resign, intensifying the pressure on the embattled leader on a day of drama in Westminster.“It’s a great tragedy. He does have a members’ mandate, but those members who join a political party know that you also need a parliamentary mandate if you’re to form a government,” Watson told the BBC. What a damning indictment of the Labour Party and its anti democratic practices that the parliamentary body considers itself to be above and separate from the party membership who elected Corbyn into power in the first place.  I think he is right to face down these machiavellian manipulators as a matter of principle and I dont think there will be many who will lose much sleep if the lot of them get deselected come the next General Election

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

 As for this party, well I was right about that too. You've played a very minor role of course, but you have aspirations to play a bigger one and that makes you dangerous. Your anti-intellectualism and abstention from practical politics puts you very much in the same bracket as the thick working class (as one of your own members told me recently). You need to up your game and get serious.I rolled over my bet and have gambled that the outcome will be that we won't actually leave the EU at all because it is too dangerous and risky, as the political class are starting to realise. The democratic thing to do would be to ignore this plebiscite, for parliament to take control via our elected representatives, and take us out of this self-created hell.

Hi Stuart Have you come across this  – a talk by Paolo Barnard , an italian economic journalist, THE TRUTH ABOUT ‪#‎BREXIT‬https://www.facebook.com/DemocraziaVerde/Not saying Im sympathetic but its raises some interesting points and I would be interested in your comments. I notice this line of thinking coming to the fore amongst those on the Left who voted leave. My gripe with it is that it takes a nationalist – whats best for Britain – rather that  a class perspective but then the same could be said of many who voted remain

[robbo203]

JOHN GAULT wrote:

Mr. Buick, who are you to say what I need? If I work hard, and get rich, and want to buy an expensive house, or a luxury car, who are you to stop me? This is the problem of socialism. The leaders decide who gets the money, and the majority must play along. I can decide how to use my money, whether I use it to get food, get a car, or give to the poor. I don't need your help, idiot.

 Apart from failing to see that needs will be self defined  you also fail to see that money as an institution will cease to exist in a socialist society.  Oh and also that the whole undemocratic principle of "leadership" is wholly incompatible with the way socialists look at things anyway. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with the basics of the case for socialism first of all?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Meel is correct. It was all emotional. The EU vote "was a roar of anger". . 

 I totally agree. And the focus as far as socialists are concerned must now be on showing how and why all that anger was misdirected. The Brexit slogan – "take back control" – is something we need to build on and invest with real meaning not the sham meaning afforded by the nationalists. This is too good and opportunity to miss. I have  been heavily involved in the Referendum debate over on FB forums like Capitalism vs Socialism.  Over time you tend to develop antennae that pick up the vibrations folk give off.  I've  noticed, since the referendum vote, a quite sudden falling off of the nastiness , hostility and gung ho jingoism of the Brexit lot.  The mood of triumphalism may perhaps be wearing off sooner than we expected, giving way to a kind of rising anxiety.  I don't think many people expected the Leave camp to win and, now that it has, the reality is beginning to sink in as to what this might actually mean. I don't think it is coincidence that Johnson, Gove and co are now back peddling , softening  their approach to Europe , even proclaiming themselves to be Europeans and all while stressing that withdrawal from Europe is gonna be a long term process (in contrast to the Eurocrats who feel peeved and  want a quick divorce and be done with it). I smell a rat frankly The Economist puts its finger on some of the dilemmas a new post Brexit government will have to contend with:"Accordingly, the Leave side promised supporters both a thriving economy and control over immigration. But Britons cannot have that outcome just by voting for it. If they want access to the EU’s single market and to enjoy the wealth it brings, they will have to accept free movement of people. If Britain rejects free movement, it will have to pay the price of being excluded from the single market. The country must pick between curbing migration and maximising wealth."  (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21701265-how-minimise-damage-britains-senseless-self-inflicted-blow-tragic-split?force=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fatragicsplit) So much for "taking back control".  The Brexit campaign was all about trying to have your cake and eat it and now is the opportunity to ram home this very point

[robbo203]

Well, to look on the bright side, socialists could at least build on that handy slogan – "take back control" – mindlessly pounded out by the Brexiteer nationalists, and give it some actual real susbstance .  Like "taking back control" of the means of production from the capitalist monopolisers, "taking back control" of our own lives and so on and so forth. While the slogan is still fresh in the memory why not make use of it?.  Next cover of the Socialist Standard? A series of meetings on the theme? As with songs so with political slogans – why should the devil have the best of them?

[robbo203]

Don't know if anybody saw this about the Beast from Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, who is voting " leave" https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-e4af-Beast-of-Bolsover-Im-voting-out#.V2LaNo9OLIX  I think the argument he is putting forward is bogus. You can't fight capitalism exclusively in one country. For the same reason you cant have "socialism in one country " despite what the Stalinists say. This strand of leftism that has been drawn to state capitalist versions of what it misleadingly calls socialism has been a constant source of confusion from the word go.  I had to groan when I read  that Skinner wants to "save Britain from EU capitalist clutches" . Firstly it is nationalistic claptrap inspired by nationalist sentiments  which have got sod all to do with socialism and are anathema  to everything socialists stand for.  And secondly, it is plain daft to say the EU capitalists will not continue to exert a "clutch" on the UK, post Brexit. Ironically, if anything Brexit campaigners are scrambling to reassure us that foreign investment from Europe will not be jeopardised. I am not particularly enthused to support either side – either way its not going to make much difference  though I guess the Remain case is possibly slightly stronger from the workers point of view. At any rate it is slightly less incoherent and jumbled as the Beast from Bolsover amply demonstrates

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.

 It is beginning to look like the Leave campaign will win  http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/eu-referendum-panicked-remain-camp-plans-to-take-out-boris-as-polls-swing-in-brexit-campaigns-favour/ar-AAgTXrC?ocid=spartandhp

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

This is one reform which will only see light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system. 

 Yes I tend to agree with this.  This is one of the ways in which a growing socialist movement will impact on the administration of capitalism and on the extent and scope of capitalist relations of production.  The other possiblity is large scale technological unemployment which Stuart referred to , brought on by robotisation and automation which may compel the capitalist state to introduce a universal basic income or , at any rate , remove to some extent some of the resistance to such a scheme.  Whether, technological unempoyment  will reach these kinds of very highly levels, displacing up to 50% of the current workforce according to some reports, is another matter.  Personally I doubt it

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It's interesting what the consensus elite view seems to be about the unworkability of the idea. Most do not object to it per se – indeed, how could they, since basic income would merely be a different way of organising what actually happens now, more or less. Rich countries with welfare states already have pretty generous (by world standards) minimum basic incomes, just not entirely in monetary form. What they object to and worry about is that the basic income severs the connection between work and income. For them, this is dangerous – economically and morally. But even here they concede that something like this might be necessary in the future if technological change really does, as some think, put everyone out of work. In other words, socialists should celebrate the fact that basic income is on the fringes of the mainstream as an idea because 1) it is essentially a socialist idea and 2) even critics accept that the modern world might be moving in a direction where such socialism will be necessary whether they like it or not ("socialism is inevitable"?!). The challenge remains, for socialists and proponents of basic income alike, to convince people that a world where income is not connected in any way to monetary incentives could really work. 

 Not too sure that  basic income is "essentially a socialist idea",  Stuart.  If it is, that hasn't prevented the Adam Smith institute from enthusiastically endorsing the idea. From their point of view what is attractive about the idea is that it is a more cost effective approach to the existing benefits system – which system creates a "poverty trap" that penalises workers wanting to work their way ouT of poverty.  THat is ironic because you are arguing that a basic income will break the link with monetary incentives whereas the Adam Smith Institute seems to be saying the exact opposite. In other words there will be a greater incentive to supplement your income  via wage labour Also,  whilst it is true that a basic income  severs the link between consumption and labour inputs it is worth reminding ourselves that under capitalism that this has always been the case as far as the capitalist class is concerned whose remuneration bears no relation to their labour input.  That is to say, they live on unearned income.  In some ways you can see a basic income in this light – as extending this possibility to the general population.  That might be viewed as a progressive development but I don't see that as being inherently socialist in itself.  Surely what distinguishes the socialist position is the abolition of "income" itself rather than reinforcing our sense of dependence on one and all that that entails. That said, there is some truth in what you say.  A basic income does in some ways go against the grain of capitalism.  The capitalists themselves  have no need for a monetary incentive to work – quite simply because they have no need to work – but the  workers sure as hell do!  A basic income scheme will to an extent undermine this and loosen the chains of wage slavery a little bit. But there are  problems with this argument.  The first and most obvious one is that if that were the case why would the capitalists and their state bother to promote and finance this idea?  They need us to be impoverished, indebted and enslaved.  Would a basic income remove this or just create a new form of deoendency? Secondly the proponents on the idea sometimes shoot themselves in the foot at least from a socialist point of view by strenuously denying that  a basic income will undermine the incentive to engage in wage labour. Far from deprecating the institution of wage labour this seem almost like apologising for it. Thirdly , there is the problem of implementation of the scheme at an international level and in particular, in the context of increased migration flows such as we are now seeing in Europe.  I beleive one of the reasons why the Swiss voted down the idea was the belief that a basic income would serve as a magnet to draw in a much larger numbers of economic migrants that could overwhelm the existing system of state welfare.  So I dont think the issue can be entirely divorced from existing political realities…

[robbo203]

KAZ wrote:

I have been following this thread for some time and have been quite as appalled by YMS's "practical steps" as by Robbo's free access fetishism. So I was overjoyed to see the mention of "workers' and community councils" by AJJ (to which the correct Party response should have been a vigorous and merciless attack rather than yet another 'practical step'). How else will the cooperative commonweath (love that term) actually be achieved? This is social revolution we are talking about. Not some bureaucratic rearrangement of economic procedures or gradual accumulation of passive measures both with the aim of the institution of super-consumerism (beer for nothing and your chips for free). Once again, I am convinced that I am in the wrong organisation.

 Thou doth protest too much methinks.  I dont have a "free access fetishism" (whatever that is supposed to mean). If I had why would I bring into the discussion the question of rationing or offer a possible model of how a system of rationing might be effected?  I believe it is the SPGB's view that in the early stages of scialism there would be both free access goods and rationed goods,  the relative proportions of each depending on circumstances at the time – and society's priorities.  Thats my view as well and I think its a fairly reasonable one to hold. My focus is less on the Day After the Revolution than on the prolonged but quite possibly exponential build up to that day. Though I disagree with him on the idea of money lingering after that day,  YMS is right to draw parrellels with the rise of  organisations  like Podemos here in Spain. Ideas and movements embodytng those ideas have a habit of taking off suddenly from almost nowhere.  This take off period is the essential training ground in which the habits, values and practices of a future socialist society will be forged. Not nearly enough attention is given to it, in my view…

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

1) It's your legislative fiat, not mine.  I wouldn't propose any such thing, I'd only suggest making wage-labour contracts illegal.

Hhmmm. Well I had always understood the Party case to be that once the socialist movement had captured democratic power, the means of production would become common property, if you like,  by legislative fiat. Am I wrong in that and, if not ,are you dissenting from this position?  In any event , declaring "wage labour contracts illegal"  is also  a kind of legislative fief except that it is not as comprehensive as declaring the means of production common property.  Also if wage labour contracts are  declared illegal from what source do people get the money to buy commodities in the  money sector of  this post capitalist economy?   

Young Master Smeet wrote:

2) Lets assume Bob the Greengrocer doesn't welcome socialism, and is part of the 40% of voters, lets be optimistic, who oppose socialism.

 If  a majority of people  – 50-60% are enthusiastic about socialism – I would suggest that would mean most of the remainder if not overly enthusiastic about it, would be prepared to go along with it.  Very few would be actually hostile and opposed to the idea by the time we have an actual majority of socialistsIf Bob the greengrocer falls in the last category well then I can only respond – what could he do about it? Pretty much nothing as far as I can see.  We socialists today are in a similar situation, We intensely dislike capitalism but we are a tiny minoroty and there is pretty much nothing we can do about this situation at the moment.  The possibility of doing something only comes when we are much bigger.  That is what the old Guildford Branch circular  you referred to earlier was about    

Young Master Smeet wrote:

3) I'm talking about a sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement, at Podemos like speed, so eight year time frame.

 This assumes  that the sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement will somehow catch people unawares and leave a section of the population still with bitterly hostile views towards socialism which the socialist movement will have to accommodate such as in ways you siggest.I don't think think it will happen like that,  Podemos lets be frank here is just an opportunist reformist organisation that taps into the same core values and ideas that sustain other political organisation like PSOE or IU or Ciudadanos or even the PP.  I see the growth of a strong socialist movement as a zero game.  We will grow at the expense of those who endorse a n anti socialist point of view  and who will be opportunistically be drawn towards a socialist position in a bid to head off the movement espousing such a position. In any event, the growth of the socialist movement will incrementally modify the whole social climate which in turn will make people progressively more susceptible to socialist ideas

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

A legislative fiat declaring common property doesn't become a reality until structures on the ground exist to make common ownership a reality, and small proprietors and such firms as wouldn't be immediately changed by the Abolition of the wage-contracts would still exist: or would you send troops round to storm Bob's Greengrocers?  So, for some weeks or months, the easiest thing to do is leave money circulating, while supply chain, decision making and infrastructural changes are made to create practical distribution for needs.  Since hte bureacuracy for markets exists already, lets use that, rather than making a new one.So, those things that can quickly be made free access will be, housing, transport, etc. those things that are less important or more niche would continue to circulate with a dwindling supply of pretend-money tokens or somesuch.  That way, the obstinate resistors have fewer places to resist obstinately.

 Sorry but I am as puzzled as ever by this scenario of yours whereby money lingers on after the legislative fiat you refer to has been effected  making the means of production, common property. Actually, long before we reach this point I doubt if there will be a person on this planet – at least one of sound mind – who will be unaware of the implications of common ownership – that it entails inter alia the elimination of  money and wage labour . We will have been mentally, psychologically and organisationally prepared for the day it happens. And when it happens it will amount to little more than a kind of signal to facilitate or coordinate the changeover Far from having to send troops round to Bob the Greengrocer to enforce compliance, I suspect Bob himself would positively welcome the fact that he had no more feckin bills and onerous taxes to pay,  Your scenario  presupposes that folk will still need to have money to buy Bob's lettuces.  Where are they supposed to get this money from if there is no more wage labour? Why would Bob need to charge his customers, if he gets his lettuces gratis from the farmer co-operative?  And why would Bob need money anyway if his little greengrocer store is not going to go "bust" and Bob can satisfy his own needs without any kind of quid pro quo payment in the new society?  None of this makes any sense. You refer to the existing supply chain and the current system of "market bureaucracy" that we could make use of.  Yes indeed but we need to be aware of what it is about the current system we  need to make use of  and what we do not need to make use of, come a socialist society. Businesses today , like giant supermarkets , operate two parallel systems of accounting  – one is accounting in money prices,  the other is calculation in kind.  It is the latter that a socialist society will make use of, the former can be dispensed with completely. Calculation in kind is the bedrock of any kind of large scale society and it goes hand in hand with a distributed network of suppliers and distribution points that interact with each other essentially via a self regulating system of stock control.  There is no other alternative set up  to this in a socialist society – absolutely none.  Now it might be that this whole vast distributed network will have to be reconfigured and rationalised in places come socialism.  So far example, it is probable that we will see far less of the kind  "coals to Newcastle" type phenomena we see today and that there will be a distinct shift towards more localised forms of production in socialism.  But whatever the case , it is clear that such a network already exists  and that we can immediately make use of it when socialism is implemented and then adapting it as we go along But what is equally clear is that we will have absolutely no use for money accounting at any time  in a socialism, not even for a short time after your legislative fiat.  In fact, I would argue that long before that legislative fiat,  money accounting will have succumbed to a downward curve as social trust in this institution diminishes with the rise of revolutionary socialist consciousness everywhere.  How for example, would it be possible to make long term investment plans on a capitalist basis, if it is become more and more apparent that there is no long term for capitalism to look forward to and that its demise looks increasing imminent?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

According to a short repoer on this in today's Times

Quote:

Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.

The things they say.

 A universal Basic Income appears also to be a free marketeers dream http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-ideal-welfare-system-is-a-basic-income/

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box,  The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure..  How is that possible  on the basis of common ownership?

Because we can do what we want with out common property.  Like a family Monopoly set.

 Why?  What would be the point of having "profit sharing" if it doesnt meaning anything and, indeed,  couldnt mean anything if you actually had common ownership of the means of production. Its like saying we could have  private property in the means of production because in socialism where these means were commonly owned we could "do what we want with them".  Except if you actually did have private property as opposed to pretending to have provate property you would no longer have common property.  You would have reverted back to capitalism….

[robbo203]

OK, I have now had the opportunity to finally look at the book written by Cjames1961 .  It is clear to me that he considers Mises et al  to have won the  socialist calculation debate "hands down" against the advocates of "central planning" and that this is the baseline argument he falls back upon in his critique of socialism – or at least of the socialist view of how to move forward.  Unfortunately for him and so many others similarly draw to this conclusion, the assumption that socialism equates with society-wide central planning simply does not hold water and that it is only by recognising the possibility that socialism could indeed operate on a relatively decentralised and self regulating basis that you can even begin to see where the whole Misesian premiss goes seriously wrong.So I invite Cjames1961 to defend this  position of his on this forum.  The basic supposition he is making here is key to understanding why some of the other claims he is making fail to convince.

[Author]

Posts