robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Ralph, Socialists do sometimes turn their attention to the practical organisation of a hypothetical future socialist society. In fact the SPGB published a pamphlet on this very subject here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative I'm one of those who strongly believes we definitely needs to put more flesh on the bare bones of the idea of a socialist alternative, There is a lot more than can be inferred from the idea that is often left unsaid which is a great pity. While the more fine grained details are arguably of a more speculative nature and are liable to be outdated by the time we achieve socialism, there is much to recommend the process of speculation itself (providing it is understood to be such_ If you can't fire the imagine all you are left with is a dry formulaic response to the question of "what is socialism", Thats not going provide much of an incentive to organise for socialism, I think
Dave B wrote:Hi Robbo is the evil of equality stalin thing this one do you suppose?Hi Dave, Not too sure about that but came across the quote in the text mentioned. Incidentally you wil love this site with a wealth of handy quotes reflecting the evolution of Soviet state capitalism:http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html Check it out!
Szaviels, I think you need to be clear what you mean by "class". Class does not strictly denote income differentials – at least in the Marxian sense – though it will entail such differences. Rather, class has to do with one's relationship to the means of wealth production e,g as a capitalist (or owner of capital) or worker. In the Soviet Union , a tiny minority – the state capitalist class or nomenklatura – effectively owned the means of wealth production in a collective class sense via is complete control over the state machine and to the exclusion of the great majority. De facto ownerhsip means the same thing as ultimate control. If you exercise ultimate control over something, you own it, and vice versa. This is why genuine socialism has to be a democratically controlled society. Right from the start the Soviet union sought to shore up and entrench minority control, and therefore de facto ownership, of the means of wealth production. This went hand in hand with spiralling income inequality. Lenin, around the time of the Bolshevik revolution had, seemingly, enthusiastically endorsed the principle of equal pay for everyone – what is called uravnilovka or income levelling – as a political tactic to gain working class support. However, in less than a year later, in an address given in April 1918 (published as "The Soviets at Work") he abjectly recanted: “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." This polarisation of wealth and income is an inevitable aspect of capitalism which any government seeking to administer such a system would be compelled to promote. Stalin too recognised the importance of unequal remuneration upon coming to power and having to fashion policy to fit the needs of the developing system of Soviet state capitalism. But Stalin but went a lot further than Lenin in denouncing the "evil of equality" and declaring Marxism to be the "enemy of equalisation" (cited in Alex F. Dowlah, John E. Elliott. 1997, The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism,Praeger , Wesrport p.82) Uravnilovka, was vigorously opposed on the grounds that it undermined incentives and economic performance. And most surreally of all, Foreign Minister Molotov once declared that “Bolshevik policy demands a resolute struggle against equalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy, as elements hostile to socialism." (Tony Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, p.69 http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm). It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that in Russia, the ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). While such differentials appear modest by western standards, they hardly begin to reflect the true picture. There were a number of other factors that massively augmented the level of inequality within Soviet Union and its satellites. These included:1) The widespread practice of multiple or plural salaries among the Soviet elite2) The “packet system” or "thirteenth month" bonus system whereby some members of the nomenklatura were secretly paid for an additional month in every year by the central authorities as a reward for their loyalty, as reported by Medvedev 3) Payments in kind of all sorts – such as free dachas, chauffer driven cars and foreign holidays – which were massively skewed in favour of the Soviet elite such that the higher up one was in the social hierarchy the larger this component of your income is likely to be in relative and absolute terms4) Corruption, bribery and backhanders from the black economy representing a hidden transfer of wealth to the Soviet elite who were well placed to benefit from this. John Fleming and John Micklewright in their paper "Income Distribution, Economic Systems and Transition" cite the work of researchers like Morrison who, using data from the 1970s, found that countries like Poland and the Soviet Union had relatively high levels of income inequality, registering gini coefficients of 0.31 in both cases, which put them on a par with Canada (0.30) and the USA (0.34) (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf). According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power, Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to their own retail outlets stocking western goods and various other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the ratio between low and high earners was more like 1:100. Some amongst the Soviet elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success. Some amongst the Soviet elite, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, moved on to transmogrify into the oligarchs of modern day Russia, drawing on their extensive power and influence built up in the Soviet era. As one report notes: According to a 1995 study conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, more than 60 percent of Russia's wealthiest millionaires, and 75 percent of the new political elite, are former members of the communist nomenklatura , and 38 percent of Russia's businesspeople held economic positions in the CPSU(http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11420.html).
jondwhite wrote:There was a post about AskASocialist (which no longer seems to exist) on Sep 2011 on spopen. I have startedhttp://askasocialist.blogspot.comMaybe promote this blogspot in some way. I take it you literally mean you started today?
ALB wrote:In other words, he supported Free Trade as he held that this would help capitalism develop quicker, so paving the way for socialism. Now, of course, capitalism has long since built up the material basis for a worldwide society of plenty for all.That is an interesting observation, Other comments by Marx suggest otherwise, For instance at the end of chapter two of the Communist Manifesto we find him and Fred arguing for a state capitalist agenda precisely in order to increase the productive as rapidly as possible: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Seems slightly contradictory to me!
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
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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…
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…
