robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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?
ALB wrote:According to a short repoer on this in today's TimesQuote: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/
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….
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.
There is quite a useful discussion on the nature of technological determinism which is I believe the position adopted by the author of this book on singularity and socialism. See here https://communicationista.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/technological-determinism-vs-social-construction-of-technology/ Apropos the claim that the development of science and technology is THE fundamental driving force that is pushing us towards a "zero marginal cost" society, it might be worth mentioning that there is another school of thought which has emerged in recent years that takes a more pessimistic view in this regard – namely that technological progress has of late begun to display distinct signs of diminishing returnsBenjamin Wallace-Wells, a leading figure in the "declinist" school of thought, has mooted the idea that the progress of the past 250 years,driven by successive industrial revolutions , may have been a "unique period in human history.” As he put it in an article in the New York Magazine: "At some point in the late sixties or early seventies, this great acceleration began to taper off … The rate at which life is improving here, on the frontier of human well-being, has slowed. ("The Blip", New York Magazine, Jul 21, 2013). Similarly, Peter Thiel in his essay “The End of the Future”argues: "Technological progress has fallen short in many domains… While innovation in medicine and biotechnology has not stalled completely, here too signs of slowed progress and reduced expectations abound… By default, computers have become the single great hope for the technological future. (“The End of the Future”, National Review online, October 3, 2011) Thiel provides some interesting examples to back up his thesis – such as the rate of increase in the speed of travel. So, for instance, the decision to scrap supersonic flight in the shape of Concorde and the implementation of elaborate security measures in wake of 9/11 have served to slow down air travel considerably by comparison with just a few years back Of course, this does not exactly demonstrate some immanent trend at work within the process of technological innovation and discovery itself – after all, corporations continue to invest massively in R and D – but merely underscores the fact that technological innovation does not happen in isolation from other developments in society. But if the "declinist" thesis is correct what might that mean for the future of capitalism? The expansionist logic of capital imposes itself upon economic actors the injunction "grow or die". If we what we are witnessing is, indeed, the long term slowing down in the pace of technological innovation and its impact on society does this signify a system that is now on its knees and awaiting its imminent demise at the hands of its executioner – Fate? I don't think so. I think part of the misunderstanding arises from a tendency to conflate technological progress with economic growth itself. Technological progress aids the latter but it does not entirely account for the latter which can decline despite such technological progress This is precisely the point behind the " falling rate of profit" thesis – increasing capital intensity associated with technological development by changing the organic composition of capital impacts detrimentally on the rate of profit. But then nor does economic growth necessarily signify the "rate at which life is improving" which is to mistakenly assume that the purpose or effect of increased investment is to directly meet human needs as such and so enhance human wellbeing. That does not necessarily follow. The connection between economic growth and quality of life is tenuous and in some cases inversely related
It is a pity this discussion has become a little bogged down in bristling antagonisms on both sides and quite unnecessarily. It is not reasonable to expect people to first read the book in its entirety and doing the" in depth mental work" first before being entitled to ask questions. Questioning is part of the process of mental work from the word go, leading to greater understanding. At the same time, it is important not to just jump on the author and take up a dismissive attitude for whatever reason. One should cut him a bit of slack and let him elaborate and develop his theme. I will say straightaway that I haven't read the book though I hope to at some point if I can get my hands on it. So my views on the subject are fairly provisional and tentative. Its seems to me that the author belongs to the camp of technological optimists in which the development of science and technology is portrayed as the only real driving force in social evolution which is pushing us Willy Nilly towards an "age of abundance" and, thus, the long awaited transcendence of market capitalism. The author is not alone in propounding this theme; he mentions a few others like Desai and Jeremy Rifkin of "Zero Marginal Cost" fame. There is also Paul Mason and his Postcapitalism which was discussed on this forum here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/paiil-mason-proper-thread-his-book What worries me about this whole approach is its underlying technological determinism and the presumption that technology is some sort of independent variable or neutral force that pushes society, albeit kicking and screaming, in a given direction. But science and technology are never neutral, they have always been informed and shaped by social values which derive from the kind of society in which we live. It puzzles me this basic argument – that a post capitalist society of abundance is going to somehow materialise, as it were, behind our backs without us having to undergo a conscious (and political) evolution to bring it into being. I struggle to understand the mechanism by which these technological determinists contend this transformation will take place. It seems to me to be based on nothing more than an unwarranted extrapolation of cost reducing trends brought about by technological advances under conditions of market competiton. But this does not seem to take into account countervailing forces that work to retain the status quo and necessitate the very thing that is here being downplayed – a change in consciousness in order to bring about a post capitalist society I'm skeptical of this whole meme of the technological optimists that technology is driving us towards a system of zero marginal costs. There can be such thing as a costless society; costs in this sense are opportunity costs which will always be with us in a world in which we always have to make choices and forego alternative uses for resources. There is also the whole problem of externalities – the externalisation of costs on others be this society in general or the environment which is being ravaged in the pursuit if profit. From that point of view it could be argued that costs are rising not falling. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that a small minority in capitalism own and control the means of production and they are not going to relinquish this without stiff resistance. Nor are they going to sign their own death warrant as a class by permitting these developments to reach a point at which the profit system is fatally undermined. Rather they will use their ownership and control of means of production to ensure that these developments will ultimately serve them The thing is , and I think this where Cjames1961 and the technological optimists-cum-cornucopians go wrong – repudiating this rather mechanistic view of social transformation which underlies their worldview, does not have to mean repudiating technological progress itself. Opposition to technological determinism does not translate into Luddism and embracing the reactionary romantic conservatism of old fashioned guild socialism. The case for a post capitalist or socialist society rests at least in part on awareness of the discrepancy between the huge potential that modern technology offers and the actual application of this technology for the benefit of humankind. This discrepancy is not going to magicked out of existence, merely by the further development of technology itself. It will require a social revolution, a sea change in consciousness leading to a change in the very organisation of society itself, to close this gap This, I'm afraid is preisely what the technological determinists overlook
Young Master Smeet wrote:Savings, UBI, dole, lottery, although profit sharing is more likely. As also said, this is very much a transitional measure as we cut down on the market parts of the economy, we'd leave people free to tradeSorry 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? In fact, how can the "market parts if the economy" even exist if the means of production are owned in common. This doesn't make sense YMS – unless what you are suggesting is that instead of declaring capitalism abolished the socialist movement would give rise to a socialist government to oversee the gradual demise of capitalism and its market and to administer the various measures you mention, In which case how can we be sure that this government will carry out its pledge to "cut down on the market parts of the economy", Whats to say it wont do a U turn and bring back privatisation, say?.
Young Master Smeet wrote:That would require a hideous bureaucracy.No I don't think so . In fact the bureaucracy involved would be rather less than which is required to administer council tax under capitalism. Council tax involves the banding of properties into 7 or 8 different bands according to their calculated capital value. Of course "capital value" will not be the operative criterion in a socialist society but there is a checklist of physical criteria which can be applied to enable assessors to place any property within one of several bands. My suggestion is that a rationing system for non free access goods be organised around this banding system, Remember that an assessment of housing stock is something that would have to be carried out anyway whether or not you link this with a rationing system I think if anything is gonna require a hideous bureaucracy it is the very measures you propose such as a UBI or profit sharing
I do not understand this strange reluctance to speculate, to write recipes for the cook-shops of the future as Marx put it. People who object to this kind of exercise misunderstand its purpose. It is NOT to arrive at some collective formalised position on the nitty gritty of what a future socialist society would entail. We are not futurists in that sense and of course it is up to the people at the time to determine the details of the society they have brought into being. But that is not the point of the exercise. I think it was Pieter Lawrence who said that if we don't engage in this kind of exercise, we cede the future to those who simply seek to retain the status quo. If we don't put flesh on the bones of the idea of what kind of society we hope to bring into being we end up with a lifeless skeleton, an empty and hollowed out shell of vapid dogmas and insipid generalities, What we should be doing instead is to constantly relate the present to future possibilities, to critically and creatively engage with current developments in a way that highlights the huge relevance of our socialist goal to the society we live in in the here and now.. I suspect part of the problem has to do with the very nature of a party organisation. The temptation is always to arrive at some kind of collective offically endorsed position which because it goes through a process of formalised and being voted upon, inevitably conveys the impression that what has been decided has been set in concrete for all time. Understandably enough, people reject this not wishing to be hemmed or constrained by a viewpoint that may prove hopelessly outdated in a few years time let alone by the time we are ready to implement a socialist society. Technological developments in the field of telecommunications, for example, could radically impact on the way we could go about making decisions and thus profoundly influence the particular detailed blueprint for a socialist society that we carry in our heads But be aware of the huge risks of throwing out the baby with the bath water, There needs to be some compromise between the strictures of party bureaucratism and the essential creativity of speculating even where this runs the risk of being proven unfounded or outmoded. Unless you stimulate people's creative juices and excite their imagination about a socialist alternative you are just not going to get enough of them to rally around the cause of making that alternative a reality. It is not for no reason that the stock response of the newcomer to socialism is …"its a nice idea but…"
Young Master Smeet wrote:1) The Socialist road to Guilford runs up against the facts that state rules will exist in our way up until we get political power.2) I'm assuming a very rapid rise of the socialist movement, East Germany, or Podemos style, we could get to 30% of the vote fairly rapidly, within 8 years or so from take off.3) I'm discussing dismantling the market, and suggesting that while we do this piecemeal, it's better to just continue using money for those parts of the economy we can't immediately make free, as this is more effective than building the machinery of labour vouchers. This is part of a fairly rapid transition.Hi YMSNot quite sure what 1) is about. "State rules" may well continue to exist up until the democratic capture of political power but how would this prevent the expansion of non-market activities/relationships any more than it would or could prevent the expansion of the socialist movement itself? Such activities exist and LETS type arrangements which people seem to go on about are only a tiny fraction of this divrse non market sector. The idea behind the Road to Socialism circular (1986/7?) to which you allude is that this sector is likely to expand in lockstep with the expansion of the socialist movement itself and that, moreover, it would likely become more and more explicitly influenced by the latter and in turn reciprocally feed into and facilitate the further growth of this movement – a point that some critics of the circular back then completely overlooked and probably still continue to overlook. But ever mind! My main criticism, however, is with your 3). I just cannot see how this could happen. You talk about continuing to use money for those parts of the economy we can't immediately make free. But where is this money going to come from? How are workers to acquire the wherewithal to purchase goods that remain for the time being in the money economy?. Are you envisaging the retention of wage labour in the short term much like Lenin did in his outline of "socialism" in which all workers would be employees of the state? As other people have also pointed out , labour vouchers and money are not the the only two conceivable means by which scarce goods can be rationed. There are other ways of rationing and I have outlined one myself – the compensation model of rationing based on housing quality
rodmanlewis wrote:You are forgetting that certain transactions in today’s electronic world can’t take place unless a payment is made for goods. In the days leading up to and immediately after socialism it may be necessary to go through the motions of capitalist business practices, paper exercises if you like. Rather like leaving a pile of coins beside a drinks dispensing machine to make it work.What is to stop this procedure being immediately disabled? Particularly when everyone by then will know it would be quite pointless
I can't believe what I'm reading here – socialists actually contemplating the continuation of market relations, post revolution albeit in some kind of attenuated form. This comes of thinking that the growth of a socialist movement prior to the capture of political power can have no significant impact on the scope and extent of capitalist relations of production. Meaning everything has to be done in one fell swoop come the revolution. Now the new revisionist line seems to be – no, lets not do it in one fell swoop. Lets string it out and let capitalism die a gradual death after the revolution because the task of getting rid of capitalism in one fell swoop is just to monumental to contemplate. Is this what some comrades are now saying?
ALB wrote:Depends what you mean by "money". We always said that in the early days of socialism there might not be able to be full free access to everything. In which case there would have to be some sort of "rationing" of the goods and services in short supply. Personally, I'd have thought coupons for those goods and services only would be best way to deal with this. Certainly not "labour-time vouchers". But if these are not regarded as "money" then nor would any other all-purpose circulating vouchers be that could be used to acquire anything. An option, I suppose, but only slightly not as bad as labour-time vouchers and not really "money" (though we wouldn't be able to stop people calling it that. After all some, eg the pre-war Dutch Council Communists, call "labour-time vouchers" "labour-money".)I would broadly go along with this. The only point of contention might be on what basis might such coupons be distributed to the populace. As I see it, such distribution perhaps ought to be effected in a way that takes into accout the spatial inequalities which we will inherit from capitalism – above all, in respect of housing since housing constitutes easily the most important component of quality of life and so can serve as a proxy indicator of the latter The huge differences in the quality of housing which will continue to exist for sometime in a socialist society will constitute an open sore that could cause considerable resentment which needs to be addressed. Thats why I would link link it with the question of rationing in the guise of a "compensation model of rationing". It is a symbolic gesture on the part of society that acknowledges the basic unfairness of the situation and seeks to defuse discontent by giving those forced to live in poor quality housing for the time, priority access to rationed goods. There are ways of classifying housing stock into different bands according to various criteria. We would need to do this anyway in process of upgrading housing stock in general. Coupons could be allocated to housing units according to which particular band a housing unit falls under…..
Why assume money will start withering away after the capture of political power? Would it not make a lot more sense to talk of that happening before the capture of political power? The praxis of a growing socialist moment will surely translate into an increasing tendency to transcend the cash nexus in all sorts of ways. I cannot really see how a money system could linger on after this democratic capture of political power; its very continuation raises all sorts of thorny theoretical questions such as how do we acquire the wherewithal – money – to purchase goods in a market (which would also surely continues if money continues – by definition) Would we continue to work for wages and be employed by the state as Lenin envisaged in his conception of "socialism". I cant see this at all. That said, there might well be a need for some form of rationing post revolution. True, money is a form of rationing but the very nature of money and what it implies, in my view rules it out completely as a candidate in this case. Labour time vouchers is another candidate but there are huge problems with this too. My preference would be for a "compensation" model of rationing based on the assessed quality of housing stock. This would be much simpler to administer and it would help to address the potentially tricky problem arising from huge differences in the quality of housing stock inherited from capitalism by giving those compelled in the short term to continue living in poor quality housing, priority access to rationed goods as opposed to free access goods.
