robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The authors seem to have been overly influenced by Cockshott and Cottrell´s so-called “cyber socialist” approach. The latter advocate central planning and consider the Soviet Union to have been basically “socialist” but not sufficiently democratic and also lacking, at that time, in the computer technology that could have made central planning a success – allegedly.
This bit from their article is revealing:
“Fully resolving the demand side calculation problem requires a mechanism which ensures that the consumer valuations captured by token prices will also be reflected in production targets. For this purpose, Cockshott and Cottrell (1993) proposed a double control loop through which the plan target is continually adapted to consumer demand. In the first control loop, the token prices of final goods are continuously adjusted to approximate the market clearing rates at which demand matches supply as described above. Should demand for a good exceed its supply, its price must be increased. Should demand be below supply, the price must be reduced. In the next step, the approximated market clearing rates of each are compared to the cost of producing it. Cockshott and Cottrell (1993) use labor values as a measure of cost, while Dapprich (2022)uses shadow prices instead.”
This is a world away from anything we would recognise as being socialism tbh….
There is also this curious passage in the article.
“We highlight the potential for such an immanent critique, explaining how, in light of technological advancements, planning processes might be capable of fulfilling the same kind of epistemological functions that markets fulfil.”
What are these supposed “epistemological functions” that markets are supposed to fulfil? Markets don’t tell us much about human needs or production costs, for that matter (think of the problem of externalities)
So no – sadly there was not much in the article that one could sink one´s teeth into. It did not say anything new. Perhaps a future article might be more interesting if it shifted the focus away from a system where you have a single universal unit of account (necessary only in a society based on a market exchange) to a system involving calculation in kind and where the only purpose of production is to directly meet human needs. In other words, socialism as we would define it
Bit of a disappointing (and rather predictable) article, really…. Doesn’t really go much beyond the stale old limited choice of the market versus central planning (both of which we can reject) and doesn’t really question what is meant by “demand” or even “economising of resources”(the so-called “least-cost combination” of resources is not a reliable guide in that respect). The only thing that is slightly interesting is Dapprich´s “socialist tokens as an alternative to money”. Not quite sure what he has in mind but it ain’t labour vouchers apparently…
Im still puzzled at what you think the relevance of this is to anything?
…….
More money to spend on other things, obviously!Jayzus, you people are fucking clueless.
============================
So more money is available to be spent on other things. Which means the market demand for other things increases. Which means, all things being equal, the price of other things increases….yeah?
Or alternatively, the downward pressure exerted by capital on wages increases bringing the latter into line with the value of labour-power
Despite what Lizzie45 thinks, there is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. Workers have to struggle to hold on to their share of the social product and if her dismal view of the potential for working-class militancy is correct, that does not augur well for their future economic prospects under capitalism.
I came across this article on Gorgeous George that might be of interest. An opportunist who courts both the Left and the Right by all accounts
“And that, sadly, is why socialism will never be established.”
Could I borrow your crystal ball, Nostradamus?
“An anarchist unit in the Ukrainian army ! What next?”
So they are pro-capitalist statists – not actual anarchists – defending the existence of a particular capitalist nation-state in the form of “Ukraine”. They are no better than the deluded nationalists who support Russian nationalism and the capitalist, Putin.
“(Lindsey) Graham stressed that helping Ukraine in its fight against Russia could also have strategic economic benefits for the U.S. and Western countries.
“They’re sitting on 10-12 trillion dollars of critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. We don’t want to give that money and assets to Putin to share with China,” he told Brennan on Sunday.”Interesting insight into the changing structure of Russia´s capitalist class
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/moscows-war-yields-new-type-russian-oligarch-2024-06-05/
“Another example I remember is being in a bar (quelle surprise), many years ago and explaining, to a very senior member of the Militant Tendency (who is now a successful playwriter) that real Socialism would mean the abolition of the wages system and of money. He genuinely said to me, “that’s a really stupid idea, that would never work!! Why would a barmaid choose to spend her night pouring pints to people in a pub”.
_________________I am not surprised BD. Trots are some of the most conservative or narrow-minded individuals I’ve come across tbh. Little wonder so many of them find it so easy to “defect” to the far Right or virulently “anti-communist” positions later on in life once they have burnt themselves out.
Here’s the ex-prosecutor general Sir Keith Starmer praising National Front flag-waving day.
______________________________
Will the (anti) Labour Party now be accepting applications from members of the English Defence League? Starmer is in danger of making Sunak appear positively libertarian. It’s enough to make anyone want to reach for the nearest bucket….
ActualSocialist10: “Even if we had the overwhelming majority of the UK’s workforce behind us, for example, 75% which would be unprecedented in history (not even this many were against slavery), that still leaves 25%.”
____________________________________________
I am not sure that this follows. Public opinion is a spectrum. If 75% of the workforce were socialist, I would say the great bulk of the remaining 25% would not be “reactionaries” but more likely en route to becoming socialists themselves – that is, accepting some or most of the ideas and values that a socialist movement embodies.
It is difficult to imagine that the growth of the movement would not have profound repercussions for the entire climate of opinion within society. For example, strengthening a culture of democracy. One set of ideas cannot continue to flourish (at least not to the same extent as before) in the same soil in which another set of ideas, diametrically opposed to it, has laid down roots and begun to flourish.
Reactionary ideas will recede to the same extent that socialist ideas advance
Thank christ for Generation Z in that case…..
“Patriotic emotions seem to be lacking in Gen Z, with the concept itself deemed as outdated, and patriotic symbolism (union jack flag, monarchy etc) are quite often associated with right-wing, nationalistic values, which of course, many younger generations oppose. So, it’s utterly unlikely that we’ll be willing to fight for ‘King and Country’ this time, given that the younger generations are already sceptical about the royal family. According to YouGov, among 18 to 24 year olds, only 30 per cent say the monarchy is ‘good for Britain’ vs the 77 per cent of those aged 65+ who believe it is.”
There is a lot of this sort of bilge on the MSM at the moment – sociopaths like retired generals and slimy politicians going on about how “we” must prepare ourselves now for the possibility of WW3. Loosely translated that means boosting military spending to enable “us” to better stand up to the “Russian” (or Chinese) threat. No doubt they are saying exactly the same thing about the West in Russia and China.
None of these people have any actual concern for the lives of workers in the event that actual war happens. It’s about manipulating public opinion for their own ends. Fearmongering to make us all fall in line. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. I dont believe a nuclear armageddon will happen – at least not by design though possibly by default. Not even politicians can be that dumb to imagine anyone would survive a fullscale nuclear exchange (including the billionaires in their bunkers) However, a frenzied climate of hyper-irrationalism and turbocharged nationalism might make the possibility of an “accident” more likely. All the more reason to pour cold water over articles like this one
nor am I, as I have said, as ideologically attached to the opinions I write about as you are to yours. In some of my pieces, I give equal weight to two or more completely contradictory arguments.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.Perhaps, then, Stuart you might want to give equal weight to the genuine socialist – not leftist, please – argument against capitalism in your next article rather than the obvious nonsense you spouted concerning the free market version of capitalism in your last article.
Incidentally, just curious but weren´t you briefly associated with some leftist organisation – Left Unity or something like that – before disappearing into the void and reemerging as a free-market supporter? What happened to that group?
While we have been discussing how the production and distribution of wealth could take place in a socialist society as necessarily one without markets or money, ex-comrade Watkins has been at it again.
________________________________________From the article
“Capitalism puts the food on the table. Be grateful and don’t expect more than it can give, says Stuart Watkins.”
What a joke. I think Stuart has lost the plot completely. Does he not understand that capitalism is just an “ism” – an abstract set of rules governing production (and a pretty naff set of rules at that, that, for instance, allows food to be destroyed to bump up prices)? “Capitalism” doesn’t produce anything. It’s flesh and blood workers that produce everything in conjunction with naturally given resources.
I find it bemusing these kinds of blatantly bourgeois apologetics that people like Stuart have, apparently, now wholly succumbed to – a totally fetishistic upside-down perspective on the world. He is not alone, there are others who seem to likewise suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome towards “capitalism. For example, Trots who, having passionately advocated for what they call a planned “socialist economy” for a large chunk of their lives, suddenly and inexplicably have some kind of road-to-Damascus conversion (mid-life crisis?) to the so-called free market economy. Indeed, became some of its most dogmatic and religious exponents.
Very strange and very sad at the same time!
