[robbo203]

Prakash, your conception of "communism" bears no relation to our –  or the Marxian – conception of communism based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need. Frankly what you call "communism"  I, as  a communist, oppose.  To me it sounds more like a rigidly centralised totalitarian state in which every individual is closely monitored with respect to what they consume and what labour they perform.   Your can keep your "communism" as fas as I am concerned.   I want nothing to do with it

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 And what about you , Adam ? Would you oblige me by making known your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and the silly adage ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" ' ? Or, will you once again have recourse to something like the silly excuse that there exists a lot of more important stuff than these issues in order to keep mum, I wonder. And I'm not sure whether it'd make sense to ask the SPGB to make known their official position on these most important issues. As far as I can remember, they disgustingly failed, like Adam, to stand for the truth about my claim to have proved first the thesis on money's incapacity.

 Prakash, it has already been explained to you countless times that the concept of a compulsory minimum – or maximum – working day  would be meaningless in a communist society where all labour would be performed on a purely voluntary basis.  Who is going to enforce such a rule – and how and why? The very rule itself presupposes unfree commodified labour – capitalism. If you persistently fail to address this point then, of course, over time people are going to tire of responding to you.  You are at liberty to express your anti-communist sentiments here and dismiss the communistc adage "from each according to ability, to each according to need" as "silly"  but at least be prepared to back up your claims with some solid argument.  Thus far, you have completely failed to do this The same goes for your ridculous vainglorious claim to have  "proved first the thesis on money's incapacity"  There is nothing original in what you said. It has been said countless times before including by  Marx.  Get over it and come off your pedestal for once

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add the following to my last post ( #251 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day ', observes Marx, ' is fixed by this necessary … portion [ i.e. ' that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent ' ] of it. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) From the above quote, it ought to be obvious to the sensible that communism must fix the ' minimum length of the working-day ', and that no one ( other than the disabled, the sick, minors, and all the senior citizens ) is supposed to work less, because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day, hours than it.

 It is not "obvious" at all  Prakash and for the very simple reason that Marx here is referring to the labourer under capitalism NOT communism.  In communism there is no "minimum or maximum length of the working-day" becuase all work will be done on a voluntary basis.   If I want to work 80 hours  a week in a communist society on a project that I find thoroughly absorbing, just try and stop me!

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps this article or an edited version can be distributed at these events April 18th will be the national day of action calling for Universal Credit to be scrapped.  London meet for 11am outside the visitor’s entrance to House of Commons https://dpac.uk.net/2018/03/national-day-of-action-to-stopandscrap-universal-credit-march-1st/ SheffieldAnyone is welcome to come and speak at the demo, just inbox the DPAC Sheffield page or email DPACsheffield@gmail.comSo far we have: Labour sheffield, Women’s lives matter campaign Yorkshire, Sheffield Green party, Momentum Sheffield disability officer, and DPAC.BirminghamMeet New Street, Time to be confirmedBrightonInformation table 10.30am Meet ate the Clock TowerManchesterSt.Peters Square, 13.00-15.00 joining together with Greater Manchester Law Centre and Acorn Tenants Union to say no to evictionsNorwich12.30-14.00Meet City Hall steps from 12.15 pmDPAC Ceredigion will be having a demo outside the job centre, Cardigan.

 Good suggestion Alan.   Mayve the Pub Comm can do something wth it…

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. 

 This has got nothing to do with communism.  Its more like some kind of regimented barrack-like centralised society in  which everyone is closely monitored by an overarching state.  Once again to repeat the point – the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in which the worker is obliged to perform a certain quantum of work in exchange for a  certain quantum of goods.   In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct You are confusing the communist principle of from each accrding to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

[robbo203]

Excellent article.  Having left the UK in late 2004 I can vaguely recall earlier periods of unemployment there, trying to manage on the "dole".  It was tough then  but the bureaucratic rigmarole involved seemed far less taxing and intrusive  by comparison with today.  The present system of Universal Credit  which I gather from the article is currently being rolled out in the UK seems be almost designed to inflict the maximum mental torture on claimants to force them into wage slavery regardless of ther circumstances

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

'The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE. 

  I dont think you understand what communism/socialism is about Prakesh  if you can come out with comments like this.  There is no remuneration or material "rewards" for work done in such a society.  The basis on which work of performed is completely voluntary  (which is itself the logical corrollary of the fact that goods and services will in general be made available on a "free access"  basis in such society).  Consequently your argument is null and void I think you have completely misunderstood what the expression , 'from each according to ability; to each according to need ' actually means

[robbo203]

acke wrote:

I think that the false public image is the true reason for the degradation of the image of socialism and communism. I liked this article http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/newproposals/article/view/2017/182540 from the "New Propoosals" which clearly explains that the socialism or communism is the natural course of history and developmen of technology and socialism or communism can not be naturally introduced by force of by the common acceptance if there is no sufficient level of technological development for the socio-economic phase transition to occur. 

 Hi  Acke ,   I think that article makes a number of mistakes such as the suggestion that M and E differentiated between socialism and communism  refering to the the former as the lower stage, and the latter as the upper stage of comunism. That was Lenin's view not Marx's. Marx and Engels regarded the terms socialism and communism as synonyms.  Also the the whole idea of Market socialism strikes me as an oxymoron and inherently incoherent in my view – it proposes social ownership of the means of production while retaining the trappings of a market economy in the sphere of distribution.  That makes no sense. I dont think there is any need for socialists today to urge the further development of the producttive forces.  We already have the technology that could make a socialist/communist society a viable proposition.  The problem is not an insufficently developed productive potential but capitalism's iability to properly harness that potential for the good of humanity

[robbo203]

I looked at the Harvey interview you linked to above, Adam .  To put the quote in fuller context this is what Harvey said "Or on the monetary question – we need money to circulate commodities, no question about it. But the problem with money is that it can be appropriated by private persons. It becomes a form of personal power and then a fetish desire. People mobilise their lives around searching for this money even when nobody knows that it is. So we’ve got to change the monetary system – either tax away any surpluses people are beginning to get or come up with a monetary system which dissolves and cannot be stored, like air miles.But in order to do that you’ve also got to overcome the private property-state dichotomy and come to a common property regime"I find it quite extraordinary that someone like Harvey can come up with such muddled nonsense as this .  Yes, you may need money to circulate commodities but do we need commodities and commodity production and how is this compatible with a "common property regime"? Taxing away surpluses will only induce capitalists to shift their capital to other parts of the world where taxes are lower – hence the recent Tax reform bill in the US to lower corporate taxes and entice more domestic investment.  As for coming up with a monetary system in which money "dissolves" (I thought you needed it "to circulate commodities")  and cannot be stored, this  is patently absurd.  Its like wanting capitalism without the accumulation of capital that lies at the heart of the systemHow on earth did this guy manage to pass as an authority on Marx and Marxism? 

[robbo203]

alien1 wrote:

The drivel that passes for serious comment on cryto-currency and the Blockchain in particular seems never ending. That the US immediately banned the Venezuelan crypto should tell you all you need to know – they fear it. Porno on the Bitcoin blockchain is a total joke, have you tried to make a transaction recently? The constsnt attacks on crypto and Bitcoin in particular have failed to crack its underlying value to users. You want to launder drug money – use the banks. You want to watch porn use DVDs or the internet or join a club. You want to sexually abuse children join the police or get in to politics! Porno (or just about anything else) on different blockchains is/will definitely happen. To get some idea of the future have a look at where the Steemit project is going. In the future the world, including a socialist world, is going to run on blockchains. If you think the wheel, internet or the invention of god were a big deal then you are in for shock in the relatively short term as this technology mushrooms/explodes. Yes, they'll even design, build, fly, target and drone us using AI machines created and 'living' on the Blockchain!

 An interesting post, alien1, but I wonder if you could elaborate on your point :"To get some idea of the future have a look at where the Steemit project is going. In the future the world, including a socialist world, is going to run on blockchains" It would also be helpful if you could explain in simply layman's terms for folk like me who dont really understand this technology, what exactly blockchain is and what it does.  

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Without Marx’s labour theory of value the marxian enterprise dies.Nothing of value remains, including socialism.[For the discrediting-of-the-discrediting, see Reclaiming Capital by Andrew Kliman https://…Reclaiming-Marxs-Capital.%5D

 A good analysus TWC but I dont think the last inference holds.  There are some "Marxists", for  example, who hold that you can still talk about working class explitation without resorting to the labour theory vof value.  I am not quite sure how they imagine this is possible but presumably in their mind it is.  In principle, you dont need to be  a Marxist to want socialism though it certainly helps…

[robbo203]

  

gnome wrote:

Discussion held at the Victory Pub, Brighton on Sunday, 25 March.Theme of discussion:  'Practical Ways for Spreading the Case for Socialism'Summary of discussionIncrease representation of minorities within membership of the party – including young people, BAME, LGBT+, women etc. This will help us engage with their communities. Our principles and literature is inclusive, but actions speak louder than words. Talk about how capitalism negatively affects these minorities (e.g. commodification of BAME communities, objectification of women etc.) Engage with activism. Short term, medium term and long term tangible goals for socialism – "In 10 years time, we want this to happen… so to get there we need to do this…" We have lots of members and supporters, but only few people show up. What are we offering them? A pint and a chat won't suffice, creativity and goals (maybe branch projects?) could increase engagement. Branch projects include individual accountability for its success, furthers the party and builds branches together as teams a communities. The party is tangible to a certain point (candidates standing in elections) but where does it go from there? We can't shrug it off as, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it". Propaganda and getting our message across is still the first aim of the party, over candidacy. But how do we convince people to join us and how do we measure that? Sponsored advertisement in social media (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc.)? Subscriptions to YouTube channels – YouTube campaign. Younger generations don't trawl through literature, they watch viral videos, short articles, videos, podcasts, "click baits". Bite-sized information and social media campaigns, not socialist standards and books. Audio-visual content is the most effective way of engaging young people – music, videos etc. University and College committee could do more by communicating with student unions to organise talks, meetings, film evenings and debates. Members could leaflet student unions and trade union meetings? Facebook, Snapchat (world socialism filter?) and Instagram stories. – We have uploaded a photo of the discussion meeting onto the event's and SPGB group's Facebook story. Formatting seems to be a problem for Facebook if the photo is landscape. It all comes down to, "Actions speak louder than words" and effectiveness of our actions and goals.Someone in the pub, who we talked to, asked us to change our group name to the "Sexy Brighton Socialists"… it was not voted upon. The next meeting will be on Sunday, 27th May @ 7pm due to the April Annual Conference – no discussion topic has been set for this meeting.Niall M.

  The above all sounds encouraging and positive.  How can it be linked up with recent efforts looking into the Party's reorganisation.  What is happening about the latter?

[robbo203]

This might be of interest.  Any thoughts?https://www.sciencealert.com/bitcoin-illegal-almost-everywhere-after-shocking-blockchain-discovery-child-pornography

[robbo203]

There is also a book by someone who I think was or is on this forumC James Townsend, 2015, "The Singularity and Socialism: Marx, Mises, Complexity Theory. Techn-optimism and the Way to Age of Abunadance"  I havent got round to reading the book yet but the blurb on the back says this:  "From the back of the book: The Singularity & Socialism is an exhilarating fast paced read showing the points of similarity and interconnection between Classical Liberal, Marxist, and Libertarian economic ideology and Complexity Theory/Economics and how they may change with coming technological advancements. The book updates the issues and illuminates many of today’s debates allowing the reader to come to a better understanding of the surprising interrelatedness between ideologies and their eventual convergence at the event horizon of the coming Economic Singularity. The process needed for obtaining an almost zero marginal cost system is enumerated within its pages. Whether you are a: Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian, Marxist, Socialist, Transhumanist, Venus Project enthusiast or a Zeitgeist Movement follower you will greatly enjoy this well written book! If there is one book that frames the debate between the Techno-optimists/Singularitans and Sustainatopians today and transcends the argument between them, this is it! The underlying theme that this book takes up is, “what happens to our present ideological ideas about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Libertarianism and Conservatism when we reach the event horizon of the coming economic singularity.” When abundance breaks out, how does that change our ideas about all of our political beliefs and economic systems that were founded upon a scarcity of resources and the means to fully, efficiently produce them in a new distributed way. The almost Zero cost society is possible with the evolution of Kevin Kelly’s Technium, with a surprising convergence between the ideas found in classical liberal and traditional Marxian economics, coupled with complexity theory/economics and Techno-optimism. This work transcends the oppositional dialectics and seeks to recognize the possible convergence of all presently combative ideologies at the Omega Point we are accelerating toward."

[robbo203]

acke wrote:

 From the one side I see that capitalism will not be able to handle further technological development. E.g. – what about mass unemployemnt due to robotics or due to automation of such professionas as law, accounting, psychotherapy, visual diagnostics (medicine), computational creativity and design etc. etc.? Capitalist pundits are quite calm, they are saying that humans will be able to invent new jobs and the Universal Basic Income is the most progressive idea they can invent in the best case (in the worst case they simply don't see the necessity to responde with any extraordinary instruments). But I can not believe them. Artifical intelligence is giving the exponential boost to the development and that is something that the history of humanity has not experienced before. 

 Hi Acke.   There is quite a long thread  on the subject of  the Universal Basic Income here  that might interest you .  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/left-and-right-unite-ubi-fight

[Author]

Posts