[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, I think there is more mileage nowadays in talking about a 'designed' economy, to make clear that we're not talking about everyone being subordinated to some master chart mapping out every hour of their day, regulating life down to the last rivet, but rather that we mean that we'll know how branches of production relate to one another.  If we design how things are going to work in advance, and then just leave them to get on with it.

[Young Master Smeet]

I also missed 'definite plan', again, from principles of Communism:

Fred wrote:

hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Fred wrote:

In communist society it will be easy to be informed about both production and consumption. Since we know how much, on the average, a person needs, it is easy to calculate how much is needed by a given number of individuals, and since production is no longer in the hands of private producers but in those of the community and its administrative bodies, it is a trifling matter to regulate production according to needs.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/02/15.htm

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Fred wrote:

What will this new social order have to be like?Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

Charlie & Fred tend to talk about common plan than 'planned economy'http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Charlie wrote:

If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Fred wrote:

In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite — into monopoly; and the production without any definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society

There's a few more choice quotes, I can't recall the precise terms I'd need to look for them, and the book I need is at home…

[Young Master Smeet]

Stuart,when I saw some of the comments, my thought was that you haven't changed, but you've just changed club, and while some of us want to keep on trying with the same old 5-Iron, you prefer to experiment with the odd sand-wedge. That seems fair enough to me.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://leftunity.org/left-unitys-first-national-meeting-a-report/A report of their first meeting, from an author we'd recognise (late of this parish); note the vituperative comments below from the sects at the decision not to give them a formal presence in the organisation (I'm sure they'll try and use the space for debate to get themselves embedded structurally).

[Young Master Smeet]

The blurb from the book:

Blurb wrote:

The neoliberalism that has dominated economic thinking since Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan first came to power is now seen to have serious flaws, and Progressive Capitalism seeks to replace it with a new, Progressive political economy. This is based on an analysis of why the growth rates of countries differ, and what firms have to do to achieve competitive advantage in today s global economy. The cornerstone of the political economy of Progressive Capitalism is a belief in capitalism. But it also incorporates the three defining beliefs of Progressive thinking. These are: the crucial role of institutions the need for the state to be involved in their design because conflicting interests have to be resolved and the use of social justice as an important measure of a country s economic performance. Social justice, defined as fairness, is used as a measure of performance in addition to the rate of economic growth and liberty. Progressive Capitalism shows how this new, Progressive political economy can be used by politicians and policymakers to produce a programme of economic reform for a country. It does this by analysing and proposing reforms for the UK s equity markets, its system of corporate governance, its national system of innovation and its education and training system. Finally, Progressive Capitalism describes the role the state should play in the economy, which it sees as an enabling one rather than the command-and-control stance of traditional socialism or the minimalist role of neoliberalism.

http://tinyurl.com/ckso6glIt certainly enabled Sainsbury to buy a peerage and make millions of pounds

[Young Master Smeet]

The KLF got there first:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid

[Young Master Smeet]

The significant thing is that the bad debts appear to be securitised on property, so even foreclosing on the building value won't cover the losses (which means the property market must still be floundering).

[Young Master Smeet]

Slightly worrying news about the Co-op bank:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22507937

Quote:

Here is what stood out for me. At the end of 2011, the Co-op Bank had £1.45bn of corporate loans on its "watchlist". In other words, it thought that £1.45bn of lending to companies – much of it property lending – could go bad….The point is that in the subsequent year, many of the companies with loans on the Co-op's watchlist did in fact default. Corporate loans in default at the Co-op jumped from £922m to just under £2bn….And that rise in defaults was a big contributor to the colossal £674m loss that the Co-op incurred in 2012….At the end of 2012, the Co-op had £3.7bn of commercial loans, home loans and personal loans that it classified as impaired or bad. Against that, it was holding a provision for potential losses on these loans of £643m….In other words the Co-op believes it will ultimately lose just 17% of these bad loans….At the same time, the Co-op has loss-absorbing equity capital of £1.6bn…Or to put it another way, impaired loans minus provisions for losses as a percentage of loss-absorbing capital is 194%.

So, things to absorb. The Co-op is a small relatively conservatively run bank, not a bunch of profiteering spivs, and a large tranche of it's loan book is going bad.  So the problem isn't with the bank, it is just a symptom of flailing in the wider economy. Secondly, this just shows that co-operatives are not a genuine alternative to the capitalist system, and are certainly not immune from its economic woes.  Thirdly, banks really, really, cannot just create credit a the stroke of a pen, otherwise it wouldn't be in this mess.

[Young Master Smeet]

Going, roughly by the quotes I mined up, it wouild seem that primitive communism = pre-commodity society: so we're not looking at any specific model of organisation, but a retrospective relationship between commodity relations and non-commodity relations.  So, it actually would encompass many different forms of organisation identified by later anthropologists.

[Young Master Smeet]

I thought the reason was that it was creating inflation: when they started, it looked very like a catastrophic fall in prices would occur, so falling prices plus inflation means actual prices retaining the same denomination.  And inflation certainly did run up above the 2.5% mark (up to about 3.6% IIRC), and considering that inflation remains higher than interest rates, it seems we have a slow destruction of capital going on.

[Young Master Smeet]

I'm reminded of the story Werner Herzog tells of when he was filming Fitzcarraldo : Klaus Kinski was throwing tantrums on set (at least partially provoked by Herzog, it has to be said), and one of the Indian chiefs they were working with went up to Herzog and said: "Shall we kill him for you?"  They were prepared to kill him for being annoying and ego maniacal.I'll just add, that one of the features of their society is the small size of the their groups, the pressures of complexity don't exist, and they are more likely to strike off in a new band than build a big community.

[Young Master Smeet]

ALB wrote:

4.  A society without a State, i.e without any body of armed men to enforce social discipline (i.e, to stay strictly on topic, without a "police force"). In fact an alternative name amongst anthropologists for such societies is "societies without a state".

Well, there would have been a body of armed men, known simply as 'The Men'.  They would have enforced discipline, such as it was.And this brings us to the point, the capacity for the use of force will not disapear in socialism, the point is that no section of society can monopolise it it for their own interests.  Hence why I stated, as a pretty cold reading, that whatever form of organisation society takes to defend itself, it can't be based on special powers or unique rights, much like the current English common law power of arrest.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

YMS supports this view in the above quote. What he fails to grasp, is that those values need be encouraged within a socialist space.

I don't know how that can be said, when I haven't made any comment on that topic.As for socialism, obviously, the values of people in socialist society (and it's structures) will be different 100 years from the revolution, and again 300 years.  On the eve of the revolution people will have a set of values built on and closely resembling, those they have today.  What will drive the change is necessity and the inherent skills of humans to negotiate their social space.  I should certainly hope their values will be fettered and shaped by socialist society.

[Young Master Smeet]

Capitalist ideologues, in their utopian mood, offer freedom and equality for all: universal human emancipation.  Individual responsibility, dignity for labour, all sorts of lovely goodies.Even in twenty years, most of the people in socialism would be the people who are around now, and they will have to change their minds (certainly) to get to socialism, but but that will be a process of adapting existing attitudes, rather than wholesale implanting entirely new ones.

[Author]

Posts