Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Apologies if Alan or Robbo have made this point anyway (but I never read their posts if they go beyond three paragraphs).African states do produce enough food (but, yes, should produce more), and about 153 million people over 15 years old experience food insecurity. The short reason for this, is: capitalism. Longer version, local capital elites find it easier and more profitable to invest their profits in London and Wall Street, rather than developing local markets and infrastructure. It is as simple as thjat.I could add the effects of colonial legacy, agricultural subsidies in advanced economies, expoosure to commodity markets, currency fluctuation, and taroifs (e.g. on coffee https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/ ). But that would just be saying 'capitalism' in bigger letters. Incidentally, similar factors created the relative underdevelopment of Ireland, so, it's not a skin colour thing.
One thing that we can look at is the 'creative commons': admittedly, this is based on property, but essentially releases it into the wild. The idea is that the originator asserts their copyright, but then allows other people to use their work, as long as they pass on the terms and conditions (usually to acknowledge the originator, and to foorbid commercial exploitation).There's no reason creative copmmons type arrangements couldn't apply to the use of housing, fields, factories, etc. So, not exactly usufruct, but near: more like a factory, field or house is held in trust by a group where society at large is the beneficiary.No need, then, for a worldwide committee planning everything, but instead nested self organised associations in continuous conversation.
Saw, in a different context, someone linking to this article earlier today:https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htmForgiving the archaic language:
Debs wrote:I have said and say again that, properly speaking, there is no Negro question outside of the labor question—the working class struggle. Our position as Socialists and as a party is perfectly plain. We have simply to say: “The class struggle is colorless.” The capitalists, white, black and other shades, are on one side and the workers, white, black and all other colors, on the other side.Also, it is left unstated, that these layered oppressions are structured by class. Wage differences only exist because of the labour market, and the barriers that "race", "sexuality" and "gender" put to partcipation in them. While gay capitalists have faced persecution and emotional trauma, etc. they remained capitalists and able to live (likewise the odd aristo).If we all had unrestricted access to the means of living, and enforceable inteests in the common wealth and production of society, then these priviliges are abolished. This is not to belittle or deny the various categories of discrimination.
Reminds me of this art-work from the Tate, simply swapping the towns of England and shoving them into Scotland and vice-versa… http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/curtis-united-kingdom-t07596
I think there is a bigger picture (and this is an abbreviated form of a complex argument).Capitalism favours capital intensive operations over labour intensive: profits flow towards capitalised industries. Relative to arable and market garden production, flesh is more capital intensive, and less labour intensive. Also, although capitalists want lean processes within the firm, and minimise – to use the jargon – the numbr of touches in an operation/service, they want to maximise the number of "touches" they can be involved in (short alternative, capitalists want to be the ineffiiciency in the system). Further, capital wants to spare labour, in order to capture the value of other capitalist's labour inputs.So, meat production is profitable, and processed meat production even more so.Socialism would produce, not for profits, but for needs: for direct discrete objectives. It would have no overarching aim of sparing labour (although we would obviously want to make our labour go as far as we can make it). It would, though, want to simplify production. Whilst Mises was wrong that the question of intermediate goods would make planning impossible, it is true that reducing the number of intermediate gods, of means of production and inputs, would simplify the planning process. Given the single biggest input in farming is animal fodder (i.e. food we've grown that we feed to ourselves, through animals), simplifying production by cutting out that stage would seem to be a winner (and would be compatable with our own ideas in Socialism as a practical alternative
SAPA wrote:Socialism must immediately stop people dying from hunger; it must ensure adequate world food production. It must house the world’s population in comfort, providing for the basic necessities of piped clean water, drainage systems, decent cooking facilities and so on.. This would leave meat production to truly marginal land or wild animals that are hunted.
If I'm reading government sites right, we can pay £112 a week and the invididual would not be liable for income tax nor NI (of either sort). With the National "Living" Wage, that would be 14 hours a week. More than enough.
This should actually be a good test of the theory: higher wages suggest tighter wage markets, so we should see a skewing of labour costs at the top end of the market, with little change at the bottom end, as gains from tax custs are eroded by lower wage growth/inflation : unless state power is used to push up the minimum wage altogether.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Are we now going to be presented with an opportunity to check out our theory in practice? When Scottish workers tax rises, will their wages rise too?http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42339146I've seen it in action: Gordon Brown raised workers NI, and my next pay rise turned out to be greater than the increase + inflation.That said, sadly, the theory is deductive, and immune to empirical refutation, since the argument goes, if workers wages do fall as a result of the tax rise, their wages were due to fall anyway, and the state has simply seized that which would have gone to the employer.Arguably, much like trade union bargaining, taxation could well speed up such processes compared to the organic operations of the market.
At the minute, solutions which involve getting the party to do more, or different, aren't eally viable. We need ways in which we can look at the party doing less. I'm not prepared to do more work (I really want the year off that was denied me last year when I was mugginsed into being Trustee without my consent). So, in that spirit, I can't propose clever new initiatives. MOst of this stuff is beside the point, we lack volunteers to do the treasury work. Now, the bulk could be moved to the HOO, as with the bulk of the secretary work, but then HOO becomes a critcal post, if we can't get that, we need a way to miniise the tediuos admin.
If it were to meet quarterly, I'd prefer a Delegate Meeting Format, rather than a quarterly EC (at least that way different people could attend the various dates).
ALB wrote:You mean like it was said to be in the last years of the old USSR: you pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.Exactly, or, more precisely, work would drop to the restore the ratio of salary to output. And, of course, a host of other unofficial and individual (and occaisionally collective) forms of retaliation.
If we were to draw up a list of minimum activity I would suggest two things:1: An annual conference.2: The Socialist Standard.Actually, for 1, I would privilige Summer School over conference, and relegate an AGM to a quick morning session before we got on with the weekend's discussions.The only geographic component we'd need under such a set up, would be two people close enough to each other to sign cheques.As an emergency measure, we could scrap party officers and the EC, have a 3-5 person Ways and Means Committee, and then do enough to keep thos two activities going. Any branches as exist would have to be financially independent.
Trade union action isn't the only means by which the value of wages would be restored: staff churn, go slows, sick outs, malingering, etc., e.g. action at an individual level would follow. Unions only speed this process up.I think the class angle is 'It's the bosses state, they've paid for it.' It's not ours.
