Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Organisation of production is the set of relationships and actions that go into producing goods: so that in our society would be the firms, the teams within the firms, the legal framework underpinning those firms, etc. It's the way stuff happens.
Grundrisse wrote:Production is also immediately consumption. Twofold consumption, subjective and objective: the individual not only develops his abilities in production, but also expends them, uses them up in the act of production, just as natural procreation is a consumption of life forces. Secondly: consumption of the means of production, which become worn out through use, and are partly (e.g. in combustion) dissolved into their elements again. Likewise, consumption of the raw material, which loses its natural form and composition by being used up. The act of production is therefore in all its moments also an act of consumption. But the economists admit this. Production as directly identical with consumption, and consumption as directly coincident with production, is termed by them productive consumption. This identity of production and consumption amounts to Spinoza’s thesis: determinatio est negatio. [11] But this definition of productive consumption is advanced only for the purpose of separating consumption as identical with production from consumption proper, which is conceived rather as the destructive antithesis to production. Let us therefore examine consumption proper.I assume this is the paragraph you're thinking of.Lets remember that this was not composed for publication, but is effectively Marx thinking outloud.If you want to skip the dialectics (like I just have):
Grundrisse wrote:The conclusion we reach is not that production, distribution, exchange and consumption are identical, but that they all form the members of a totality, distinctions within a unity. Production predominates not only over itself, in the antithetical definition of production, but over the other moments as well. The process always returns to production to begin anew. That exchange and consumption cannot be predominant is self-evident. Likewise, distribution as distribution of products; while as distribution of the agents of production it is itself a moment of production. A definite production thus determines a definite consumption, distribution and exchange as well as definite relations between these different moments. Admittedly, however, in its one-sided form,production is itself determined by the other moments. For example if the market, i.e. the sphere of exchange, expands, then production grows in quantity and the divisions between its different branches become deeper. A change in distribution changes production, e.g. concentration of capital, different distribution of the population between town and country, etc. Finally, the needs of consumption determine production. Mutual interaction takes place between the different moments. This the case with every organic whole.The point is that it is one seamless process, but production, not consumption is primary, and once production is sorted out, the methods and organisation of production, consumption and distribution follow. I will add that this is obviously Social Production, before someone chimes in. However, consumption, and otehr relationships, feed into productionj, it is not a one way process.
This is particularly interesting:https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/what-taking-of-mosul-really-means
Paul Rogers wrote:The coalition dropped at least 4,848 bombs as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in June, an 11 percent increase over the previous month's record of 4,374 weapons released, according to statistics posted online Monday by U.S. Air Forces Central Command."In the first half of 2017, the coalition released at least 23,413 weapons, putting it on track to easily eclipse the 30,743 bombs dropped in all of 2016, and the 28,696 released throughout 2015” (see Stephen Losey, "As Mosul battle neared end, anti-ISIS airstrikes reached new peak", Air Force Times, 10 July 2017).And:
Paul Rogers wrote:The CTS, which was largely trained and equipped by personnel from United States special-operations command, has borne the brunt of the intense urban warfare against combat-proven ISIS paramilitaries, many of whom have been ready and willing to die for their cause. Both sides did indeed suffer as well as inflict heavy losses in the struggle for Mosul. For its part the Iraqi army is very reluctant to release casualty figures, but its special forces may have been degraded by as much as 40%.In the linked to article on the Zeuss Complex:
Paul Rogers wrote:What is happening in all three countries is an enhancement of what is now called "remote warfare". It does include the use of special forces and private military companies, but most of the “fighting” is done from the air, with minimal consequences for the combatants from the coalition states. Accurate figures are difficult to come by, but by aggregating reports from diverse sources it would appear that less than twenty military personnel have been killed among the western coalition forces, a marked contrast with the probably 50,000 losses on the ISIS side.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-40577265/the-civilians-fleeing-mosulhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-40572318/blasts-drown-out-victory-celebrations-in-mosulhttps://theconversation.com/mosul-is-liberated-but-the-fight-against-islamic-state-and-its-ideology-continues-80758?sg=d7d90b7b-202e-4b1c-a0c8-174dfb028957&sp=1&sr=1eh bottom line of all the above, the effects of the battle against IS will be felt for a long time to come, especially as, as Paul Rogers points out here:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/paul_rogers_monthly_briefing/after_mosul_islamic_state%E2%80%99s_asian_and_african_futureThe examples of the Naxalites and Boko Haram is that such groups at the margins can persist, and climate change and economic deprivation (mixed, as the peice from the Conversation notes, with corruption) can leave young people desparate enough to join these groups.
Rulebook wrote:7. The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six members making written application on the prescribed form to the Executive Committee and receiving their sanction.No mention of geography, any 6 members can form a branch already, as long as they can fill in a form C once a year, they're a branch. If they want to pass binding resolutions, they need to follow standing orders for remote operations of branches (they do need to be reformed).Once 6 members have subscribed to abranch, only 3 members need to be able to meet.
So, it's all over: Mosul has been liberated, at huge cost. Over 100,000 Iraq troops were used to crush 3,000 fighters, tens of thousands of munitions were rained down on osul. We'll not know the extent of the civilian dead, but 5-8K seems to be th quoted range. Amnesty has a report here:https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/07/at-any-cost-civilian-catastrophe-in-west-mosul-iraq/We mustn't forget IS' ruthless use of civilian hostages.
Usefully, this blows away the fractional reserve/banks create money conspiracy theory: anyone can create circulating medium (IOUs), but they are limited by their ability to (eventually) repay in Real money (eliberate capital, real=Royal, i.e. authorised money from the state). Attracting money still relies on genuien economic activity, and backing notes up with wealth.What the article doesn't mention is, were the Irish transactions taxed, that's usually been the thing that has hampered LETs scheme, because the British state has always asked for tax in sterling even if the transactions were in lets. there is an argument that it is the tax system that backs up fiat money.
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2017/07/05/2nd-anniversary-of-the-oxi-vote-our-parallel-payments-system-its-importance-confirmed-by-the-oligarchic-press-continuing-ritualistic-distortions/Varoufakis is out to justify himself, however, these excerpts from his book do seem to suggest a workable way that an insolvent state could refinance itself viably (and at the same time clear a lot of debts to the state as well):
Quote:Suppose that the state owes Company A €1 million but is delaying payment due to the state’s liquidity squeeze. Suppose also that Company A owes €30,000 to Jill, one of its employees, plus another €500,000 to Company B, which supplied it with raw materials. Meanwhile, Jill and Company B also owe, respectively, €10,000 and €200,000 in taxes to the state. Now imagine that the tax office creates a reserve account for each taxpayer (per tax file number, to be precise), including for Companies A and B and Jill. The state can then just ‘deposit’ €1 million into Company A’s reserve account simply by typing it in and provide each taxpayer with a PIN to be used to transfer ‘funds’ from one taxpayer’s reserve account to another. Company A could then transfer €30,000 to Jill’s reserve account and €500,000 to Company B’s reserve account, which Jill and Company B could then use to repay the €10,000 and €200,000 they respectively owe the state in tax arrears. The immediate cancellation of many arrears would have been thus effected.The infrastructure is there, and, technically, no market principle has been violated, the state would just have to be crafeul not to end up with massive inflation. Technically, this could be used to clear a lot of bad debts out of the economy, preumably just as the state could invite direct loans from citizens, firms could sell their debt to each other on a secondary market…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40506570
Quote:Demotivated workforces tend not to work more efficiently.And if productivity is falling and labour costs are rising, as they are, then that leads to a profits squeeze.And means that the prospect of pay rises recedes – creating something of a vicious circle and going someway to explaining why wage growth is falling.This is Philip Hammond's headache.I interviewed Lord Adair Turner, the former head of the Low Pay Commission, yesterday and he made a rather startling – but correct – admission."The UK over the last 10 years has created a lot of jobs, but today real wages are below where they were in 2007," he said."That is not the capitalist system delivering its promise that over a decade or so it will raise all boats, and it is a very fundamental issue."There is something about the economy which – left to itself – will proliferate very, very low paid jobs."Sympo wrote:Are there really more workers who would have voted on socdem/leninist parties today than a hundred years ago?Well, Labour got 8 million votes in 1929, they got 13 million ths year, so empirically thee has been froward movement. But it's not just compared to 100 years ago, but two hundred (or more).
I think we do hold a list of contacts and sympathisers (certainly I suspect most branches have such a list of people who have filled in contact forms at meetigns), and, of course, pople who have responded to adverts and taken out a 3-free.
EC resolution https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SPINTCOM/conversations/topics/1998 Must have been the end of 2002 (looks like October, this was before routine publishing of minutes on Spintcom).
EC wrote:This E.C. considers that, whereas a WSM Supporters Association, such as proposed by Cde. Cox, would operate separate membership criteria from that of the Socialist Party; and whereas said body would be necessarily without the rule-book and democratic mechanisms of the Socialist Party; therefore that a WSM Supporters Association would constitute a separate political organisation.Further, this E.C. notes that, whereas, rule 17 states that the function of the Executive Committee is to:" generally administer the work of the party in accordance with Party polls, Party rules and conference decisions ;"and, whereas conference has repeatedly expressed opposition to entering into front-organisational arrangements; and, whereas rule 5 states:"A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party;"and, whereas Clause 7 of the Socialist Party's Declaration of Principles states:"That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party;"this E.C., therefore, considers that, it would be ultra-vires for the Executive Committee to establish or provide material support for a WSM Supporters Association; and, that it would be an Infringement of the Principles and Rules of the Socialist Party for branches or individual members, to establish, or help establish, such an organisation; and, that the proper procedure for such a proposal as a WSM Supporters Association would be to first present it to a branch ("the unit of organisation" rule 7); and from thence to Conference for the democratic deliberation of the membership of the party as a whole."We'd need a change of rule to be able to do it: we as a party should not be offering any alternatives to party membrship, if you support the socialist case, join the party as a democratic member, or don't. Non-members are free to form their own supporters club, but no socialist party money nor resources should be involved, and members would be forbidden by rule 6 from joining or assisting. As Imposs1904 says, it is a route to two tier membership (that would also requrie a rule change).For example, the reason we continue to oppose the Ashbourne Court GFroup is not that they have different ideas to us, but that they are not accountable to our membership through conference, likewise Zeitgeist. Our aim is to build a single movement of self-organised socialists, not to be one of a thousand micro-sects.The alternative to 'readers groups' is branches running Socialist Standard reading sessions, or the like (also, lets not forget, that Militant posed for a long time as a readers group).
It's nearly over:https://airwars.org/news/mosuls-capture-sees-isil-vanquished-but-at-a-terrible-cost/
Quote:But the civilian toll too has been high. Over the course of the Mosul assault, Airwars tracked over 7,200 alleged civilian fatality allegations in the vicinity of Mosul which were blamed on the US-led Coalition. Most of these incidents remain difficult to vet, and in the majority of cases several actors in addition to the Coalition are blamed – including ISIS and Iraqi security forces.Iraq Body Count estimates that in 1 week over 100 children died of malnutrition and dehydration.The end of the Mosul Meat Grinder has been a footnote on the media, as will any final tally of the dead. Mosul has been destroyed.
Sympo wrote:"People who are not themselves personally capitalists, but who benefit through inflated salaries from the largess of capitalists and through corruption."Why does concentration of wealth lead to a larger amound of "hangers on"?Well, firstly because administering vast amounts of wealth requires people to do the work, who themselves don't own it: their loyalty must be bought (to avoid moral hazard and principal agent problems). Secondly, as wealth concentrates, there's more spare to buy people with largess, and there are fewer personal capitalists upholding the "virtues" of thrift and personal property. There have always been hangers on, but rarely has wealth evr been so concentrated.
Sympo wrote:"Class consciousness developed through people identifying, and importantly, voting as working class: many do(…)"Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?Yes.
