Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top. Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm). Senior civil servants are employees…
Indeed, after I get my nomination papers in today, I shall be sending a letter tothe local press saying the Socialist Party will be standing against Jeremy Corbyn in Islington North: let them issue the retractions.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."[my bold]As I said to alan earlier, you're using the words, but missing the meaning.Unless you can clearly state 'who' 'consciously applies' and 'how' they do so, you'll remain in the world of 'free individuals', and a system of production that reflects those needs, interests and purposes.
Well, to return to Chuck's words: a "community of free individuals" is the who, and freely and democratically is the answer to how. Or, as Engels phrased it "a society organised on a socialist basis" a society is a coming together of people, not an amorphous abstraction.The whole point of socialism is to produce a consious association, where humans, as people, come together by design, not accidentally.Now, maybe when Karl Marx used the words "free individuals" he didn't mean "free individuals" but in fact Giant Fighting Robots. So, yes, it will be the Giant Fighting Robots do the consious applying. Perhaps.We need to remember that Marx was a humanist, and his idea of communism was a society whee the free development of each shall be the condition for the free development of all. We will be producing humans, and well rounded individuals, not producing a borganism.
I entirely agree with the above. We = social individuals, where "the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."
Education is not a one way street: of course there will be social education, but unless you are dividing society into two parts, the educated and the educator, the co-producer of the education product will change it.(what there won't be any of is coercion, not edumacation).
I don't regard social education as coercion, I was simply point out that there wouldn't be any, and if any individuals chose to decide they wanted matter, they could have it. Indeed, if a minority feel they need to have matter, the community would provide it.
LBird wrote:Why can't 'a community of free individuals' producing 'in common', using 'combined labour power', 'consciously' decide by democratic means, to change 'matter' for a different concept, which better reflects our social and democratic production of our nature, a nature-for our needs, interests and purposes?No reason at all why they can't, they're free to do so. They're free to rename the moon. Free to decide gravity doesn't exist. Of course, as a free association, this only applies to the willingness of the members of the association to comply without coercion.
There will be no proletariat in the future society, but it will be organised by the free association of producers, democratically.or, put another way "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community."
I think the bottom line is that we need to look more at some sort of print on demand approach: I'll try and persuade my branch to bring that to conference next year…
https://airwars.org/news/1000days-two-bombed-cities/
Quote:Unlike the allegations made against Russia at Aleppo, claims of civilians killed by the Coalition around Raqqa seem to attract little to no international media attention. Yet the sources for allegations both against the Russians and the Coalition are often identical -activists on the ground, with access to a network of people in the various locations where civilian casualties are occuring.It depends on the mandate from the branch: also the original introduction of indicative voting left the question of disobedient delegates open, suggesting that voting against instruction could be a clear signal that something important came up in debate. Part of the point was to incentivise sending delegates to conference, and making the debate matter.I think it may be worthwhile empoweing delegates from the proposing branch to withdraw their motions in the light of debate: I think that's the next step.
The key fact from the Dinner leak:https://judithknott.com/2017/05/01/dogs-dinner/
Quote:Very interesting point: May views Brexit as similar to “protocol 36” to Lisbon treaty – a paper exercise with little practical change. This rang Juncker’s alarm bells (“siren”): Brexit is a very different exercise. [Protocol 36 is summarised in an EU press release from 2014: UK opted out but then opted back into many of the detailed elements. Stewart Wood (Baron Wood of Anfield) has also recently blogged about this as a possible reason for May’s delusion.]This is a version of Brexit Exiting As Name Only (BEANO). Also worrying is May's view about European nationals.
