###
- This topic has 70 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:it is possible to have a moneyless class society with a state (a number have existed in the past)
The Inca Empire is one such example
Quote:The production, distribution, and use of commodities were centrally controlled by the Inca government. Each citizen of the empire was issued the necessities of life out of the state storehouses, including food, tools, raw materials, and clothing, and needed to purchase nothing. With no shops or markets, there was no need for a standard currency or money, and there was nowhere to spend money or purchase or trade for necessities.Quote:The Incas had a centrally planned economy, perhaps the most successful ever seen. Its success was in the efficient management of labor and the administration of resources they collected as tribute. Collective labor was the base for economic productivity and for the creation of social wealth in the Inca society. By working together people in the ayllu created such wealth that the Spanish were astonished with what they encountered. Every citizen was required to contribute with his labor and refusal or laziness was punishablewith the death penalty. Labor was divided according to region, agriculture would be centralized in the most productive regions, ceramic production, road building, textile and other skills according to ayllus. The government collected all the surplus after local needs were met and distributed it where it was needed. In exchange for their work citizens had free clothing, food, health care and education.The Incas did not use money, in fact they did not need it. Their economy was so efficiently planned that every citizen had their basic needs metQuote:The Inca economy was not based on a money system, and it did not have commerce (the buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale) or free trade. The government made sure that everyone had enough land or goods to survive, and it managed the exchange of goods between faraway regions. There were no merchants acting on their own behalf. The government promised to take care of the old and the sick, using the large supply of surplus goods produced by mit'a labor. In times of famine, the government storehouses were opened to the public so that no one would starve. Instead of money, the Incas invested mit'a labor: They directed terracing and irrigation projects that enabled peasants to grow more food. Once surplus food was stored away, some of the people were able to quit farming and pursue other activities.Yes cashless that what i ment, capitalism has no classes by the exact meaning of the word; just owners who wish to own more & we could classify it by type & quantity of that ownership nothing more; & people taking control of means of production could bridge gaps but not necessry dispose capitalism.Thank you all; i will let space to have other views
Osama Jafar wrote:Yes cashless that what i ment, capitalism has no classes by the exact meaning of the word; just owners who wish to own more & we could classify it by type & quantity of that ownership nothing more; & people taking control of means of production could bridge gaps but not necessry dispose capitalism.Thank you all; i will let space to have other viewsWhat is your definition, or understanding of what a social class is ? So, capitalism is a classless society ? Warren Buffet who is a billionaire, said that there is a class struggle in this society, and that he will defend his class. Still, we continue eating Gumbo soup.The owners of the means of production compose a social class, it is not a social club, or a fraternity. If "peoples" can not dispose of capitalism, What happened with the prior societies before capitalism ? The gap between rich and poor in this society is wider than the one in prior epochs, or a few years ago. Have you heard about the 1% versus the 99% ? It means that only 1% of the population control all the means of productions and all the wealth, and some experts predicts that the 1% might become smallerFirst, you said that Marx did not know our society, but it looks that you are the one who does not our society. You started like a Snipper shooting everything, and now you are in retreat, and rephrasing everything that you have said.Many peoples come to the forum of the SPGB or WSM as teachers, and then, they become students
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:it is possible to have a moneyless class society with a state (a number have existed in the past)The Inca Empire is one such example
Quote:And the Italian Mafia, or the Cosa Nostra developed itself in Sicily without the intervention of the state. "Braceros" workers living in the Company town, or Company Ghettos ( Bateyes ) never needed money, the company grocery stores provided everything for them, and they also had housing. They always owed money to their employerswarren is a billionaire am a piasteraire those are not classes; this more & less of same thing, queen & her subject arent the same.Im not a professor nor student, ive applied to SPGB & i wanted to discuss the NOW issues NOT MARX issues & found that your waitng for Marx to rise from his historical grave to tell you what do. Thank you im canceling my application.OSAMA OUT
Osama Jafar wrote:warren is a billionaire am a piasteraire those are not classes; this more & less of same thing, queen & her subject arent the same.Im not a professor nor student, ive applied to SPGB & i wanted to discuss the NOW issues NOT MARX issues & found that your waitng for Marx to rise from his historical grave to tell you what do. Thank you im canceling my application.OSAMA OUTWe are not living under the feudal society, we are living under capitalism, and there are only two social classes: Capitalists and workers.One of the question of the Application for membership to the Socialist Party of Great Britain is about the understanding of the concept of social classes.The concept of class did not come from Marx, it came from the bourgeois intelligentsia. We are not Marx worshippers, we have taken from Marx the most essential ideas that can be applicable to our actual society. Personally, I have also taken the most essential ideas from Marx, and I have rejected others that were only applicable to his time, or were erroneous elaborated, including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.We do not need a Marx or an Engels for our liberation, what we need is to have their political consciousness, and their knowledge about our society, we must become socialists
Osama Jafar wrote:found that your waitng for Marx to rise from his historical grave to tell you what do.An unusual reason for not wanting to join, but don't applicants read our declaration of principles before they sign the application form (the word "class" appears in every one of the 8 principles)? (Actually, I think they don't have to as the Membership Applications Committee asks those who apply through this site to answer the questionnaire first and only asks them to sign the application form if they have shown that they understand and agree with our case).
We reject the ten planks put forward by Marx in 1848 and the labour time vouchers. We contest elections now so not exactly waiting for instructions from Marx himself from beyond the grave.
Thank you all, you may find me wrong if you clinged to words; i hope you focus on "positive" critic to come up with simple practical scientific plan to offer to public, & i think if this thread continued we may get to it.Can we begin with the zietgiest movement:I got the phrase positive critic some were & i liked it
Osama Jafar wrote:Thank you all, you may find me wrong if you clinged to words; i hope you focus on "positive" critic to come up with simple practical scientific plan to offer to public, & i think if this thread continued we may get to it.Can we begin with the zietgiest movement:I got the phrase positive critic some were & i liked ithttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1302-february-2013/zeitgeist-and-‘marxism’This is our stand, our review, and our critique regarding the Zeitgeist Movement. From the surface, it looks like a socialist movement, but when we start to go deeply into the principles of the movement, we can see that is just another reformist trend.It is like Leninism wrapped in many pseudo-socialists phrases, . In that document we do explain that socialism-communism is not the invention of one man known as Karl Marx.Engels and Marx indicated very clear that socialism-communism is a product of the working class, and it is the working class, the only social class able to establish a new society, or the only one able to replace capitalism with socialism. There are not shortcuts
Suppose that SPGB somehow won elections, is the first move hay workers there no state there no money we arent even elected is that the plan, amnt making fun of you but am getting somewhere for simple minded people like me.
Osama Jafar wrote:Suppose that SPGB somehow won elections, is the first move hay workers there no state there no money we arent even elected is that the plan, amnt making fun of you but am getting somewhere for simple minded people like me.If SPGB manages to get support of the majority…. majority would have developed a socialistic consciousness by then… after that its only a matter of time before socialist society comes up.The challenge is to get the majority to understand what socialism is right now only a small minority seems aware of what it stands for…No socialist society can come up when the majority do not know what it is… as socialism requires people taking charge of their own lives… they cannot be like sheep and surrender all power to some shepherd who they hope will take them to a better place… they have to take themselves there no one will do it for them.
Subhaditya wrote:No socialist society can come up when the majority do not know what it is… as socialism requires people taking charge of their own lives… they cannot be like sheep and surrender all power to some shepherd who they hope will take them to a better place… they have to take themselves there no one will do it for them.Well, that a good point;
Osama Jafar wrote:Thank you all, you may find me wrong if you clinged to words; i hope you focus on "positive" critic to come up with simple practical scientific plan to offer to public, & i think if this thread continued we may get to it.Can we begin with the zietgiest movement:I got the phrase positive critic some were & i liked itThe coming into being and spread of the Zeitgeist movement showed one of the points we have always made — that the growth of socialist ideas does not depend entirely on socialists spreading them, but they are thrown up by the capitalist system as they are the obvious solution. As far as we know, TZM came up with the idea of a moneyless, stateless world of abundance quite independently of people like us.So, this was a welcome development. The trouble is they are not at all clear as to how to get there. Our Summer School in Birmingham was on the theme of Money and, as they too stand for a money free society, we asked them to send a written contribution in answer to some questions we put to them. David Dann replied on their behalf. Here are the first three questions and his answers:
Quote:How do you erwisage a money-free society coming about? Spontaneous evolution? Gradual reform? Mass political action?Honestly, it's hard to say how the transition will unfold. A specific strategy can be planned but the economic, social, technological or even ecological climate can rapidly change, then that plan may not be viable any more. All we can do is average out various scenarios and act accordingly.Global social movement tactics would become critical to put pressure on the existing system, along with helping change the intents and values of the culture itself by vast education and communication projects. The culture needs to learn that we are all bound by the same natural laws; we either align our values and beliefs with these scientific understandings as they unfold, creating harmony, health and prosperity or we suffer the inevitable consequences.As technological unemployment will be increasing, creating parallel systems like mutual credit systems, time banks and community sharing systems would be needed. It would combat two things:It would help those who are in need, especially for those who have got skills but are poor, andas governments and corporations look the other way to the mounting problems,this will put pressure on them as it will create less money circulating in the economy.Do you see any place for electoral action in the struggle for a money-free society?Within the current electoral process there are two ways I look at this. If the majority doesn't vote (as a great amount already don't) then it could send a message to the government and the world the lack of confidence the public has in this system, which in turn could lead people to be more open to the idea of a different system. But on the other hand, if someone running for office could greatly help facilitate a big positive change like unconditional basic income or reduction of the working week or the country running on 100% clean renewable energy, then one could say that there may be some merit to it. We can't rely on electorates, as the self-preservation mechanisms of profit and growth of the market system stop any real structural change from happening but we should do whatever we can.Referendums should be protected as they can act as a form of direct democracy even though they are guite minor in their outcomes.Why do many TZM members and supporters seem to see banking and monetary reform as a move in the right direction? How can mending the money system be a step towards ending it?If we had debt forgiveness where it becomes obvious to the point where an individual or country cannot be tortured, it would take a lot of stress off people that is so desperately needed at the moment.Another intermediate step, which might be possible, is to create a currency not based on debt if we used technology to track its value, not based on floating exchanges but actually attribute it to the value of goods produced. So with an advanced tracking system it would possibly enable a position where it's less necessary to have money because it could make all the calculations and feedback, which would increase efficiency.A big disappointing really.
Well, my suggestion is two semultaneous processes, one is reformative & the other is transformative – the reformative one is the at once ending of soveregin state but not state itself ( ending govoernance, opening borders, moving toward productive state) with unified sallary for stat workers plus free half sallary or so to all people ( infants or elders , males or females) as their rightful produce of their ownership. The second process is the transformation towards money/state less society through steady disolve of central banking & legal tender paper money.This is more close to TZM than WSM, and it is the only realistic route as i see.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.