###
December 2024 › Forums › General discussion › ###
- This topic has 70 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2016 at 7:27 pm #122139jondwhiteParticipantOsama Jafar wrote: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.
A minimum and maximum program, just as has been the achilles heel of socialist parties throughout history.
November 12, 2016 at 1:39 am #122141alanjjohnstoneKeymasterOsama, palliatives is what some political parties do, not them all. The Socialist Party has made a spirited defence in not making reform demands, which if i guessed my dates correct was followed by De Leon's SLP who also dropped the minimum programme. I could cite the reasons why the "impossiblists" discarded a minimum programme and left it to the "possiblists" but our case is made better that i can on this website if you use the search facility. Some will look around and say that many minimum demands has been met and you can see by the improvements.But look deeper and many are cosmetic, many were introduced not by the reform parties but by establishment openly capitalist parties, many has unforeseen and unintended side-effects, many strengthened capitalist exploitation, not alleviated it and most importantly, none of the reforms has brought us one inch closer on the path towards socialism.
November 12, 2016 at 5:47 am #122142AnonymousInactivewhat should be fought to end misery isnt profit or class its fear & stupidity; what i propose is simple encouragment to step outside the system. The future isnt the working class the future is the nonworking class & all these analysis are wrong.
November 12, 2016 at 5:59 am #122143AnonymousInactiveOsama Jafar wrote:what should be fought to end misery isnt profit or class its fear & stupidity; what i propose is simple encouragment to step outside the system. The future isnt the working class the future is the nonworking class & all these analysis are wrong.The Non-working class is the capitalist class. I have never seen a ruling class shooting itself
November 12, 2016 at 6:57 am #122144ALBKeymasteralanjjohnstone wrote:The Socialist Party has made a spirited defence in not making reform demands, which if i guessed my dates correct was followed by De Leon's SLP who also dropped the minimum programme.Actually it was the other way round. The SLP of America dropped all reform demands in 1900. So we followed them, probably consciously, when we were founded in 1904. Oddly, the SLP of GB, when it was set up in 1903, did have a reform programme.
November 12, 2016 at 7:47 am #122145jondwhiteParticipantThe supporters you get for a minimum programme as long as it leaves the ruling class in charge, will be bought off with these reforms by any desperate ruling class. Then withdrawn down the line, all in all, massive waste of time and energy putting workers off "socialism" for another generation. Unlikely? Look at the SPA.
November 12, 2016 at 9:16 am #122146robbo203ParticipantOsama Jafar wrote:what should be fought to end misery isnt profit or class its fear & stupidity; what i propose is simple encouragment to step outside the system. The future isnt the working class the future is the nonworking class & all these analysis are wrong.Osama, I get the sense of what you are saying here. You are suggesting that workers opt out of the system rather than fight it head on. Well, yes and no is my response. I agree in principle with the idea that we should strive as far as possible to transcend the system of wage slavery – the cash nexus – that capitalism imposes upon us. It is not enough to just abstractly talk about an alternative to capitalism, We need some kind of "material correlate" to match our fine words about another kind of society. We need to acquire the confidence that can only come through praxis that we are capable of moving beyond capitalism. That is why attempts to transcend the money economy in the here and now are important to the socialist cause. Without them, we are left only with abstract propaganda and abstract propaganda on its own has unfortunately proved to be a conspicuous failure. However however however…. Practical attempts to transcend the limits of capitalism in the here and now have also not succeeded – even if in numerical terms they absolutely dwarf the impact of the political movement to overthrow capitalism. To take just one example – the Freecycle Network. It is massive by comparison with the political movement for socialism. It is "made up of 5,293 groups with 9,096,310 members around the world, and next door to you. It's a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (and getting) stuff for free in their own towns and neighborhoods. It's all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills. "https://www.freecycle.org/It is great to see something like this and as a socialist it fills me with hope. Anything that encourages the idea that we can do without money fills me with hope. However the Freecycle network on its own is not going to do anything about challenging the capitalist basis of modern society. Clearly. Its is not going to eliminate the monumental structural waste that capitalism generates The same can be said of LETS and Time banks and intentional communities. etc etc They are all positive developments in terms of predisposing people to be more receptive to socialist ideas but are not in themselves enough to bring about the real change we all need. The answer surely is not to see things in simplistic black or white terms, Abstract propaganda such as SPGB is carrying out is absolutely indispensable but self evidently it too is not enough on its own to bring about the change needed. What we need is a fusion of approaches so that we can benefit from the synergies that develop out of that, Socialists need to come off the fence as far as moments like the Freecycle Movement is concerned and enthusiastically endorse them, and even get actively involved in them, while at the same time pointing out their limitations. The positive feedback and contacts established in engaging with such movements will I believe help to boost the fortunes of the socialist movement itself and vice versa. These kinds of movements are our natural constituency and we should wake up to this fact
November 12, 2016 at 10:24 am #122147alanjjohnstoneKeymasterRobbo, and i sort of get a sense of what you are suggesting various self-defence survival strategies but are they capable of taking us forward to the next stage of social living? We have witnessed the unintended consequences of what can happen within the parameters of capitalism when we look at the non-effect results of micro-financing…and really we have had a couple of hundred years of capitalist models such a building societies and coops to learn the way things can evolve under capitalism. You may find in this article many things that we can agree upon and i look forward to reading parts 2 and 3
Quote:It seems the sharing economy today is predominantly related to commercial activity, to a vaguely collectivistic notion of accessing commoditised amenities, but not to the awareness that we must share the bounteous produce of this Earth if humanity is to survive. It is certainly not related to the idea of helping the world’s hungry and destitute, the two billion people or more who suffer from undernourishment and other severe poverty-related deprivations…Possibly 90 percent of the supposed sharing economy is associated with commercial profit-making and self-interest to some degree, regardless of any positive social effects that may result from the usage of these new technological platforms. Are we really convinced that this is where the true meaning of sharing is to be found, in accordance with its deepest philosophical and spiritual implications? We have briefly cited the greatest danger to the world today which is an economy based on unbridled market forces and ruthless competition, as well as the second great danger which is our governments who fail to represent the common interests of all citizens, so in hoc are they to a pro-market ideology and the lobbying stranglehold of multinational corporations…Most of these activities are motivated by a concern for our own pleasure and personal well-being, which may appear to be important and socially beneficial. But in light of all the suffering and misery that is erupting throughout the world, is it not time to share resources with those less fortunate than ourselves before we attach such grandiose titles to our self-seeking pursuits? What we have really created is a new method for comfortable living, although that method is so constrained by money-making incentives that it is better described as a gentler form of commercialisation.November 12, 2016 at 7:56 pm #122148AnonymousInactiveRobbo & alan seems begining to get me; my english is not that well & am not fluent writer so i may leave the space for them.
December 19, 2016 at 12:06 pm #122149AnonymousInactiveto close here: talk to people about their politics; every one has his own version of paradise.
December 19, 2016 at 3:59 pm #122151jondwhiteParticipantYou realise Rosa Luxemburg's most famous work was 'Reform or Revolution'?
December 19, 2016 at 9:19 pm #122152AnonymousInactiveyes
December 20, 2016 at 4:00 pm #122153AnonymousInactivejondwhite wrote:You realise Rosa Luxemburg's most famous work was 'Reform or Revolution'?And she got killed following reformism and reformists
December 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm #122154jondwhiteParticipantI don't think reformists deserve that fate.
December 20, 2016 at 6:03 pm #122155AnonymousInactivejondwhite wrote:I don't think reformists deserve that fate.Therefore, the coup of the Bolshevik, and others guerrillas coup, thy are not reformist movement. You like to throw rocks on the windows of the SPGB, but when it comes to your windows everything is correct. It sounds like sectarianism. If she knew what socialism is, Why did she follow or fall in the sociall pressures of others peoples around her ?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.