The Socialist Cause

[DJP]

Yes, there are no shortcuts to socialism. Even if capitalism could be made to collapse by workers choosing to live more ascetic lives the resut would not be socialism. The only thing that is missing for the establishment of socialism is a majority that is conscious of the need for it and organises politically to get it. Unfortunately it is still a long road ahead…

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.

So what do we do then? Just try to make the best we can of capitalism? Or even try to stop it collapsing (as the Greek finance minister is said he's trying to do)? Rather pessimistic and not very inspiring.

[stuartw2112]

I don't see how a fact can be either inspiring or depressing – it's just a fact. Or do you think that an alternative is on the agenda? (I'm not of course against trying to change the agenda. However, a return to 1970s-style welfare-state capitalism seems to be about the most radical thing people can imagine.)

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

So what do we do then?

Perhaps we could try to build a movement working towards a socialist society. We could publish literature, hold meetings and debates throughout the country, write to the press and state our case wherever possible on the media. We could run weekend educational conferences, sell tapes and pamphlets, hand out leaflets, contest elections, and discuss our ideas with people wherever we can.Who's game?

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I'm not of course against trying to change the agenda.

Nor am I. Isn't that what we should be trying to do and, in fact of course, what we in the Socialist Party are doing by our current election campaign.  We can't just sit back and let pro-capitalist politicians set the agenda even if they are to a large extent reflecting popular opinion (or indifference).

[SocialistPunk]

jondwhite wrote:

If I want a big car, a big house and expensive holidays, does anyone think that makes me a bad socialist?

Hi JDW,An interesting one.While I don't think it makes anyone a bad socialist to want a flash car, big house etc, it doesn't sit quite well with the idea of "From each according to ability, to each according to need".Then there are the issues of environment and resource sustainability with the Party position being reflected by articles in the Socialist Standard referring to the inability of our environment to sustain present levels of pollution and resource consumption.How does it look if a socialist is buzzing around in a flash motor, living in a big house, jetting around the world, while "preaching" that only socialism can create a fairer, more sustainable mode of living for all humanity?

[Richard]

stuartw2112 wrote:

My point was that what counts as "basic comfort" is a socially determined thing. Richard wants his internet connection – something most of the world does not have, and that capitalism is all too eager to scramble to provide, and which presupposes a vast capitalist infrastructure, including mines. Having decent food produced by modern methods, even the greenest ones, presupposes oil – and hence the Middle East. Richard assures us that he doesn't need a TV or Coronation Street and is quite happy to live by books alone. But it's far from obvious that there's anything more to object to in a TV than in an Internet connection. Maybe I like Corrie, and am able to enjoy both that and Dostoevsky. What's wrong with that?In short, I agree with the implication made by others. Ethical consumerism makes no difference – except maybe to make its practitioners feel better about themselves. Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.

 I agree, "basic comfort" is obviously determined by societal values and our values are the product of generations of capitalist marketing/propaganda.  You know your propaganda is really good when people don't recognise it as propaganda. Way to go, Mr. Bernays! Why does the Internet presuppose "a vast capitalist infrastructure"? Technological achievements often require large scale organization but it doesn't necessarily have to be along capitalist lines. Does the existence of the Middle East presuppose capitalism too? The world "makes its living" through capitalism? Ask someone in the Congo or the slums of Cairo or rural India how they enjoy making their living through capitalism. You have a very narrow definition of "the world".Anyway, I'm going to the shopping mall. Stuart says to forget about changing anything so why bother putting ideas out there! Enjoy your debating club!

[stuartw2112]

Thinking about it, there is an interesting issue here. The anthroopologist Marshall Sahlins, writing about hunter-gatherer societies of plenty and material abundance (Stone Age Economics), claimed that the modern world faced a choice. Either it could try to achieve abundance using the market and consumerist system as we know it. Or it could use the "zen", hunter-gatherer approach, which was to do with limiting your desires, making do with what you have and turning your attention to more pressing matters, such as how to dance beautifully.The trouble with the first approach is an environmental one – trying to satisfy limitless desires with scarce resources is leading us to environmental disaster.The trouble with the second is that it would require billions of people signing up to a political (spiritual?) programme that would guarantee them lower material living standards. The odds of such a proposal winning mass support would seem uncertain at best.Marxian socialism instead tries to have its cake and eat it too – promising material abundance, organised industrially but without markets, but anyway the result, we are promised, will be less materially motivated people, dedicated to the common good. The trouble with this approach is the problem of economic calculation and the warning of the Soviet Union.Funnily enough, I suppose I'm more with the zen approach than anything, ie, agree more with Richard than my previous posts might have led you to believe. The point of my posts was to question what use the zen approach can have in a world organised on industrial lines – and perhaps necessarily organised on industrial lines, given how many mouths we have to feed.What we could do with is some better utopias. What actually is the alternative? In detail?

[Anonymous]

Just getting back to one of the first posts which said the biggest stumbling blocks when discussing socialism was “the Soviet Union” and “some aspect of human nature”; I would add another one, and that is people’s strong dislike of what they perceive to be “freeloaders”.At least the nice Mr Cameron is going to do something about all these layabouts they have to pay for out of their hard earned money.  It is a very reliable button to press, this one, for many, many Daily Mail readers, and others, to work themselves into a lather.  You would almost think there was some kind of basic wiring in humans against “freeloaders”……The problem is of course, they only worry about perceived shirkers at the bottom of society, not the huge big ones at the top.On the subject of a “Zen” approach to life; I am attracted to this philosophy.  Would others be, though?  What about status seeking?  Will this disappear?  One of my workmates claimed today that he drives a BMW because “it gives him a certain status”.  He is on an intensive search for a female friend, and reckons the car counts in his favour.What about the Formula 1 fanatics?  I have no idea what even one of those cars cost, let alone the petrol, the teams of mechanics, etc.  And the women who go to fashions shows in Paris where creations cost several thousand pounds apiece?Also, I can see that a free access society can work when there is an abundance of staple goods, but what about the handmade frock and the superbly made dwelling?  Would there be no jealousy when the cleverly crafted house you fashioned with your friends is finally up?And supposing there are fisticuffs over these things, or over something else, how do we handle it?I don’t know the definitive answers to these questions; however, I don’t think we can reach Utopia, and I don’t think we should pretend that we can.  By that I mean that I think it is possible to reach a more sensible society, but I don’t think it’s possible to have one where humans start behaving like robots.Meel

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Marxian socialism instead tries to have its cake and eat it too – promising material abundance, organised industrially but without markets, but anyway the result, we are promised, will be less materially motivated people, dedicated to the common good. The trouble with this approach is the problem of economic calculation and the warning of the Soviet Union.

 I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Stuart? Surely you are not suggesting that you have bought into the Misesian nonsense about socialism's alleged inability to make economic calculations in the absence of market prices? As for the Soviet Union, well, I don't think you will find many here advancing authoritarian state capitalism is either a desirable objective in itself or a  necessary means to socialism itself. On your other  point about Sahlin's two routes to affluence, I have some sympathy for what you say about the Zen route of "demanding less".  But that does not require billions of people signing up to a political (spiritual?) programme that would guarantee them lower material living standards..   The point is that people's real needs can be adequately met today if you eliminate capitalism and the massive – indeed growing – diversion of resources and labour away from the gratification of those needs that capitalism necessitates.  Most of the economic activity that capitalism generates today is socially useless and does nothing  materially to enhance the welfare and wellbeing of individuals; it simply exists to keep the system ticking over on its own terms. Think of the banking sector.  It is a complete and utter waste of resources, resources that could be used to increase socially useful productive output in a non market socialist society.  This incidentally links up with the point about "economic calculation" and the supposed advantage that market capitalism has over socialism in being able to efficiently allocate resources. "Efficient" from what point of view? But to return to your Zen approach to the question, I think the point needs to emphasised that a great deal of what we are supposed to "need" boils down to, what I think it was Marcuse said was "false needs".  Marcuse's point was that the generation of false needs was absolutely indispensable to capitalism and its competitive grow-or-die outlook. Literally billions and billions of dollars are spent on advertising to get us to feel dissatisfied with our lot. Even the millionaire with his or her luxury yacht is conditioned to feel inadequate in the face of rivals with even more financial clout. In socialism, the link between wealth consumption and social status will completely disappear.  This is because free access to the means of living completely undermines and renders dysfunctional such a mode of status differentiation.  The only  logically conceivable way to acquire the respect and esteem of your fellows in a socialist society would be through your contribution to society ., not what you take out of it.A Zen approach to wealth consumption will be the natural outgrowth of  the kind of social relations that will characterise a socialist society; it wont need some kind of mass evangelical commitment to consume less. The whole concept of "standard of living" is questionable anyway since the way in which it is calculated is on the basis of per capita GDP and a huge chunk of what constitutes GDP today is precisely all that structural waste – such as the banking sector – which socialism will eliminate

[stuartw2112]

I think Meel's concerns are to the point – these are the kinds of things we should think more carefully about, and not try to sweep under the carpet.Robin presents the SPGB case, which I presume he reiterates for the benefit of other readers and not for me! But yes, I'm afraid I do rather find Mises' argument persuasive, nor do I think the example of the Societ Union can be so glibly swept under the carpet, along with all other difficulties, and made to vanish with a magic wand called "abundance". I've just this moment finished reading Red Plenty by Francis Spufford, so that's where I'm coming from. (Don't worry – I have no intention of becoming another McDonagh and boring the arse off everyone with talk of tons of rubber and tons of steel. And yes, I've read your detailed and in its own way impressive rebuttal of the argument Robin. It's just where I'm at at the moment and would be happy to hear from anyone who has any sympathy with the Mises' position – it was not unknown within the SPGB when I was a member.)

[stuartw2112]

A couple of links for anyone interested in what I'm talking about: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/ec.htm http://redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html 

[Young Master Smeet]

Stuart, I think Mises is right and wrong at the same time. He's absolutely right that economic actors need scope to negotiate, act and react independently, and to evaluate their activities.  The simple failure in his argument is the assumption that this can only be done through exchange.Red Plenty is a splendid book, and it brings through the utopian thought in a lot of what some people in the soviet union tried to do, and it demonstrates neatly the failure of a centralised command control system without the active involvement of the population at large.Kantorovich's system has a lot of benefits, and could be used to create indicative system values, there's no need for end user exchange (and, importantly, the maths could be done at the firm level, not necessarily by a central bureaucracy).  Other solutions such as adjust winner auctions and rank choice voting (along the lines of Shapley's stable matching algorithms) could be used fairly comprehensively.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjusted_winner_procedurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

[stuartw2112]

Thanks YMS. Are you familiar with Cockshott's stuff? If so and you have a thought to share, please do!

[Young Master Smeet]

I've read Cockshott, and in particular his stuff on kantorvich (which I found interesting), thouh his instance on labour vouchers seems redundant to me (among the simplest criticism is, if everyone works roughly the same number of hours, why bother handing out the vouchers that way)?  At least he is looking to find a way to set up a systematic money free society, but ultimately i think he is too wedded to a centralised planning mechanism.

[Author]

Posts