alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just been reading Andrew Kliman and he introduced me to a concept that Marx held that was quite new to me. "…In the German Ideology, he and Frederick Engels noted that “ancient communal and State ownership … is still accompanied by slavery,” and they referred to the communal ownership of slaves as “communal private property” (emphasis added)…." Kliman classifies such things as co-operatives as such. But since they are only a change of legal title and not a change in the mode of production. You argue that private property in this sense will continue, depriving those who are deemed unworthy access to society's fruits. You claim that it need not be oppressive. Following your argument that there will still exist freeloaders who will not contribute and do not deserve a share in what is available i would suggest that these hypothetical people would simply still take. Therefore in your world there has to be means to deny them which means an authority designed to enforce it and if they do take without permission, they must face a penalty/punishment. Bakunin you say suggests deprivation of political rights, a formal means of ostracisation, ie they are refused a say in the way things are decided and run. You say it is not suffice. Exile simply exports the problem to another community. So let us hear an alternative form of social control you think is suffice if it is not what we have existing to day in the form of a co-ercive and very opprssive police, courts and prison system. Another thought is that under your "exclusive access" for "deserving" freeloaders , the poets, the painters and the writers we will have to have something akin to the Russian Writers Union laying down what they consider to be acceptable artistic expression. I touched upon this but you appeared to ignore that point. One of the major objections to means testing in the welfare state and why universal benefits are preferable is that there is unnecessary and time-consuming and socially wasteful verification for eligibility procedures. A whole bureaucracy is created to ensure the "able-bodied" are not provided for. Even then the loopholes exist for some to exploit and others fall through the safety-net due to the regulations fails to cover their particular situation. As i said in previous contribution, one purpose of socialism is to minimise adminstrative structures and make society self-regulating…which involves people self-policing themselves for a want of a better word
Protesters have blocked the doors of Bulgaria's parliament amid mass daily rallies against government corruption.The EU's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, "Here in Sofia today, my sympathy is with the Bulgarian citizens who are protesting against corruption."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23428628Similar to Egypt, the mass protests are questioning the legitimacy of the government and demanding an election.
Its almost identical. When Blair was still the leader of the opposition he distanced the Labour Party from the surge in strikes within the post office hence these forms were circulated around most of the offices. I would lik to have found out the actual drop in those paying it. Political Fund Exemption NoticeI hereby give notice that I object to contributing to the Political Fund of the Union and am in consequence exempt, in the manner provided by Chapter VI of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, from contributing to that fund. Signature: …………………………………………………… Membership no: ……………………………………………. Address: ..……………………………………………………Date: …………….….…………………..……………………CWU Branch: ………………..……….……………………. 6. Any member may obtain exemption by sending such notice to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs and, on receiving it, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement of its receipt to the member at the address in the notice, and shall inform the General Secretary of the name and address of that member. 7. 1. On giving such notice a member shall be exempt, so long as his/her notice is not withdrawn, from contributing to the Political Fund of the Union as from either: a) the first day of January next after notice by the member is given, or, b) in the case of a notice given within one month after the notice given to members under Rule 12.3 or after the date on which a new member admitted to the Union is supplied with a copy of these Rules under Rule 12.18, as from the date on which the member’s notice is given.
Form of Exemption Notice4. The form of exemption notice shall be as follows:National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Political Fund (Exemption Notice)I hereby give notice that I object to contribute to the Political Fund of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and am in consequence exempt, in the manner provided by the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (as amended), from contributing to that Fund.Signature…………………………………………………………………………………..Name of Branch…………………………………………………………………………….Address………………………………………………………………………………………….Date……………………..day of…………………………… 20……………………………5. Any member may obtain exemption by sending such notice to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs and, on receiving it, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement of its receipt to the member at the address upon the notice, and shall inform the General Secretary of the name and address of the member.5A. Upon the adoption of a political resolution, notice shall be given to members of the union in Great Britain informing them that (a) each member has a right to be exempted from contributing to the union’s political fund; and (b) a form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application at or by post from (i) the head office or any branch office of the union; or (ii) the office of the Certification Officer. Such notice will be given by means of publication in the union’s journal. This rule does not apply to members who are “overseas members” for the purpose of Section 94(3) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeId=929336. On giving such notice, a member shall be exempt, so long as the notice is not withdrawn, from contributing to the Political Fund as from the first day of January next after the notice is given, or, in the case of a notice given within one month after the date on which a new member admitted to the Union is supplied with a copy of these Rules under Clause 26 hereof, as from the date on which the member's notice is given.
“If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I’ll just go into another place, it’s free.” Are you judging others by your own standards? ; PAnyways, this is simply a variation of the discredited “tragedy of the commons” theory, that without property rights then people would abuse what is commonly owned. see herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/co-operation-makes-sense According to the Corporation for National and Community Service, about 64.3 million Americans, or 26.8 percent of the adult population, gave 7.9 billion hours of volunteer service. 94% of the America’s Red Cross are volunteers. In the UK almost 20 million had performed some sort of voluntary work in the last year. During 2010/11, 39% of adults in England said that they had volunteered formally at least once in the previous 12 months, with 25% volunteering formally at least once a month.In Australia in 2010, 6.1 million people aged 18 years and more (36% of the Australian population aged 18 years and over) had undertaken some form of voluntary work in the previous 12 month. That of course probably does not include good neighbours popping in and out of one another’s houses to do some DIY or running errands for others less able or whatever. I’m sure with more googling i can find plenty of other statistics to demonstrate that even in this callous heartless capitalist world, people will get together and help each other for mutual benefit.
Sotionov said “ Does WSM have in mind any (non-oppressive and democratic of course) mechanisms for preventing “from each according to their ability” being turned into “from each according to their mood or not at all”
One of the primary purposes of free access is to thwart any potential bureaucracy or as Parcon call them, the co-ordinator class, from arising. Free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus. It is the actual essence of free access to goods and services that it denies to any one particular group the political leverage with which to rule over others. So where will this power come from, if it cannot withhold the means of life or restrict access to society’s wealth from those it wishes to subjugate or exploit or take advantage of. Certainly there may be situations that genuine rationing will have to be imposed by communities, for instance, a failed harvest which depletes the buffer reserve stocks and causes temporary shortage. These can be tackled by prioritising indviduals (according to needs by vulnerability) , and if there is no call for that criteria, by a simple lottery, or even simpler – first come, first served. Referendums can easily and quickly be organised by various communities to decide such issues. As Adam remarked, earlier, ultimately critics of free access end up question it on the basis of present behaviour of people. Under capitalism people tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. People have a tendency to distrust others because the system is a dog-eat-dog one. In capitalist society there is a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. In socialism, status based upon the material wealth would be a meaningless since everything would be freely available so why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need? In socialism the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society, and the more the movement for socialism grows the more will it subvert the prevailing capitalist ethos, in general, and its anachronistic notion of status, in particular. How can the status of conspicuous consumption be used as a reward as it is now for a privileged elite when all have equal free access. We should not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. After all, there is a vast advertising industry. Regardless of how modest one’s real needs may be or how easily they may be met capitalism has created a “consumer culture” that leads one to want more than one may materially need since – an insatiable desire to enhance his or her status within this hierarchal culture of consumerism. Socialism does not require us all to become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings , and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of other more negative ones which capitalism encourages. The establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a change in social outlook. It is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Why would they want to jeopardise the new society they had just helped create?Jim W. Dean is the managing editor of the Veterans Today, an online foreign policy and military affairs journal. According to Jim W. Dean, the United States , UK , France and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf that have engaged in a long-fought war against Syria have a variety of motives for trying to dismantle and bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad. “As for a motive, the West wants to cut off arms supply routes through Syria to Hezbollah and to be able to stage bases in Northern Syrian for offense against Iran both with planes and missiles. That is the military reason. They also want to block Iran's long term pipeline access to the Mediterranean Sea that way, in case Turkey had a change of heart over running the lines into their system. And the Saudis and Qatar both want a land route to the Mediterranean over territory they effectively control,” http://www.countercurrents.org/ziabari210713.htm
CIA backs $630,000 study into how to control global weather through geoengineering. The US government has long been involved in types of weather manipulation, including a much-discussed attempt to cloud-seed – the process of dispersing substances into the air to create cloud condensation or ice nuclei and subsequently rain or snow – during the Vietnam war. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-backs-630000-study-into-how-to-control-global-weather-through-geoengineering-8724501.html
Just to clarify that i was not endorsing Uncuts analysis which we rightly dismiss as inaccurate and would lead to adopting a policy of ineffectual reforms and legislation of just one sector of the capitalist economy. We hold the entire capitalist class as culpable in the robbery of the workers. The extension of the campaign to tax havens and corporation tax loopholes may now involve the non-financial companies but it still remains at the root, the rich stealing from the rich. How we highlight what is a ultimately a diversion is a difficult one. I was more motivated in qualifying what could be mistaken as a rather dismissive attitude to protests, generally. Accepting that there was not overwhelming numbers protesting Uncut still showed what publicity and coverage can be obtained by targeted demonstrations, or just the mere threat of them. The fact that no great numbers were involved should present us with hope that we too can, as you suggest engage, in similar propaganda stunts. How we do it i think requires some imaginative ploys mainly because our case cannot simply be reducced to sound-bites and scapegoats.
LBird wrote:From my previous discussions with comrades and on LibCom, it seems to be assumed by many Communists that 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' will be determined by 'each individual'.In present society there are numerous organisations that determine ability. The Civil Aviation Authority checks on the proficience of pilots and air traffic controllers at various levels of expertise and experience , the British Medical Association , the Royal College of Nursing on health workers, architects, engineers, even personal drivers through a driving test have a means where ability is determined by an accepted, neutral arbitrator, not the individual. I do not see them disappearing when socialism is established. Nor do i view them as authoritarian. I think when it comes to production issues then it can only be social. We can only collate a collective demand for a particular item. No doubt you have read Robin Cox responses on Libcom that demand is an aggregate demand,. " Aggregate changes in the pattern of consumer demand will express itself spontaneously in shifts in the pattern of output and by extension in the way resources are allocated furtjher down the production chain." It is the summation of individual decisions about consumption which leads to availabilty. Most libertarian communists argue for consumer feedback in this process and again this something that capitalism has itself turned into quite an accurate science through consumer research, customer surveys and shop loyalty cards. We simply require to apply those tools in our interests. Again this question cannot lead to a short answer and others will have their own emphasis.
Your post unfortunately calls for an extensive explanation and unlikely to be covered in a one simple reply so please bear with all of us who do try to answer. I think we have to always remember that we are not beginning from nothing. Marx (and socialists) have always acknowledged the progressive nature of capitalism's past in developing the means of production and distribution and its vast planning. These are in place just waiting to be re-focused and re-prioritised to serve the needs of people and not just for the accumulation of wealth for the few. There are also the non-state administrative organisations like WHO, FAO, and a host of well structured and experienced NGOs such as Oxfam that can be adapted to a socialist world. One of the reasons we advocated capturing the state machinery is to make use of the non-coercive parts of the state that could perform a constructive purpose inside socialist society onc it is stripped of their profit making ethos, the departments of environment , agriculture, health, education and so on. Even private capitalism has developed methods that can be of use to ourselves. Multi-nationals employ a whole variety of statistics and logistic systems to maintain a supply chain and provide raw materials for the factories and assembly centres and computerised stock-control networks to fill the supermarket shelves with stuff. We will make use of that capitalist knowledge when the workers in these industries and corporations, along with the communities, assert control over the decision-making in them. One reason why socialism holds an advantage over capitalism is by eliminating the need to tie up vast quantities of resources and labour in its system of monetary/pricing accounting. Your question about who will perform the dirty work is a familiar one. Oscar Wilde offered an answer that still remains largely valid if not more so today “All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery”. So unappealing dirty work can probably be taken care of by utilising labour-saving machines. But where it is impossible and where dirty work will have to be done in socialist society we can be quite sure of two things: Firstly, it will NOT be done by the same people ALL the time. All able members of society will take turns at such work. And also not to be forgotten is that it will be carried out by socially conscious men and women who appreciate that society belongs to them and therefore its less pleasant tasks must be performed by them. In the knowledge that we own and control the earth, and all that is in and on it, it is unlikely i think that people will refuse to attend to the dirty work within socialism. Present day society imposes intolerable conditions on the actual workers (speed-up, pain, stress, boredom, long hours, night work, shiftwork, accidents). Such conditions will be eliminated. If the health, comfort and enjoyment of those who perform work , certain methods are going to be ruled out altogether. The fast moving production lines associated with the manufacture of cars would be stopped for ever; night work would be reduced to the strict minimum; particularly dangerous or unhealthy jobs would be automated (or completely abandoned). Work can, in fact, must, become enjoyable. But to the extent that work becomes enjoyable, measurement by minimum average working time would be completely meaningless, since people would not be seeking to minimize or rush such work. A basic need of an individual for a healthy stable existence is the acceptance and approval of others. People act selfishly or anti-socially only when they can see no other way of getting what they want. If there is another way by co-operation, for instance there is no reason to suppose that they will not choose it when they see it is better to do so.The sense of mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency arising from this would profoundly colour people’s perceptions and influence their behaviour in such a society. We may characterise such a society as a system of generalised reciprocity. Socialism is a society that can support the free-loaders and shirkers that some critics insist will leech off the rest of the community. First we must define what is a free-loader. Are authors like JK Rawling scrounging when she sat in a cafe writing her Harry Potter book while living on benefits. Was Van Gogh a parasite when he devoted his life to painting and never sold a single one. Was Marx too when he lived off the charity of Engels? Socialist society will contain millions of babies and infants . There will be those too old or too disabled to work. Therefore those people who are too idle to work will not be a drain on society. But of course if people didn’t work then society would obviously fall apart. If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions, socialism will fail. However let us get this into perspective. Having organised and struggled and fought the class war to displace the capitalist class, no modest feat in itself, it is then imagined that the majority of people will sabotage the society they had participated in building by engaging in sloth. Its a strand of thought i find extremely unlikely. I am aware this is no full answer but i leave others to contribute and for you to ask for clarification.
Radical Islamist rebels will gain sway over the many disparate factions opposing Syrian Assad unless they are checked, and the country's civil war could last years, a top Pentagon intelligence official said. "They will not go home when it's over," Shedd said, envisioning one scenario where Assad retreats to an enclave and other parts of the country are up for grabs. "They will fight for that space, and they're there for the long haul." The al-Nusra Front was gaining in strength and was "a case of serious concern." Shedd said he counted at least 1,200 groups in the opposition. He said many of the groups were preoccupied with strictly local grievances, like a lack of potable water in their villages. Shedd acknowledged identifying "good" versus "bad" rebels was very difficult. http://news.yahoo.com/islamist-rebels-gain-sway-long-syrian-war-u-033932292.html
"a pathetic UK Uncut demonstration opposite outside the HSBC. Pathetic in terms both of turnout (perhaps a dozen) and appearance (a tatty banner proclaiming "Stuff the Banks") and purpose." Perhaps a rather uncharitable assessment, imho. According to the Glasgow Herald, the mere threat was suffice to close down Glasgow, Sheffield, Brixton (which later re-opened once the protresters departed) and Regent Street in London – branches which HSBC initially said would be "open as usual". The Regent Street branch should have remained open until until 3pm but closed its doors at 11.30am when between 50 and a 100 Uncut protesters made their presence known . What is it they say? The most effective strike is the one that does not need to take place, similarly with a protest , the mere fact of its threat had sufficient power to have an effect. I actually look forward to the day that our own party holds its own protest demonstrations and if they start with a "pathetic" dozen participants, so be it.
This easy to read pamphlet from the 30s by John Keracher is also a very good on religion. http://www.marxists.org/archive/keracher/1929/how-gods-made.htm This one by Paul Lafargue, Karl Marx's son-in-law is also to be recommended if a bit wordy http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1906/socphil/index.html
i cannot understand how you cannot see how the whole history of the Bolshevik October Revolution was a series of retreats to overcome the reality of what was. From the dismanting and emasculation of the Soviets and introduction of one-man management, the end of democracy ( banning the Constituent Assembly) , suppression other working class/peasant political parties (Left Mensheviks, Left Social Revolutionaries and anarchists), the development of state capitalism, the introduction of the NEP, the nationalisation of the independent trade union movement, diplomatic treaties and alliances with bourgeois dictatorships and nationalists. Regardless of our views on the sincerity of the major leaders in the Bolshevik Party and even to accept that they had genuine intentions we have to, as socialists,look at it in historical context and as Marxists try to understand it by searching for the materialist causes of its failures. Engels on the German Peasant War "The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when society is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures which that domination implies. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and upon the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which class contradictions always repose. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him or the stage of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not proceed, from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus, he necessarily finds himself in a unsolvable dilemma. What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles, and the immediate interests of his party and what he ought to do cannot be done. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe. In the interest of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost."
