alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"I ask everyone who is taking part in this debate to come forward and state their values."I'm for the right to be lazy and the right to be greedy.http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everythinghttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/
This too is an excellent read from EPhttp://libcom.org/library/time-work-discipline-industrial-capitalism-e-p-thompson
Pity we have no branch in Liverpool. I noticed that SolFed has arranged an open platform for any group to address the audience.Hope the weather is fine.
A recent interview with Wolff here supporting co-ops. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/16/cooperatives-and-workers-self-directed-enterprises/“Yugoslavia is a very interesting example where cooperative enterprises were tried, experimented with. Other examples were the kibbutzim in Israel in the early years of Israel. Many lived and worked in a kibbutz; many were in effect worker or producer co-operatives.…The most successful example… is Mondragon” Both in Yugoslavia and Israel ended up offering no solutions. Yugoslav model was similar to Venezuela, a top-down government initiative. And the Kibbutz have less and less involved and has become more and more a normal business, employing outside wage-labour. Wolff continues with the lie about Mondragon which has been an utter failure. There exists now a two tier work-force, members or non-members of the co-operative. Wolff’s mistaken belief is that “socialism” is simply a change in administration and so if Mondragon gives the appearence of "worker-control" it must be well on the road to socialism. And he accused you of over-simplification !! In "The Myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, Politics, and Working-Class Life in a Basque Town", Sharyn Kasmir documents how Mondragon was able to survive Spain's neoliberalization in contrast with other cooperatives and regular capitalist enterprises in the area, largely because Mondragon members identified more strongly with Mondragon than with the working class, and so they were willing to put up with increasing work loads, falling income, and a corporate restructuring that rendered Mondragon much less democratic and egalitarian than before. Kasmir conclusion was that capital tends to force cooperatives to either fold or become increasingly similar to regular capitalist enterprises. The exact same analysis as we have on them. I hope you aren't going to let Wolff have the last word, Colin.
Let the people decide…as long as it is not a lynch mob In deciding justice, even capitalist court system recognises some situations have to be sent to other less biased or less prejudiced communities for a fair jury. But I am confident that those occasional obstacles can be resolved.
As you can see i highlighted his influence in previous post which is a part of a broader movement that i called socialised private propertyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialized-private-property
I mentioned on another thread about remembering the white sheet collections around the doors when someone died.On a personal level when my wife died, without knowing if she was insured or not, (she wasn't), independent of one another, my place of work did a collection and where we lived did one as well. A practical example of self-help and mutual aid. No thought of means testing in their generousity. Many work colleagues even though thay had never met my wife attended her cremationHer friends in the local Thai community closed a restaurant for a day and put on the customary spread free of charge since after so many marriage and new baby celebrations, a death was the first. They arranged for the visit of three Thai Buddhist monks from Birmingham to conduct traditional rituals. This in turn later led to the formation of a Buddhist temple and permanent monks.Death is still in many ways treated as a community event that all share in.Needless to say, I used the local co-op funeral services and even if it is just now a folk-memory, they are still considered the first-stop for many after a bereavement for the working class.
I think and of course when it comes to speculating about a socialist future it is only my personal opinion that some functions of policing will disappear but some will be undertaken by other agencies.We don't take the totally utopian view that there will be no crime whatsoever and everybody in socialism will be angels. Crimes of passion could still take place.I'm sure there will still be traffic "police" ensuring safety on the road but it may be undertaken by car break-down rescue or highway maintenance patrols.Perhaps there may still be a formal trained organisation for crowd control at public events but they would be more like the stewards we have now. Psychiatric services have certain compulsory powers to prevent self-harm and harm to others for those with mental health problems. I am sure those involved can see how their work can be adapted and applied when cost is no longer an issue..Likewise those currently in the prison service industry may raise alternative possiblities for those classed as a risk to society but with no treatable psychological disorder. Maybe some council departments will exercise "policing" roles on anti-social behavior, just as they do now by mediating between feuding neighbours or sound abatement complaint squads in regards to noisy partying.I think some form of detective/forensic department will still remain to investigate what crime occurs but they would be more like public health inspectors or accident investigators, sleuths in tracking down the culprit or cause. Specialist Sherlocks.The co-ercive role of the police would be redundant, and the riot shields and batons would disappear into museums to stand alongside the swords and suits of armour.The debate on law is a long-standing one within the socialist party and certain members take slightly differing views and emphasis.See this blog entry on the subject of law in socialismhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/05/socialism-and-law.html
It would have been useful if Wolff himself had supported and substantiated his own claims and explained why he thought the article was in error, especially if as he says the mistakes were basic which means easier to point out and explain to us lesser mortals.His reply adds nothing to the actula debate and certainly it does not present a defence of Wolff's and Resnick's reformism that they were accused of in the article.
Ding Dong The Witch is Dead which some now want banned was written by Yip Harburg.His real name was Isidore, but he was known as Yipsel (shortened to Yip), because that’s how people pronounced YPSL – the Young People’s Socialist League, of which he was a member. He was a victim of the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. The author of the Oz books was Frank Baum, and he too was of the Left. "There were no poor people in the Land of Oz, because there was no such things as money, and all the property of every sort belonged to the Ruler. The people were her children, and she cared for them. Each person was given freely by his neighbors whatever he required for his use, which is as much as anyone may reasonably desire. Some tilled the land and raised great crops of grain, which was divided equally among the entire population, so that all had enough. There were many tailors and dressmakers and shoemakers and the like, that made things that any who desired them might wear. Likewise there were jewellers who made ornaments for the person, which pleased and beautified the people, and these ornaments also were free to those who asked for them. Each man and woman, no matter what he or she produced for the good of the community, was supplied by the neighbors with food and clothing and a house and furniture and ornaments and games. If by chance the supply ever ran short, more was taken from the great storehouses of the Ruler, which were afterward filled up again when there was more of any article than the people needed. Every one worked half the time and played half the time, and the people enjoyed the work as much as they did the play, because it is good to be occupied and to have something to do. There were no cruel overseers set to watch them, and no one to rebuke them or to find fault with them. So each one was proud to do all he could for his friends and neighbors, and was glad when they would accept the things he produced." “It must have cost a lot of money,” remarked the shaggy man.“Money! Money in Oz!” cried the Tin Woodman. “What a queer idea! Did you suppose we are so vulgar as to use money here?”“Why not?” asked the shaggy man.“If we used money to buy things with, instead of love and kindness and the desire to please one another, then we should be no better than the rest of the world,” declared the Tin Woodman. “Fortunately money is not known in the Land of Oz at all. We have no rich, and no poor; for what one wishes the others all try to give him, in order to make him happy, and no one in all Oz cares to have more than he can use……[later]"Don't they work at all?" asked the shaggy man."To be sure they work," replied the Tin Woodman; "this fair city could not be built or cared for without labor, nor could the fruit and vegetables and other food be provided for the inhabitants to eat. But no one works more than half his time, and the people of Oz enjoy their labors as much as they do their play." ”
SOYMB did earlier offer to put any election statement by yourself on the blog and that still stands, Steve. It is not much of an audience but provides a link for people to refer to when they are at other discussion lists.But as i said in another thread on another topic , if you don't ask , you don't get
Out of curiousity i googled the name Stan Keable who seemed to be the most frequent poster on the blog.Appears he was a SLP member and candidate until he fell out with Arthur who disputed his membership and disowned him in the Morning Star the last time he stood for the SLP.No idea why he became a dissident SLPer. If he is on a learning curve, it does certainly seems a positive one. But to realistically expect to change the Labour Party when so many over the decades tried and failed, i'm sure they aren't that naive.So perhaps it is simply a strategy of casting their nets to catch some Labour Party members or the limited ambition of forming a lobby group to attract an audience. I wouldn't hold out hopes of us hooking any of them as members but we could organise a public meeting or two with them on the Labour Party – In Or Out? We have the history of the ILP within the Labour Party, the entryism of the Trotskyists to throw cold water on the idea of turning the Labour Party into a socialist party. So i agree we should make contact and arrange a "comradely" discussion meeting. Neither they or us have anything to lose by it. BillM has experience of joining the Co-operative Party to provide further ammunition in a debate.
