ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He seems to be more an enthusiast for labour-time accounting rather than of labour vouchers as such, since he envisages such accounting continuing even when goods and services are free for people to take according to their needs.
Of course “accounting” in the sense of recording what materials and types of work skills are required and/or have been used to produce will be always be needed.
But this doesn’t have to be “accounting” in terms of “socially average labour time”, if only because this is difficult, not to say impossible, to work out beforehand. There isn’t just the problem of working out this average but also of reducing skilled labour to the simple labour in order to try to calculate this average.
Only the actual labour time of actual types of labour can be measured and would need to be, but this would be no different in principle from measuring the amounts of actual materials and energy needed to produce.
Under capitalism what is “socially average labour time” is measured on and through the market. Under J.B’s scheme a similar mechanism would be required, as he seems to recognise when he writes:
“Goods are “priced” at the socially average labor time it takes to produce them. This latter point is important, because if the goods were priced at the actual concrete time that went into their creation, the more productive individual firms would be the only ones people consumed from, and the critical point that communism raises the productive capacity of all productive nodes would be lost.”
This assumes not only quasi-prices but also a quasi-market and quasi market forces where people “consume from” (“buy”
from) those “firms” (!) whose product is the “cheapest”, so forcing competing “productive nodes” to increase their productivity (reduce their average social labour time cost per unit and so the “price” of what they are “selling”).Doesn’t sound very communistic.
Looks as if his criticism of others for proposing “unscientific utopias” is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
There was a local council by-election in Dudley in the Midlands last Thursday in a ward previously held by Labour.
Here is the result:
Brockmoor & Pensnett (Dudley) Council By-Election Result:
CON: 35.4% (+7.0)
RFM: 30.1% (New)
LAB: 28.9% (-34.7)
GRN: 3.0% (New)
LDM: 1.5% (-6.5)
IND: 1.0% (New)
Conservative GAIN from LabourAnd here is what one of the sitting Councillors for the Ward put on his Facebook page:
“Councillor Steve Edwards
Yesterday at 08:16 • © Thank you to everyone in Brockmoor and Pennett who held their nose and voted Labour yesterday in the by election. Unfortunately we came 3rd. The over overriding message on the door step was anti Starmer and rightly so. Keir Starmer’s attack on the working class, our children and parents/grandparents is unjustifiable.
He lied to us all to get elected and does not deserve to be the leader of the Labour party. Good honest councillors will lose their seats because of Kier Starmer’s actions and his attack on working class people. I hope that election results like this, Labour Coming 3rd in a seat that only 6 months ago became one of our safest seats, will be the kick up the arse the National Labour Party needs but the truth is I don’t think Starmer gives a damn. I stay in the party hoping he is booted out and a proper working class person, not an establishment stooge gets to lead the party again. Your local councillors will continue to work hard and follow the traditional Labour values in spite of Starmer’s actions & reckless attack on the working class. Well done to Alex who is the new councillor 4 Brockmoor and Pensnett, we had a good chat last night and hopefully he, Karen and I will work together to make Brockma and Pennett a better place.
Keir Starmer is not your friend but we are.
Have a great Christmas folks.”I expect he’ll be expelled soon. Meanwhile ReformUk eats into Labour’s traditional base.
Stand Up to Racism have produced a leaflet for distribution at local by-elections where ReformUK is standing.
The message seems to be “Vote For Anybody but ReformUK”. But, if they want to stop a ReformUK councillor being elected (and they’ve won 7 since the general election) they ought to be saying Vote for the candidate in the best position to beat ReformUK even if it’s Tory.
That puts those who say that, to save the planet, we are going to have to adopt a minimalist lifestyle in their place. A laptop. A mobile phone. What luxury!
They show that it is possible to provide everybody on the planet (and more) with a “decent-living standard” (DLS) without overburdening the world ecosystem.
They define a decent standard of living as:
“Recent empirical studies have established the minimum set of specific goods and services that are necessary for people to achieve decent-living standards (DLS), including nutritious food, modern housing, healthcare, education, electricity, clean-cooking stoves, sanitation systems, clothing, washing machines, refrigeration, heating/cooling, computers, mobile phones, internet, transit, etc.”
And provide the evidence that everybody could be provided with all of these.
They realise that this can’t be achieved within capitalism as the economic laws of capitalism enforce giving priority to accumulation out of profits rather than to meeting people’s needs. But they seem to think that what they propose can be introduced gradually by government action within the shell of the system.
What they propose — essentially production geared to meeting people’s needs — could in fact only be implemented on the basis and within the framework of the common ownership and democratic control of the world’s natural and industrial resources.
That basis must be established first; otherwise any attempt to implement it would provoke an economic crisis as it would be interfering with the normal functioning of the economic laws of capitalism.
Here is the original YouGov poll that UnHerd commenting on:
More food for thought, from what YouGov say:
“Among Labour, Lib Dem and Green voters, environmentalism (74-83%) and feminism (68-80%) are the overall most favourably viewed ideologies. Additionally, over six in ten Labour and Green voters (62-63%), as well as half of Lib Dems (49%), see socialism positively, while 64% of Lib Dems, 56% of Labour voters and 47% of Green voters are favourable towards liberalism.
(. . .)
Most likely to be approving of far-left ideologies are Green voters, with three in ten (31%) having a positive opinion of communism and a quarter (25%) looking at anarchism favourably. While one in seven Labour voters (14%) also have a positive view of communism, this is less than the 23% with such an opinion of capitalism.”That could prove to be counter-productive from their own point of view. Being taught about “communism” may lead some to go further and seek out what the word originally meant and so to realise that the so-called “communist” countries aren’t communist. Actually, as Lew points out here, they don’t even claim to be.
This one needs be recorded as a most egregious (as they say in America) example of political opportunism and cynicism in recent decades.
For years the top leaders of the Labour Party — Starmer himself, Rayner, Reeves, Kendall (the minister now in charge of pensions) — all gave the impression that, if elected, they would do something to compensate women who said they weren’t properly informed of exactly when the pension age for women was going to be raised (in the name of sex equality) to be same as that for men. The press have dug up many photos and statements by them to prove this.
This will have helped Labour garner a few more votes. But, once in power, what do they do? They refuse to do anything about it on the grounds that the women’s case wasn’t valid and anyway would cost to much.
Whether the women’s case is valid is irrelevant. What is relevant that Labour said they would support it. And this turned out to be either a lie or a vote-catching ploy.
It is conceivable some Labour candidates, now MPs, sincerely believed what they promised. The test of their sincerity will be if there ever comes to be a vote on the matter in the House of Commons.
In any event, the Labour Party’s image is now more tarnished than ever. And truth confirmed of the folk saying “Labour Tory, sane old story”.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/new-crisis-hotline-for-ceos
Of course shooting them does no good even if it is good that they are afraid. It’s the system that has to go not the people who run it, even if they do enjoy screwing the workers.
I don’t think this is what the war there is primarily about but here is a list of the key mineral resources in Ukraine from an official Russian state news site:
https://sputnikglobe.com/20241216/what-are-ukraines-top-10-minerals-1121192641.html
Harris made exactly the same pie-crust promise to bring down the price of groceries. The only difference is that she’s not going to get a chance to fail to honour it (in fact she’ll probably never be heard of again).
Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.
As this was written in 1894 if it takes socialism as much time to triumph as Christianity that means we are talking about 2134 — another 110 years.
Actually that socialism will have been established by then doesn’t seem an unreasonable assumption. Personally I would agree that this is an absolute certainty on the grounds that sooner or later people will realise that, as a matter of fact (not opinion) the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s resources, natural and industrial, is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity can be effectively tackled.
Israel’s war in Syria continues:
“Israel’s military says it carried out 480 attacks on Syria in the past 48 hours, destroying 15 naval vessels, anti-aircraft batteries and weapons production sites in several cities.”
What they are trying to do of course is to ensure that the Syrian state, whoever controls it, is weakened.
As in inter-state relations night is right, Israel wants to weaken Syria so that it has less weight in diplomatic negotiations as well as less ability to defend itself, another Lebanon.
