Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John Pozzi wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote;"Socialists are interested in the abolition of the wages system!"That's perfect Tim! Then conscious socialists' will love the Global Resource Bank alternative world exchange system that abolition's capitalist imposed fiat-money wage-slavery. ;o), jp
errr, apart from the fact that it doesn't abolish the wages system:Basicaly you have not answered any of the following questions:Even if you allocate a certain value to the GBR bank, no one else values it in the same wayLeaving the means of production in the hands of the few, continues wage slaveryLeaving the state in the hands of the minority class means that the power of the minority class continuesEven if all of the workers bought into your hair brained scheme, big capital will notNatural resources do not provide wealth on their own they need the application of labourDemocracy is more than owning a share in a bank
John Pozzi wrote:The basis of economics, i.e., the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth is the product of nature – not labour. If money values natural resources people are free to play. Machines can labour.Try telling your fairy story to the tea planation workers in India mentioned in this story.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37936349Your inability to examine the world outside of your miniscule frame of reference is actually quite nauseating. We have you pontificating about your ridiculous daydream, whilst your fellow workers are starved to death while watching their children being prepared to be fed into the same meat grinder of capitalism. If you have any intellectual credibility, question the ridiculous nonsense you are propagating and find out about the real case for socialism. Tell them the machines can do the work and they can just play,
John Pozzi wrote:The fallacy in both Adam Smith's and Karl Marx's theories of economics is the product of labor is not the basis of our economy, the product of nature is. Machine can replace labor and Global Resource Bank shareholder income let's everyone enjoy the good life now, i.e., do what they like. – http://www.grb.netThere's only one problem with what you've written, and that problem is, that your completely wrong. Other than that, it's fine
twc wrote:Tim, I don’t think the Socialist Party has to “solve” all the world’s problems in a capitalist parliament—no matter how dire the capitalist predicament.A capitalist parliament supposedly acts in the interests of its electors.If Socialists hold steadfast to their conviction that they can’t solve capitalism’s problems in capitalism, it’s downright dishonest—as well as political poison—for them to curry favour with an electorate in order to solve a problem that they advocate can’t be solved.That’s what will kill a Socialist Party stone cold motherless dead, just as it did every other party that allowed itself to succumb to reformist tactics on the urgent grounds of:just as an exception—a special case because of [pop in your exceptional circumstances here].just this time—even though we are about to establish a reformist precedent.A Socialist Party can survive the ignorant wrath of liberal humanist voters who see our stance as their betrayal.But a Socialist Party can’t hope to survive its tactical capitulation to liberal humanist fantasies. Remember, they are our, avowedly labour, political enemies. We only defeat them by opposing them.As you rightly fear, we may be kicked out of parliament on such perceived urgent (exceptional) special issues. So what? We pick ourselves up, and dust ourselves off to fight another day. Like love, the path to socialism won’t run smoothly, but it must run true to its Socialist cause, or not at all.In parliamentary confrontation over Socialism, he who bends loses. It is the electorate that must bend before Socialism.It’s no counter argument for anyone to fret that we may [shock!] be rebuffed by that humiliated product of capitalist exploitation, the electorate! What, by the prescient electorate that gave us xxx, yyy, zzz, [who shall remain nameless]!The unconscious cowardice expressed by all advocates of exceptional future reformism—apparently on case-by-case merit—is timidity over being rebuffed by the electorate.For crying out loud, of course we may be rebuffed along the way. One has every reason to think that a century of constant rebuf might have steeled us somewhat.Steadfast holding to Socialism is the only reliable, theoretically justifiable, Socialist course. And that implies: No compromise to reformism — Socialism before reformism.The point I am making, twc is that in a situation such as the one I outlined, if we decide to abstain where we have the deciding vote, we are in effect actually making a choice of one over the other.It is not as much a case of supporting a reform if we vote for it, as supporting a reform if we abstain, in this case a reform that would hurt, even in the short term, the working class and, in the example I gave, the prospects of a Socialist revolution, by in effect, supporting the supression of free speech.
The focus on illegal Mexican immigrants by Donald Trump and his supporteers, is a little ironic on a number of levels. To start with I would think that most Native Americans have a view on teh impact of unchecked immigration (Trump himslef is the son of an immigrant).That aside most of the immigration from Mexico is into states such as New Mexico, California and Texas, states that were taken from independent Mexico following large scale immigration of white settlers into those states from the USA.It could be argued that the Texan revolution came because of unchecked, illegal white immigration, supported by the hope of re-establishing slavery in Texas.
The difficulty with this case is that if we abstain on a vote and that vote goes through, where we could have voted against it, we are effectively voting for it. Similarly, if we abstain against a vote and that vote is defeated, then effectively we have voted against it.To put that into practical terms. Say for instance (and I know this is all very hypothetical) a parliament has 101 seats. A minority government is formed with 50 members the opposiition has 49 and we have 2. the governing party puts forward a motion that will introduce strict curbs on trade union activity and supression of political expression. the opposition is against it. If we abstain the motion goes through, if we vote against the motion is defeated. Twc, are you seriously saying that we should abstain from such a vote, allow the supression of free speech, the shackling of trades unions? I think the working class would be very unforgiving of such a move.
John Pozzi wrote:The Global Resource Bank is a direct democratic economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and medium of exchange are owned and regulated by a global community that utilizes GRB ecos as their medium of exchange, i.e., GRB socialism.What do "we" seek to use in your SOCIALISM as your medium of exchange?I think, John, you are somewhat missing the point. Socialism is based on the idea of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". There is no exchange in a Socialist society, Socialism is a moneyless, exchangeless, fully cooperative society.What you are proposing is a variation on capitalism, i.e. those who have Capital use it to make profit from the unpad labour or workers who work for wages. Your idea, despite your protestations, is not that different from the tried and failed ideas of many reformers of capitalism, from the Cooperative movement to LETS schemes.Perhaps it would help if you went away and actually read some socialist literature, there are plenty of links on this website.What you propose is not Socialism, you are not a Socialist. What you propose is a utopian scheme to try and make capitalism, (a system that the exploitation of labour by those who own capital through the use of the wages system) slightly less unpleasant, (which won't work by the way).Socialists are interested in the abolition of the wages system!
ALB wrote:We've had this doscussion before. If there's is no provision to not vote for any of the parties or candidates, then the only alternative is to "spoil" the voting machine, i.e., start the process of voting and walk away without completing it. The polling clerk will then have to do something before anyone else can use that machine. I can add that when I voted in Belgium once they did have a provision to cast a blank vote (and to do that in either French or Dutch).Perhaps the answer is to despoil the voting machine, by pulling the curtains shut and having a little tom tit in the corner, that would get the message across, whatever the langauge.
Looks like a sophisticated game of monopoly to me! Perhaps I'm just an old fart who prefers to meet friends in the pub rather than on facebook and prefers to play and watch football rather than play FIFA or Championship manager.
Vin wrote:So opposition to standing at elections is opposition to the party's Declaration of Principles?Yes opposition to the party (ever) standing at elections is opposed to the D of P. However I would argue that those who currently think standing at elections (and I hasten to add I am NOT amongst that group), but that there will be a time for the party to do so, are not opposed to the D of P.
Vin wrote:John Pozzi wrote:Hi Vin, In the GRB eco system national debt-money and commercial banks are obsolete. There is only GRB – The People's Bank – Earth. JohnI must have misunderstood your post. What does this mean? "Does the GRB supply everyone with a basic income and free telecommunications for life? Yes.Do GRB investments in communications convert the internet to the shareholders GRBnet? Yes.How do landless shareholders get land? The GRB reserve settles national debt for state assets."John Pozzi Is 'income' money? Is 'investment' in a money form?
I've had a quick look Vin, and sadly it appears to be another "reform capitalism to make it work in the interests of the people" scheme.. Yet another example of so called radical thinking, that when examined in a bit of depth is just a rehash of the old failed attempts to make the slaughterhouse work in the interests of the animals.As can be seen from the flyer, workers will receive a "basic income", what Mr Pozzi is saying is that we workers (who produce, distribute and create all of the value in society) will get a few crumbs extra from the bakery, whilst the owners of the bakery still live of the profits off our labour.According to Mr Pozzi, the good news is their will be no multi national debt and a we'll have a people frinedly world bank, whoopy do.. All of this will masquerade as "world socialism". Perhaps Mr Pozzi could spend his time more fruitfully by examining the case for REAL world sociailism, and start to really think about how we can genuinely transform society, in effect, stop acting like a sheep in wolf's clothing and become a real revolutionary!
cyberrevolution1 wrote:DJP wrote:cyberrevolution1 wrote:i agree with you that the SPGB is a luxemburgist movementThe SPGB isn't really "Luxemburgist" either, but certainly closer to Luxemburg than Lenin.But yes, that's not what you were asking.I think we have to utilize every method we can, and also look into the psychology of how people make and change beliefs, I think this aspect has not adequately been thought about in the past.What do you think?
thats an interesting way of looking at it. There's a book called the sane society by Eric Fromm, a book that combines psychoanalysis with Marxist thought. It speaks about the human situation, and how people are living an unfulfilled existence due to the materialism and consumerism of modern capitalism. I think theories like this would be a great place to start understanding how the people's minds work under celebrity culture capitalism, and see how to convey socialism in a way that would ring true to the masses
Fromm put forward some interesting ideas, you might find some of the works of Claude Steiner of similar interest. My own view is that their is no magic bullet, and that that fact is actually part of the Socialist case that we fail to utilise. The Socialist case is multi-dimensional, it appeals on lots of different levels and to lots of different frames of reference. I think we need lots of different propaganda approaches. If we limit ourselves to one approach we limit the appeal of the Socialist case.
