Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, he has provided a novel analysis both of Magna Carta and of present consitions in the light of the model of the transition from feudalism to capitalism…
But those conditions from feudalism to capitalism do not relate to the revolutionary process from capitalism to socialism. The revolutionary process of the past is not applicable to a revolution carried out by a majority.His mindset is on the lines of a minority of capitalists carrying out the next revolution. In short, according to him, capitalism is not fully developed until most of the (ideal) rules and regulations are in place. He's assummng that capital as a whole is open to manipulation by a minority of big capitalist cooperations. He's not novel in this sense for Rifkin is arguing along much the same lines.Nope pigs definately don't fly!
Young Master Smeet wrote:I don't think that's what he's suggesting, more that if held to its own rules capitalism would eventually self destruct, or transmute into something else..Which is only paraphrasing what I've said. The ideal of the market place operating under some kind of rules and the reality exemplify that the only rule of capitalism is to exchange commodities under the prevailing conditions. Whether or not those prevailing conditions are legal or illegal are immaterial to the exchange of commodities. Thus so long as the exchange of commodities is perpetuated capitalism wont self destruct or transmute into something else.Mason is not, and never will, introduce something novel – its old bloody hat!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Two interesting articles from Paul Mason:https://medium.com/@paulmasonnews/the-alternative-magna-carta-2585358a750dhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/global-cybercrime-infected-soul-capitalism-evil-financial-systemWith the common theme that criminal activity has become central to modern capitalism:Quote:And then there’s organised crime. Organised crime is not incidental to capitalism. But in the past 25 years its become far more central. Cybercrime alone is worth betewen $200bn and 400bn a year. The criminal economy of Britain is probably as large as the university sector….In fact the longer you stare at the spectacle of modern capitalism the more you wonder why nobody talks about this openly: the official, honest world — the institutions, the city livery companies, the top floor piano bar at the Hilton Hotel… is pervated by money and people engaged in organised crime.The solution in both articles is based on the faulty assumption that capitalism can be controlled. And that once controlled the framework engineers its own demise.And pigs may fly.
JordanB wrote:I really don't see any way of changing the system "democratically" through the ballot box. Even if this was a possibility the capitalist class would have that candidate assassinated in a heartbeat or bribe them etc.The WSM/SPGB have no leaders and have no leading candidate when we contest elections. Also socialism as an idea is not for sale. Which effectively means any bribes or corruption will not work. So any attempt of assassination or bribery under the circumstances of a majority supporting socialism would prove to be a damp squid and can only result in workers being more determined to abolish capitalism.
Our message of real socialism is not directed just at workers in the so called "first world" but workers globally. For a revolution in the way we live to occur certain preconditions are required. Firstly, the potential for an abundance so human needs can be met. Secondly, a politically conscious working class aware that capitalism is not in their interests. In that you can't have socialism without socialists being in the majority.The evidence for the potential for abundance is all around us, but sadly the majority of workers are not seeking a society based on production for use and free access, where money has no pupose and the private ownership of the means of living is abolished.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We have laws in place that endeavour to bring a socially acceptable definition to a code of social behaviour (whether efficient or not, we can see by the differences i have made it is not easy)…i raised the question…what is good for Auchtermurchy, is it good enough for Llanelli. i do argue that some laws are unversal and should be applied over and above local custom and practice. Brian's original comment tended to say that local rules take precedence. Again, the question is …do we when socialism is establish still apply the rules and conduct as defined in law-books, or do we immediately abolish law and permit lynch-law, which lets be honest, is often the first response and reaction a community has to a particularly nasty and anti-social crime. Hud i think agrees that these things are complex complicated questions to decide a priori, so isn't it sensible that existing law stands until it evolves into something else…which means such things as identified as the State (to once more return to the thread topic) such as police, courts, judges, prosecution services, lawyers and jails do remain until they are adapted and modified over time.My original comment neither tended nor even implied that local rules take precedent. Rather the reverse."Of course its a challenge regarding the complexity of putting the theory of DPD into practice but like we have always admitted there is no such thing as an un-problematic society. Which I suspect is what makes us tick?I think that if the essence of DPD is the accepted norm the rules of behaviour will converge around the harm principle."What I'm implying here and in agreement with you Alan that there will be a universal principle on what behaviour is considered to be acceptable to the global community. What is considered appropriate is another matter and of course will depend on the culture and tradition of a given people and locality. Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning. I contend that the main conditioning factor in a socialist society will be the practice of DPD in everyday life. This is not to say that DPD is only going to be concerned with voting, administration, structure, procedures and processes. Not by far.Besides having a huge impact on what exactly constitutes the new set of social relationships DPD will also have a significant impact on our interpersonal relationships, how we interact with nature and other species, the conflict between town and country, etc.In that DPD sets the framework for the harm principle, rather than the current wishy-washy application, to be the guiding factor for us to become truly human.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Will there not be some sort of universal norms of behaviour that all communities and localities must abide by, Brian?…Or will the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Auchtermurchy, take precedence when i enter that village even though i have been brought up to follow the customs, traditions, norms and values of, say, Llanelli. Don't we say democracy will be local, district, regional and wider afield until global. Aren't we going to defend the liberties of those that are descriminated against in those loclities that lag behind…the fundamentalist Bible Belt of America, say. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/gives an idea to the extent of the challengeWhat about the lawyer profession..socially necessary? Or do we follow Shakespeare's advice "The first thing we must do, kill all the lawyers." Henry VIRather than take the drastic and pointless action of killing all the lawyers I can only lamely/hopefully suggest that these issues and problems you mention will be addressed during the preparation and planning stage for the administration of socialist society.Of course its a challenge regarding the complexity of putting the theory of DPD into practice but like we have always admitted there is no such thing as an un-problematic society. Which I suspect is what makes us tick?I think that if the essence of DPD is the accepted norm the rules of behaviour will converge around the harm principle.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The present thread has neglected the issue of the courts and law. In abolishing the State, do we burn the courthouses and the law-books? Surely not. In the beginning of socialism, won't we maintain much of the same legal principles as the late capitalist society and only those legal principles that are contrary to socialist principles will be abolished. Do we retain the police to enforce socially acceptable laws albeit in a different form?Before I go ahead with further discussion what legal principles are you referring too? Criminal or Common Law? Not that it matters in my estimation seeing that all laws are a reflection of class rule. With no class issues to contend with there is no need for laws.However, it goes without saying, that there will be a need for rules and regulations which reflect the customs, traditions, norms and values of a given locality.
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
I just could not let this one past. "There are times when even the educator needs educating" Marx. Which with all due respect illustrates its a two way affair. Always doubt to avoid the dogma.
SocialistPunk wrote:Not quite Brian.In relation to this discussion we are not talking about a particular state and its accepted geographical and international legal boundaries, but what constitutes "the state". The concept of the coercive machine. It could be any country.I've identified a few key features that are found in most countries, probably all. In no particular order we have:1) Some form of government, either dictatorial or democratically elected representative. Along with the machinery of governmental administration.2) A military force.3) Police force.4) A secret service.5) Some form of "legal" system.6) A prison system.7) Some form of educational system This to me is what constitutes "the state" and its machinery. These are the instruments of oppression, the coercive forces. How are these to be turned into "the agents of emancipation"?Well if you had already figured out what are the common features of "the state" why ask? In regards to what features are applicable to emancipation I go with 1,2,3, and 7. With the obvious caveat on 1) being the dropping of "dictorial". I can't see either the secret service,the legal system or the prison system being agents of emancipation. Quite the reverse in fact, totally reactionary! Nonetheless, the others will be a key feature during the transformation to a democratic society. After my own experiences with the funny squad, the latest revelations from N. Ireland and how intelligence was used during the miners strike, 4) in my estimation will be a difficult one to tackle before and during the capture of political power. I have never come across such a class ridden organisation in my entire experience. The army was bad enough but that lot took the biscuit.
I forgot to add that the common feature of all states are they are regulators on class struggle. That is "the state" decides when its necessary to intervene: between the local class struggle of the national capitalists, and to represent them in the international class struggle between competing interests; and also to defend the interests of the capitalists against the working class.
SocialistPunk wrote:So what constitutes "the state"? I've asked that question a few times now and nobody has an answer.What constitutes a state and not "the state" are the national boundaries of internationally recognised sovereign terrority. On the other hand, the actual machinery which defines "the state" differs from boundary to boundary and without exception is the preference of the national capitalist class in that in their general estimation the machinery on which they have agreed up on is the best suited to protect their national interests.You OK with that?
Vin wrote:Brian wrote:The state is the executive of a minority. That is the lesson of the Paris Commune in that the state can not be made to operate in the interests of the majority.The Paris Commune is not a good example to make your point. The Commune highlighted the need for workers to be in control of the State during the revolutionary period.
Control of the state machinery implies we have transferred the chains to the capitalist class. Which I agree with. In other words they are effectively shackled by our democratic control of the state. The only act which then needs to take place is the effective 'operation' of abolishing the state.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again….Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours!I can only go by the answers given on this site, Brian.'Evolutionary and adaptive' is not 'revolutionary and creative'.FWIW, your post seems much closer to what I have identified as the "Workers' Councils" position, than ALB's.
Brian wrote:But give it time and no doubt you will.Whilst there is such a lack of clarity between, for example, yours and ALB's posts, I doubt that I will 'figure this out'. If anything, the longer I remain here, the more mystified I become about the politics of the SPGB.It all seems to be a bit of a mish-mash.
OK to try and explain and provide some clarity. All revolutionary processes are determined by their circumstances and the tools at hand and readily available, (to paraphrase Marx). On top of this we also have to take into account the baggage of the past, what Marx referred to as the 'incabus'. In short, people are conservative when it comes to change and only come to accept that change is inevitable when they understand and agree that the change is in their better interests. Which in effect means that generally speaking although the revolutionary process is already occurring, with the mass of people being generalists and not specialists they will only accept those changes that they can work with and understand. If they of the opinion they are unable to work with them then the revolution is not inevitable.Hence, generally the masses take an evolutionary and adaptive approach to the revolutionary process in respect to any adminstrative changes. Which is a sensible route to take. And on which me and ALB concur.However has and when the pace of the revolutionary process picks up these evolutionary and adaptive changes become more and more revolutionary in character and in their effect on society at large. The breaking point with the past occurs with the capture of political power and although the revolutionary process itself will only be completed after this has occurred – especially in respect of the massive changes in production methods – the necessary administrative changes will already been worked out well in advance of the capture of political power. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the massive changes in the method of production will also have further implications on the administration. But bear in mind that this will only occur after the capture of political power. And how that works out will depend on how much we need to restructure the I.T; etc during the necessary preparation and planning. Which is the point Hud picked up on.The problem here is that many if not all computer systems dealing with: standards, performance, efficiency, regulation, process and procedures are linked or locked into the profit system. And Huds argument is its not worth the effort to disentangle these computer systems and far easier to recast them so they respond to the new methods of production.On the other hand ALB and myself are saying adapt them where we can so the revolutionary process proceeds smoothly and efficiently and if they are not adaptable leave them until after the capture of politcal power.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Anyway, it's not how social (as opposed to merely political) change takes place — it's evolutionary and adaptive.[my bold]This has only reinforced my view that within the SPGB there is a strand of thought that restricts the 'revolutionary' to the 'political' (and so the final seizure of parliament by election is the only 'revolutionary' act).Thus, given that, this view sees all other change as 'evolutionary and adaptive': social, cultural, ideological, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.I think that this is a massive underestimation of the 'revolutionary and creative' that will take place in all human activities.Perhaps we're now getting to the root of the reason why my arguments for 'the democratic control of truth production' are causing so much heartache.It seems that the SPGB really does see 'revolution' as only a narrowly political act, and so can satisfy itself with the 'taking of parliament'.And physics and maths (as two examples only) will remain outside of any 'revolutionary' change, because, apparently, neither physics nor maths are political.Needless to say, this 'evolutionary and adaptive' approach to social activity in all its forms, is, to me, entirely unrevolutionary.
It seems you have got the wrong end of the stick again. The SPGB is the vehicle for the revolutionary process with the only purpose to capture political power on behalf of the class conscious workers. Once this is achieved we will have become redundant. And what happens next is up to the class not us.Of course we expect the changes you mention above to come about otherwise it won't be a revolutionary process will it? But our part in this process is going to be miniscular in comparison to what happens next!Nevertheless, its been mentioned here and on other threads, that the necessary preparation and planning will have already taken place before the actual capture of political power so there will be very few suprises in store for the class, or the party. The "revolutionary and creative" will obviously be occurring before, during and after the capture of political power. In short, unlike the Leninists, socialists fully understand what are the consequences and implications of the workers becoming a class for itself.Pity is that you have not figured this out yet, and that is your headache not ours! But give it time and no doubt you will.
