DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:It has been a long-standing gripe of mine that those who moderate party forums (with the comparatively recent exception of the WSM 'yahoo' forum) are neither elected nor appointed. OK, there is a process of redress available for those who feel they have been treated unfairly which tends to be rather cumbersome and convoluted; a more efficient method of "moderating the moderators" might be to require them to be directly accountable to, and recallable by, the Executive Committee.
Why not raise it at ADM if you feel strongly about it?I'd sooner NOT be moderating but alas it does occaisonally seem to be necessary.
Comrade you can say what you like even if I don't like it. Just don't criticize the integrity of other members on the list, hardly an unreasonable request.
Comrade,The moderator of a web forum / mailing list performs the same function as the chair in a physical meeting and as such is subject to the same rules of recall.In this case you are wrong concerning your perceived reasons causing the mentioned member to be put on moderation.You have been informed today via that the internet department and the EC are looking into a complaint put forward on your behalf.I would also remind you that these lists and forums are not the place to question the integrity of other members, the correct complaints procedure has been outlined to you on several occasions.
twc wrote:Can you explain how capital expansion — though apparently fundamental — isn't consequential upon private ownership and control of society's resources and instruments directed toward the production of surplus value?The production of surplus value is the expansion of capital. How could it be otherwise? In fact how can capital be capital if it does not reproduce and enlarge itself?In fact what you're asking me is "Can you explain how the production of surplus value isn't a consequence of the fact that society's resources and directed toward the production of surplus value?" You yourself in the question seem to be acknowledging that the production of surplus value is a (OK, not the) fundamental defining characteristic of a capitalist system.Besides being a class society there at least two other fundamental factors that make a capitalist system.1. That production is primarily the production of commodities and 2. That the production of surplus value is the direct object of productionI don't think I need to answer many of the other points you raise because, good and interesting as they are, they do not follow from what I was saying.The point I was considering is this, the capitalist class is compelled to put capital into circulation in order to reproduce themselves as capitalists. But is this really in their interest as human beings? In the end we get an outcome where all people, regardless of class background, end up living in a world that is environmentally damaged and under the constant threat of nuclear war, etc. Now, of course, it is the working class which suffers the most and as it also this class which physically reproduces capital that is why we focus our attentions upon them. But ultimately capitalism is a system that goes against the interests of all people and that is why there are capitalists that are socialists.So what I'm getting at, and I know you'll agree, is that what we are facing are social relations, not individuals.
twc wrote:You assert that in one sense workers are practically in control and in another sense that nobody is in control, only avaricious capital is.If we are concentrating on fundamentals of the capitalist social system — I make the counter assertion that both forms of control are powerless to subvert the fundamental [absolutely indispensable] control that matters in capitalist society — the capitalist class's control of the use of all of society's resources and instruments productively in its own interest [what Marx calls productive consumption] to extract surplus value and not for social need.I'd also agree with this, it just depends in what sense you are using the word control.
twc wrote:You claim it is possible to run capitalism without a capitalist class. Really?I am of course talking about state-capitalism. But I guess more accurately I should have said 'a class of individual capitalists' I hope that's answered your question, good post!
twc wrote:Capitalism is a system of society based upon the ownership and control of the society's means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the society's ruling [or capitalist] class; and also based upon the society's working [or ruled] class being freed from such ownership and control, and being itself free of ownership by the ruling class; and consequently based upon society's working class being compelled to perform society's necessary labour without control over its mode of labour, and hence based upon its members living out their social existence without control over their own lives.The fundamental thing which sets capitalism apart from other modes of production is the constant need to reproduce and enlarge capital for its own sake. In this sense neither the capitalist nor the working class is in control.In another sense of the word, 'control' of the means of production is in the hands of the working class, after all it is workers who operate the vast productive and administrative machinery; they are just doing so in the interests of capital.After all it would be possible to have a capitalist system without a capitalist class. It's the law of value that governs capitalist society and it is that which must be overcome.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:What about a weekly meeting at an agreed time and agreed subject, Does anyone know the best time – when the forum is most active. Are there any comrades willing to participate – open up etcI was thinking of subjects like: Capitalism: What is it and how can we get rid of it?Is State ownership Socialism?followed by questions and answersI don't really see the point in advertising a date and time for a forum discussion. If you want to start a discussion on these topics just start a thread. These days more discussion probably takes place on social media sites than forums anyhow.A slight modification of your idea would be to hold it online but using voice conferencing software such as teamspeak or skype. That way we could actually speak to each other and there's some point logging on a certain date and time. The Zeitgeist Movement have been doing this for some years now.That said this idea is probably best moved forward through a branch or a department, but some members could do a dry run if they wish…What do you reckon?These days more membership requests come via the website than through branches so perhaps this can be a good way of keeping geographically distant members involved.
SocialistPunk wrote:What off the millions who have died of starvation or are in the process of doing so? What of the millions of lives torn apart by war during the last century?Would these be considered "capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality"? I think so. I've never heard any politician openly support mass starvation and they always claim war is the last resort.These failings may be the strongest argument for the failure of capitalism but not because they are examples of 'capitalism failing to live up to it's own morality', but because they are examples of unnecessary human suffering, which is not the same thing.At the end of the day all that this kind of argument boils down to is "boo for capitalism" and "hurrah for socialism". Humans being are moral animals because evolution has provided us with the capacity for empathy and socially we have constructed societies where such things are useful. As society changes, morality changes but to say that 'morality' is the driving force of change is really to put the cart before the horse.None of this is particularly controversial so I don't know why it keeps getting bought up every now and again. Probably because of people still clinging on to some medieval belief in 'free will'….
twc wrote:But it is our science that explains our morality — not the other way round. That explanatory science is Marx's materialist conception of history. It alone — for there's no viable alternative social science over the perceivable horizon — anchors the case for socialism.[…]It is probably not so wise to mount a political case against capitalism on moral grounds, at least by using current capitalist morality as a moral counter-argument to itself, since — as clearly explained by the science of the materialist conception of history — capitalism conforms quite smugly to its own social morality.I think you've summed it up pretty well here. Which would confirm that the party is and has been going about it in the right way.
ALB wrote:Incidentally, I read their pamphlet on my computer as an e-book. Are we capable of producing something like this on our site?Depends by what you mean by 'e-book', that term normally refers to files for e-readers like the kindle. In which case I'm going to add software which will allow all the content to be downloaded in e.pub format. The 'download pdf' option does more or less the same thing.But if you're specifically talking about that site, some of our stuff is on there already, see for example:http://issuu.com/imposs1904I've just reserved the user name 'thesocialistparty' so I'll see if some members of departments want to keep this current.
The 'Nobel Prize in Economics' is not a proper Nobel prize, but is awarded by the central bank of Sweden.http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economics
