DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OK. I’ve been having online discussions with some ‘Occupy’ people about this recently. I think the danger of saying that problems are caused by money (or the lack of it) is that that the most logical conclusion following on from this statements would be to just have more money.I agree we have to put our arguments forward in a way that can be easily understood. But over simplifying things always runs the risk of being misunderstood.
J Surman wrote:…More and more people struggle to or can’t get by because of the reduction in buying power for the world’s majority – it’s MONEY (or lack of) that’s the problem….This all seems a bit cart before the horse to me. The problems you mention are the result of private ownership of the means of production and production for profit. Money is the RESULT of such an exchange economy and likewise the rendering obsolete of money will be the RESULT of common ownership and production for use.The solution is not to ‘remove money from the system’ but to transform the basis of the system itself, one of the effects of which will be the end of exchange value and money.We need to be really careful and precise in our expressions. “Abolish money” isn’t a meaningful phrase (though on the other hand “abolish the money SYSTEM” is to me ok since it emphasizes the systematic aspects of it all)
OK, I hear you better now.
I guess the question is “for a socialist society to operate does it require a majority in the technical sense (50%+1) or a vast majority?”
I’m thinking it’s the latter.Seeing as 97% of the people share the same position in society do you really think it conceivable that the amount of people favouring socialism would reach the 50% mark and then suddenly stop? It seems to me they’d be some kind of ‘tipping point’ that would be much lower perhaps 20% or less…The european murder rate is currently 3.5 per 100,000 and fascist parties are marginal, so where you get the idea that half the population are potential racist murderers is beyond me.I do not share your judgmental outlook on the world, there are no such things as ‘cretins’ or ‘thugs’ or ‘shitheads’ just people and circumstances.Feeding the world is a problem that technically has long since been solved. Racism and other mistaken beliefs can only be solved by education.
Ignoring the fact that it is impossible to dictate to people of the future…A few considerations:If society has reached the stage of socialism the masses will have had to recognise there common heritage and acted co-operativly to bring about a vast transformation in the nature of society, this makes ‘racism’ seem unlikelyPeoples actions are largely the result of there environment, the alienated and atomized society that is capitalism potentially lends itself to these kind of behaviors…It seems to that sadism is a form of mental illness, so I guess a socialist society would treat such people as they would anyone else requiring psychiatric help.
Looked up who it was who came up with the ‘state as monopoly on violence’ idea thinking it was one of the anarchists, but seems that one comes from Weber, the godfather of sociology and enemy of socialism.The thing with ‘justice’ like all words is a hard thing to tie down, depends in what context it is being used. Besides retributive justice “an eye for an eye” there’s also amongst others distributive justice, which is to do with fairness. But what is seen as fair of course depends on a persons social background and cultural conditioning. Since there is no such thing as an objective moral truth (as far as I can work out) it all comes down to different groups trying to put their beliefs onto others, how people come to agree on the game and the rules of the game if you like….
dogmatic wrote:I agree with you on everything except the bold part which has been proven wrong : Okishio’s theorem is a mathematical theorem formulated by Japanese economist Nobuo Okishio. It has had a major impact on debates about Marx’s theory of value. Intuitively, it can be understood as saying that if one capitalist raises his profits by introducing a new technique that cuts his costs, the collective or general rate of profit in society – for all capitalists – goes up.Okishio [1961] establishes this theorem under the assumption that the real wage – the price of the commodity basket which workers consume – remains constant. Thus, the theorem isolates the effect of ‘pure’ innovation from any consequent changes in the wage.Actually Okishio’s ‘proof’ is not as strong as you might think and is actually logically inconsistent and so has been junked several times. I don’t have the time to write a full response just yet but will refer you to chapter 7 of Andrew Kliman’s ‘Reclaiming Marx’s Capital’
I watch this channel a lot. It’s interesting in that it gives a different perspective than is on the other channels, but they clearly have there own agenda, don’t know who finances it? Peter Joseph was singing their praises when I saw him on there, which I thought was a little naive…
Another example how production for profit fails to account for real human need, and why state intervention is necessary for preventing the market system from tearing itself apart.I’m half remembering a TV programme I saw last year which said that US airline pilots often have to have a second job as the wages are so low. Don’t know what truth there is in this?There was a book put out in the UK called ‘Murdering the Dead’ which was a compilation of the leftwing-leninist Bordiga’s writing on similar subjects, don’t know if it’s still in print though
Brian wrote:Currently there’s a few members in the UK Chapter on TS 3 also advocating the use of edemocracy in a RBE. They are also into the so called ‘transistional period’ arguments and consequently getting bogged down with a plethora of possibilities. Which means I’m finding its an uphill battle trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I could do with some help in this respect so the sooner some of you get the courage to venture onto TS 3 the sooner the discussion can broaden into the aspects of the revolutionary process.If anyone’s interested in this TZM team speak thing more information is here. I might give it a go soon, if I can get a microphone rigged up
dogmatic wrote:I think the state as it currently exists is way too centralised and undemocratic to be used as “transitional”.The SPGB does not advocate using the state to manage a ‘transitional society’. The ‘transition’ begins now, and you’re taking part in it, with people talking about and considering the possibilities of a new kind of society. Once the majority understands and wants this new kind of society we can exploit the ‘Achilles Heel’ of so-called democratic society and instigate the measures needed to transform society in as peaceable a manner as possible.For more read these:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliamenthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1287-november-2011/what-wrong-using-parliament
Your probably better of putting your questions about the videos to their maker Brendan Cooney at Kapitalism101.wordpress.com.However, that sentence doesn’t seem quite right. You’re right the goal of the worker is to get money to buy the things they need. However as far as the capitalist is concerned if private labour doesn’t become social labour then nothing of value has been produced and the money invested in production will be lost.The Marxian LTV does not imply that workers should ‘be the owners of ‘their’ social product at all. All it suggests is that the only thing that can expand the total amount of value in the economy is the surplus labour of the wage worker. Some socialists make a fuss about the fact that the worker does not receive the total value of their product, I do not think that this is a problem in itself – under a system of socialised production the worker would not receive the whole of their product either. The problem with capitalism is that is the law of value, the profit motive, and not human need that determines where and in what way resources and human labour power is used up.Not all wage workers produce value. Marx made the distinction between productive and unproductive labour. Most service sector jobs can be classified as ‘unproductive labour’ this is not to mean they are valuable to society but do not produce any new ‘value’ in the sense of the Marxian LTV.
What I’d like to see is some usage statistics for the WSM forum, are these obtainable? Since the list is over 10 years old I think a lot of the subscribers will in fact be defunct email addresses, they certainly aren’t saying much. I have the feeling we are worry about conversations that are taking place in an empty room… With regards to the suggestions above #1 We already have this (though it’s only for members) it’s called SPOPEN.
