[DJP]

Sympo wrote:

I have a few possibly silly questions to ask about marxian economics.Does supply and demand affect the value of a commodity? For example, if there are only ten apples for sale, is the value of the apples higher than they would be if there was a greater supply of apples?Is food a commodity or is it several commodites(apples, corn, potatoes etc)?Are all types of cars the same commodity or should they count as different commodities? For example, is a new toyota the same commodity as a new testarossa?

I think you're equating "value" with "price", these are not the same thing. (Exchange value is also another thing). "Value" refers to the amount of socially necessary labour time needed to reproduce a commodity, what that level of SNLT is, is regulated by market exchange.Food is a commodity if it is produced with a view for sale on the market. If I grow food in my garden without the intent on selling, it is not a commodity.How much you need to differentiate between different types of commodity would depend on what you were trying to do. I suppose.You might like to watch these videos:https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

But this was not to be either, due to the intervention of outside dictatorial powers.

From the beginning foreign intervention (or non-intervention) shaped the outcome of the conflict. If Germany had not supplied an airlift to Franco's forces in Morocco (the first major airlift of its kind) they would have remained stuck there, as the Navy remained loyal to the Republic and the planes the rebels had were not sufficient for the job.

[DJP]

As someone asked..

Vernon Richards wrote:

To be consistent, the anarcho-syndicalist must, we believe, hold the view that the reason why the workers are not revolutionary is that their trade unions are reformist and reactionary; and that their structure prevents control from below and openly encourages the emergence of a bureacracy which openly takes over all initiative in its own hands, etc. This seems to us a mistaken view. It assumes that the worker, by definition, must be revolutionary instead of recognising that he is as much the product (and the victim) of the society he lives in as we all are more or less. And trade unions, just like other self-contained concentrations of human beings, such as prisons armies, and hospitals, are small scale copies of existing society with its qualities as well as its faults.In other words, the trade unions are what they are because the workers are what they are, and not vice versa. And for this reason, those anarchists who are less interested in the revolutionary workers' organisation, consider the problem of the organisation as secondary to that of the individual; that there is today no shortage of people able to absorb themselves in the day to day negotiations between worker and employer, but there are only too few to point out the futility of such action as an end in itself. And we have no fears that when sufficient workers have become revolutionaries they will, if they think it necessary, build their own organisations. This is quite different from creating the revolutionary organisation first and then looking for the revolutionaries (in the reformist trade unions in which most workers are to be found) afterwards.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Sad but true. That was the tragedy of the Spanish Revolution. It was never going to succeed.

It is true. But without the initial actions of the Syndicalists the republic would have initially lost a whole lot more of ground and very likely not been able to hold out for as long as it did. The "Revolution" was forced by the actions of the military, and would not have happened when it did had the rising of the military not taken place. The workers were right to resist, as the fascist repression was no less severe in areas which did not offer up a fight.As the woman at the end of the film says, I think their success was to show the world what was possible, if only for a short while and in an incomplete form. This success still lives on today.

[DJP]

According to Paul Preston (pg 235 onwards of 'The Spanish Civil War') there was some ambiguity with regards to the question of the relationship of state power and the power of the workers organisations.President Companys, on 20th July 36, when met with a delegation of the CNT, offered to step down and to give total control to the CNT. Unsure of how to deal with the situation the CNT delegation allowed him to stay on. The CNT was then offered a place on the Anti-Fascist Militia Committee, which was in effect a sub-committee of the regional government. In September 36 this committee was dissolved as the CNT directly took a minority position in the regional government.Bookchin's criticism is that the anarchists allowed political power to flow away from them and unwittingly gave it to their opponents.

[DJP]

KAZ wrote:

The meeting in Norwich yesterday (film showing of 'Living Utopia (The anarchists and the Spanish Revolution)' was well attended and the film very informative. But…
Was it socialism? Did the Spanish anarchists really achieve libertarian communism (aka socialism) in 1936? Or was it, as the organiser 'fessed up later, nowt but worker-run capitalism?
Since there was clearly a wide range of distributive mechanisms – from a full on cash economy through LTVs to free access – what does that say about the role of money in the revolution?

My main thoughts. You need to watch more than that film to get enough information.
1. If it wasn't for the swift action that was lead by the CNT the military rising would have succeeded much more rapidly than it did, and it is doubtful that the repression would have been less. 
2. Communism is a society where the "law of value" has been superseded.
3. Rationing and occasionally free access did exist within the collectives but the collectives exchanged commodities with other collectives according to the law of value. I.e goods are valued according to the amount of socially necessary labour time to reproduce them. There were "rich" collectives with more resources and "poor" ones. Therefore the problem of capitalism, that human labour gets allocated according to the needs of capital accumulation and not directly to solve human need, still persisted.
4. Strictly speaking, the revolution in the countryside was neither "libertarian" or "communist". Some peasants went along with it because it agreed with their communal values, others because they were afraid that if they did not they would be shot as fascists.
5. A significant amount of the population did think they were building the new society, and this gave them the necessary enthusiasm to continue the war effort. This enthusiasm was crushed after the "May Days"
6. I think the problem tracks back to the problem of "revolutionary unionism". See the last chapter of Vernon Richards "Lessons…" or I could elaborate if you need me to.
Could it have lead to socialism? In the conditions of the time, most notably the workers movement had already been defeated in the rest of Europe, the answer is absolutely not. But for the average prole the choice would have been to risk slaughter at the hands of the fascists, if you surrendered or not, or to rot away in a concentration camp in France. It's far to easy to pass smug judgment from the distance of history. Even now the "Spanish Revolution" does contain elements that inspire revolutionaries of today and the future.
Is workers controlled capitalism the route to socialism? I would say that something like that could possibly occur as the amount of conscious socialists increases, but in itself I don't think it necessarily would lead to socialism or that the route to socialism has to take this path.
n'est-ce pas?

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

KAZ wrote:

And, since the involvement of the anarchists in the Generalitat was, if anything, detrimental, what can be the place of the political revolution (the 'Parliamentary Road')?

Is what way was it detrimental? I would have thought it made sense to have some control over the official machinery of government if only in order to prevent it being used against events on the ground — as in fact happened after they were excluded and the so-called "Communists" took over control of it.

Involvement in the Generalitat (Catalonian regional government) was detrimental to whom or what?I'm in agreement with Bookchin on this. The anarcho-syndicalists controlled the economy of Catalonia but they allowed the "socialists" to remain in control of a significant portion of the state machinery. This would come back to haunt them later, and would seem to confirm what we say about the necessity of gaining state power.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1336-december-2015/book-reviews-next-revolution-killing-fields-ineq

[DJP]

There were lots of new faces at the meeting. General opinion of the film seemed to be very good, with the topic being new to some of the visitors, including a couple of Spanish natives.Discussion ranged from the nature of the "Spanish Revolution", anarchism, socialism, where the classical "mass working class" is today (China) and how to achieve socialism.The film can be watched here:https://vimeo.com/43639159

[DJP]

I thought this video from Professor Michael Dougan, the leading EU lawyer was really informative. It follows on from his now well known "Industrail Dishonesty" video.https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1304633102897424/

[DJP]

We have written whole pamphlets about these issues already:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/racismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/women-and-socialism

[DJP]

rodmanlewis wrote:

This attitude could equally apply to a general election–choosing the party which appears to most advantage the working class. General elections are just a variation on the reform programme.

I disagree, I think there's a significant difference between a general election and a referendum. If there ever were Socialist MPs, in the absence of a majority, what is it you think they would have to be doing? But that's probably a topic for another thread.

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Brexit will result in a detrimental impact upon fellow-workers but it is not a permanent one.

Debatable, as yet there are no facts of the matter.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is not an existential crisis for the workers' movement.

What workers movement?

[DJP]

A bit late but still interesting nonetheless.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

One consequence of the Brexit vote is that one section of the electorate has voted to disenfranchise another, i.e. workers in this country who are EU citizens, who will no longer be able to vote in local and regional elections. This is workers losing the right to vote.

And this, along with protecting the right to claim benefits, which many EU workers living in the UK rely on, was the main reason I went against the party line and voted "Remain". Most members view "the interests of the working class" too narrowly.Though possibly, though I think not likely, these things could be preserved post-Brexit.

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A word of sanity from Ricky Gervais 

Quote:

Joking aside, Brexit won't make any difference. The rich will still be rich, the poor will still be poor, and we'll still blame foreigners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ricky-gervais-brexit-eu-referendum-results-a7102451.html

This may be true. But it would also be true if they'd been a Fascist takeover overnight. It's not a case of all or nothing. We are not as bad as the left-communists. Are we?

[Author]

Posts