[Ed]

jpodcaster wrote:

(e) LU seems to be desiring a fully democratic structure – one person one vote, control residing in local groups, delegates, open publication of meeting minutes etc. Perhaps they have learnt something from the SPGB … Jools

I doubt they learned it from us, or would ever admit to it. It seems more likely that they have adopted that position for the reasons that the original SPGBers did. That is to say having tired of undemocratic leadership and seeing it for the dead end path it is they've decided on a more directly democratic method of organization. Which is obviously great news. Perhaps after a few years in a broad united left party there will be some who also develop ideas along the same lines as the founding members did while members of the left unity party of the day the SDF. If history keeps repeating we can at least hope that similar positives come out of it. But I'm probably being overly optimistic.,

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed: Your method is faintly ludicrous and complicated by the fact that we're dealing with translations from different languages. You can Google "planned economy" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact, denied by no one but you it seems, and spelled out clearly by themselves, that Marx and Engels saw the alternative to capitalism, the anarchy of the markets, as being socialism, which involved planning. In fact, even more problematic for your method, is the undeniable fact that Engels (and presumably Marx too), saw the centralisation of production in the hands of the state, including nationalising the banks and credit, as being a preliminary and necessary step towards socialist transformation. 

So resorting to strawmen arguments already are you? I'm not saying that socialism is unplanned quite the opposite. What I'm objecting to is your advocating of state capitalism, which is what a planned economy means. I've proven unquestionably, that the phrase planned economy means a system where the workers are not in control of what they produce but are commanded by a government. You do understand phrase right? That's more than one word put together to represent a unique concept. It's not finding the two words in a sentence unrelated to the concept being discussed. Your claims to Marx and Engels using the phrase is demonstrably proven to be false. Yes the communist manifesto and other early writings plan meager reforms as a step towards socialism. But as they later recanted those and admitted that they had prematurely thought the capture of the state was imminent and were making suggestions at the time based on the current level of production they can perhaps be forgiven for being so foolish. What's you excuse?

[Ed]

I'm sorry YMS but I don't see the phrase planned economy anywhere in those quotes. Nor do they refer to what is commonly meant by "planned economy" which is central planning or a command economy. It is quite a specific term used in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist circles to refer to what we would call state capitalism. The quotes you provided are akin to picking quotes from the 18th Brumaire to back up the degenerated workers state theory. I agree with your last post, all economies are planned to a certain extent. Which is why the phrase is generrally misleading as it assumes that all other economies are unplanned. This is of course ridiculous. The opposite to a planned economy is not an unplanned economy but the democratic control of the means of production, decided upon by those who produce rather than by a representative body of government beuracracts. I say again planned economy/command economy is synonymous with state capitalism.I tried to find the origin of the term and I can only find one instance in Lenin from a letter published in 1945. I believe the date the letter was published may have effected it's wording as I can find no other instance of planned economy.Unfortunately copy & paste doesn't want to work for some reason so it's no 12 in the notes.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/14.htmTrotsky on the other hand uses the phrase frequently to refer to the economy of the soviet union.http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/newcourse/ch07.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/10/sovecon.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch02.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/quotes.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/04/squeak1.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/xx/stalinism.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch01.htmand here's Stalin's usage.

Joey wrote:

When speaking, in my "Remarks," of the profitableness of the socialist national economy, I was controverting certain comrades who allege that, by not giving great preference to profitable enterprises, and by tolerating the existence side by side with them of unprofitable enterprises, our planned economy is killing the very principle of profitableness of economic undertakings. The "Remarks" say that profitableness considered from the standpoint of individual plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of profitableness which we get from our socialist mode of production, which saves us from crises of overproduction and ensures us a continuous expansion of production.But it would be mistaken to conclude from this that the profitableness of individual plants and industries is of no particular value and is not deserving of serious attention. That, of course, is not true. The profitableness of individual plants and industries is of immense value for the development of our industry. It must be taken into account both when planning construction and when planning production. It is an elementary requirement of our economic activity at the present stage of development.

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed: read Engels and you'll see I'm right. cheers 

I've read Engels thanks especially Socialism: Scientific and Utopian and cannot recall coming across the phrase. As it is your phrase and as I have provided evidence to substantiate my assertion the onus is on you to provide some evidence to back up your assertion. Surely it can't be difficult; you said it was used alot, right?

[Ed]

A search of MIAIt brings up two results which are both study guides.planned economynoun an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc. Compare free enterprise. Origin: 1930–35  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/planned+economy Planned economies are usually categorized as a particular variant of socialism, and have historically been supported by and implemented by Marxist-Leninist socialist states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed:Have a look at Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Or Marx's Capital. Both talk, there and elsewhere, about the anarchy of the market giving way to a planned society, ie, socialism. As I said, and as is entirely uncontroversial, it is a commonplace of socialist thought that socialism will be a planned society. "Gift economy", on the other hand, is not really the same thing as socialism, at least, not as conceived in the Marxist tradition.

Actually I'd say it's a hugely controversial thought among Marxists because what you are indeed acknowledging by saying that it is not socialism is that it is capitalism. And really that is what Left unity is about friendly capitalism. An impossible dream.

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Ed: it's a commonplace of socialist thought (you'll find it in Marx and Engels) that the alternative to the anarchy of the market is a planned economy, ie, socialism.

It actually really isn't either a commonplace Socialist thought or to be found anywhere in Marx or Engels writing. At least not according to Marxist Internet Achieve. A planned economy is synonymous with central planning as in the Soviet Union, PRC, 3rd International, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung central planning. If this is the first time you've heard that, then just take it as comradely advice to steer clear of that phrase in future. Free access or even gift economy might be better if that is your intended meaning. As it is upon reading the article you sound like a Marxist-Leninist.

[Ed]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Gnome says I am a master of transformation – why, thank you very much, it's kind of you to say so! But Ed is wrong to imply that I've changed my mind about all that much. Back in 1999 when I joined your party, I signed up to the belief that socialism was about the emancipation of the working class, and that the work of this emancipation "must be the work of the working class itself". I still believe that, and is why I was an enthusiastic supporter of Occupy, and now of Left Unity. Adam says it will end in tears. Most people in Left Unity expect it to. But we do the work anyway and leave the results to 'god', as Ghandi put it.

Hi Stuart we've never met, I believe I started attending meetings shortly after you left, so it was probably wrong of me to have made assumptions about a change in your views. But could you elucidate on the sentence I quoted "The only alternative to the chaos of capitalism is a planned economy". It did strike me that you may not have meant this in it's common usage. But if not then could you explain in what way you think a system of exploitation and servitude to the state is different from capitalism?To borrow YMS's metaphor I'd say it's more like using a tennis racket than merely a different club.

[Ed]

Just as an argument built on a fallacy must always remain a fallacy regardless of whether it's conclusion is factually correct or not. e.g. the socialist party of great britain is a democratic political party because the moon is made of cheese is a correct conclusion but based on fallacious reasoning. So too is any attempt to objectivly define social class. As social classes are merely an idea of how certain people should behave, social constructs, the results will always be founded in ideology regardless of whether some of the conclusions may correlate with our own or not. Marxian class definition, to differentiate between the two commonly referred to as a persons economic class, is based solely on someones relation to the ownership of the means of production it is therefore an objective definition based on material facts and directly opposed to ideological arguments. We should continue to argue against fallacious reasoning and pseudo-scientific conclusions even if they are agreeable to our position. This is the same reason we exclude religious people from the party, right?

[Ed]

Quite shocking that a former SPGB member could undergo such a radical political transformation in such a short space of time."The only alternative to the chaos of capitalism is a planned economy"

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

gnome wrote:

Is this guy for real?  He spends most of this short video setting fire to banknotes.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdni9GI-eOQ&list=PLJJCm5PCRM9eiGXwgP7oi_310uSvzhOxe&index=1

This is just the sort of Situationist-style stunt that was suggested at the workshop we held. But I think we'd have to call for donations, not use Party funds.

“Robert Lynn revelled in the forums, which he called the University of Life. They certainly had their moments. I remember one exemplary SPGB graduate speaking mounting the platform, drawing a ten-shilling note from his pocket and holding it dangling from his thumb and forefinger for a quarter of an hour or so while delivering a devastatingly witty attack on money. The audience of thirty or so were spellbound. There was not a single heckler, until he set fire to it”.Stuart Christie, My Granny Made Me An Anarchist: 1946-1964, 2003, p. 157. 10 shilling notes would be an acceptable price to pay for combustable material. But yeah the notes in the video don't look like euros. Perhaps francs? If we wanted to do something like that then it would probably be best to get some funny money printed that looks real from a distance.

[Ed]

You're right Adam that is very positive. Have you contacted him at all? Perhaps a letter congratulating him on his position might be nice for him to know that he is not alone. That is if it is appropriate. Lyon was also the city that the French impossiblists held in the past was it not?

[Ed]

google translate says quasi-natural communism.

[Ed]

I think you're right about this dragging on, in all likelihood until conference next year at the earliest. I don't know that it will remain about you specifically, I think that is already subsiding. But rather it will become about the apparent gaps in the rule book. If….ahem when we do grow and start to have a real impact the forces of reaction will attempt to infiltrate us and damage us from within. We'd probably have entryism from the trots and so on. I think the issue will become more about that, rather than yourself and Vincent.

[Ed]

Just back from the talk. Extremely interesting, with wide ranging discussion, from which I learned a lot, got some good further reading recommendations as well. One of which, and one which was central to the talk, is Hyam Maccoby's book Revolution in Judea. While I disagree with Chris (and probably Hyam Maccoby) about the definitive proof of Jesus the man existing (Josephus was stated as the main source). And the description of Jesus as an (early utopian) communist and revolutionary akin to Che Guevara to be unproven and speculative. I did find the relation between tribal totemism and Christianity's tradition of communion to be truly fascinating.Chris also kindly offered to do a talk at head office which I shall pass on to the campaigns department.All in all a very enjoyable evening and I will certainly be back for more.

[Author]

Posts