robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Meel is correct. It was all emotional. The EU vote "was a roar of anger". .
I totally agree. And the focus as far as socialists are concerned must now be on showing how and why all that anger was misdirected. The Brexit slogan – "take back control" – is something we need to build on and invest with real meaning not the sham meaning afforded by the nationalists. This is too good and opportunity to miss. I have been heavily involved in the Referendum debate over on FB forums like Capitalism vs Socialism. Over time you tend to develop antennae that pick up the vibrations folk give off. I've noticed, since the referendum vote, a quite sudden falling off of the nastiness , hostility and gung ho jingoism of the Brexit lot. The mood of triumphalism may perhaps be wearing off sooner than we expected, giving way to a kind of rising anxiety. I don't think many people expected the Leave camp to win and, now that it has, the reality is beginning to sink in as to what this might actually mean. I don't think it is coincidence that Johnson, Gove and co are now back peddling , softening their approach to Europe , even proclaiming themselves to be Europeans and all while stressing that withdrawal from Europe is gonna be a long term process (in contrast to the Eurocrats who feel peeved and want a quick divorce and be done with it). I smell a rat frankly The Economist puts its finger on some of the dilemmas a new post Brexit government will have to contend with:"Accordingly, the Leave side promised supporters both a thriving economy and control over immigration. But Britons cannot have that outcome just by voting for it. If they want access to the EU’s single market and to enjoy the wealth it brings, they will have to accept free movement of people. If Britain rejects free movement, it will have to pay the price of being excluded from the single market. The country must pick between curbing migration and maximising wealth." (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21701265-how-minimise-damage-britains-senseless-self-inflicted-blow-tragic-split?force=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fatragicsplit) So much for "taking back control". The Brexit campaign was all about trying to have your cake and eat it and now is the opportunity to ram home this very point
Well, to look on the bright side, socialists could at least build on that handy slogan – "take back control" – mindlessly pounded out by the Brexiteer nationalists, and give it some actual real susbstance . Like "taking back control" of the means of production from the capitalist monopolisers, "taking back control" of our own lives and so on and so forth. While the slogan is still fresh in the memory why not make use of it?. Next cover of the Socialist Standard? A series of meetings on the theme? As with songs so with political slogans – why should the devil have the best of them?
Don't know if anybody saw this about the Beast from Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, who is voting " leave" https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-e4af-Beast-of-Bolsover-Im-voting-out#.V2LaNo9OLIX I think the argument he is putting forward is bogus. You can't fight capitalism exclusively in one country. For the same reason you cant have "socialism in one country " despite what the Stalinists say. This strand of leftism that has been drawn to state capitalist versions of what it misleadingly calls socialism has been a constant source of confusion from the word go. I had to groan when I read that Skinner wants to "save Britain from EU capitalist clutches" . Firstly it is nationalistic claptrap inspired by nationalist sentiments which have got sod all to do with socialism and are anathema to everything socialists stand for. And secondly, it is plain daft to say the EU capitalists will not continue to exert a "clutch" on the UK, post Brexit. Ironically, if anything Brexit campaigners are scrambling to reassure us that foreign investment from Europe will not be jeopardised. I am not particularly enthused to support either side – either way its not going to make much difference though I guess the Remain case is possibly slightly stronger from the workers point of view. At any rate it is slightly less incoherent and jumbled as the Beast from Bolsover amply demonstrates
ALB wrote:I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.It is beginning to look like the Leave campaign will win http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/eu-referendum-panicked-remain-camp-plans-to-take-out-boris-as-polls-swing-in-brexit-campaigns-favour/ar-AAgTXrC?ocid=spartandhp
Brian wrote:This is one reform which will only see light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system.Yes I tend to agree with this. This is one of the ways in which a growing socialist movement will impact on the administration of capitalism and on the extent and scope of capitalist relations of production. The other possiblity is large scale technological unemployment which Stuart referred to , brought on by robotisation and automation which may compel the capitalist state to introduce a universal basic income or , at any rate , remove to some extent some of the resistance to such a scheme. Whether, technological unempoyment will reach these kinds of very highly levels, displacing up to 50% of the current workforce according to some reports, is another matter. Personally I doubt it
stuartw2112 wrote:It's interesting what the consensus elite view seems to be about the unworkability of the idea. Most do not object to it per se – indeed, how could they, since basic income would merely be a different way of organising what actually happens now, more or less. Rich countries with welfare states already have pretty generous (by world standards) minimum basic incomes, just not entirely in monetary form. What they object to and worry about is that the basic income severs the connection between work and income. For them, this is dangerous – economically and morally. But even here they concede that something like this might be necessary in the future if technological change really does, as some think, put everyone out of work. In other words, socialists should celebrate the fact that basic income is on the fringes of the mainstream as an idea because 1) it is essentially a socialist idea and 2) even critics accept that the modern world might be moving in a direction where such socialism will be necessary whether they like it or not ("socialism is inevitable"?!). The challenge remains, for socialists and proponents of basic income alike, to convince people that a world where income is not connected in any way to monetary incentives could really work.Not too sure that basic income is "essentially a socialist idea", Stuart. If it is, that hasn't prevented the Adam Smith institute from enthusiastically endorsing the idea. From their point of view what is attractive about the idea is that it is a more cost effective approach to the existing benefits system – which system creates a "poverty trap" that penalises workers wanting to work their way ouT of poverty. THat is ironic because you are arguing that a basic income will break the link with monetary incentives whereas the Adam Smith Institute seems to be saying the exact opposite. In other words there will be a greater incentive to supplement your income via wage labour Also, whilst it is true that a basic income severs the link between consumption and labour inputs it is worth reminding ourselves that under capitalism that this has always been the case as far as the capitalist class is concerned whose remuneration bears no relation to their labour input. That is to say, they live on unearned income. In some ways you can see a basic income in this light – as extending this possibility to the general population. That might be viewed as a progressive development but I don't see that as being inherently socialist in itself. Surely what distinguishes the socialist position is the abolition of "income" itself rather than reinforcing our sense of dependence on one and all that that entails. That said, there is some truth in what you say. A basic income does in some ways go against the grain of capitalism. The capitalists themselves have no need for a monetary incentive to work – quite simply because they have no need to work – but the workers sure as hell do! A basic income scheme will to an extent undermine this and loosen the chains of wage slavery a little bit. But there are problems with this argument. The first and most obvious one is that if that were the case why would the capitalists and their state bother to promote and finance this idea? They need us to be impoverished, indebted and enslaved. Would a basic income remove this or just create a new form of deoendency? Secondly the proponents on the idea sometimes shoot themselves in the foot at least from a socialist point of view by strenuously denying that a basic income will undermine the incentive to engage in wage labour. Far from deprecating the institution of wage labour this seem almost like apologising for it. Thirdly , there is the problem of implementation of the scheme at an international level and in particular, in the context of increased migration flows such as we are now seeing in Europe. I beleive one of the reasons why the Swiss voted down the idea was the belief that a basic income would serve as a magnet to draw in a much larger numbers of economic migrants that could overwhelm the existing system of state welfare. So I dont think the issue can be entirely divorced from existing political realities…
KAZ wrote:I have been following this thread for some time and have been quite as appalled by YMS's "practical steps" as by Robbo's free access fetishism. So I was overjoyed to see the mention of "workers' and community councils" by AJJ (to which the correct Party response should have been a vigorous and merciless attack rather than yet another 'practical step'). How else will the cooperative commonweath (love that term) actually be achieved? This is social revolution we are talking about. Not some bureaucratic rearrangement of economic procedures or gradual accumulation of passive measures both with the aim of the institution of super-consumerism (beer for nothing and your chips for free). Once again, I am convinced that I am in the wrong organisation.Thou doth protest too much methinks. I dont have a "free access fetishism" (whatever that is supposed to mean). If I had why would I bring into the discussion the question of rationing or offer a possible model of how a system of rationing might be effected? I believe it is the SPGB's view that in the early stages of scialism there would be both free access goods and rationed goods, the relative proportions of each depending on circumstances at the time – and society's priorities. Thats my view as well and I think its a fairly reasonable one to hold. My focus is less on the Day After the Revolution than on the prolonged but quite possibly exponential build up to that day. Though I disagree with him on the idea of money lingering after that day, YMS is right to draw parrellels with the rise of organisations like Podemos here in Spain. Ideas and movements embodytng those ideas have a habit of taking off suddenly from almost nowhere. This take off period is the essential training ground in which the habits, values and practices of a future socialist society will be forged. Not nearly enough attention is given to it, in my view…
Young Master Smeet wrote:1) It's your legislative fiat, not mine. I wouldn't propose any such thing, I'd only suggest making wage-labour contracts illegal.Hhmmm. Well I had always understood the Party case to be that once the socialist movement had captured democratic power, the means of production would become common property, if you like, by legislative fiat. Am I wrong in that and, if not ,are you dissenting from this position? In any event , declaring "wage labour contracts illegal" is also a kind of legislative fief except that it is not as comprehensive as declaring the means of production common property. Also if wage labour contracts are declared illegal from what source do people get the money to buy commodities in the money sector of this post capitalist economy?
Young Master Smeet wrote:2) Lets assume Bob the Greengrocer doesn't welcome socialism, and is part of the 40% of voters, lets be optimistic, who oppose socialism.If a majority of people – 50-60% are enthusiastic about socialism – I would suggest that would mean most of the remainder if not overly enthusiastic about it, would be prepared to go along with it. Very few would be actually hostile and opposed to the idea by the time we have an actual majority of socialistsIf Bob the greengrocer falls in the last category well then I can only respond – what could he do about it? Pretty much nothing as far as I can see. We socialists today are in a similar situation, We intensely dislike capitalism but we are a tiny minoroty and there is pretty much nothing we can do about this situation at the moment. The possibility of doing something only comes when we are much bigger. That is what the old Guildford Branch circular you referred to earlier was about
Young Master Smeet wrote:3) I'm talking about a sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement, at Podemos like speed, so eight year time frame.This assumes that the sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement will somehow catch people unawares and leave a section of the population still with bitterly hostile views towards socialism which the socialist movement will have to accommodate such as in ways you siggest.I don't think think it will happen like that, Podemos lets be frank here is just an opportunist reformist organisation that taps into the same core values and ideas that sustain other political organisation like PSOE or IU or Ciudadanos or even the PP. I see the growth of a strong socialist movement as a zero game. We will grow at the expense of those who endorse a n anti socialist point of view and who will be opportunistically be drawn towards a socialist position in a bid to head off the movement espousing such a position. In any event, the growth of the socialist movement will incrementally modify the whole social climate which in turn will make people progressively more susceptible to socialist ideas
Young Master Smeet wrote:A legislative fiat declaring common property doesn't become a reality until structures on the ground exist to make common ownership a reality, and small proprietors and such firms as wouldn't be immediately changed by the Abolition of the wage-contracts would still exist: or would you send troops round to storm Bob's Greengrocers? So, for some weeks or months, the easiest thing to do is leave money circulating, while supply chain, decision making and infrastructural changes are made to create practical distribution for needs. Since hte bureacuracy for markets exists already, lets use that, rather than making a new one.So, those things that can quickly be made free access will be, housing, transport, etc. those things that are less important or more niche would continue to circulate with a dwindling supply of pretend-money tokens or somesuch. That way, the obstinate resistors have fewer places to resist obstinately.Sorry but I am as puzzled as ever by this scenario of yours whereby money lingers on after the legislative fiat you refer to has been effected making the means of production, common property. Actually, long before we reach this point I doubt if there will be a person on this planet – at least one of sound mind – who will be unaware of the implications of common ownership – that it entails inter alia the elimination of money and wage labour . We will have been mentally, psychologically and organisationally prepared for the day it happens. And when it happens it will amount to little more than a kind of signal to facilitate or coordinate the changeover Far from having to send troops round to Bob the Greengrocer to enforce compliance, I suspect Bob himself would positively welcome the fact that he had no more feckin bills and onerous taxes to pay, Your scenario presupposes that folk will still need to have money to buy Bob's lettuces. Where are they supposed to get this money from if there is no more wage labour? Why would Bob need to charge his customers, if he gets his lettuces gratis from the farmer co-operative? And why would Bob need money anyway if his little greengrocer store is not going to go "bust" and Bob can satisfy his own needs without any kind of quid pro quo payment in the new society? None of this makes any sense. You refer to the existing supply chain and the current system of "market bureaucracy" that we could make use of. Yes indeed but we need to be aware of what it is about the current system we need to make use of and what we do not need to make use of, come a socialist society. Businesses today , like giant supermarkets , operate two parallel systems of accounting – one is accounting in money prices, the other is calculation in kind. It is the latter that a socialist society will make use of, the former can be dispensed with completely. Calculation in kind is the bedrock of any kind of large scale society and it goes hand in hand with a distributed network of suppliers and distribution points that interact with each other essentially via a self regulating system of stock control. There is no other alternative set up to this in a socialist society – absolutely none. Now it might be that this whole vast distributed network will have to be reconfigured and rationalised in places come socialism. So far example, it is probable that we will see far less of the kind "coals to Newcastle" type phenomena we see today and that there will be a distinct shift towards more localised forms of production in socialism. But whatever the case , it is clear that such a network already exists and that we can immediately make use of it when socialism is implemented and then adapting it as we go along But what is equally clear is that we will have absolutely no use for money accounting at any time in a socialism, not even for a short time after your legislative fiat. In fact, I would argue that long before that legislative fiat, money accounting will have succumbed to a downward curve as social trust in this institution diminishes with the rise of revolutionary socialist consciousness everywhere. How for example, would it be possible to make long term investment plans on a capitalist basis, if it is become more and more apparent that there is no long term for capitalism to look forward to and that its demise looks increasing imminent?
ALB wrote:According to a short repoer on this in today's TimesQuote:Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.The things they say.
A universal Basic Income appears also to be a free marketeers dream http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-ideal-welfare-system-is-a-basic-income/
Young Master Smeet wrote:robbo203 wrote:Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box, The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure.. How is that possible on the basis of common ownership?Because we can do what we want with out common property. Like a family Monopoly set.
Why? What would be the point of having "profit sharing" if it doesnt meaning anything and, indeed, couldnt mean anything if you actually had common ownership of the means of production. Its like saying we could have private property in the means of production because in socialism where these means were commonly owned we could "do what we want with them". Except if you actually did have private property as opposed to pretending to have provate property you would no longer have common property. You would have reverted back to capitalism….
OK, I have now had the opportunity to finally look at the book written by Cjames1961 . It is clear to me that he considers Mises et al to have won the socialist calculation debate "hands down" against the advocates of "central planning" and that this is the baseline argument he falls back upon in his critique of socialism – or at least of the socialist view of how to move forward. Unfortunately for him and so many others similarly draw to this conclusion, the assumption that socialism equates with society-wide central planning simply does not hold water and that it is only by recognising the possibility that socialism could indeed operate on a relatively decentralised and self regulating basis that you can even begin to see where the whole Misesian premiss goes seriously wrong.So I invite Cjames1961 to defend this position of his on this forum. The basic supposition he is making here is key to understanding why some of the other claims he is making fail to convince.
There is quite a useful discussion on the nature of technological determinism which is I believe the position adopted by the author of this book on singularity and socialism. See here https://communicationista.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/technological-determinism-vs-social-construction-of-technology/ Apropos the claim that the development of science and technology is THE fundamental driving force that is pushing us towards a "zero marginal cost" society, it might be worth mentioning that there is another school of thought which has emerged in recent years that takes a more pessimistic view in this regard – namely that technological progress has of late begun to display distinct signs of diminishing returnsBenjamin Wallace-Wells, a leading figure in the "declinist" school of thought, has mooted the idea that the progress of the past 250 years,driven by successive industrial revolutions , may have been a "unique period in human history.” As he put it in an article in the New York Magazine: "At some point in the late sixties or early seventies, this great acceleration began to taper off … The rate at which life is improving here, on the frontier of human well-being, has slowed. ("The Blip", New York Magazine, Jul 21, 2013). Similarly, Peter Thiel in his essay “The End of the Future”argues: "Technological progress has fallen short in many domains… While innovation in medicine and biotechnology has not stalled completely, here too signs of slowed progress and reduced expectations abound… By default, computers have become the single great hope for the technological future. (“The End of the Future”, National Review online, October 3, 2011) Thiel provides some interesting examples to back up his thesis – such as the rate of increase in the speed of travel. So, for instance, the decision to scrap supersonic flight in the shape of Concorde and the implementation of elaborate security measures in wake of 9/11 have served to slow down air travel considerably by comparison with just a few years back Of course, this does not exactly demonstrate some immanent trend at work within the process of technological innovation and discovery itself – after all, corporations continue to invest massively in R and D – but merely underscores the fact that technological innovation does not happen in isolation from other developments in society. But if the "declinist" thesis is correct what might that mean for the future of capitalism? The expansionist logic of capital imposes itself upon economic actors the injunction "grow or die". If we what we are witnessing is, indeed, the long term slowing down in the pace of technological innovation and its impact on society does this signify a system that is now on its knees and awaiting its imminent demise at the hands of its executioner – Fate? I don't think so. I think part of the misunderstanding arises from a tendency to conflate technological progress with economic growth itself. Technological progress aids the latter but it does not entirely account for the latter which can decline despite such technological progress This is precisely the point behind the " falling rate of profit" thesis – increasing capital intensity associated with technological development by changing the organic composition of capital impacts detrimentally on the rate of profit. But then nor does economic growth necessarily signify the "rate at which life is improving" which is to mistakenly assume that the purpose or effect of increased investment is to directly meet human needs as such and so enhance human wellbeing. That does not necessarily follow. The connection between economic growth and quality of life is tenuous and in some cases inversely related
It is a pity this discussion has become a little bogged down in bristling antagonisms on both sides and quite unnecessarily. It is not reasonable to expect people to first read the book in its entirety and doing the" in depth mental work" first before being entitled to ask questions. Questioning is part of the process of mental work from the word go, leading to greater understanding. At the same time, it is important not to just jump on the author and take up a dismissive attitude for whatever reason. One should cut him a bit of slack and let him elaborate and develop his theme. I will say straightaway that I haven't read the book though I hope to at some point if I can get my hands on it. So my views on the subject are fairly provisional and tentative. Its seems to me that the author belongs to the camp of technological optimists in which the development of science and technology is portrayed as the only real driving force in social evolution which is pushing us Willy Nilly towards an "age of abundance" and, thus, the long awaited transcendence of market capitalism. The author is not alone in propounding this theme; he mentions a few others like Desai and Jeremy Rifkin of "Zero Marginal Cost" fame. There is also Paul Mason and his Postcapitalism which was discussed on this forum here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/paiil-mason-proper-thread-his-book What worries me about this whole approach is its underlying technological determinism and the presumption that technology is some sort of independent variable or neutral force that pushes society, albeit kicking and screaming, in a given direction. But science and technology are never neutral, they have always been informed and shaped by social values which derive from the kind of society in which we live. It puzzles me this basic argument – that a post capitalist society of abundance is going to somehow materialise, as it were, behind our backs without us having to undergo a conscious (and political) evolution to bring it into being. I struggle to understand the mechanism by which these technological determinists contend this transformation will take place. It seems to me to be based on nothing more than an unwarranted extrapolation of cost reducing trends brought about by technological advances under conditions of market competiton. But this does not seem to take into account countervailing forces that work to retain the status quo and necessitate the very thing that is here being downplayed – a change in consciousness in order to bring about a post capitalist society I'm skeptical of this whole meme of the technological optimists that technology is driving us towards a system of zero marginal costs. There can be such thing as a costless society; costs in this sense are opportunity costs which will always be with us in a world in which we always have to make choices and forego alternative uses for resources. There is also the whole problem of externalities – the externalisation of costs on others be this society in general or the environment which is being ravaged in the pursuit if profit. From that point of view it could be argued that costs are rising not falling. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that a small minority in capitalism own and control the means of production and they are not going to relinquish this without stiff resistance. Nor are they going to sign their own death warrant as a class by permitting these developments to reach a point at which the profit system is fatally undermined. Rather they will use their ownership and control of means of production to ensure that these developments will ultimately serve them The thing is , and I think this where Cjames1961 and the technological optimists-cum-cornucopians go wrong – repudiating this rather mechanistic view of social transformation which underlies their worldview, does not have to mean repudiating technological progress itself. Opposition to technological determinism does not translate into Luddism and embracing the reactionary romantic conservatism of old fashioned guild socialism. The case for a post capitalist or socialist society rests at least in part on awareness of the discrepancy between the huge potential that modern technology offers and the actual application of this technology for the benefit of humankind. This discrepancy is not going to magicked out of existence, merely by the further development of technology itself. It will require a social revolution, a sea change in consciousness leading to a change in the very organisation of society itself, to close this gap This, I'm afraid is preisely what the technological determinists overlook
Young Master Smeet wrote:Savings, UBI, dole, lottery, although profit sharing is more likely. As also said, this is very much a transitional measure as we cut down on the market parts of the economy, we'd leave people free to tradeSorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box, The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure.. How is that possible on the basis of common ownership? In fact, how can the "market parts if the economy" even exist if the means of production are owned in common. This doesn't make sense YMS – unless what you are suggesting is that instead of declaring capitalism abolished the socialist movement would give rise to a socialist government to oversee the gradual demise of capitalism and its market and to administer the various measures you mention, In which case how can we be sure that this government will carry out its pledge to "cut down on the market parts of the economy", Whats to say it wont do a U turn and bring back privatisation, say?.
Young Master Smeet wrote:That would require a hideous bureaucracy.No I don't think so . In fact the bureaucracy involved would be rather less than which is required to administer council tax under capitalism. Council tax involves the banding of properties into 7 or 8 different bands according to their calculated capital value. Of course "capital value" will not be the operative criterion in a socialist society but there is a checklist of physical criteria which can be applied to enable assessors to place any property within one of several bands. My suggestion is that a rationing system for non free access goods be organised around this banding system, Remember that an assessment of housing stock is something that would have to be carried out anyway whether or not you link this with a rationing system I think if anything is gonna require a hideous bureaucracy it is the very measures you propose such as a UBI or profit sharing
