[robbo203]

Came across something by Chris Hedges on the subject which makes for an interesting read….http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111 There are organisations like PEGIDA in Germany – there is a Pegida offshoot in the UK too – that seem to want to focus on the nature of Islam itself as a suppposed threat  to democracy, free speech etc etc.  As far as I know –  someone can correct me if I am wrong –  Pegida turns out to be of the far Right and ultra-nationalist in persuasion.  A leftie on my local FB group had recommended Pegida to me before discovering to her dismay what it was all about. Hedges  seems to me to take a sound approach which focusses attention instead on the conditions which Islamic communities face in Europe and elsewhere.  Their particular religious beliefs is not the reason why a tiny minority resort to such obscene acts of violence but rather an excuse or pretext.  I recall Hedges saying something on an RT interview the other day about a militant Islamic group he had encountered somewhere – Syria perhaps?  It turned out that only one of their number had ever even read the Koran  despite them all putting on the front of being devout Islamists! Incidentally,  it appears that there have been more than 50 French trademark applications for the phrase "Je Suis Charlie" for commercial purposes, of all things. Capitalism just cannot resist gettings it grubby hands on anything that moves.  Seems its not just the professed commitment of opportunist politicians to free speech that rings hollow.  See herehttp://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30797059?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=bbcnewsmagazine_news__&ns_linkname=na&ns_fee=0 

[robbo203]

duncan lucas wrote:

You are tumbling over yourself to make your "we are all the same people " fit in with your political logic when the truth is we are as different as chalk and cheese . You seem to deny nationality of countries and people so you feel easier saying "We stand for one people wherever they are " .This defies logic ,the truth common sense and perceived actuality. Each nation is people unto themselves who think ,act  differently .

  But, Duncan, aren't you the one who is tumbling over yourself in your haste to assert that "we are all the same people" as far as the Scots are concerned in contradistinction to, say, the English?  An English worker has far more in common with a Scottish worker than the latter has with the capitalist class.  So why then chose to disaggregate society along nationalistic lines when it makes far more sense to do  so along class lines?Sure there are cultural variations between different regions – although much of this exists only in the fertile imagination of nationalist mythologisers (see Benedict Anderson's illuminating book  on the origins of nationalism, entitled Imagined Communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities).  Socialists don't decry cultural differences; if anything we celebrate them.  It is global capitalism and the "McDonaldisation" of society that is eroding national differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization) just as nationalism was itself – and still is – a force for cultural homogenisation and the obliteration of local cultures and dialects. However,  Scotland is no less part of the global capitalist world than anywhere else and you delude yourself with your fantasy of an  independent  "socialist" Scotland . The overwhelming majority of Scottish workers support capitalism in one form or another just as the overwhelming majority of English workers do likewise – however reluctantly or unenthusiastically.   To be be brutally frank they have no conception yet of an alternative to capitalism – to wage labour, to buying and selling, to the money system.  Your talk of a "socialist" Scotland shows that you too do not have a  clear idea of what socialism means either, unfortunately.To equate it with the "welfare state" or whatever is ludicrous.  The welfare state was actually introduced with the full support of the big capitalists back in the 1940s. As one of them, Samuel Courtauld,  put it, 'Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long term investment the country could make. It will ultimately lead to a higher efficiency among workers and a lowering of production costs.'You don't seem to understand the point that capitalism can take many different forms and that to a large extent these forms themselves are the product of historically contingent factors.  In an increasingly competitive globalised economy  and with the decline in economic growth – and profit –  rates since the 1970s placing a burden on government spending, governments of all political persuasions have in recent years tended to evolve towards a neo-liberal form of governance.  It bears out the expression that "its not governments that run the system but the system that runs the governments".Believe you me, the government of  an independent Scotland, had it materialised, would be no different in any fundamental sense. It would be no less ruthless in its attacks on the working class than the present  conservative government and while it might appear to give more with the one hand it will also take more with the other. There is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism. Since it has no intention to transcend the profit system such a government would have to abide by the rules of the game that require it to act in the interests of capital and therefore against the interests of wage labour.The fact that it is Scottish workers that the Scottish capitalists are exploiting will make absolutely no difference in the long run.  If it did those patriotic Scottish capitalists would simply relocate their capital elsewhere where they can get away scot free – to coin a phrase – from having to pay punitive levels of taxation that a militant Scottish  "socialist" government might want to impose on them to fund their ambitious welfare programme.  That will soon enough tame such a government and bring it to heel

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

wrote:

A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line  or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution.

 These are not specifically socialist issues, and should be evaluated rationally according to circumstance.Most socialists don’t need an “ethical” crutch to be motivated to perform acts of working-class solidarity, and many anti-socialists act this way without socialist prompting.The worst of what you are saying is that the Party should mandate that all proletarians should:always obey the dictates of each and every Union boss, independent of whether he runs a scab Union, or whether he calls a strike for anti-socialist reasons with anti-socialist outcomes—like corrupt Union officials in cahoots with the bosses.always condone or encourage welfare fraud, independent of its punitive consequences. Why not always the same for criminal theft?always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line. What about those proletarians whose non-frontline labour safely supports the war effort, or those whose labour actively supports capitalism?

 These issues may not in themselves be "specifically socialist issues" – one does not have to be a socialist to observe that it is unethical to cross a picket line – but I am asserting nevertheless that no socialist would want to do such a thing.  No socialist worth their salt would find such a thing morally acceptable.You are once again twisting my words or inventing spurious and irrelevant arguments/scenarios  to try to get round the simple point I was making.  I didn't say anything about proletarians always needing to obey the dictates of some Union boss on each and every conceivable occasion – did I now? – and it is presumptuous of you even to suggest that I would support such an undemocratic arrangement as Union bosses "dictating" what their members should do.   Obviously one uses a degree of discretion here.  But if a strike was conducted not for anti-socialist reasons, would you, TWC, find it morally acceptable as a socialist to cross a picket line? Yes or no?Ditto, welfare fraud.  Of course crime can be sometimes unacceptable – most particularly when the victim is a fellow worker.  Once again its a case of using your own nonce to determine what is acceptable and what is not from a socialist point of view.  But I thought as a revolutionary socialist you would recognize that the system is one of the legalised robbery  by the capitalist class of the fruits of our working class labour.  I would have thought as a revolutionary socialist you would support or, at any rate, condone any attempt by workers to slightly redress the balance.  So let us hear it from you, TWC. – would you as a revolutionary socialist spill the beans to the authorities if you came across a worker claiming benefits while a working a few hours on the side? Do tell us – why  would you not do this unless  you thought it was morally unacceptable as a socialist to betray your own class members? Call a spade a spade, TWC – you wouldnt do it because you consider it morally unacceptableFinally, in yet another adept display of TWC twisting other people's argument you questioned whether  proletarians should "always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line".  I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that one.  Put their lives on the line for what, TWC? Are you saying there are occasions when it is justified that workers fight in a capitalist war? Some revolutionary socialist you have turned out to be! Once again, you should read what I said and not what you imagine I said.  Of course,as socialists, we express solidarity with all workers regardless but we don't necessarily condone what they do, do we now? You  yourself  have made this very point – ironically! However I was not talking about expressing working class solidarity with fellow workers in the armed forces.  I said quite  clearly that what  would be morally unacceptable for a socialist to do is to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc.  I was  talking about their actions, not the fact that they are  working class. Your whole position is based on a completely false reading of what ethics is all about.  Ethics is not some external "crutch" that we can usefully, or otherwise, employ in voluntaristic fashion to bring about our desired end.  Rather, our socialist ethics is fundamental to who we are and it is part of what defines us as socialists in the first place.  As a socialist you simply cannot help but take up a socialist moral perspective on life

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Incidentally, this is very late news for the rest of us, who’ve apparently been, until now, only groping blindly for a working-class emancipation that will involve “the emancipation of all mankind, independent of race or sex” [DOP 4].

 In case you hadn't cottoned on, TWC,  the emancipation of all mankind etc is something that is supposed to  only materialise after the socialist revolution not before it.  Before the revolution,  the working class continues to exist and with it the need for – nay, the inescapability of – a working class ethics . Unless, of course,  you no longer see the working class as the primary agent of socialist revolution but then again trying to decipher what you are trying to say  – most of which, incidentally,  as far as the above post is concerned, seems to consist in a quite outlandish attempt, to the point of sheer gibberish,  to attribute to me views I dont even hold anyway  – is, as per  usual, no easy task so I wont even attempt  it.   Much of the time I havent the foggiest notion what you are warbling on about and I strongly suspect Im not alone in thinking that.My position is much more straightforward then you seem to want to portray it.  A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line  or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution.  And you think ethics makes for "social impotence", huh?.  You should descend from the clouds, TWC.  The view may be inspiring but you need to plant your feet on the ground sometimes

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

.But to argue against ethics myself.  Ethics are the soporific of capitalism. They are its essential sham veneer. That’s the only ethical case we have under capitalism.For the rest, capitalism’s ethics are appropriate to and perfectly adequate to capitalism, and there’s little we can do about it that our capitalist politicians can’t, and they have the virtue of being in a position to legislate those necessary legal aspects that changing capitalism demands.For our part, ethics is a distraction.  More important than ethics is moral integrity.Integrity is the fount of the Socialist Party’s survival in the face of the enormous odds stacked against it.  The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation.  Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card.  Not insipid ethics.I now find it hard to see what specifically socialist essence remains in your Socialism of “anger, emotion, ethics, etc.” that distances it from any other political movement, since they all rely on it, and play this card like professional experts.

 Sorry TWC but this is a very weak argument. Others may well rely on "anger, emotion ethics" but your suggestion that we should not do so ourselves,  since that will mean we will be unable to differentiate ourselves, or our  "socialist essence",  from them,  is frankly ridiculous.  The anger of the nationalist is directed against other nations or ethnic minorities that he or she perceives as diluting the purity of the nation. Our anger  by complete constrast is directed against the capitalist system and what it gives rise to.  I dont think there is any danger of people not seeing the difference, do you?Actually, it is absurd to even talk of "anger, emotion, ethics" in such voluntaristic terms as though these things are something one chooses  to employ as a matter of deliberate strategy.  Rather,  you become a socialist precisely because you are angered by what you see around  you,  by what you consider to be morally offensive about capitalism.  You dont  just coolly and intellectually consider the case for socialism, and in a detached manner,  decide that it makes "good rational sense" and then opt to become a socialist, having beeen swayed by the labour theory of value or Marx's prognistications on the falling rate of profit.  These two things – emotion and reason- go inextricably hand in hand .  One without the other, as I said,  is utterly uselessYou say:The Socialist Party will soon enough find more than enough “anger, emotion, etc.” in its support, involuntarily out of the nature of capitalism.  It has no need to foment it in order to create socialists."Foment" means to instigate or stir up. Foment is, I think,  the wrong word because it implies that the anger is not there to begin with but has to be artifically induced by socialist propagandists which, of course,  is nonsense. "Express" would be a more appropriate.  We should be tapping into the anger both we and our fellow workers feel. If socialist propganda means any thing it means helping to sharpen the focus of workers' anger and directing it against the system itself rather than against immigrants or politicians or other nations or whatever.  It certainly does not mean disassociating  ourselves from such anger in order to sustain the illusion that we are  somehow objective, value-free "scientific" socialists.  Cue for L Bird methinks  You also say: The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation.  Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card.  Not insipid ethics.I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  How does sticking to our "rational case for socialism" constitute a "moral trump card"?   Morality, if it means anything at all, is based on an altruistic concern for the wellbeing of others; it is essentially other-oriented.  Nor am i clear about what lies behind your implied distinction between morality (which you seem to endorse) and ethics (which you find "insipid").  I suppose you have in mind the notion that ethics is about the theory whereas morality is about the practice, yes? In any event,  I endorse and enthusiastically recommend to you, the notion of a "proletarian ethics" which is a form of "ethical particularism"  (as opposed to the "ethical universalism" of philosophers like Kant).  I don't really see how the socialist case cannot but embrace a proletarian ethics; it is implied in the very appeal to working class unity.  The argument that the case for socialism is based on nothing more than "self interest" strikes me as absolutely ridiculous.  That is not an argument for socialism at all but, in the final analysis,  for the amoralism of a completely atomised market economy in which each pursue their own separate and selfish  interests.  It thus reinforces "actually existing capitalism" Self interest has a place in the case for socialism but alongside, and not at the expense of, our socialist and moral concern for the wellbeing of our fellow workers.  If the only thing that concerns you is what is in your own self interest then why bother trying to achieve a socialist society?  It would be preferable from your point of view to divert all your energies into enriching yourself at the expense of everyone else in the here and now, quite frankly

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

No, that was not the peeved miserable point Alan was making.He knows precisely what I mean, even if you don’t.

  In that case, would you care to outline what that "peeved" and "miserable" point was that Alan was supposedly making.  It seems to me that the point he was making was a pretty reasonable one and your reaction to it was both overly cantankerous and irrational

[robbo203]

Having attacked Alan for being "cantankerous " and "irrational" – the words "pot" and kettle" spring to mind – note  the "passion, anger, righteous outrage" with which TWC  himself seeks to condemn precisely these qualities that Alan (correctly) sees as being integral to a socialist outlook. Nope,  I fully and wholeheartedly side  with Alan in this dispute. Of course a clearly thought out rational argument is essential to the struggle to establish socialism.  But so too is a burning sense of outrage at what capitalism does to us. One without the other is useless Everyone here –  barring TWC it would seem –   would, I imagine, understand that this was the point that Alan was really making.  Sorry TWC but your post is way way over the top and you should know it.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.

 L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis?  Correct me if Im wrong  but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly….  In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity (Frederick Engels 1876  The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man) 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

But that’s not ‘shopping’, is it? ‘Selecting off a shelf’, I mean? ‘As opposed to some other item’. Why not both?What I said was:

LBird wrote:

The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism…

‘Shopping’ is the antithesis of ‘selecting off a shelf’. You try walking into Asda or Tesco and ‘selecting off a shelf’ as much as you deem necessary for your needs, and then walking off back to your car.The small matters of the amount of money in one’s wallet, payment at the till and security guards will intervene to ensure that you don’t ‘select off a shelf’ whatever you need. ‘Shopping’ is not ‘selecting’. ‘Shopping’ is being forced not to select what one wants. One must ‘weigh up’ the contradiction between one’s wants and one’s lack of resources.As other comrades have said, the organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption.

This is why I said " I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here".  You have now indicated that what you have in mind is that there will be no quid pro quo exchange intervening between you and the appropriation of the product you select off the shelf in a socialist society.  I wouldn't wish to argue against that; thats quite correctHowever,  you then go on to say the "organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption". With respect, this is quite confusing  "Selecting from the shelf" does indeed  presupposes the organisation of production and distribution, but the act of "selecting " itself – which is what we are talking about –  is self evidently a matter of exercising one's individual consumer preferences, is it not? In that sense it is the individual that is the proximate decision maker here.  It is the individual who is deciding to take that can of baked beans off the shelf – not her peers or society in general – on account of the fact that she has a craving for baked beans and indeed knows this better than anyone else. She may be influenced by her peers or society in a background sort of way, of course, but it is she herself who is making the decision 

LBird wrote:

…I’m not sure why you consider ‘society wide central planning’ to be a ‘crackpot idea’. Clearly, some decisions at least will require ‘society wide central planning’ because of the nature of our world society. As long as any ‘central planning’ is under the democratic control of all of us on this planet, then it sounds to me to be entirely sensible.

 From this it is clear to me  that you don't really understand what "society wide central planning" means. I don't know quite what you have in mind but society wide planning in its classic sense means one single giant apriori plan that seeks to plan the total pattern of production by setting out in advance the production targets of millions of interdependent inputs and outputs that a comprise any kind of  modern production system.  Its not just about "some decisions" requiring society wide  central planning; it is about ALL decisions about what needs to be produced being integrated into a single worldwide plan. If  it were only about SOME decisions then by definition that would not be society wide.I think the expression you are searching for is  "centralised planning" or maybe even "global planning".  Yes, of course there will be a need for some global planning bodies – for example in respect of the coordination of global air traffic or maritime traffic of emergency relief and aid.  But none of  this is remotely "society wide" in the sense of what is meant by society wide planning; each such body would be concerned with only a tiny sliver of the activity that goes on in the larger society, not the totality of such activity 

LBird wrote:

You might now say, ‘Ahh, I see, no money, democratic controls, the same freedoms for all to select from shelves… why didn’t you say so?’, and we’d be in agreement.But, given that fact that we’re on a Communist site, why the emphasis on ‘empirical individuals’ and the insinuation that ‘society planning’ is tantamount to a ‘crackpot idea’?To me, ‘empirical individuals’ smacks of ‘greedy graspers’ who will satisfy their own desires, outside of any social considerations. And calling ‘social planning’ a ‘crackpot idea’ sounds like propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute! We will be social individuals, who will recognise the need for prior theoretical consideration ahead of our ‘selecting from a shelf’.

I don't quite see how talking of "empirical individuals" smacks of "greedy graspers". You me and everyone else frequenting this site are empirical individuals. Are we all greedy graspers?  Nor do I see any contradiction between the fact that we are empirical individuals and the fact that we are socially constituted.  To say that there are no such thing as an empirical individual strikes me as being about as daft as Mrs Thatcher saying  that there is no such thing as society.  Without individuals there is no society and without society there are no individuals  

LBird wrote:

From the content of the rest of your post, I’m know you don’t mean this, robbo, but I often get the strange feeling from some comrades that they regard ‘socialism’ as the realisation of the bourgeois wet dream of everyone becoming like ‘a billionaire going shopping’, and no-one being able to say ‘No’ to them about any item that takes their fancy. I definitely got this impression from some contributors on LibCom.

Well I don't really get that impression that all.  On the contrary, the usual argument employed is that given an abundance of goods individuals  will have no inclination to take more than they need: greed is by-product of contrived scarcity. Additionally, under free access communism there is nothing to be gained in terms of the conspicuous consumption and display of wealth by way of status. On the contrary, status acquisition, if anything, will turn on what you put into society rather than what you take out of it 

LBird wrote:

It's a subject worth discussing, I think, especially with regard to Parecon and the others in that tradition, of some sort of 'market socialism' which stresses 'individual consumer choices' which take place at the end of a unconscious process, as opposed to 'collective production decisions' which take place at the start of a conscious process.

I think what will be "unconscious" or spontaneous, if you like, is the way in which the numerous plans in a communist society will mutually adjust to each other.   Your conscious decision to take several cans of baked beans off the shelf  will automatically  trigger a signal to the production unit producing baked beans to produce more baked beans.  Point is that that production unit does not know at the time about your decision or the decisions of millions of other "consumers"  or indeed other production units connected to it along the supply chain.  To a degree, production in any large scale complex modern society unavoidably entails a large degree of anonymity – or to paraphrase your expression "unconsciousness".  In that respect and only in that respect the AnCaps have a point.   I don't see how you can get around that but this does not in any way necessitate some kind of market or quasi-market  as Pareconists and others mistakenly think. Actually,  it is the market that apes a self regulating spontaneous process that is essential to modern society – not the other way roundThe Left, it seems to me, is very fond of a kind of totalistic and totalising notion of "consciousness" (as in "conscious planning") as though it were , or would like to be,  privy to a sort of "gods eye view" of what goes on society.  You cannot really  be conscious of what I'm thinking – though I can attempt to communicate my thoughts to you which will be at best a partial attempt – anymore than I  can be conscious of what your are thinking  –  your needs, your desires and your hopes.  Similarly one community really cannot know the needs of another in a communist society and the further apart they are spatially, the less likely are they to know. When you throw into the equation the dynamic factor- the fact that needs change over time – then the matter becomes more complicated than ever.Instead of focusing on "consciousness" per se in some totalistic fashion, we should be looking at the processes that link different consciousnesses  if I can put it like that,  in a manner that allows for their spontaneous and mutual adjustment to the benefit of all

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism, as would 'a single hunter-gatherer heading off alone to hunt a dangerous prey' would be to a tribal group of hunters. Just as 'hunting' was a social activity, with far more cultural significance than just 'filling one man's belly', which required co-ordination and co-operation, and respect for the hunted animal, so 'bourgeois consumption' will appear unfeasably individualist, selfish and archaic to our a future society.

 Im not quite sure what you have in mind here. In practical terms, how would a can of baked beans, say, find its way off the shelf of a distribution centre and into the stomach of the empirical individual in a socialist  society without that involving an actual decision by that individual to select such an item off the shelf, as opposed to some other item? You surely cannot be  suggesting that everything that individuals qua individuals consume  will be decided "socially"? If so, that seems to me to be venturing perilously close to the crackpot idea of "society wide central planning" in which the entire pattern of inputs and outputs are configured apriori within some stupendously vast Leontief-type matrix.  Necessarily , that would indeed entail the rigid allocation of consumer goods to individuals – absolutist rationing down to the tiniest detail  –  by some central planning authority, representing "society". I agree that consumption is "social" in a sense, and subject to social influences, but you have to distinguish between that and the actual decisionmaking process bearing on the distribution and supply of consumer goods in a socialist society. For the most part,  I would argue, the agents of such decisionmaking  will be empirical individuals making consumer  decisions that reflect their own preferences – even if their "own preferences" reflect, or are conditioned by, the wider social environment.  The emerging  pattern of demand will be monitored and automatically acted upon via a self regulating system of stock control  which will guide the producers – who, as you say, are also consumers – as to what needs to be produced.  Of course , there is also a class of final goods – public goods – which are not individual, or destined for consumption by individuals, but social or community-based.  It is with respect to the latter that we can indeed anticipate a high degee of democratic involvement. But it would be utterly ridiculous to posit the need for a democractic decision to be made to determine with you or I should be permitted to consume a can of baked beans!

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty.  I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.

 Didnt get the email unfortunately. If you give me your addy, Ill send the stuff over . Cheers R

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty.  I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.

 Thanks Adam.  Its only a rough draft but it would be very helpful to have your thoughts on the matter so I can tighten up the argument here and there.  Much appreciated,  Robin

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now  Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book.  Most of it has been written  but at the moment I am going through  the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 –  "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled  "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls".  This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century  about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which  I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank,  dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book.   I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular,  the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews.  I think all this has given me a reasonably clear  picture about what Picketty's book is about.  However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea  to ask people here who have read the book or  know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy.  In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary.  You do kind of lose your bearings,  I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers,  Robin

 No takers, then? 

[robbo203]

Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now  Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book.  Most of it has been written  but at the moment I am going through  the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 –  "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled  "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls".  This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century  about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which  I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank,  dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book.   I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular,  the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews.  I think all this has given me a reasonably clear  picture about what Picketty's book is about.  However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea  to ask people here who have read the book or  know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy.  In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary.  You do kind of lose your bearings,  I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers,  Robin

[robbo203]

The thing is, Brian, if you fail to think big you will fail to get anywhere and you will have failed to capitalise on the achevements of this  first real  attempt to think big in the shape of these recent euroelections.  Much of what you have achieved will be lost by reverting to thinking small and cautiously. I say this as a sympathetic outsider and, of course, you are liberty to disregard completely what I say but it seems to me that taking a "gentle trot" rather than engaging in a full throttle  gallop does not exactly project a sense of urgency about achieving socialism and so does not exactly ooze much in the wqay of  confidence and self belief.  One might understand the need to take a gentle trot if you lacked the necessary resources to commit yourself to a gallop but in this instance, this is not the case. Im not too sure what Rule 27 is but I suppose it requires that individuals contesting elections in the name of the SPGB have to pass the speakers test.  If that is the case why be hidebound by a pettifogging rule of this nature – scrap it or least make it something non-obligatory and purely advisory.  No doubt there are good reasons for ensuring members standing as SPGB candidates should pass the speakers test and, in an ideal world,  every candidate would have passed the speakers test but we dont live in an ideal world and it seems absurd to bureaucratically restrict your options in this way. If you are not going to splash out in a big way particularly when you have more than ample financiual resources to do that  then you might as well not contest any elections at all.  There is little, if any, point in contesting just one or two seats.  Its  just a waste of time andf effort and the consequence will inevitably be disheartening There are big benefits that come with thinking big.  Firstly, here I might be talking out of turn as I am not intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of parliamentary elections – so correct me if I am wrong – but is it not the case that if you contest a seat your electoral literature is distributed free to every houswehold in the constituency in question. Thats being so the post office will be foing the work that members themselves would have to do so freeing up the the latter to focus on other things.  While ideally there should be an active nucleaus of members in each constituency, even without any members actually resident in a constituency at all you are still casting a huge net over an entire area which is very likely to catch  at least a few fish if you follow my drift Secondly you need  to contest a mimunum of  50 seats – do you not? – in order to be entitled to make a party election broadcast,  Such a broadcast will give you direct access to many more people who do not happen to live in within the 50 constituencies you contest.  Thats is an additional bonus to think of.   Not only that , it makes for a reinforcing effect which is extremely importan if you want to get noticed . Effective campaigning requires joined-up thinking on every front And thirdly, as we have seen with euroelections, going out of your way to make a big splash gets you noticed in the media and gets people talking about you. – and indeed to you.  That further reinforces your own efforts to get yourself noticed.. It seems to me that ther SPGB now has a unqiue oppruntiy to make a breakthorugh of some sort in terms of its impact in promoting a genuine socialist alternative,, It would be a great pity to squander such an opportunity. Now should be the time when you guys should be actvely thinking about this and planning for it by removing any  and all pettifogging obstacles  that get in the way and by carefully selecting which of the 50 or so seats you might wish to context.  Dont be so conservative and cautious.  Be bold and daring  and you never know –  this  might just be the break your are looking for

[Author]

Posts