Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the simplest way to get "Value" across is to say that at any given time there is only so much human effort available to get things done. That leads to the Robinson Crusoe example (OK, technically at this point it's only labour, not Value, but it is the necessary precursor to explaining that the amount of labour in a given product is the only universal comparable characteristic on which to base exchange judgements).TBH, it's normally the audience who make it over complicated by starting to split hairs, or introducing complex concepts that have been universally assimilated (things like barter lead to money and that sort of thing).
ISTR Hardy on one tape discussing the decline of rate of profits as a very long run thing, there are plenty of causes (among those listed by Marx) which off-set it (that many of them are political, such as colonialism and taxation) suggests that a capitalist 'heat death' is only a sort of imaginary model, not a realistic possibility. of course, the political nature of the off-sets indicate how important it is as a trend, not an accomplished fact.There is still scope for non-capitalist accumulation (primary accumulation, or what I believe Harvey calls Accumulation by expropriation). Taxation and rent slow the decline down too (and I believe that is why, many years ago, IIRC, I explored rent seeking behaviour of capitalists in a standard article, also in my stuff about robots).
DJP,The time I did a talk about this I managed to link it back to Ancient Rome and the Silk Road (Silk Road leads to merchants, merchants Lead to Bankers, Bankers lead to Edward I's war debts, War debts lead to clearing land for wool production, Clearing Land for wool production leads to landless workers, Landless workers lead to proletarians, etc).Rome never hit capitalism because of slavery and because there was no outlet for investing capital, any surplus was spectacularly consumed by the ruling elite (bread and circuses).Obviously, any full acocount needs to take on the dissolution of the monasteries, which was as political as it was economic.
Admice,in terms of wage labour, the first proto capitalists will have been the guild masters who would take on apprentices to work for them. There were also the merchants, going back centuries (some of these ancient guilds still survive in London (link)). Eventually they threw off the shackles limiting the numbers of journeyumen and apprentices they could have.The modern factory system is credited to Richard Arkwright – the creation of the cotton industry was a combination of the likes of him and the merchants.That's a very short answer. Hope that leads you in roiughly the right direction.
To return to the original question. ISTM that the whole point is that the wage relationship is entirely moral. The two participants confront one another as equals, one as the owner of commodity money, the other of commodity labour power. They meet, arrange the contract and exchange goods at as near to the fair and correct price(/ratio) as they can. It is not the fault of the owner of commodity money that the owner of commodity labour power has no other access to the means of living, and from their perspective, it is no different to buying and using a spanner or a screwdriver to perform some work. No one says that a spanner has a right to the value of the goods it produces, do they?That this involves an inequality of real power relations, alienation and objectification of human ability to work is not a moral but, to my mind an existential and aesthetic matter. The worker strives to be more than an object (and feels themself to be so). That is the heart of class struggle.
I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great. Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.Likewise, in this week's Private Eye, a more comparable case, is Newcastle councillor's who criticised Wonga, when it turns out that Newcastle Pension scheme invests in them (and even there the council itself is not directly responsible).Unfortunately I forgot to post my ballot paper back.
Well, according to this report:http://leftunityleamingtonspa.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/a-report-on-founding-conference/The following is in their aims section:
Dinner Unity wrote:to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which operates on the principle that each will contribute to society according to their ability to do so, and society will in return meet their needs.Well, that's that.
I think one common description of a sect, drawn from Charlie's writings, is a group that emphasises differences over similarities.
OED wrote:A school of opinion in politics, science, or the like; also, more or less jestingly, applied to a group of persons who attach importance to some peculiar crotchet about matters of social custom or the like.or
OED wrote:b. †(a) A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided; sometimes spec. a system differing from what is deemed the orthodox tradition; a heresy. Obs. (b) A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical, or at least as deviating from the general tradition.Not necesarilly authoitative, but it matches similar check-lists I've seen over the years.http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html
Cult Check-List wrote:"Comparing the following statements to the group with which you or a family member or loved one is involved may help you determine if this involvement is cause for concern. If you check any of these items as characteristic of the group in question, and particularly if you check many of them you may well be dealing with a cult and should critically examine the group and its relationship to you or your loved one.1) The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. 2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money.3) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged.4) Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used to suppress members' doubts.5) The group's leadership dictates how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, or get married;) leaders may determine types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth.6) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, it's leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).7) The group has a polarized we-they mentality that causes conflict with the wider society.
The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).9) The group teaches or implies that its "superior" ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).10) The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control then11) Members'subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goals and interests while devoting inordinate amounts of time to the groups." 12) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/cultchecklst.htm
Quote:(a) engage in deceptive recruitment practices? (recruiters typically disguise the true nature and aims of the group when seeking converts)(b) tend to target vulnerable individuals, as outlined above?(c) offer unconditional affirmation and support initially, but soon make its continuance contingent on obedience?(d) have a closed social system that makes a special effort to isolate acolytes from family, friends, etc.?(e) use constant bombardment with pro-group and pro-leader messages and exclusion of other messages?(f) have a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy?(g) have a leader and ruling clique that are perceived to possess infallible insight, supernatural powers, etc.? Do they claim to have been chosen by some higher authority to rule, and thus to be excused from the normal social restrictions on one’s behavior?(h) have an eclectic, often muddled and internally contradictory, set of teachings – usually a magic-laden philosophy that claims to have infallible answers to those “big ticket” questions of existence?(i) have a strict behavior code that governs all aspects of how one should think, feel, and act? Are there strong penalties for deviation?(j) instill fear of outsiders (the “bunker mentality”)? Does the group try to convince members they are powerless to act without the group’s support and that the world “out there” is uncaring and hostile?(k) engage in major forms of exploitation (e.g., financial, occupational, or sexual – of self, spouse, or children)?(l) demand immoral, unethical, or illegal activity on the part of its members?Oh, and Bone also links to this interesting Maurice Brinton article:http://libcom.org/library/suicide-for-socialism-jonestown-brintonI'd never heard of the incident described. On a quick skim read, I think this paragraph is relevent:
Brinton wrote:Many sects live in political isolation. This is a further mechanism for ensuring the control of the leaders. The members are not only 'rescued' from their past, they are 'protected' from their own present. Such sects refrain from anything that would bring their members into too close a proximity with the outside world. Recruitment is encouraged, but closely monitored. Members are urged to give up their hobbies and their previous friends. Such external relationship are constantly scrutinised, questioned, frowned upon, deemed suspect. United action with other groups – of a kind that may involve discussion or argument – is avoided, or only allowed to 'trustworthy' leaders.[…]Open, non-authoritarian organisations encourage individuality and differences of opinion. But criticism impairs the pain-killing effect of cults – and the cohesion of sects. When a cult is threatened both Leader and followers may go beserk. The best analogy to this is the withdrawal reaction from a drug on which someone has become hooked. Criticism impairs the efficacy of such drugs. So does any suggestion that the Leader doesn't know, or that perhaps there is no hard and fast answer to certain questions.Ian Bone picks up a good point:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/a-surfeit-of-cults-lambeth-central-by-election-1978/
Bone wrote:If you didn’t fancy the Maoists on Acre Lane you could choose from these six socialist candidates that came bottom of the poll. Cultist Corin Redgrave fought the seat for Gerry Healy but I love the Socialist Unity candidate….followed by five non-unity candidates. Left Unity beware.Slothjabber wrote:1 – it damages the anarchist Bookfair when SPGB members imply there is some hypocrisy or conspiracy in the selection process;Damage the Anarchist bookfair? What a good idea…
I don't recall us ever describing ourselves as the "Parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement", and it wouldn't be true, we're not anarchists. Which will also the the reason we dopn't ask to have a stall in the Anarchist Bookfair (If in the past people have asked, and we've been repeatedly turned down, it might also be reasonable to conclude that it's not worth asking again).I hope we don't, though, issue any clarification.
jpodcaster,And? At least it's the restaurant I want. In my opinion, this is the best course of action, and I need to be able to argue for it clearly, rather than curtailing my comments in the name of unity with people whose objectives are massively at variance with mine. I might be wrong, I might be right. I've no problem with people trying something different (and I reserve the right to voice my opinions on their efforts). I see no viable alternative to my activity now.
Of course, this debate does revolve around our raison d'etre, possiblism/impossiblism. We would not for one second deny the need to fight for our living standards here and now: only that a political party (one aiming to use the offices of state) shouldn't do so. Leftists can use other, more effective avenues than Left Unity: you can join the Labour Representation Committee without joining Labour, You can join Labour. You can join the community section of Unite, so even within the principle of fighting back, it's far from clear that a new small party will really be the most effective way to do it. These are the issues we could have discussed (and have further back in the thread).
