From the anti-G-20 demo
An idea that may be catching on .
Imagine that all the things you need are owned and held in common. There is no need to buy food from anyone--it is common property. There are no rent or mortgages to pay because land and buildings belong to all of us. There is no need to buy anything from any other person because society has done away with the absurd division between the owning minority (the capitalists) and the non-owning majority (the workers). As long as money exists , financial and commercial values will prevail , not human values . So, we're talking about a moneyless society in which, instead, people would contribute according to their abilities and take, freely as their right, from the common store what they need to live and enjoy life.
Money is simply a device to separate the workers from what they produce. The workers must aim to abolish it.
See Smash Cash article
31 comments:
from www.chsplab.com - a socialist website
In first grade, on the first day of each month, students were asked to share a word that began with the same letter as the month (e.g. A : April). My word for April was Antidisestablishmentarianism. Oh believe me, I won hands down (later in life I learned it was not a real competition - but I still won). And I actually knew the meaning of the word, unlike "scaremonger" which I still haven't sorted out. Whether for it or against it, all this mentariansim has to do with churches and governments and whether they are for them or against them (either side, either way).
Well, it's April again and those for or against govenments being for or against something is in the air again. America's bright leader, O'Bamerly, has taken to the streets of the United States of Europe to apologize for America. His Husseinness is greeted with chants and riots and demonstrations with a decided economic tone. One sign reads "Death to Capitalism". It turns out, America's problem is that we are a nation of Capitalists - we like to capitalize everything, especially the first letter of words and that makes the french very angry. As a nation we have held and operated on odd economic theories such as "invent a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door". It worked for a couple hundred years, but apparently, the joke is over and we must all forsake the trap and learn to live with the rats.
The funniest theme in Europe's greeting of The-Man-Formerly-Known-As-Barry is "Abolish Money". I have wondered if those sincere protesters wanted to be paid in beets. Maybe so, I'm not a socialist so I don't know what passes for value in decaying Europe. Turns out, nothing passes for value. No seriously, "NOTHING" is the only thing that has value. Read this quick post. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36028082&postID=8625301526185457314
No possessions, no property, no heaven above us, no hell below. Oooo, just Imagine. That blog posting references another, more thoughtful monologue on socialism (entitled "SMASH CASH") which is worth the read - it's from 1968, so you know it's good for you.
Now, you ready for the big news? I'm a socialist with a capital... oops, socialism means neither capital nor capitols. I'm a lower-case socialist. In fact, I think socialism is the lowest case of life on earth. It only works when survival is most dire. In the Smash Cash article, the author admits that only 10% of the workforce may actually work, but that's okay, because there'll be so much produced by the 10% that the other 90% can sit and "watch the telly all day". There's a Utopia. 90% sucking the life out of the 10% who are stupid enough to get up and work. Here's the question, where do I apply to be in the 90%, because I sure don't want to waste my time working?
Yes, socialism works great when all in the system are "incentivized" (an archaic word from the ancient capitalist country Capitalia whose capitol is Capitalus) to work. Focus now, when SHTF, when I grab my B.O.B. and G.O.O.D. heading straight for El Rancho Plan B, I will be living the socialist dream. I will not use cash for anything and I will be free to consume anything I need from the communal pantry. And if I feel like watching telly instead of... oh, uh oh, gear shift, if I don't work, who's going to fill the pantry? Oh, yes, of course, my wife will. And if it's just the two of us, she'll represent 50% of the poulation doing the work so we'll have 5x more than those poor European schlubs who are watching telly. This is a plan as near perfection as Imaginable.
It doesn't matter what governments establish or disestablish. If it doesn't work, it is not the government who will suffer, it is the people - as always. Point to one country where government-established socialism has worked? (sound of crickets chirping) But, if you are willing, you can come to the Plan B compound, and get anything out of the pantry you want... so long as you also put something in. In Plan B world, there is no telly, no cash, and there is no free lunch. Welcome.
oops, darn capitalist keyboard, I meant www.chsplanb.com - sorry Europe
"Point to one country where government-established socialism has worked?"
Clark,
maybe you could point to a post on this blog or even cite an article in the pages of the Socialist Standard where we've argued that a government - past or present - has established socialism?
Whilst you're on your search I'll file your comment under "Emptiest pot . . .".
Cheers
Yes, perfect response. I totally agree that socialists do not believe that socialism has ever been established. And that's an important point. Since socialism is -by definition- a utopian concept, then failure is necessarily a symptom of something other than socialism (since socialism per se can't fail). As I said in my blog, words are fun things to use to label reality, but they don't define reality.
And thank you for the "Emptiest Pot" award. I guess that puts me in the telly-watching 90% of empty-potters who'll be dipping sop from the pot of the 10%. I hope it's a big pot, I feel hungry today.
Can we be friends?
Clark H Smith
Kansas USA
www.chsplanb.com
10% that the other 90% can sit and "watch the telly all day". There's a Utopia. 90% sucking the life out of the 10% who are stupid enough to get up and work.?
Clarke , its a shame you never read the later post on the blog http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/04/health-of-wage-slaves.html
It touched on your concerns about work . We also addressed work on this blog here , too
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/03/socialism-and-work.html
You must have over-looked them in your haste to be humourous
I think Clark makes a great point that currently ~10% of the work force actually do the productive work while the other 90% basically is made up of armies of bureacrats, financiers, investors/owners, a 'telly watchers'--i.e., the 90% don't do much except live off the fat of the land, while the wage slaves get their collective lives ruined.
Being of a socialistic mindset in the early 90's, I voluntarily 'joined' the working class, became a union carpenter, 'scorned upward mobility'--the whole 9 yards. To this day(4/4/'09), I can't say as I've met ANYONE in my general environment who shares my mentality in this regard, except for the various socialists groups that seem to be comprised primarily of well meaning/idealistic intellectuals--i.e., they don't want to do the heavy lifting(work) in the material world either, just talk/dream/hypothesize/write papers about it.
Believe me, the material nature of the industrial world we live in is extremely complex and involves a great deal of WORK. So, I dunno how it's going to hash out in the anarchist/socialist society; I, for one am all for it, but at the same time, it looks like an extremely fringe movement--especially in the USA--and quite frankly, I'm tired of working my ass off while everyone else around me pursues the capitalistic 'American Dream', often while giving lip service to 'liberalism'.
I guess what I'm asking, sort of in conjuntion w Clark is: do all you intellectuals and upper class people really want to WORK' in a socialist society, or just keep pining for it indefinitely?
ajohnstone: it's fairly clear, the name is "Clark: - show a socialist some respect (love Edinburgh, though). P.S. In what sense was I being humourous?
Robert: I think we're worlds apart philosophically, but I do appreciate the tone of your response. And I think you are onto something. If you look at the GDP of a country, clearly as much as 50% of it is waste, excess, and redundancy. Yes, humans can outproduce their consumption (hence David Ramsay Steele's formula 10% workers to 90% telly watchers). The fact that Darren (above) asserted that there never has been government that has imposed socialism is evidence of the fact that there are dreamers (as in Lennon, not Lenin) who always have an "out clause" if the programme fails - it just wasn't done right. All this gets to the real problem. The problem with socialism is not the ratio of workers to telly-watchers. The problem is that there are tell-watchers in the first place. We are not perfect people. We seek personal advantage, not collective advantage. Capitalism works because it puts a check on the worst in human nature. Socialism fails because it requires humanity with no flaw, only good collectivist intent. No such thing.
Clark H Smith
Kansas USA
www.chsplanb.com
Clark,
yea, it looks like you are right, we see things differently, I disagree with about all your assertions...oh well, lol.
Thank god that capitalism is 'working' though, I'd hate to be around when it wasn't 'working'.
Socialism isn't based upon altruism. Socialism will work even if everyone suddenly decides that they dislike everyone else. Supporting socialism involves recognizing the fact that the current system just doesn't work for most people. Socialism will be a society in which satisfying an individual's self interest is the result of satisfying everyone's needs. It is enlightened self-interest that will work for the majority.
I'm all for it--the socialist world order--but want to know what specifically is being done by the socialist 'party' to bring about the desired ends, other than having a website and passing out fliers and such?
Oh Robert . i think you are touching on the Holy Grail of Socialism - how to influence the working class
We do what we can do .Produce a monthly magazine. Hold meetings to discuss and debate our objective.
The SPGB is like no other political party in Britain. It is made up of people who have joined together because we want to get rid of the profit system and establish real socialism. Our aim is to persuade others to become socialist and act for themselves, organizing democratically and without leaders, to bring about the kind of society that we advocate. We reject the idea that people can be led into socialism. Socialism will not be established by good leaders but by thinking men, women and children. There can be no socialism without socialists.
The main purpose of the SPGB at the moment is to (a) argue for socialism, and (b) put up candidates to measure how many socialist voters there are.
It is NOT the SPGB's task to lead the workers in struggle or to instruct its members on what to do in trade unions, tenants' associations or whatever , because we believe that class conscious workers and socialists are quite capable of making decisions for themselves. The SPGB doesn't go around creating myths of false hopes and false dawns at every walk-out or laying down of tools but will remind workers of the reality of the class struggle and its constraints within capitalism and as a party unfortunately suffers the negative consequence of this political honesty .
Workers don’t just wake up one morning and think to themselves - "Ah that’s it! Eureka! Socialism is the answer!" This is the mechanistic theory that a socialist consciousness can somehow materialise by circumventing the realm of ideology. We come to a socialist view of the world by interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them. And that is perhaps the role of the revolutionary group - as a catalyst in the process of changing consciousness.
Socialist consciousness on a wide scale is not going to emerge from mere abstract propagandizing or proselytizing . All we are doing in the SPGB , essentially, is trying to help the emergence of majority socialist consciousness, but even if the sort of activities we engage in can't be the main thing that will bring this consciousness about , it is still nevertheless essential. People can, and do, come to socialist conclusions without us, but they can come to this more quickly if they hear it from an organised group dedicated exclusively to putting over the case for socialism. We can't force or brainwash people into wanting to be free , they can only learn this from their own experience .We see majority socialist consciousness emerging from people's experiences of capitalism coupled with them hearing the case for socialism (not necessarily from us, though it would seem that we are the only group that takes doing this seriously).Socialist consciousness emerges through discussion and analysis. Our main task is to find better ways of expressing our message to as many workers as possible, to evolve a strategy so that we use our resources to most effect.
Robert , what do you suggest we do that has not been done before and found to be wanting .
ajohnstone,
Hmm, I'll have to think about it some and get back to you. I've been trying to make contact with the party reps here in NY and Boston, but have yet to here back from them--as to how I can become involved.
I can say that in my trade union, in this region of western MA, there isn't really a socialist mentality to speak of. The union offers guys/gals a chance at a higher paying job with full benefits, and collective bargaining representation, but that is about it. There really isn't much, if any, consciousness/informed discussion about capitalism and socialism and the history behind it all.
I imagine the socialist movement has more inroads in Europe than the USA as the capitalist propaganda is fierce and threatening here and any mention of socialism or communism is strongly suppressed. However, the recent economic upheaval has seen the term 'socialism' thrown around in the media, the likes of which I have never seen in this country(I'm 49); this is due to the primarily underground 'liberal'/socialist movement that has been surfacing somewhat in recent years mainly through some 'left wing' talk radio stations.
The masses are very disgruntled now so the time is ripe for getting the true socialist message out there for at least broader consideration, although it will still appear rather extreme to the average American.
Anyway, I'll see if I can think of anything that might help...
Well, Robert, I don't want to get on your bad side, but I challenge this quote: "I imagine the socialist movement has more inroads in Europe than the USA as the capitalist propaganda is fierce and threatening here and any mention of socialism or communism is strongly suppressed."
That is as clearly propagandist and as false as anything you could possibly accuse the capitalists of. Do you not remember the Newsweek COVER STORY on Feb 7, 2009: "WE'RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW"? (Or were you simply hoping your comrades in Europe had not heard of it?)
In what sense was that blaring voice suppressed? Friggin NEWSWEEK magazine with a distribution to millions world-wide (which is not to claim that anyone actually reads it)!!!
Suppression?? This illustrates the whole galaxy of the socialist problem. It is only true in your minds. In the three-dimensional world where the rest of us live, there is truth. And no matter how much you whine (oh, dear Robert, I am so sorry to be so harsh) about "fierce and threatening Capitalist suppression" - it is just simply not true. No more true than the prospect of socialism being an effective economic strategy.
There is no corner so dark as it cannot be illuminated with truth. Did you just see the light?
Clark,
You must have skipped the following part of that same paragraph of mine that you quoted where I note that of late, during the current economic crisis(i.e., capitalism functioning normally) that rivals that of the 1930s and now mirrors it by the infusion of Bush and Obama 'bailouts/stimuluses'(state capitalism, just like Roosevelt)..ahem...THAT, I said the term 'socialism' is now being tossed about in the media like never before in my lifetime: and that is the truth.
Maybe in the 60s the term was out there some too, but not the idea that--to paraphrase-- 'America is now becoming a socialist nation', etc.
But, I tell you what, why dont you raise a replica of the former Soviet flag in your front yard, get some communist t-shirt to wear about, maybe a Chinese Red Army replica cap, declare yourself a communist on your FaceBook profile--you get my drift?--and see how well that goes down on 'Main St. USA'; and also see how fast you get on the FBI's radar. (BTW, all these products are available thru various online merchants of 'commie gear', lol).
Try it out, like a fun experiment, and get back to me...
I really do like you Robert. Even in print, it seems we can pick up something of someone's personality. You sound like a very nice and thoughtful person.
I like your jest / test to see what kind of response I would get if I made a personal communist fashion statement. I live in Overland Park KS (a large suburb of Kansas City MO). I think we're about as Main Street as you can find. I see communist / socialist / anarchist attire everywhere. It is quite in vogue. I'm a button-down, kiltie-tassel kind of guy, but I don't get many cues that such attire is still underground.
But would you give me a free education? The first person to respond to my original post yesterday was the Brit, Darren. He chastized me sorely, calling me and "empty pot" and demanding that I prove where any "government - past or present - has established socialism". Well, I turned tail and ran as the gutless weasel that I am (apologies to all ferretists). Then in your last response to me you suggest I test out how welcome "socialism" by hoisting a Soviet flag or wearing a Chinese Red Army cap. Are you suggesting that the Soviets or Chinese had anything to do with socialism?? ?? Darren seemed so emphatic that never has this blog nor the Socialist Standard ever "argued that a government - past or present - has established socialism".
A Confused Capitalist
Clark H Smith
www.chsplanb.com
the word verification for this comment is "a sham" hmmm
Clark,
Hey, I'm originally from Omaha, so I know KC pretty well, had an uncle in Overland Park some years ago. I also dated a twice world champion Scottish Highland dancer back in the late 70s who was from KC. I like that city.
Anyway, I've developed my socialistic world view over about 20 years, i.e., it's not something that happens overnight, however, to me it is not propaganda, or beliefs, persay, it's more just observable/empirical information--a science, as they say.
It's true that there has never been a truly socialistic society in the world mainly because true socialism would involve the whole world just as capitalism has occupied the whole world for many centuries now.
What has been called socialism/communism was/is state capitalism--with a dose of tyranny(in some countries) mixed in--like has been going on in the USA primarily since Roosevelt, I guess, and now Obama is just infusing another strong dose of it to try and 'save' the economy.
There are so many angles to look at, I would mainly suggest going to the website(if you haven't already), 'wspus.org', and making a concerted effort to read everything there, let it sink in, and then draw your own conclusions.
Also, check out the 'Keracher Archives'(can Google that) and read the one about economics and also the one about religion.
Do some of that and I'd be happy to chat with you more about it in the near future. Note, I am no expert, the members of the wsp know way more than me, but I'd be happy to talk about what I do know.
See, I was right, you are a good guy! (Some of the best people I've ever met are from Nebraska.) Let's take our dialogue off-line and leave the blog for bloggers.
I just printed John Keracher's Economics for Beginners and How the Gods were Made. I'll read them and you can help me understand how they inform the socialist perspective.
You can email me at [myinitials]@clarkhsmith.com
Clark H Smith
www.chsplanb.com
Robert, I've read How the Gods Were Made and would like to talk to you. Email me at the address referenced above.
To Robert in particular:
In How The Gods Were Made, Keracher’s (and so too Marx’) thesis: Workers have traditionally been anesthetized (opiated) by religion to the extent that they cannot see the class inequities that burden them. The socialist plea is for workers to awaken to these inequities and seize the profit of their own production. Individualism is a problem in that it desires self-preservation / self-advancement in opposition to the preservation / advancement of the collective. It is only enlighted self-interest that puts the needs of the collective above the interest of self.
In Economics for Beginners, Keracher’s (and so too Marx’) two greatest (proven) errors are 1) there is a gross underestimation of the cost of production (Keracher’s strained and laughable word problem of the making of a piece of furniture omits so many ineluctable costs it is apparent he was reared in a land in which furniture was not a real thing and thus something of which he cannot conceive.), 2) the contradiction between self-interest and "enlighted" self-interest are irresolvable.
Furthermore, there has neither been a society in which classism did not exist nor has there been an instance of attempted socialism in which any semblance of the theory became operational. Insofar as Keracher (in Gods) has demanded that nothing can exist which does not already exist, the concept of a classless society is pure superstition and worthy of no greater worship than an invented god. “State socialism” is on it’s face a contradiction. If it is not the workers of the world who unite, but their governors who unite to impose socialism upon them (as we have underway in the United States of America in 2009), then it is only more hegemony which contradicts socialism at its core.
A final contradiction within the socialist “movement”. If history is inevitably riding the dialectic wave toward a classless society, then all efforts either to change or to accelerate the course of events would be senseless. Let us remember that no agent causes selection in a natural species, it is the near and apparent need to adapt that leads the organization itself from one state to the inexorable next state. Let the workers of the world unite when nature "enlightens" them to he point that unification is as natural as drawing breath. Let us not, by fiat or firearm, impose evolution on anything or anyone. It would offend the laws of science by which we are bound. To do so would be a false socialism, in which case I would demand my money back.
Clark H Smith
www.chsplanb.com
Clark,
I tried sending you an email, but dont know if you got it since I wasnt exactly clear on your address.
Uh, there's alot to your post. One thing I would say is that classism is not inborn but acquired.
Anyway, could reply more, but let me know if you got the email.
Also, I'm curious as to why you are even interested in socialism in the 1st place?
My email: zerobertinho1@gmail.com
Reply to 'ajohnstone':
Well, it's been a few days and I can't say as I've had the time to come up with any brilliant ideas re: "what to do"...etc.
I've been reading some of the articles from 1969 in the 'Labor' section of the 'wspus.org.' site and can say--as a member of a trade union--that the analysis of unionism is spot on and from my experience has not changed over 40 years time.
Plus, the economic situation today seems to parallel what was going on back then very closely.
One author concluded: "...then the solution lies in the workers through their political action taking over these means of producing wealth and converting them into instruments for the needs of the whole population, not for the profits of a minority, capitalist class.
We often wonder how many more “adjustments,” how many more “crises” the workers will have to experience, and how many more times the unions are going to offer half-baked, within - the - system remedies before the workers see the need of a basic change in the ownership and control of the means of life."
In other words, this shit has been going on for decades...
The main thing that comes to mind for me--and it's not earth shattering at all--is that in the USA there, for all practical purposes, there is no awareness of the WSP and what it stands for. So, somehow, a broad 'outreach program' has to happen to at least get the word out, get out the basic message, as to what socialism and the WSP actually is.
Education/information in it's most clearly stated forms is about the only place I can think of to start. Everyone here is a conditioned capitalist since the day they were born into this country so a mass introduction to the population of real socialism will be no small undertaking.
But it has to happen as far as I can tell. Hard times leave the window of opportunity open slightly more for maybe people to listen a bit.
I fully support a global socialist society. We should indeed abolish money, and leave behind this system of slave and master. Let us become equals, once and for all!!!
"Imagine that all the things you need are owned and held in common. There is no need to buy food from anyone--it is common property. There are no rent or mortgages to pay because land and buildings belong to all of us."
How, exactly, is this supposed to work? Some questions: can I take all I want of the common property, the common food? Must I produce in order to consume? If not, who produces the common food, maintains the common property?
Most importantly (and I know this may seem a silly question to most on this site) but why should I ever produce or maintain anything ever? In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Can't someone else do it?" I'd really like an honest answer to this question. And, any answer describing "incentive" as an outdated or illusory concept will be summarily ignored as hogwash.
I reckon I paid too much attention in history, economics and civics, because this idea seems, well, silly.
I've just read another post that is a would be answer to my "incentive" question. As follows:
"Work should not equated with employment. Work and employment are not the same. Work will be an essential part of life in socialism; it will be a part of the individual's development and a necessary, healthy expenditure of energy. In a socialist society, the distinction between work and leisure will diminish—perhaps even disappear.
Employment is wage labour (the ability to work is a commodity the workers are forced to sell ). To be employed is to work for someone else: to be at their beck and call; to be given money by them in return for producing values for them. Capitalists will only employ workers if there is a prospect of them making a profit out of us. They make their profit by receiving from us more value than the value of our wages or salaries. Without this surplus value they would not employ us .Employment is a form of institutionalised exploitation - or legalised robbery.
Most of us want to work. What we hate is employment. We want to work for ourselves, our families and friends, our community, not some thieving parasite."
Again, what is this supposed to mean? I find no deep truth or actual theory here. Rather, and not to be rude, I find nothing more than an excuse for a lazy, sissy's existence.
There is a fundamental question here which, I gather, cannot be answered. How, for the love of Pete, is this all supposed to actually work? Where is the incentive to produce for the common good, rather than enjoy leisurly puruits (or, as the socialist here says, "work").
Sincerely, I appreciate the historical perspective of the educated marxist, but I'd like an explanation in practical terms. Quoting Marx alone will not satisfy me.
Mason, you nailed it. The logical and practical limitations inherent in Marxism are inescapable. The only way for Marxism to "work" is for there to be some sort of magic bullet. And that's just what Marx invented when he speaks of "enlightened self-interest" ESI). ESI is what makes a good comrade get up in the morning and labor for the social good. If you have someone who suffers from low ESI, they just need to have their enlightenment fortified (by virtue of labor camps or other state punishment, I mean incentive).
Somewhere in this comment string a guy suggested reading some of Keracher's writing. They are easily found. I think my comments above address Keracher's horrific logical errors.
The problem with Marxists (as if there were only one!) is that they believe Marxism just hasn't been properly executed yet. As you listen to America's pop icon, B. Obama, you hear very clearly the compelling rhetoric of someone who believes HE is able to effectively deliver Marxism to the masses. As you survey the debris field of Obama's first 150 days in office, you will not see a SINGLE initiative that is not completely in accord with classical Marxism.
Best wishes to you as you seek to discover and advance truth.
Clark H Smith
www.chsplanb.com - a socialist website
I think this 'magic bullet' that you guys are looking for is what we call technology (specifically automation and robotics).
Check it out - http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year=2007&rant=abolish_money May Have to Search Site for Article Abolish Money as Page Doesn't Always Show Up As Link Also See Abolition of Work by Bob Black on Net
Post a Comment