The US election is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. According to the FSP however
voters should consider candidates from three 'pro-worker' parties. They are, as we will see, socialist in name only. The 'Socialist Party' calls for 'the radical transformation of society' yet reformist blinkers limit its vision to nationalisation and other such schemes popular with capitalism's left wing. The Socialist Workers Party is also put forward for consideration, but is criticised for being weak on gay rights. Calling for a minimum wage and job creation is no way to end the wages system. Two members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation are pictured in front of a banner proclaiming 'revolution is the cure'. Indeed, but such will not come as a result of the "party's opportunist and anti-democratic tendencies" or its call to end home foreclosures and police brutality. The Freedom Socialist Party does get something right, it urges workers to vote "to register protest against war, poverty, and the for-profit system". Yes, workers in the US seeking revolutionary change are encouraged to register their protest vote for WORLD SOCIALISM and contact the only genuine socialist party there.
16 comments:
If there were no money, how would we calculate where to allocate resources?
Dear Mister Rothstein,
Many thanks for taking the time to make a comment. The maxim 'from each according to ability to each according to (self-defined) need' springs immediately to mind. One example of an essay addressing the topic of how Socialism can organise production without money is to be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/69bfnd
Yours for a world of free access,
Robert Stafford
Robert,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
At least one question remains unanswered by this essay. Under socialism, how would the best (most efficient and least costly in time and resources) method of production be decided?
Socialists do not provide blueprints, but we have suggested ways in which a world of free access might best operate. Our publication titled 'Socialism as a Practical Alternative' is worth reading in this regard. You should find page 10 of particular interest:
www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf
Robert,
Although I remain unconvinced that there exists anything more capable of fulfilling human needs than the market, I thank you for your useful links -- which I have read fully -- and will continue to research your interesting points of view.
Kind regards,
Mister Rothstein
Several problems that I see:
1. Socialism requires violence, unless everyone voluntarily consented. Otherwise people will exchange freely.
2. For your argument that socialism can organize production without money, I present the question of how. How do the planners know which methods of production are good and how are bad? How do the socialist planners know what types of goods that people want? How can the producers test whether one method of production is better than another? How will they decide who gets the goods produced? Why would people even bother to make a better method of production? And by the way, if people used labor-time as a form of exchange, it becomes money. Also, how do you measure the value of labor time?
3. If two people are going make a voluntary exchange, but a third party prevents it with force, both are harmed. Socialism implies this, unless it comes by voluntary agreement. Therefore, unless voluntary, socialism implies a reduction in the satisfication of people's wants. How do you respond?
purplearcanist said.
"1. Socialism requires violence, unless everyone voluntarily consented. Otherwise people will exchange freely."
Reply:
On the contrary, it is capitalism and competition which leads to violence as from the outset,workers are compelled to work for wages or salaries and intense competition for markets,raw materials and resources lead to inevitable war.
Exchange is not free in those circumstances and hasn't been so for centuries now.
All that is required for socialism to be implemented, is the conscious consent of the majority and democratic control exercised, locally regionally and globally.
(a)You seem unduly concerned with the right to exploit ,often at the point of a gun, but when we suggest another model,outside of Capitalism a genuine revolution, which eliminates suffering on a grand scale through war ,poverty and mass starvation,yet you defend the virtuous market which all the above is concomitant with.
You cry " force","violence" at the operation of the democratic will of the majority in conditions of conscious free choice.
People don't even have,"The Right to Work", in Capitalism or hadn't you noticed this?
purplearcanist said.
"2. For your argument that socialism can organise production without money, I present the question of how. How do the planners know which methods of production are good and how are bad?"
Reply:
There won't be any socialist planners in some central planning model.This is a red herring, we don't suggest anywhere there will be.It is a more simple method , a self regulating system of stock control.We can still use barcode's and scanners to see stuff moving off shelves.The State capitalist models of the former soviet bloc countries are not and never have been models of socialism despite what they called themselves the World socialist Movement companion Parties always described then accurately as State capitalist,even Lenin agreed at eh start,that,"state capitalism would be a step forward for us".They were no more socialist than Bismark's Germany.
purplearcanist said.
" How can the producers test whether one method of production is better than another? "
They dont do so now,do they?,they decide which methods are 'profitable' and which are not.A different criteria from the virtuous model of the market you espouse.Production is choked off in your model, before human needs are satisfied.
Innovative production methods don't arise from the activity of planners but from the real active engagement of the producers,the workforce, in other words.
Presently, all of the labour saving ,efficiency saving methods of production are used to increase the rate of exploitation, whereas in socialism , they will increase freedom at work and leisure activities.
Socialism will continue production of good and services to satisfy human needs.
purplearcanist said.
"How will they decide who gets the goods produced?"
Reply:
They won't do so, people will take according to their own self-determined need,in a free access socialist model.
purplearcanist said.
" Why would people even bother to make a better method of production?"
Reply:
what do you mean by better?Why would they not do so? To increase leisure time,to make more space for other production which they see a need for.See my reply above.I know from my work in engineering how workers can organise production more efficiently to get time off on the job.Employers have not got a clue as to this.When there is no need for weapon production etc.we can utilise these resources for other useful benefits.see the link following for where workers suggested something similar which ,(no surprises here)didn't fly in capitalism.
https://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws88_89/ws29_lucas_plan.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above link concludes,
For the future it showed what enormous potential a society based on socialism could have. Such a society with real workplace democracy and the participation of all in the management of society would allow for the creative capacity of each individual to have its say while the real needs of society are met. But for this to be achieved as the Lucas workers learned, Capitalism and its priorities must be overthrown .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a search for the above subject.
http://tinyurl.com/q4cdvq
----------------------------------
purplearcanist said.
" And by the way, if people used labour-time as a form of exchange, it becomes money."
Reply:
They won't do in a Free Access socialism model.Labour Time Vouchers don't necessarily circulate as money, or a means of exchange, but we won't use them anyway,as they are not required now capitalist production is global and production methods are able to handle Free Access better, than at the end of the 19th Century when they were first proposed.
purplearcanist said.
" Also, how do you measure the value of labour time?"
We don't need to do so.(see above reply)
purplearcanist said.
3. If two people are going make a voluntary exchange, but a third party prevents it with force, both are harmed. Socialism implies this, unless it comes by voluntary agreement. Therefore, unless voluntary, socialism implies a reduction in the satisfaction of people's wants. How do you respond?
Reply:
You have already been answered on this about socialism being a voluntary society.(see (a) above)
But let us look at the last part of that question. A little more, you assert,.."Unless voluntary, socialism implies a reduction in the satisfaction of people's wants. How do you respond"
It is an assertion and doesn't follow on from what you said.
We do make a distinction between wants and needs.Capitalism of necessity , in order to sell much of the rubbish it creates has to make use of advertising often selling the same things in different packages, or with little more than cosmetic modifcation.This wont continue into socailism.We will be able to assess our need s and wants by how the stuff shifts of shelves.We wont be building on obsolescence, or creating false wants through advertising.We wont be driven by the same compulsions, in a non-competitive free access society, where needs are satisfied and the uncertainty of insecure occupations ,home repossession,alienation from our products,from each other,by being denied access, based on ability to pay .
The sort of society where I work at what I want to do, because,it benefits the world I live in rather than enriches me personally,other than a satisfaction in that it allows people to be,e.g.doctors and nurses to treat the sick as 'patients',without recourse to assessment of a 'client/customer's', ability to pay for such treatment.
A world where food clothing shelter , pharmaceuticals are produced for use instead of for sale on a frequently rigged manufactured market to maximise profits.
Only in conditions of Free Access socialism,with common ownership and democratic control exercised locally, regionally globally, can we at last have a world as the poet, Robert "Rabbie" Burns put it,.."That,man to man the world ower shall brithers be, for a' that"
M.C.
Hmmm... the reply came quicker and longer than expected. Thanks for replying.
"
On the contrary, it is capitalism and competition which leads to violence as from the outset,workers are compelled to work for wages or salaries and intense competition for markets,raw materials and resources lead to inevitable war.
Exchange is not free in those circumstances and hasn't been so for centuries now."
Many assertions. And...
1. Compelled to work is not the same as coerced.
2. Voluntary exchange exists. If you deny it, you are caught in an internal contradiction. By posting on this blog, you sought to exchange some of your time and energy for a more satisfactory state. If you had felt that posting on the blog would not improve your state of affairs, you would not have done so.
"All that is required for socialism to be implemented, is the conscious consent of the majority and democratic control exercised, locally regionally and globally."
1. Consent of the majority does not imply consent of everyone.
2. Democratic control implies violence, unless everyone "controlled" voluntarily consents to it, and they can stop control anytime (exceedingly rare). Otherwise, it has to use violence/threat of violence to achieve its ends, otherwise, the people are not being controlled.
3. Therefore, if we assume that what you said is true, socialism requires violence, unless everyone voluntarily concents.
"You cry " force","violence" at the operation of the democratic will of the majority in conditions of conscious free choice. "
Because people are being coerced in a circumstance that is not in response to coercion (most laws, taxation) and they didn't explictly consent to that coercion (voting does not count). Thats why I cry force.
"
There won't be any socialist planners in some central planning model.This is a red herring, we don't suggest anywhere there will be.It is a more simple method , a self regulating system of stock control."
OK. I see one problem presently. Certain production processes take lots of time, due to multiple stages. Lets use food as an example. Lets say that for whatever reason, consumption of food is increasing. The stock of food is decreasing rapidly. It will take a year, at the very least, to increase the production of food.
I see another problem, which you have not addressed. Capital goods. How will farm equipment, for example, get allocated in socialism?
In order to implement your buffer stock system, it requires a planner, at the very least to make sure that people will use this system.
I will talk more later. Bye.
Dear purpleacanist
If the global working class can run/reproduce daily a system of society that employes/uses/exploits them as servants of the owners of the means of production, then we are certain that a classless humanity can create and administer a human relationship of free access, where the condition for the free developement of each is the condition for the free develpoement of all.
. "Consent of the majority does not imply consent of everyone".
The majority at the moment wants capitalism so we socialist being democrats dislike it but lump it. If you refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate you are anti democratic.What would you prefer, a minority ruling by violence?
To cut to the chase, Capitalism can only operate because society suffers from a case of mistaken identity, in the sense that you can't coerce, exploit,oppress or abuse in any way those people that you indentify with. Humans with acommon identity can only cooperate with each other. Examine the findings of paelio archeology and genetics, we are, as we all have common ancestors part of the human family (this is forensic, no romance or sentimentality here) this being the case the code that makes a family functuon as a family is: from each according to ability to each according to need.
The simple fact is that if nobody works nobody lives but if we all work well, everybody lives well!
Dear purpleacanist
If the global working class can run/reproduce daily a system of society that employes/uses/exploits them as servants of the owners of the means of production, then we are certain that a classless humanity can create and administer a human relationship of free access, where the condition for the free developement of each is the condition for the free develpoement of all.
. "Consent of the majority does not imply consent of everyone".
The majority at the moment wants capitalism so we socialist being democrats dislike it but lump it. If you refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate you are anti democratic.What would you prefer, a minority ruling by violence?
To cut to the chase, Capitalism can only operate because society suffers from a case of mistaken identity, in the sense that you can't coerce, exploit,oppress or abuse in any way those people that you indentify with. Humans with acommon identity can only cooperate with each other. Examine the findings of paelio archeology and genetics, we are, as we all have common ancestors part of the human family (this is forensic, no romance or sentimentality here) this being the case the code that makes a family functuon as a family is: from each according to ability to each according to need.
The simple fact is that if nobody works nobody lives but if we all work well, everybody lives well!
Dear purpleacanist
If the global working class can run/reproduce daily a system of society that employes/uses/exploits them as servants of the owners of the means of production, then we are certain that a classless humanity can create and administer a human relationship of free access, where the condition for the free developement of each is the condition for the free develpoement of all.
. "Consent of the majority does not imply consent of everyone".
The majority at the moment wants capitalism so we socialist being democrats dislike it but lump it. If you refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate you are anti democratic.What would you prefer, a minority ruling by violence?
To cut to the chase, Capitalism can only operate because society suffers from a case of mistaken identity, in the sense that you can't coerce, exploit,oppress or abuse in any way those people that you indentify with. Humans with acommon identity can only cooperate with each other. Examine the findings of paelio archeology and genetics, we are, as we all have common ancestors part of the human family (this is forensic, no romance or sentimentality here) this being the case the code that makes a family functuon as a family is: from each according to ability to each according to need.
The simple fact is that if nobody works nobody lives but if we all work well, everybody lives well!
dear Danny,
please, don't triple post.
"If the global working class can run/reproduce daily a system of society that employes/uses/exploits them as servants of the owners of the means of production, then we are certain that a classless humanity can create and administer a human relationship of free access, where the condition for the free developement of each is the condition for the free develpoement of all."
1. This statement logically doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that "Because capitalism works, socialism must work"? If so, non sequitor.
2. You are being evasive with language. What does "free development" mean? Freedom? Right to wealth?
"The majority at the moment wants capitalism"
What does capitalism mean?
"If you refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate you are anti democratic."
Invalid, stop personal attacks now.
"What would you prefer, a minority ruling by violence?"
1. Well done! You brilliantly, unintentionally described the situation in many parts of the world. Best example: The United States of the World.
2. I never implied that. I want nobody to rule by violence.
"To cut to the chase, Capitalism can only operate because society suffers from a case of mistaken identity, in the sense that you can't coerce, exploit,oppress or abuse in any way those people that you indentify with."
Can someone clarify this statement? What do you mean society "suffers from a case of mistaken identity"?
"Humans with acommon identity can only cooperate with each other. "
I am not sure what you mean by this statement, but human beings are not automations that can "only" cooperate with each other.
"The simple fact is that if nobody works nobody lives but if we all work well, everybody lives well!"
Not sure what you mean. But, you need more than labor to transform things into goods of value. These things, such as land and capital (usually), are necessary.
Dear purpleacanist
I'll go through some of your points
1. This statement logically doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that "Because capitalism works, socialism must work"? If so, non sequitor.
If we can cooperate in running a mad society in the interests of a tiny minority of parasites, we can run a sane society in the interests of those that do all the work, that's all.
Question, what is the sane reason to produce food?
Socialist answer, "To be eaten.
Capitalist answer, To be sold, can't buy can't eat!
2. "You are being evasive with language. What does "free development" mean? Freedom? Right to wealth"?
Free developement means developing in a world where nobody is coerced by poverty to sell themselves to some employer and be used to satisfy interests opposed to their own. You see, if anything has a price and is for sale on the market it can't be free! A wage, fee or salery is a price, workers have to put themselves up for sale on the labour market, so workers aren't free, real freedom can only come about when we live in a social situation where we can freely give of our creative abilities and take freely from the common store.
"What does capitalism mean"?
You don't have a dictionary, briefly, The private ownership of the means of life, comodity production and wage labour.
"Invalid, stop personal attacks now".
TRy this, If we refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate we are anti democratic.
Better?
"Can someone clarify this statement? What do you mean society "suffers from a case of mistaken identity"?"
All humans,like everthing else are
conditioned by situation a situation we never choose, do we choose our time and place of birth our parents,the culture, traditions and religions we find, do we choose the educational opportunities availiable? we can be conditioned to think of ourselves as english, irish scottish or welsh, american,iraki, turk or kurd, israely, palestinian, indian or pakistani etc etc all these identities are spurious, exist only in our imagination. So instead of seeing all members or the human family as us ,we, we see the majority of our fellows as them, and them aint like us they're different.
A question to end on: could you stitch up someone you identify with?
Danny
"If we can cooperate in running a mad society in the interests of a tiny minority of parasites, we can run a sane society in the interests of those that do all the work, that's all."
Spelling it out, I am afraid it is still a non sequitur.
"Question, what is the sane reason to produce food?
Socialist answer, "To be eaten.
Capitalist answer, To be sold, can't buy can't eat!"
Dude, you got it wrong, people produce food because it improves their state of affairs. And capitalism does not imply that people produce food to exchange (although they commonly do, cuz they benefit more), because it can include a farmer that consumes all what he produces.
"You see, if anything has a price and is for sale on the market it can't be free!"
You have just implied that all exchanges of goods between two people (unless they are gifts) are unfree. This also includes barter (trust me, there are prices in barter, for example a spoon costs a fork). This contradicts with your definition of freedom, I presume, where someone isn't free if they are impoverished, and have to work or starve. If a capitalist buys a cigar for $100, does that imply that the capitalist is unfree?
"A wage, fee or salery is a price, workers have to put themselves up for sale on the labour market, so workers aren't free,"
To, according to the above definition, nobody, unless they only give gifts/live in total isolation, is free.
"TRy this, If we refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate we are anti democratic.
Better?"
I guess I am anti-democratic, because democracy implies violence and coercion, and I am against that.
Other questions:
1. Hypothetically, lets say that the world goes socialist. Lets say that two people want to make a trade. Would they be permitted to do that? If so, under what circumstances?
2. How will ownership over the land get determined? How about capital (goods used to produce other goods)?
3. Lets say that socialism gets implemented, but 50 years later, the majority does not want that. Should socialism be allowed to stop or continue?
Hi
purplarcanist wrote
"Dude, you got it wrong, people produce food because it improves their state of affairs. And capitalism does not imply that people produce food to exchange (although they commonly do, cuz they benefit more), because it can include a farmer that consumes all what he produces".
Try walking out of super market with a trolly full of food without going through the ceremony of the checkout, see how far you get.
"You have just implied that all exchanges of goods between two people (unless they are gifts) are unfree. This also includes barter (trust me, there are prices in barter, for example a spoon costs a fork). This contradicts with your definition of freedom, I presume, where someone isn't free if they are impoverished, and have to work or starve. If a capitalist buys a cigar for $100, does that imply that the capitalist is unfree"?
Every thing produced has a cost, everything can be produced without price. No one is free untill all are free.
"To, according to the above definition, nobody, unless they only give gifts/live in total isolation, is free."
Socialism is the science of society, communism of the community, same thing realy. Where do you get the idea of isolation from?
"I guess I am anti-democratic, because democracy implies violence and coercion, and I am against that".
How do you conclude that democracy is violent and coercive? what system of social decision making do you prefer?
"1. Hypothetically, lets say that the world goes socialist. Lets say that two people want to make a trade. Would they be permitted to do that? If so, under what circumstances?"
What would they be trading? Why would they want to? you need to be a little more hypothetical to get a responce.
"2. How will ownership over the land get determined? How about capital (goods used to produce other goods)?"
The industrial and natural resouces of the world will be the common heritage of all.
"3. Lets say that socialism gets implemented, but 50 years later, the majority does not want that. Should socialism be allowed to stop or continue?"
When a majority decide that they want somethingthey have more power than a minority so they shall have it.
Purplearcanist why don't you take a look at our web sites where you can get a detailed exposition of our proposition.
"Try walking out of super market with a trolly full of food without going through the ceremony of the checkout, see how far you get."
Non sequitor. I was not dealing with the issue of theft.
"everything can be produced without price"
How do you produce something with many stages of production without price?
"No one is free untill all are free."
According to your statement of what defines freedom, this statement is not true.
"Where do you get the idea of isolation from?"
Your definition of freedom, that people do not trade for any price. Isolation implies no trade.
"How do you conclude that democracy is violent and coercive?"
Because it requires violence to force people to follow laws, keep away competition for certain businesses, and obtain revenue. This is done without the voluntary consent of each individual, and requires force or the threat of force. Hence, it is inherantly violent and coercive.
"what system of social decision making do you prefer?"
People make decisions by themselves, without being coerced. How it would work depends on the "social decision".
"What would they be trading? Why would they want to? you need to be a little more hypothetical to get a responce."
My question should be, under what circumstances would a trade be allowed?
"The industrial and natural resouces of the world will be the common heritage of all."
If you mean, the property of everyone, I see a problem. How does everyone have equal ownership?
"When a majority decide that they want somethingthey have more power than a minority so they shall have it."
I see. But I see a huge problem with this satement. Should a majority be allowed to kill the minority, and anyone else who does not agree with the majority? Should a majority "steal" everything that belongs to the minority? Yes, is what the statement implies.
Post a Comment