Socialist Forum

Posted: 17 Sep 2004 05:06 pm Post subject: The Industrial Union

Posts dated from September 2004 to July 2005
have been moved to an archive file:
http://www.deleonism.org/archive/topic009.shtml
177,000 bytes

Posts dated from November 2005 to April 2006
have been moved to an archive file:
http://www.deleonism.org/archive/9-2.shtml
290,000 bytes

Posts dated from March 2007 to July 2007
have been moved to an archive file:
http://www.deleonism.org/archive/9-3.shtml
264,000 bytes

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 02:22 pm Post subject:

I have a question. Why would there have to be a all-industrial congress? I been reading on the Soviet top down planning of production and most of it was crappy stuff. The Russian people would grab anything not made in the U.S.S.R. that would become available for a short time in the stores. Many consumer items in Soviet society were unavailable.

I would think that what people would purchase from the stores would determine production of products. I would believe there would be a form of supply and demand. A market of products that are exchanged for either money or TLVs. Along side the social ownership of production there would exist Aunt Tillie private enterprises of production.

Another thing about Soviet society was the existence of tight control over everyone in society. The reason dissenters were killed, imprisoned, sent to mental hospitals, or Siberia is that the system had very little stability. The type of people killed not only ranged from those critical of the system but also included clergy (people of faith) right down to those who were Communist. Communist would kill Communist over a simple accusation or perhaps giving someone a wrong look or not in approval of a certain order. Whatever the reason Communist killed Communist. Furthermore, any deviation and the society was in danger of breaking down very quickly. The walls of stability were very low. Because of that, Soviet society was stiff and uncompromising until the day the very proletarians voted the Communist out of office. And they say the ballot won't work.

On the other hand, the society we live under is stable and dissent is tolerated up to a point but the room for differences is wide because of the walls of stability. This is why socialism cannot be implemented. The system, despite the various problems, remains stable--I know there are other reasons but this suffices for this thread. Dave had the right idea to present to the very people themselves the idea of social ownership of production. In this fashion people talk about what it would mean and if they would want it. If the working people don't want socialism then that should be respected.

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 05:09 pm Post subject:

Why an all-industry representation, i think the answer is there when you said

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 05:27 pm Post subject:

Centralized isn't the same as top-down.

It's top-down when the top appoints the second-from-the-top, and the second-from-the-top appoints the third-from-the-top, etc. Then when it reaches the bottom, the people who live in that town or work in that building just know that the authority came from somewhere up there. That's top-down. It's the one thing that a Stalinist government and an S&P 500 corporation and the Catholic Church all have in common, that top-down form.

Centralized planning is something different. Any time a single-answer policy is established, that's centralized. When the FCC says that only TV channel 6 shall broadcast on the band from 82 through 88 megahertz, that's central planning. An either-or issue often points to the need for central planning. Some things are not either-or. You can have apples and I can have oranges. You can buy a digital camera and I can buy a film camera. There's nothing there that naturally calls for centralizing. But we can't have and simultaneously not-have the Niagara Falls electric power station. Either it is or it isn't. That's central planning. Even if a private corporation did it, then it's central planning for everyone, in the disguise of somebody's personal business. When a decision was made in a small conference room at Microsoft that hundreds of millions of computer users around the world will have to click on icons, that was central planning.

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 05:54 pm Post subject:

Also, the term "top-down" has another meaning that points to something that's useful and necessary. Planners of all kinds, such as architects, civil engineers, science advisers, etc., know that decisions have to be made in a certain sequence. The best time to decide that the streets in Manhattan will be straight and intersect at right angles is before you build anything. Don't construct the buildings first and then decide later where to put the streets. Don't get a skyscraper nearly finished before you begin to consider where the stairways are going to be. Don't build a ship in Nebraska and only then ask yourself how you're supposed to get it to the ocean. The sensible sequence of decisions is how all technical planners think of the idea of imposing order on things "top-down."

Hitler's or Stalin's tyranny was also organized with the same degree of sequential planning and attention to details. The blame doesn't lie with the concept of planning but with the intent. If I use a hammer as a weapon, we can't blame the hammer.

The anarchistic thinkers who distrust all central administration, lumping together all possible democratic and undemocratic methods just because they are centralized, have added a lot of confusion to this issue. They paint over all of it with one brush, "top-down", without distinguishing between the beneficial and the harmful.

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 06:16 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 07:15 pm Post subject:

I say that in a book called "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith (1984) - "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." A good book based on interviews with people about the corruption they lived under.

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 09:31 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 20 Sep 2007 01:03 am Post subject:

That's true. I was only talking about the style of setting up the management chain, not how mandatory or voluntary it is for those who would like to get out.

Posted: 20 Sep 2007 03:12 pm Post subject:

Before any sort of SIU comes into existence we have to contend with what the Commies/Anarchist salivate over is a bloody revolution. We don't have those constructs that make up a good political organization. The Left has no political power which can be transformed into physical power through laws, police and militia. The cry for the absence of politics make the entire Left impotent. The only good they do is the clashes with the fascist. Having no political challenge to the existing political institution there will be no reconstruction of society. Guess the Commies and Anarchist will have to go home because there will be no struggle between two organized political units.

The current mentality of the Left is that workers are the good guys, the Capitalist are the evil ones. Therefore we must take revenge on the evil doers for the public good. I do believe "managers" are now included as Capitalist now-a-days. I am thinking Marx was influenced by the Old Testament of revenge having a Jewish upbringing. Love your neighbor but hate your enemies and kill them in revenge. What I think that Marx was doing in proclaiming hatred for Capitalist would mean that the Capitalist would have to considered a "public enemy" rather than a "private enemy" that everyday people have. This is what I am saying here: Latin poses two words…hostis for the public enemy and inimicus for private enemy. Enemy in the political sense means public enemy—it is unlimited and it is thus distinguished from private enmity. The lack of the two Latin words to distinguish public and private enemy also has contributed to confusion in the Biblical interpretation of the passages of Matt 5:44 and Luke 6: 27 “To love your enemies.” The Greek and Latin versions correctly translate enemies as “private enemies.” The Biblical passages does not command “love” for the public enemy. How can "love" for the public enemy be realized in the same sense of the "private enemy?" How will it be realized in a political sense because public has a political connotation of friend or enemy.

Seeing that the Communist/Anarchist does not want to challenge the very bourgeois on political grounds but instead use violent brute force in overcoming them I would say as an opinion that they will fail in every advance capitalist nation. Without the political unit you will only get differing squabbling groups. Another thing, I have a belief that since the fascist are becoming more popular and political through the promotion of the Jews and anyone else as "public enemies" the U.S. could very well go down that road. Society would then be reconstructed along racial lines.

Posted: 20 Sep 2007 07:34 pm Post subject:

I agree with everything you say about the commies and anarchists except for one thing -- the need to worry about their goals becoming reality. I'm convinced that there is no chance at all that they will ever influence the direction of society again. They do harm, but not in the area of seeing their goals implemented. The harm they do is in making capitalism last hundreds of years longer, by creating in the minds of most people an association between being anti-capitalist and being a lunatic.

Posted: 20 Sep 2007 09:16 pm Post subject:

Whoa, I guess what I been reading is paying off as being coherent and readable.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 05:00 am Post subject:

What data or evidence is there that white nationalists have numbers and are winning converts?

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:

Wish I had evidence to show but I betting a dollar that they out number Socialist, Commies and Anarchist by a larger margin. They do win convert and I am sure of that.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 03:40 pm Post subject:

As long as their number doesn't grow. Long term, they tend to fade out. It was once big. In 1924 or 1925, the KKK had majority control of the state legislature of Indiana. They may still have little surges, but the real trends are what we see in the mass media. As long as the afternoon gossip show on TV says that bigots are kooks, then the people as a whole also think that bigots are kooks.

Everybody outnumbers socialists. Even the people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were filmed in Hollywood outnumber socialists.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 03:46 pm Post subject:

Did you see or hear Prussian Blue? It's very sad. Two little teenage girls from California who got themselves a guitar and a violin, and record neo-Nazi music, a song praising Rudolf Hess, etc.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 05:49 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 12:46 pm Post subject:

To get back on topic of The Industrial Union I wanted to re-post what Dave wrote in another thread:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 02:35 pm Post subject:

John wrote:

At least we know no Commie or Anarchist would run for public office.

dave writes:

hey that's right. That brightens up my whole day, even more than this gorgeous weather.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 07:15 pm Post subject:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 10:20 pm Post subject:

John called it legislation. But that is informal. Constitutional amendments are not thought of as legislation. I think that I have said this before (So it must be true) The amendment states that the workers have the right to do this. So it will be up to the workers. the amendment invites Congress for implementing legislation but it has to conform to the right established. So Congress might specify one or the other if the workers don't take the lead themselves.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 12:06 am Post subject:

Ithought of a question about that:

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 08:37 am Post subject:

Can you ask that again? I haven't had my coffee.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 02:50 pm Post subject:

I think you said the amendment doesn't adopt social ownership immediately. It just says that the workers have the right to do it. That sounds to me like the workers would find all the infrastructure of capitalism still in place. That includes laws that make a crime of workers-directed activity. For example, if the capitalist boss tells the truck driver to drive this truck to Newark, but the worker, following the plan written by the worker-elected manager, drives the truck to Secaucus instead, that's committing grand larceny, and the capitalist would have the police take the worker to jail. So I'm skeptical of the idea that the amendment doesn't exactly declare that socialism is now adopted, but apparently leaves capitalism in place, while saying that the workers have the right to change it. Notice the difference in how I originally wanted to word the amendment: the industries are transferred to the control of ...

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 04:24 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

I think you said the amendment doesn't adopt social ownership immediately. It just says that the workers have the right to do it. That sounds to me like the workers would find all the infrastructure of capitalism still in place. That includes laws that make a crime of workers-directed activity. For example, if the capitalist boss tells the truck driver to drive this truck to Newark, but the worker, following the plan written by the worker-elected manager, drives the truck to Secaucus instead, that's committing grand larceny, and the capitalist would have the police take the worker to jail.

dave writes:

That would be if the police failed to recognize the constitution. But in advance of the amendment actually going into place I am pretty sure that the City and County attorneys and States attorney generals will advise the police that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that when it says: "The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control, operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine." and "Neither exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, nor private ownership of natural resources, shall exist within the United States" that that in and of itself over ides any claim of ownership by other than the workers' unions.

So the law goes into effect without congress, but congress ought to act pretty quickly if it wants to attempt to ease transition - like setting up workplace elections, resolving possible conflicts in jurisdiction until the workers administrations are better set up and running smoothly.

Congress can set up that kind of legislation only to help implement but not to block. If it does the courts can declare the legislation itself or activity under it as unconstitutional. Courts are halfway decent at doing stuff like that.

Posted: 06 Nov 2007 12:29 am Post subject:

Until Mike gets his computer back I wanted to write a little more about the SIU. However, this is strictly an opinion. I wrote about a confederacy of SIUs simply because I felt it would reduce abuse of power among other things. Another thing I kept in mind that people live in different time zones and hemispheres. Having a single authority on a planetary scale would have problems due to differing ideas, language and cultures.

In an economic sense we tend to think boundaries don't exist except for industrial lines. On the other hand, people don't think along industrial lines. They think in terms of boundaries which make up states or provinces in each respected country around the globe. I think and believe that each state, province and country would retain their identity. Considering this, an SIU confederacy could be establish is each time zone and in each country. This allows for autonomy of language and culture. Whatever each state, province or country's industries produce in commodities would be consumed anywhere around the world in each social store. However, the vote of in each industry should be regional rather than international unless there is some circumstances that would dictate otherwise. What do you think?

John

Posted: 06 Nov 2007 12:04 pm Post subject:

JT:

In an economic sense we tend to think boundaries don't exist except for industrial lines. On the other hand, people don't think along industrial lines. They think in terms of boundaries which make up states or provinces in each respected country around the globe.

DS:

Perhaps this is more learned than we think. Why else do they put the map of the world and the map of the US up in front of the classes in grae school with each country or state a different color?

But I think that people who have a lot of caontacts business or personal all around do not think of politcal boundaries as much. And look at the MacDonaldifcation of the US, or the CocaColafication of the entire globe - strategies specifically designed to overcome all notion of political location association. Also I would think that airline crews give less thought to the politcal location of the many airports that they fly into and out of than they give to knowing the location of the quietest bedroom at or near the airport.

Posted: 06 Nov 2007 04:08 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 12:32 am Post subject:

If society finds that there is usefulness in ecoomic planning according to geographical regions, i'd suggest regions like the rectangles peoduced by ten degrees of latitude and ten degrees of longitude. There ought to be some statement that the way the lines of the U.S. states were derived is arbitrary and now meaningless, this line from beating the Sioux, that line from beating the Mexicans, this line from Jefferson's purchase from Napoleon, etc. People of the future don't have to plan their lives on such basis.

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 02:30 am Post subject:

Mike:
Yes it is learned but there is good reason. We think in pictures mostly. A grade school child won't understand latitude or longitude but would recall more easily the color differences and shapes of each country. Take that away and a lot of people would go into a state of confusion.

Oh yes that would have just confused the death out of me. Let see Canada and US the same color on the map, and the same as the USSR and Cuba. How very confusing, not.

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 02:34 am Post subject:

Mike:

I understand political boundaries is what separates one country from another. I do think there is also cultural distinctions in each country. I really don't think these boundaries would go away post revolution. What the SIUs do may overcome these boundaries economically. I think the reality is that political boundaries would continue for a long time.

Dave:

And be about as important as me happening to stroll across the boundary between the Town of Rutland and the City of Rutland when I go out for an all too infrequent walk.

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 09:19 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 08:00 pm Post subject:

some form of politics usually creates them

ever hear of the Delmarva peninsula?

Posted: 07 Nov 2007 09:40 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 08 Nov 2007 12:46 am Post subject:

JT wrote:

When property relations change again, and they will, I kinda believe these borders staying around for awhile at least.

Dave:

Like the placenames of much if the US directly from our predecessors in tenancy of these lands. I very quickly found these at a site in kansas:

The following counties in Kansas have names that come from Native American
people or languages:
Chautauqua (a Seneca word for a lake in New York that may have come from the
phrase “where the fish was taken out”)
Cherokee (a Native American tribe that was moved to Kansas from Georgia)
Cheyenne (a Native American tribe that lived in western Kansas on the High Plains)
Comanche (a Native American tribe that lived in western Kansas on the High Plains)
Kiowa (a Native American tribe that lived in western Kansas on the High Plains)
Miami (a Native American tribe that came to Kansas from the Great Lakes area)
Nemaha (a Siouan name from the Omaha or Oto tribes that may mean “stream of the
Omahas”)
Neosho (an Osage word for a river that may have come from the phrase “water made
muddy or dirty”)
Osage (a Native American tribe that lived in eastern Kansas)
Ottawa (a Native American tribe that came to Kansas from the Great Lakes area)
Pawnee (a Native American tribe that lived in eastern Kansas)
Pottawatomie (a Native American tribe that came to Kansas from the Great Lakes
area)
Republic (a French word for the Kitkehahki band of the Pawnee who lived in eastern
Kansas)
Shawnee (a Native American tribe that came to Kansas from the Ohio River valley)
Wabaunsee (a Potawatomi name for a tribal leader that may have come from the
phrase “dawn of day”)
Wichita (a Native American tribe that lived in central and southern Kansas)
Wyandotte (a Native American tribe that came to Kansas from the Great Lakes area)

Posted: 08 Nov 2007 06:16 am Post subject:

JT:

I am more than a tad concerned that the SIU being one big huge monster of an organization. Mike feels that he is not too convinced that a single entity would abuse power.

DS:

Seems like a good idea to have the SIU but still have the state. The SIU will have its mandate justas private property has its mandate under the bourgeois state. Under the bourgeios state private proerty definitely has it's influence but ultimately the state has reign within its sphere. Ought to be about the same with the SIU and the Socialist state.

Posted: 08 Nov 2007 04:23 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 09 Nov 2007 04:47 am Post subject:

It's a perfect size planet for one SIU. Or so it seems to me.

Posted: 09 Nov 2007 06:35 pm Post subject:

I'm not officially back here yet. I won't have my own computer back for a few more weeks.

*

Posted: 10 Nov 2007 11:42 am Post subject:

Though you are not back I am very happy you responded.

Mike wrote:

Posted: 11 Nov 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:

JT:

And to what we have discussed concerning the political state being separate from the SIU not concerning itself with economic matters but only with rights and liberties of all citizens and punishing those who harm or kill people. The only time when the police enter a home, bar, factory or distribution center would to arrest someone who had violated, harmed, or killed another person. The SIU could very well be one huge entity but can we say that of the political state?

Dave:

This gets off of your topic a but I do not see the post revolution state as much differnt than it is now. So contrary to Vince and others who advocate "libertarian" socialism - I do see the state as having legitimate concern over economics.

I can also see that there will be and should be a healthy tension between the legitimate authority of the people through the state and the legitimate authority of the workers through the SIU. (Much as there is currently a tension between the authority of the state and the rights of individuals both of their persons and their private property.)

So for example I can well see the state as probably having to step in, if only in to check the exuberance of the SIU. I can see the US Congress having to possibly pass a law telling the SIU that it may not utilize certain natural resources for a certain large project until there has been a full environmental review, for example. Or that the SIU may not move the Washington monument in order to build a maglev trainline.

Posted: 11 Nov 2007 05:29 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 11 Nov 2007 08:27 pm Post subject:

Posted: 12 Nov 2007 03:51 am Post subject:

How often and to what extent will pretty much be up to congress and the states unless they run afoul of some provision of the constitution.

Posted: 13 Nov 2007 04:17 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 13 Nov 2007 06:49 pm Post subject:

It doesn't matter large or small as long as someone responds. The feds or the state shows up at a shop and says this is out of compliance - fix it or we'll shut it down. Someone will respond.

Posted: 13 Nov 2007 07:30 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 01:24 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 04:56 am Post subject:

I'm gonna say government because the word "state" is bugging me.

JT, are you talking about the best size for government powers?

I think it misses the whole point to have government by region. If government were imposing on industry because some process is unhealthy, dangerous, or poisoning the environment, or a matter of civil rights, we wouldn't want to say its forbidden by Connecticut for that reason, so someone who wants to do it has to go over to Massachusetts. That wouldn't be much of a commitment to improve things. We get that now, with both "states' rights" and "national sovereignty". It just seems to me like, not so much a bad plan, but, a lack of any plan. Isn't socialism all about the idea of using intelligence to project good plans from the imagination into reality? I would like to see rules and policies as uniform as possible, and not break down at borders. The use of borders is fine if it's for operational efficiency, like the post office's zip codes. I don't like the use of borders to say we think this is bad and they think it's good. Did you ever see the labels on some products required by California's laws? A package of lead solder for electrical use has a tag on it that says something like: handling this product may cause cancer in California. It sounds so dumb.

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 08:26 am Post subject:

ML:

It sounds so dumb.

DS:

Reminds me of the movie title - What the deaf man heard.

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 04:42 pm Post subject:

I was talking about regional political powers.

Mike wrote:

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 07:02 pm Post subject:

I would imagine that the workers would pretty much determine the geograpghics of industrail production and distribution but who knows what the state or the states will say. It will all come out in the wash I suppose. For example sitting at this computer it is difficult to imagine what function the present states of the USA would have. Would they slowly disolve like functions of counties have in many states? And don't forget the present set up, the states make the constitution. So they are a power or at least they are foci of power that are going to have to be dealt with in setting up the magical scheme.

Posted: 14 Nov 2007 07:57 pm Post subject:

Dave, that seems to go against your proposed constitutional amendment, if the individual states could could tell the workers that industrial planning has to follow some particular geographical form.

Posted: 15 Nov 2007 12:59 am Post subject:

Yes it sure does and that is simply the nature of ANY shared sovereignty scheme. There will be conflicts to be worked out, compromises made but they will be done, we hope, without class conflict.

Posted: 16 Nov 2007 09:57 am Post subject:

Once worker-controlled production is tried, and the people realize that they like it, and once the bugs get worked out so everything stays smooth-running whenever forms get changed, I think other changes will occur quickly. I think the partitioning of the country into 50 states will be ended. I think the partitioning of the world into 200 countries will be ended. However, you have largely convinced me that the economic change from private control to worker control will probably have to take place within the current political structure, so De Leon's "sine die" concept gets tossed out the window. The necessity for that is that most people will adopt the idea of worker management more readily, and will be slower to agree with suggestions to change the political forms. If socialists insist on too much, socialism could get tragically postponed. During the month after socialism is won, changing the political forms should be the next topic of debate.

Posted: 16 Nov 2007 02:38 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 16 Nov 2007 03:36 pm Post subject:

JT:

Marx did fight against the very idea of a minority in control of society. He instead wrote that the only organizational change in society can only happen by the conscious cooperation of the masses.

Dave:

Nothing personal John, but I always ask that when people refer to what Marx wrote that they supply a quotation.

Posted: 16 Nov 2007 08:01 pm Post subject:

ML:

During the month after socialism is won, changing the political forms should be the next topic of debate.

DS:

Not for me though. I will get myself a nice pair of hiking boots and you may never see or hear from me again.

Posted: 16 Nov 2007 11:57 pm Post subject:

"All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority." -- The Communist Manifesto

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 12:23 am Post subject:

As people are being organized for socialism, they should given some training and practice in questioning everything that gets handed to them. I would like to see more people who discuss whom should be sent to the Senate also begin to ask the question of why there should be a Senate in the first place. What is the point of socialism? -- to weigh choices and make them become reality, not to inherit procedures from the past and follow them habitually. It baffles me sometimes how can the same mind can think about building a base on Mars and yet never speculate about what form of government we should have. It is a general strength to be developed by everyone, like the arithmetic they made us take in school, to be able to recognize it at once when people are doing anything only because they are accustomed to it. A person should wear socks if they can think of a good reason to do so, not because it has always been that way. It's not always easy to know our reasons. Congress has two houses because it was a necessary feature if all of the thirteen original colonies were to be persuaded to form the nation in the first place, not because there is now any actual benefit to it. People need to learn the skill of simply noticing: "Oh, here's somehting that is being done only because it was already that way when we were born, which is not a valid reason to keep doing it." While the central lesson to be taught in the socialist movement is about class control versus workers' control, what I'm referring to here is like the occasional "math review."

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 11:34 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 01:28 pm Post subject:

Yes thank you for the quote Mike. Just as a lesson, out in the lefty (and righty) world there will be poeple who make all sorts of claims about what Marx actually said, wrote or worse yet, thought. We ought to be very disciplined and sparing as to use of what Marx said. And for the most part they need to be our own thoughts independenly supported as to the how and why of socialism. Just a suggestion.

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 01:33 pm Post subject:

Mike:

As people are being organized for socialism, they should given some training and practice in questioning everything that gets handed to them. I would like to see more people who discuss whom should be sent to the Senate also begin to ask the question of why there should be a Senate in the first place.

Dave:

But I would hate for us to be identified as a faction that advocates for a unicameral congress.

When a senate seat come up in Vt. and I ran for it, it would be to introduce the amanedment proposal. We have to be very clear as to our pre worker ownership of the means of production function in the political field.

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 03:47 pm Post subject:

Well, the SIU program defiantly has to be viewed as production and distribution of the means of production under an organization of labor. It has to be stressed that the organization is about work and economic development. Too often Socialism is views as a hand out organization, by the Right Wing of American politics, rather than one that promotes work. However, You may just have to define that those who specialize in certain industries (including the health care field) may have to be paid higher than the average laborer. Of course those who work in physical and stressful employment be also paid better than the average laborer to perform tasks that otherwise would not even be attempted if everyone were paid a universal pay.

For the life of me I cannot understand that if all economic production was under the SIU program that the very concept of a wage scale would be viewed as a "capitalist" venture. Despite the idea of a wage scale the very existence of the SIU as the economic form of government under workers control should be viewed as Socialism regardless.

Another thing when you are questioned about the SIU is that the media hounds will demand how the SIU would function overall. If you don't have very good answers then they will ridicule you and dismiss the whole Amendment Proposal.

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 04:46 pm Post subject:

JT:

You may just have to define that those who specialize in certain industries (including the health care field) may have to be paid higher than the average laborer. Of course those who work in physical and stressful employment be also paid better than the average laborer to perform tasks that otherwise would not even be attempted if everyone were paid a universal pay.

DS:

Of course this is strictly an opinion of mine - no one gets more per hour than anyone else, but time worked includes training time. Time worked includes time to design and build machinery to do the drudge and dangerous work. Time worked includes reamining lifetime pay to his or her designee for any worker killed on the job... etc.

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 04:53 pm Post subject:

JT:

Another thing when you are questioned about the SIU is that the media hounds will demand how the SIU would function overall. If you don't have very good answers then they will ridicule you and dismiss the whole Amendment Proposal.

DS:

If I walked onto a slave plantation would I very long have to explain the benefit of emancipation?

I am less and less inclined to "explain socialism". I am proposing an industrial democracy. If people don't see the good of that pretty quickly no amount of additional explaination is going to help them unless they go home and dig for the answers themselves.

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 07:51 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 08:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 08:16 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 08:40 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Nov 2007 11:07 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 18 Nov 2007 11:12 pm Post subject:

Did I write something wrong here? Wait a minute, what the video showed was an unedited version of an interview with John Cena about steroid use. He said that he never used steroids. When the media was done editing the interview you would think he was doing steroids. The moral of the story, be careful how you present your words to the media other wise they will twist your words.

Posted: 19 Nov 2007 01:14 am Post subject:

Socialists have the problem that the media won't mention them at all, for good or bad. Instead of being ignored, I'd rather get the Courtney Love treatment and be ruthlessly bashed by the media. It's better to be heard of. Try to be understood, certainly, but, above all, get publicity.

Posted: 19 Nov 2007 11:32 am Post subject:

I don't know who said about the newspapers:

"I don't care what they write about me as long as they spell my name right."

e.g. http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/readings/3eras1x.html

But, if only for my own sanity, I am not explaining socialism any more. If people don't see the good of industrial democracy when the rudiments of it are explained to them I'm not going to spend time and energy with them when I can simply go on to someone else.

++++++++++

Changing gears slightly, what ever did happen to the Frank Girrard group? Also the industrial democracy group?

Posted: 19 Nov 2007 05:03 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 20 Nov 2007 12:49 am Post subject:

When explaining anything to a novice, the easiest way is to have something memorized. If you decide to change it, you can, but if you can't think of anything else to say then you already have something ready to use.

How would a physics teacher explain thermodynamics? It's almost always the same words. "Matter is made of particles that are continuously in motion. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. One calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree celsius." All of the teachers say nearly the same thing in nearly the same sequence. If socialists can't prepare an introductory lesson for socialism then we are being lazy.

Posted: 20 Nov 2007 01:02 am Post subject:

Posted: 20 Nov 2007 01:23 am Post subject:

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 05:09 am Post subject:

I tried to look up Jeff Miller and NUP - just a trace left behind. Tried to track Connie couldn't find her.

Are we the only ones remaining on the web?

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 02:40 pm Post subject:

Boy do we jump around a lot. At any rate, it is evident that these political entities have bellied up due to non interest. In a way the workers have a small voice in the current system. Well, they have to have some representation from the Capitalist.

The current Parties that claim to act on workers behalf really don't have a membership role to boast about. Sometimes I think it is do to distrust by workers in general. Propaganda from the Capitalist don't help either when they also portray Soviet Communism as repressive to human rights and civil liberties. It does not help when Communist look at human rights and civil liberties as inventions of the bourgeoisie. I even cringe at the thought that if America established a worker's representative form of political government and the Industrial Organization of Labor that the Marxist Leninist would stage a coup and take power into their hands and here we go again.

On the other hand, I believe we have covered a lot of ground here. Some of the issues are still in the air. The idea of a representative form of political government and a Industrial Organization of Labor really is not new to the ideas of Socialism. The old books I downloaded always seem to point that both would exist together but separately and why not? We see the economic control is in the hands of the Capitalist in their various industries and the government protecting their interest. The government also has to protect the Capitalist from each other. The Capitalist control the economic but to a point. The political aspect steps in when it is deemed necessary.

What gets me infuriated is that there are way to many out there that make Socialism out to be more complicated than it actually is. I believe it is much more simpler a system than Capitalism because people are in cooperation politically and economically. I think laws would be more universal. Since the idea of one large economic entity we won't have the problem of certain industries dumping toxic waste into a swamp because the disposal of toxic chemicals is part of the Industrial Organization of Labor. A lot of problems would be solved but we don't know what new problem would come. We would have to leave that to the elected representatives of the Economic Industrial Congress. The political aspect would step in when it is deemed necessary. Hmmmm, is Socialism that hard that people would have to quote Marx and Engels verbatim? I don't see people walking around quoting Adam Smith or anyone else.

John T.

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 04:10 pm Post subject:

JT:

there are way to many out there that make Socialism out to be more complicated than it actually is

DS:

"Socialism" is a religion or might as well be. I am not even going to deal with "socialism" anymore.

I am in favor of the workers democratically owning and operating the means of production, and I have determined that the best way for me to push for that is to push the constitutional amendment.

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 08:53 pm Post subject:

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 09:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 21 Nov 2007 09:13 pm Post subject:

Jeff Miller, http://newunionist.org , email workingdemocracy at minn.net .

Posted: 22 Nov 2007 12:03 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 09 Feb 2008 03:55 pm Post subject:

Well, let's have another round with the Democratic Socialist Industrial Union. Seeing how the meat industry treats animals before, during and after slaughter--to generate maximum profits. This video requires a strong stomach.

http://www.meat.org/

Off site quote from Noahide Nations forum:

Posted: 10 Feb 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

I think that this provides a good example for the need/desirability of a binary industrial / political shared sovereignty system.

The Constitutional political govt. would still have its say while the workers in the main control the means of production. But neither function is put in a watertight container.

Within traditional constitutional limits the political govt. could regulate the industries. The difference would be that there would not be a capitalist class with its monied influence over the process.

Posted: 10 Feb 2008 04:50 pm Post subject:

Thanks Dave for putting it that way. Very Happy

I'll be back later when I got something more to say. Guess it may be because its winter, cold and snowing with high winds.

John

Posted: 10 Feb 2008 09:41 pm Post subject:

In theory political govt represents all people, whereas the meatpackers IU represents all people who happen to be meatpackers, so I think the political govt should be a higher power than the IU. But that higher power should be for appeals, not for daily administration. When there is no controversy, let the IU do whatever it wants to do. If someone disagrees, have provisions for appeal to public representatives or public referendum. Not all policies are equally likely to be subjects of disagreement. There won't be any disagreement about the fact that the meatpacking industry makes hot sausage, but there might be some disagreement about the ethical treatment of animals.

Posted: 11 Feb 2008 03:48 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 11 Feb 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:

Posted: 12 Feb 2008 02:25 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 12 Feb 2008 07:36 pm Post subject:

In addition to the uses you mentioned, I speculate that it would also be fruitful to use the political system to mandate for any project that the people want but which the industry hadn't done for any reason. Let's suppose the aeronautics specialization, if left to their own decisions, will go to the moon and not to mars, but the majority of society want them to go instead to mars and not to the moon. Who gets to choose? The specialization has a claim that they are the experts in how to go about achieving each thing. The whole society has the claim that it produces the wealth that the industry will be expending, and it's the whole society that will get the expected benefits of one choice or the other. Hopefully there will be general agreement after they argue for a while and share what they know and think, but what if the disagreement continues? There needs to be some tie-breaker, like the rule at a four-way stop sign for the right of way to go the driver situated to the right of the other.

Posted: 10 Mar 2008 10:33 pm Post subject:

Hey, someone wrote a definition of Socialism on the net and I think it is pretty good.

"Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production. Socialism means production to satisfy human needs, not, as under capitalism, for sale and profit. Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.

"Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

"Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service and to a central congress representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy. All persons elected to any post in the socialist government, from the lowest to the highest level, will be directly accountable to the rank and file. They will be subject to removal at any time that a majority of those who elected them decide it is necessary.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialism.htm

John T.

Posted: 13 Mar 2008 11:21 pm Post subject:

The concept held by some Socialist is that whatever is produced the people should vote on every aspects of production. Would not these voters become overwhelmed trying to educate themselves on the best bicycle parts society should build, what 32 flavors of ice cream a store should sell, and what electronic components should go into microwave ovens?

Short comparison: Our government is a Republic in which we elect legislators as representatives to our districts. They are supposedly elected to work for our interest and to enact laws to protect us while serving two year terms. These are professionals elected to do a job. Odd we don't have more actual Socialist running.

You know it occurred as to why Daniel De Leon called the SIU a Republic of Labor. The Socialist Industrial Union would function much like a Republic. The workers would elect professional people who would make economic decisions on what would be the best methods in production and conduct the processes following the best designs. I am sure the workers and citizens would have input on what they would like to use and consume and then there is planning of roadways, sewers, ships large building projects, etc. This is what the All Industrial Congress is about.

I know this post would seem odd to you but for the longest time I just thought the the explanation of the SIU and how it functioned was completely different from the Political Republican forms of governing. It's like, "Oh jeez, it was right there is front of me and I never comprehended."

John T.

Posted: 14 Mar 2008 04:00 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2008 04:36 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 14 Mar 2008 04:43 pm Post subject:

Posted: 15 Mar 2008 07:24 pm Post subject:

That's a good example of wasting time and energy even though you got paid for it. Where I work there are different department with department heads. Under the department head there is someone who makes sure everyone is getting their work done so the orders can get out on time. There is complicated processes that has to be addressed otherwise little or nothing will get done.

I remember you once wrote that the Soviet Union was based upon the American Corporation model. When you think of it the corporation is an economic top down dictatorship. The corporation would be the last dictatorship to go when the means of production become the collective property of all workers and citizens through industrial unions.

John T.

Posted: 15 Apr 2008 12:22 pm Post subject:

When I was first writing up the amendment proposal I had initially thought of the SIU as a 4th branch of govt.

After about 8 months from coming up with the last draft of the proposal - the present form of the SIU looks like an administrative agency with a constitutional rather than a statutory mandate.

The felony aquital has almost revived the plan for a congressional race. I don't hear much from the SP that they would actually embrace the strategy on a national basis, even on a tentative basis.

So I'm still pondering a party label for the run.

I don't think I can use union in the name as there is already a party with that word in its name.

How about: Labor Amendment Party

My schtick will be during my whole campaign I will obtain signatures on a petition to the US Congress that it adopt the amamedment proposal.

Part of the schtick will also be that the petition will be worded in such a way that it is a request to the winning congressional candidate the he or she actually present the pettion to the new congress. So that the petition doesn't simply die on election day. Also during the campaign I will seek out people to form a permenent committee to promote the amendment proposal.

Posted: 15 Apr 2008 03:25 pm Post subject:

Dave, don't forget the "marketing plan" for your idea. You don't yet have a preliminary draft a web site FAQ, a press release and a leaflet.

Posted: 16 Apr 2008 07:08 am Post subject:

I am sure that this seems ass backwards to you.

But tell me what you think if the name labor amendment party. I'm not wild about it becuase in in a scence it sounds like that it is labor that is to be amended - but i don't see anything else. If the SP was even tepid on the idea I would use the SP name, but as I say I don't see that happening. It still might but I ain't a holdin my breath.

Posted: 16 Apr 2008 06:50 pm Post subject:

I think the name is a good one. You said it "sounds like that it is labor that is to be amended" - I don't think that's a problem because bills and acts are often named after sponsors. When you hear about the Hatch Amendment it doesn't sound as though they're trying to amend Orrin Hatch. They mean it's Sen. Hatch's cause or goal. You're saying that your thing oughta be labor's goal.

Buy why do you say you would need a positive response from the SP to use their name? Would you need the state party to formally nominate you, and is that standing in your way? What else can a "multi-tendency" party mean but that the candidate is speaking for himself, and other members of the same party don't necessarily agree?

Posted: 16 Apr 2008 09:12 pm Post subject:

Mike, yur right about the labor amendment being the same as the Hatch Amendment. People do not assume that it is Hatch this is to be amended.

No I do not need the SP's permission.

But I happen to see the amendment prposal as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SP doesn't, it's just one more thing for them, and probably not even that.

It would be nice if the SP came out and said that we support this. I have asked. But I get no offers, just a come on from the whores on 7th Avenue.

Posted: 16 Apr 2008 11:12 pm Post subject:

So you seem to be saying that, if a considerable-sized population within the SP agreed to support the amendment, then you would use the SP name when you campaign for the amendment, but if no one else in the SP supports the amendment then you don't want to use the SP name. Is that it?

Posted: 16 Apr 2008 11:46 pm Post subject:

I'm not even saying a sizable number. Just give me a hint and I'm there.

You know my style, and perhaps its becuase I (hard to believe) come on way too strong for their liking. I would like the SP to redisover its roots, so what am I going to do, run for Congress to try to persuade the SP that the amendment is a good strategy? It's a coin toss.

Posted: 17 Apr 2008 12:12 am Post subject:

What would happen if you run for office on another ticket besides the SP, or using any other name of your own creation? Does that sabotage the effort to get the SP to rediscover its roots? Is that rediscovery something that you can only strive for if it's an SP ticket?

Posted: 17 Apr 2008 01:28 am Post subject:

I would say I would run on the SP ticket whether or not they gave you support. You are a member of the SP from what I read. Sometimes we got to take measures in our own hands so that those actions might turn a light bulb on in other people's heads.

Posted: 17 Apr 2008 02:59 am Post subject:

I think so too. Tell the SP you're going to show them how to do it. Be the first, Dave.

Posted: 17 Apr 2008 12:12 pm Post subject:

Then that's what I'll do, perhaps anyway.

Posted: 17 Apr 2008 08:42 pm Post subject:

But then again maybe I wont. Why should I have to take upon my campaign all of the baggage and consequence of using "Socialist" if it won't get me anthing such as organizational support?

Hell, why don't I use the one word name:

Solidarity

Posted: 18 Apr 2008 05:07 am Post subject:

The Socialitarian Party
The Marxitarian Party
The Marxicratic Party
The Commucratic Party
The Commutopian Party
The Technitopian Deleonitarian Party
The Repubicommunitarian Demoscientarian Party
The Workerepublicratic Party
The Unionationaliberepubicratic Party
The Ethicratic Laborevolunity Party
The Indusocialiberty Party
The Solidarepresentalist Party

Posted: 18 Apr 2008 01:56 pm Post subject:

Tell Nancy she needs to do a better job of locking up the drugs.

Posted: 18 Apr 2008 04:13 pm Post subject:

Dave, to go along with your campaign, you need a statement of your conception of workers' rights. You decided to model the amendment on the 13th Amendment and make it a principle that people may not be excluded from control of the industries. To go with that you need text providing explanation. Off the top of my head, I would recommend something like this:

Our traditional idea of basic rights has included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and numerous others. What has been missing and needs to be added today is the principle that the working people, who produce society's goods and services, have the right to direct their efforts, to manage their own work. We must guard and preserve the amount of human rights and democratic participation that we already have, and extend their range also to include economic life. Every workplace needs to be transformed into a representative democracy.

... And blah blah blah.

Posted: 18 Apr 2008 10:12 pm Post subject:

Will ponder, thank you.

Posted: 18 Apr 2008 10:18 pm Post subject:

I was thinking about -

My fellow worker's - you have spent your lives trying to elect someone smarter than yourself to oversee your affairs in Washington.

That obviously has never workerd.

Now it is time for real change.

Elect someone who is admittedly much stupider than any of you. You will be able to trust that if I do anything illegal it won't be too long until I am found out.

Posted: 19 Apr 2008 12:19 am Post subject:

And maybe a poster that looks like a book cover -- Governing a Country for Dummies.

Posted: 19 Apr 2008 03:46 am Post subject:

Industrial Democracy for Dummies

Posted: 22 Apr 2008 11:57 am Post subject:

I need to come up with a name first. it's not logical except for that's what my mind keeps coming back to.

This is so simple in retrospect. Why not simply "Labor Party" or "Labor Charter Party" or "Labor Amendment" one of the three.

Posted: 22 Apr 2008 11:04 pm Post subject:

"Labor Amendment" sounds good. You seem to want a name that describes your intention.

"Labor Charter" is too much of a tongue-twister to me. I keep saying "lay-per-chowder."

If you say "Labor Party" people will think you're partners with Lyndon LaRouche.

Posted: 23 Apr 2008 01:52 am Post subject:

agreed

Posted: 24 Apr 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

Why not just run as a Democrat? Bernie Sanders did. The Libertarians run their candidates as Republicans. The Right Wing Republicans accuses the Democrats as being a Socialist Party with a socialist agenda. You might even get The Democratic Socialist of America to support your proposal.

Posted: 24 Apr 2008 04:52 pm Post subject:

It's a valid question.

One thing though - Bernie never ran as a Democrat. They allowed him to particiate in the Democratic House caucus be he was always an independent.

Apaprt from everything else (a big one is that they openly support the wages system - direct exploitation of workers at the workplace) a more minor thing but in this case controlling is that if you try to get on in the primary you are pretty much knocking yourself out from running as an independent when you don't get the party nomination.

This same dynamic may not be the same in urban areas with high concentrations of Dems but I never lived in such a place except for Boston just after the Brits cleared out.

Posted: 25 Apr 2008 01:25 am Post subject:

I stand corrected. He did run as a independent. I don't see where the other Socialist Party's (except for the SLP) call for an end to wage slavery and demand the common ownership of production and that would include the small corporations and any place that exploits labor with the wage system--I caught that at the second reading. I don't believe in the government nationalizing everything either. I am aware DSA is for a mixed economy and never mind workers owning production through an economic organization of their making. There is a good chance that the Amendment Proposal would be ignored even though it stands in accordance with how our government functions.

Posted: 25 Apr 2008 11:19 am Post subject:

Posted: 25 Apr 2008 06:50 pm Post subject:

DSA is trying to push the Democratic Party to the Left since Third Parties don't get elected to high office. Third Parties just run candidates for educational purposes.

Posted: 26 Apr 2008 11:52 am Post subject:

VERY very easy to have one's focus taken from them in anyone's pesonal bid to inch any party, including the SP towars one's goal.

For me I would concentrate on the electorate directly. educational, yes. What else is there when there has been not a mandate for socialism established?

Posted: 26 Apr 2008 11:57 am Post subject:

capturing an existing party?

What in fact would be captured?

Posted: 26 Apr 2008 02:07 pm Post subject:

I mean, we're talking about a steeply uphill task anyway, persuading the population to reverse their thinking about everything, becoming socialists, taking control of the congress and state legislatures. There's nothing more uphill than that. So what would be the difference if the socialist program called for an already-existing political party to be converted into the socialist organization that will do it? What, that can't be done because that party wouldn't go for it, they would resist it? Duh! The whole population changing the way they think is already a necessary assumption anyway.

I'm not saying this is the best way, I'm just asking why not. The reasons against it haven't been articulated.

Just as the reasons against converting the AFL-CIO into the SIU haven't been clearly articulated. Too hard to convince people to do it? That makes no sense, because we're already talking about a future time when everyone's thinking will bear no resemblance to the way people think today.

But I have probably gotten off on a tangent. You're immediate need is to get into the political process to propose the amendment. The shape of future events probably don't offer any guidance here.

Posted: 28 Apr 2008 11:06 am Post subject:

ML:

I mean, we're talking about a steeply uphill task anyway, persuading the population to reverse their thinking about everything, becoming socialists, taking control of the congress and state legislatures. There's nothing more uphill than that. So what would be the difference if the socialist program called for an already-existing political party to be converted into the socialist organization that will do it?

DAS:

In my humble biased and prejudiced and alltogether fucked up opinion I beg to differ on the first part.

No definitely not change anyone's mind on manythings or even one thing. Ain't ever going to happen.

ANALOGY ALERT change the focus that's all.

People in these parties, and even more widespread in the populous in the state and local parties, have tremendous interests in "their" party even if it is only illusory.

If someone sees a particular reason to get involved with these folks that's fine. I just don't see it.

Posted: 28 Apr 2008 04:53 pm Post subject:

You don't want to persuade people to change their minds about things -- but you want people to adopt workers' control of the means of production, which they now oppose?

Posted: 28 Apr 2008 06:37 pm Post subject:

No I don't think that people oppose it at all.

All they need is to hear a few verses of "Buddy Can You Spare a Dime?" and read the proposed Labor Amendment, hear me speak a few sage remarks and they'll be jumping up and down in favor of it!

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 05:28 pm Post subject:

Fiddle-faddle, balderdash, piffle and horsefeathers. Colorful language there, huh? Now I shall try to be more specific .... :o)

I must repeat something a wrote the other day in another forum: It is a cognitive problem that socialists face when communicating with the working class, in the same sense that Copernicus and Galileo faced a cognitive problem in other people when they tried to explain that the earth revolves around the sun.

To say that it's a cognitive problem, that means that it isn't a problem of getting people to get off their asses, etc., but, rather, that people believe certain things that are false.

Most people believe either that society's problems can be solved under capitalism (either the free market, the government, or science, or divine intervention will save us) , or that our problems cannot be solved under any system at all (human nature is defective). Most people believe that the competitive market offers the best chance for solving our problems. Incredibly, about half of the population even believe the propaganda that was expressed so well in a 1980s Doonebury cartoon lampooning Ronald Reagan: "The problem with the economy is that the rich don't have enough money." They believe that socialism was an "experiment" that was tried numerous times in the past (by a coalition of the well-meaning pipedreamers, the cigar-chomping bureaucrats and the genocidal sadists), but we all know that the experiment failed. Any concept of social or collective ownership of the means of production is believed to be so discredited that you would have better luck promoting the most crackpot paranormal theory you could invent. That's the situation that a socialist faces. Because the problems are cognitive, the teacher has to be careful not to forget to cover the fact that 1+1=2 before going on to the next topic of what 1+2 is.

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 09:05 pm Post subject:

I just don't see it like that, not at all.

I don't see there is an issue of having to teach 1 + 1.

All that is required is just what I wrote above and not a stitch more.

For me anyway - that's the conclsuin that I come to becuase that is what I wanted it to be. Someone else have a better conclusion for themself? - God bless him or her - they should go for it.

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 11:07 pm Post subject:

These differences of opinion are why each person should be encouraged to start their own projects. No one knows what will be the thing that eventually sparks the uprising. Anyone's suggestion could be the thing that does it. Vince's method too. We should all be supportive of every project that each one of us starts.

If a butterfly flaps its wings that might be one of the necessary conditions for the later start of a tornado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Posted: 30 Apr 2008 04:46 am Post subject:

Vince should be encouraged in his project - no I take it back. Whatever Vince cares to discuss I will discuss. But that doesn't mean that either of us will like what the other one writes.

Oh look at that extension of the one human family in Austria. The guy who had his daughter locked up in the basement - having 4 children with her - keeping her locked up and two of the children locked up the whole time. He ceratinly realized that they were part of his one human family.

No thanks. Don't treat me like family, nuclear or otherwise.

Posted: 24 May 2008 01:34 pm Post subject:

This is a post that I rencently made to the WIC opendebate Yahoo forum:

(goup member A):

Even the SLPers on ths list realise that it is true. There is no getting rid of money in the mass urban society.

(group member B):

Labour vouchers are not money. They do not circulate

DAS:

(group member A), if you were referring to me, more closely I have said that since there is a multitude of things that can be valued by people that it would be almost impossible for exchange of these items quid pro quo not to take place on a regular basis. It's a very small step from simple commodity exchange to using an intermediate currency however informal. (group member B) recently referred to an article about the Incas that used a central redistribution system. The article said that there was no money in Inca society. But that would asserting a negative that would be difficult to prove (not that you (group member A) know anything about that).

(group member B), some think that "labor vouchers" cannot or must not circulate. I do not. Suppose I have labor vouchers but want something that is not produced in what I call the industrial/service economy. As I have given the example - suppose Joe gives really good haircuts but chooses not to be in a/the industrial/service union and so does not work for labor vouchers. If labor vouchers do not circulate I can always acquire something with my labor vouchers that I know Joe will accept for a hair cut. So forbidding labor voucher circulation would be senseless. Society would be much better off to outwardly and formally accept the circulation of labor vouchers as a way of taxing the economic activity of those who choose to remain outside of the industrial/service union.

Why would we want to tax them? Because we want to encourage the industrial service union to provide certain basics to all regardless of their ability to work.

And to me the union ought to encourage as much economic diversity outside of the union as practical as long as it's taxed and WITH THE CAVIET that hired non-union workers always have the right to move into a union taking the shop into the industrial/service economy.

If Mary and her daughter are the two workers in a private bakery and they can exchange enough of their products for taxed labor vouchers that they are happy who could complain. If the shop took on more workers and they were paid in labor vouchers by Mary and everyone was happy, who is going to complain?

Example, Mary turns out a mean apple pie which she will provide for labor vouchers which she knows will be discounted at a certain tax rate for taxes. 1 pie for 45 minutes of labor voucher which is taxed at 33.3%, the customer shells out 45 minutes in labor voucher, Mary nets 30 minutes of labor voucher. She sells 200 pies in a day giving her 100 hours of labor vouchers for which she has to pay her expenses. If she finds someone who will work for her she will have to pay them out of the 100 hours minus her material expenses. Paying the worker will also be taxed, again lets say at 33.3% - so for an hour's work from the worker she'll have to shell out 1.5 hours of labor vouchers - 1 hour for the worker, 30 minutes tax.

If everyone is happy, again, who could complain?

But suppose Mary gets sick and her daughter takes over and is not the inspired entrepreneur that her mother was. Workers always have the option of individually leaving and getting work with the industrial/service union. Or they can collectively vote to take the shop into the industrial/service economy.

The industrial service union can say, yes we like that bakery setup - and into the industrial/service economy it goes along with its workers, who again can individually say that they would rather find other private work. Or the industrial/service union can say - no we are not wild about acquiring that bakery set-up. Anyone in the bakery who wants to join the union and work in the industrial/service economy is free to but we would rather have the Mary/daughter bakery setup remain private because they make a damned good apple pie that we don't think could be easily or efficiently replicated within the industrial service economy.

If the worst that can be said about this is that it looks a lot like capitalism that doesn’t bother me. Some people are religious communists – that there should be a great communistic spiritual revival of biblical proportions and that even Marx alluded to in his reference to the New Testament: “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. Marx surely was on opium the day he wrote that.

Dave Searles

P.S. Although I am a former SLPer I guarantee you that very little of what I have written above would ever issue from the current SLP literature. SLP says that once the workers have set up the SIUs and the plug is pulled on the “capitalist” state it’s all up to “future generations”. Technically that is correct – but I would like to openly think about where we’re going before proposing that we set off in a car with no brakes.

Posted: 24 May 2008 04:49 pm Post subject:

If people do things outside the SIU and voucher system, it would be unfair NOT to tax some such activities. I don't know which of those activities should be taxed, or perhaps all of them, but some of them should be taxed. Why? Because the people who work inside the SIU and voucher system have to be taxed indirectly, in the sense that they put in some extra work time so that everyone can get back a portion of their production in the form of free services. If an ambulance picks up a patient along the road, the resources for that would come out of what Marx calls "general administration" in "Critique of the Gotha Programme". Resources for general administration would be deducted from society's total inventory before the remainder of that inventory can be distributed to individuals. So, in effect, if your production is outside of the socialist system, and you're not taxed, and an ambulance picks you up, the people inside the socialist system would be taxed to pay for your service. Similarly, if bus rides are free, and your production is performed outside of the socialist system, and you're not taxed, then the people in the socialist system are being taxed to pay for your bus ride.

Posted: 24 May 2008 05:02 pm Post subject:

As for making vouchers transferable, I don't think it's a question of what WE think is best, but a question of the people having whatever system they will want. I've recently come to believe that most people in the future are likely to want the vouchers to be transferable, and their wanting it will be sufficient to make it so. They will want transferability because they will want the option of giving some income to others for birthday and wedding presents, and similar informalities. This transferability can then also be used as a medium for any exchange. Whenever someone says to a neighbor "I'll feed your dog while you're out of town on vacation if you'll mow my grass next week", that may instead take the form of "I'll transfer twenty minutes of work credits to your account if you'll mow my grass next week."