deleonism.org Socialist Forum

Please try to keep all off-topic conversation in this thread. If you want to, you can introduce yourself. Tell jokes.

I'm Mike Lepore. I live in the rural community of Stanfordville, New York in the Hudson Valley. I'm 50 years old. I have been a socialist since I was 13. My family has a labrador retriever.

Posted: 28 Sep 2004 05:39 am Post subject:

Hi,

I'm Sam Morales, and I live in Queens, NY. I'm a member of the Socialist Party USA (I'm Chair of the NYC local) and of the Industrial Workers of the World. I tend to think of myself as an Anarchist these days, but I find myself much in agreement with Marxists like Eugene V. Debs, Daniel De Leon, Anton Pannekoek, and Paul Mattick. I hate labels, I think they are often too simplistic.

There was a time where I considered myself a Marxist-DeLeonist (and I won't reject that label if people think it reflects my politics) and I'm glad to see that there are others who find his ideas relevant.

Posted: 26 Feb 2005 12:37 pm Post subject:

Hello, I am also a member of the Socialist Party-USA. During these past months I have decided that I needed to understand what Marxism is and did myself a favor and bought the Communist Manifesto. I have been corresponding with the CPC to better understand Marxist-Leninist concepts. I am also a Pagan who believes that religion is a private matter and not an illusion or delusion as opiate would cause. Therefore I do not agree with Marx on this.

Since I am 48 years old I have seen reforms implemented to favor the working class years ago. Now, the government in which reforms become reality are now being taken away. Since the demise of the Soviet Union the bourgeoisie have taken many steps to increase their profit margins and lower the standard of living for working people including cutting social programs.

Now I am here to learn about De Leonism. Talk about a lot of reading I have to do. Shocked

Anyways, I am not about reform but about revolutionary ideas. First of all, there must be an end to sectarianism that devides too many Socialist and Communist and secondly, the end result could build a coalition of Socialist and Communinst to implement greater and more effective educational material for the working class and better revolutionary concepts to help end bourgeoisie dictatorship.

Social

Posted: 26 Feb 2005 06:27 pm Post subject:

You said, "Now I am here to learn about De Leonism."
I would start by reflecting on this this ...
Have you ever thought about the basic idea of forming one large industrial union for all workers, regardless of occupation, and then using this union as a foundation for building a new system, where workers' associations will manage their own workplaces democratically ..... ?

Posted: 26 Feb 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:

What you wrote is familiar to what the Communist call Democratic Centralism. I am pasting a partial reply to the question of how Democratic Centralism would work.

Posted: 27 Feb 2005 07:13 am Post subject:

> What you wrote is familiar to what the Communist call
> Democratic Centralism.

Was that a reply to me or someone else?

When I refered to the goal of self-management by the workers, I didn't say anything about a party being in existence at that time.

All newcomers to DeLeonism, take note: The De Leonist concept of a Marxist revolution is generally like this: The industrial union seizes control of the means of production, and the revolutionary political party of the working class, it's work now being entirely done, immediately abolishes itself.

You said "... we all want the same end result." Perhaps we better check into whether that's true.

Posted: 27 Feb 2005 02:12 pm Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

Posted: 28 Feb 2005 05:15 pm Post subject:

Posted: 28 Feb 2005 08:06 pm Post subject:

Mike Wrote:

Posted: 01 Mar 2005 12:38 am Post subject:

Social Greenman: A new person in the discussion. Welcome

S.G. wrote:

I am also a Pagan who believes that religion is a private matter and not an illusion or delusion as opiate would cause. Therefore I do not agree with Marx on this.

Dave replies:

I don’t think that Marx actually said that religion was an illusion. I think he was saying that religion ought not serve as an illusory happiness. In this context it’s a pretty mainstream idea.

"Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
—Karl Marx, from Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

An excellent book on Marx’s writings on religion can be found at

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1616_reg.html

Dave

Posted: 01 Mar 2005 12:43 pm Post subject:

Thanks Dave and thanks for the welcome and for the enlightening link. I am a newbie when it comes to Marx and Socialism. However, I been doing some reading on Lenin's writings and he was somewhat tolerant of religion and allowed the working class to practice their beliefs. Of course he himself believed the party should produce atheistic propaganda. I can't agree with that since atheism is a form of religion in a sense. Then came Stalin with his war on religion which was a fiasco.

Social

Posted: 01 Mar 2005 01:39 pm Post subject:

Hi Social Greenman

I googled Lenin and atheistic propaganda. I came up with a hit which apparently quoted from the 1918 Soviet Constitution:

"The freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is guaranteed to all citizens."

I wasn't able to find a reference to a belief by Lenin that the party ought to produce anti-religious propaganda, not to say that such documentation does not exist, however.

I think that you'll find that the Socialist Industrial Union program is something apart from the Soviet model. Industrial and social conditions in Russia were nowhere near being able to support a democratic government by the workers based upon the industries. The capitalist revolution hadn't even occurred in Russia so there was little chance that a true socialist revolution could occur without outside help. Unfortunately the socialist revolution in Germany in 1919 fizzled out and the Soviet revolution was on it's own. It never was able to develop sufficiently to abolish the state and consequently the state essentially abolished it.

SIU is a democratic government of all of the industries by the workers - there is no state.

(This is all from the top of my head. Anyone with a different or better way of putting it, please feel free to jump in.)

Anyway S.G. - I hope that you hang around for a while. Questions or comments are always useful.

Dave

Opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the group.

Posted: 01 Mar 2005 04:23 pm Post subject:

Hi Dave,

Well, a comrade did provide a link and Lenin did favor atheistic propaganda.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/553/secularism.htm
Secularism, atheism and Bolshevik lessons

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 12:57 am Post subject:

Social Greenman wrote:

I've been doing some reading on Lenin's writings and he was somewhat tolerant of religion and allowed the working class to practice their beliefs. Of course he himself believed the party should produce atheistic propaganda.

Dave replied:

I googled Lenin and atheistic propaganda. I came up with a hit which apparently quoted from the 1918 Soviet Constitution:

"The freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is guaranteed to all citizens."

I wasn't able to find a reference to a belief by Lenin that the party ought to produce anti-religious propaganda, not to say that such documentation does not exist, however.

S.G. responded:

Well, a comrade did provide a link and Lenin did favor atheistic propaganda.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/553/secularism.htm

S.G. also quoted from an article on that website.

Dave responds:

The article that you cite gives disjointed quotation from Lenin. It is not clear from the quote what Lenin specifically was refrring to. Out of All fo Lenin's writings is this as close as they can come?

From the article:

Lenin emphasises that, so far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, “religion is not a private matter”. As the party is founded to struggle against “every religious bamboozling”, the ideological struggle against religion cannot be “a private affair” for members, but is the concern of “the whole party, the whole of the proletariat” (VI Lenin CW Vol 10, Moscow 1977, pp84-85).

Dave continues:

We don't seem to be any closer than before as to what lenin's opinion was as to the party producing anti-religous propaganda. He may have, he may not have but until we see some Lenin writing to that effect, we are nowhere on that point. But as I pointed out, SIU is something totally different from the Soviet model so while it's interesting to know what Lenin wrote about the party producing anti-religous propaganda it's not something that I think relates to SIU or the free practice of religion once the SIU is established.

The article that S.G. cites also stated:

Simultaneously, therefore, it is necessary for Marxists to combat those revolutionaries who wished to conduct a war on religion.

Dave responds:

I didn't see any examples of such revolutionaries in the article that we must combat. And to tell you the truth I don't do combat at all aganst anyone. I try to avoid empassioned rhetoric if at all possible.

Dave wrote:

Industrial and social conditions in Russia were nowhere near being able to support a democratic government by the workers based upon the industries. The capitalist revolution hadn't even occurred in Russia so there was little chance that a true socialist revolution could occur without outside help. Unfortunately the socialist revolution in Germany in 1919 fizzled out and the Soviet revolution was on it's own. It never was able to develop sufficiently to abolish the state and consequently the state essentially abolished it.

S.G. responded:

It's a really long history. The bougeosie fought both outside and within the Old Soviet Union that the reaction was an establishment of an authoritarian state which Stalin took to new heights with forced industrialization.

Dave responds:

After the revolution was dead. The state under Stalin swallowed it.

Dave wrote:

SIU is a democratic government of all of the industries by the workers - there is no state.

S.G. responded:

If you read my earlier post I pointed out the problems of maintaining a socialist country. However, we have not even come close to establishing class (consciousness) in the minds of workers.

Dave responds:

I went through your posts and didn't really see problems with the idea of the establishment of an industrial republic of labor. You did write something to the effect that the capitalists are sure going to be mad when they find out that the workers are going to take their wealth. I guess some will. I think that most will be more than happy to be rid of class divided society and it's ills. Aren't they and their children exposed to the same polution and other social decay that the workers are? But I didn't see any other references to problems of maintaining a socialist country. But I suppose that there will be some problems but I have full faith that our children will be able to work those problems out in light of actual conditions of the day instead of us trying to work out their probelms from the dust bin of history. I trust that they will come up with a solution as remarkable as the "solution" represented by the Constitution of 1787, written after the revolution, not before it.

I see that you are a member of the Socialist Party. Does current S.P. literature describe why the S.P. broke from the S.L.P.? I'm curious.

Dave

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 01:32 am Post subject:

Thank you for the responses. I have no idea why the SP broke with the SLP. Now I am curious. However, I am a new member. I figure it would be good to heal those divisions, whatever they may be, and to join in unity once again.

Social

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 02:03 am Post subject:

Okay I did find something but this is all I could find from the SPUSA website.

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 12:01 pm Post subject:

A couple of years ago I read a biography of Norman Thomas of the SP. I have since "lent" it out and I don't recall the author.

Thomas was a real nice guy. No one can take that from him. Asa I recall he had been a preacher at the "Marble" church in Manhattan. From what I read there wasn't a whole lot, if anything, about the socialist revolution - the workers operating the indistries for themselves.

From the S.P. site:

"In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups."

Dave writes:

The SLP and SP split occurred before the development of the SIU concept in 1905. I don't think that it is necessary for the two organizations to join togther again - what would be nice is if the two organizations could find common ground in advocating the SIU concept. The S.P. has long accepted the slogan "Workers of the World Unite" . Would it consider formally endorsing the concept expressed by Deleon:

"The central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic - exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be exclusively industrial."

We in this group endorse this concept while at the same time keeping a respectable distance between ourselves and the SLP. Can the S.P. do the same? To me that would go a long long way towards getting the Socialist movement off of top dead center.

Dave

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 05:39 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 02 Mar 2005 08:41 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

The SLP and SP split occurred before the development of the SIU concept in 1905. I don't think that it is necessary for the two organizations to join together again - what would be nice is if the two organizations could find common ground in advocating the SIU concept. The S.P. has long accepted the slogan "Workers of the World Unite" . Would it consider formally endorsing the concept expressed by Deleon.

Social Greenman answered:

I must clarify myself. When I speak of join I mean in a coalition sort of way to find common ground to work together. Not uniting back into a single party.

Dave responds:

Yes I do to. Would the S.P. endorse the SIU concept? This way they and the rest of us could work in coalition to advocate SIU.

Dave wrote:

"The central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic - exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be exclusively industrial."

We in this group endorse this concept while at the same time keeping a respectable distance between ourselves and the SLP. Can the S.P. do the same? To me that would go a long long way towards getting the Socialist movement off of top dead center.

S.G. responded:

I would have to agree that some sort of administrative process would have to be enacted for health care, education, social services, law enforcement, etc. The administration of industries is one thing but the coordination of what goes where and what is imported. Since markets are no longer the functioning means of supplying demand the internet would take up where the markets left off by interconnection with each industries for orders and deliveries and/or exchanges….

Dave responds:

The paragraph I quoted above in a nutshell represents the SIU program. This is what we advocate. The current social system (capitalism – private ownership of the means of production) and the current epoch (class ruled society – enforced by the state) have lived out their productive lives – however by putting the workers in control of all of the industries they have created the germ of a cooperative classless society.

The workers already plan for, produce and distribute the wealth of the industries. Within the SIU they will do it to benefit society as a whole and not just a small class. We will do this because it will be in our interest to do it.

You say that serious planning has to be done. The industries are already in place. The workers are already in place. The workers already control planning.

My question to you is are you ready to endorse the SIU concept? Because that is what we are working for. I hope that you can work with us and I also hope that you as an S.P. member can propose the question of endorsement of SIU to the party.

In response to Dave’s statement “We in this group endorse this concept while at the same time keeping a respectable distance between ourselves and the SLP. Can the S.P. do the same?” S.G. wrote:

I don't know what the respectable distance is between the SP and SLP but no doubt it is most likely sectarian. Sectarianism has really hurt all Socialist in the U.S.

Dave responds:

I should have said respectful distance from the SLP. If I’m not mistaken members of this group are either former members of the SLP or of organizations that have spun off from the SLP (in much the same way that the S.P. did) We may disagree with certain actions taken by the SLP but we still share the same goal as the SLP, the establishment of the SIU. Has the SLP been sectarian? Sure. Has the S.P. periodically lost track of its revolutionary basis in favor of reform? No doubt. But we can strive for common ground. Forget the differences of the past. The S.P. says “Workers of the World Unite.” The SIU concept above provides for a stateless and non-class divided structure wherein that may happen. Let me know what you and possibly other S.P. members think. We can do this.

Dave

Posted: 03 Mar 2005 12:02 am Post subject:

Well, like I said I am fairly new to this SIU concept of uniting political and industrial forces together. I need to further my education about De Leon and I do find it facinating and uniquey American. Nor am I well versed in Marxism. Egg head reading is difficult for me but I do manage the gist of it So, yes I will see what I can do to help. The American people do not want Communism and the Communist cut their own throat with supporting Stalin. Even though I am beginning to understand Democratic Centralism it still remains as a bureaucratic collective. I don't view Communist as evil or misguided. They just believe differently on how a Socialist society would run. I have no doubt, with my discussions with them, that they are for the working class. However, an American style of Socialism may be the ticket and that is why I decided to come here and learn.

Though I have read Marx from time to time over the years and noted how working people dismiss Marx or just plain hostile toward anything socialist. They passsively accept their condition and what concessions the Capitalist class demands. I believe fatalistic would decribe it perfectly. Until recently when I could no longer keep up with the rising cost of everything, which includes certain health care cost, I decided to join the SP-USA for starters. I figured one more member would help induce socialism in some small way if any.

I am on the Debs Tendency forum and not many people come there. I believe everyone went over to E-groups and doing Blogs. Anyways I have taken up the responsibility as a greeter over there. Now I would not have know of this discussion board if not Vince De Benedeto had not posted over there.

Social

Posted: 03 Mar 2005 01:25 am Post subject:

Social Greenman:

A good place to start looking a little closer at this is to go to the main page of www.deleonism.org. On the left of the page are links to four excellent short texts. I read "What Means This Strike" almost 40 years ago and have never looked back.

This is definitely not egghead reading.

You're already starting to get a grasp when you talk about the political and industrial forces together. You've written about democratic centralism a couple of times now - I've seen you describe it but I think that you may projecting something onto the SIU concept that really isn't there. But read up and we'll see where it goes.

What the people will accept or they won't accept is always open to change depending on social conditions. I advocate SIU because I think that it is the only thing that will work. I accept it and try to convince others as to its feasibility. That's all that I can do.

You are the greeter for a discussion group on Debbs? Can you give the address? I'd like to take a look.

Dave

Posted: 03 Mar 2005 01:53 am Post subject:

Sorry, I should have included the link in my prior post.

http://www.debstendency.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

56 members and a very small few post once in a great while. It's actually laid out nicely and one would think it would be bustling with traffic.

As promised I did look in the book I have and it said that the different views held by De Leon were more radical than Debs'. The author states that De Leon did not believe in the ballot box (my interpretation) and rejected reforms but wanted abolition of Capitalism. Debs', on the other hand, went after votes and prefered to use the electorial process. The author also said that De Leon was an ultra-sectarian. The author also says that in 1914 Debs wanted the SLP to unite with his Party. Sorry, I could not find what caused the split. It most likely in there and I will eventually come across it.

Social

Posted: 03 Mar 2005 02:22 pm Post subject:

Thanks S.G.

Is that a S.P. pamplet that you were reading from? Is it available? It would be interesting to look atwhat both sides sayabout the split and also see if the split, a hundred years later, was so damned important that the Deleonists on the one side and the S.P. ers on the other can't find common ground in the SIU concept. Is SIU too radical?

Everything is proportional.

example: I live in Vermont. In Vermont becuase of the mercury pollution from coal fired plants in the mid-west a pregant woman is not supposed to eat any fish caught in any water way, lake or pond in the whole state - even from up in the mountains.

example: 2,500 died in this country from the 9/11 attacks. This is terrible. But since that time 175,000 have died on our highways.

We are dying in droves on the highways - Our whole country side is polluted with a terrible nuero toxin - We're caught in yet another war that we thought could never happen becuase of the "lessons learned from Vietnam". In light of these, can SIU actually be percieved to be too radical?

Too radical for whom? This excuse is always given that people will never accept the idea. So we are going to take it upon ourselves to determine just what the people will and will not accept? The real question should be, do those who proclaim themselves to be socialists accept it. If you accpet it then it's your obligation to honestly advocate for that view. If the people don't come along, they don't come along. But a true respect for the people I think should dictate that you will openly advocate what you believe not what you THINK they will accept. This is called integrity. This is my "love ethic." I love the people so much that I will give them my true opinion whther they think they want to hear it or not.

Dave

Posted: 03 Mar 2005 08:54 pm Post subject:

Posted: 04 Mar 2005 10:30 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 06 Mar 2005 09:38 pm Post subject:

Social Greenman –

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the book that you cited – Socialism Why it didn’t happen here was not an S.P. book. What I was trying to find out was what the S.P. 100 years later is saying about the split. I thought you were giving an S.P. position that Deleon was too radical. Apparently, this was only what the authors of the book thought the S.P.’s position was at the time of the split. I am sorry for the confusion. The question I am still interested in is – is the SIU program as described above – in today’s time, is that in and of itself too radical for endorsement?

Dave wrote:

SIU is a democratic government of all of the industries by the workers - there is no state.

Mike wrote:

This is the fuzziest part for me to understand, and this is after me having decades of familiarity with the program . "No state." Even, if there are laws, and law enforcement, we won't call it a "state", because we reserve that word for a kind of government that is the instrument of a ruling class to hold down a ruled class.

Mike continues:

Plus, we get from Lewis H. Morgan the observation that a state is made of territorial building blocks, and we want an administrative system where the constituencies are industries instead of geographical districts.

I wonder if I'm the only person who finds this somewhat confusing.

Dave replies:

When I wrote there is no state under the SIU I was using the Lewis Henry Morgan definition – that it’s necessarily an arm of territorial government. In my understanding territorial government will be gone under SIU hence the state will be gone.

The U.S. when it was founded adopted the English common law as it existed at the time of the revolution, and it has evolved to some extent, since then, based upon conditions in the U.S. No doubt there will be law within SIU probably some of it exported from the dust bin of history until it can be reinterpreted to meet our conditions. Things ought to be fuzzy however. We’re talking about the future. Confusion ought not bother you about this. At this stage I would be more concerned about certainty.

Dave

Posted: 06 Mar 2005 11:55 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 07 Mar 2005 02:55 pm Post subject:

Dave, I really don't know what the SP position is. A few day ago a letter came to my P.O. Box. Within it was my SP-USA membership card and a newsletter and something that looked like a statement of purpose. I really don't know if the SP consider it too radical. Of course you got Ken telling you it's obsolete. Perhaps with Capitalism: resistance is futile--be assimulated.

Dave responds:

That's alright that you don't know. Aparently neither arty has any literature in print on the great divorce. This is my point, neither side even rembers what the split was about.

The SP advocates "radical democracy" "not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order" "People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people." "Radical democracy is the cornerstone not only of our socialism, but also of our strategy"

Nothing here is contrary to the the SLP wants, elimination of class rule, the means of production under the democratic control of the workers who operate the industries.

Don't worry about what Ken wrote, what I wrote or anyone else wrote. Don't worry about the bickering. Don't worry about the past of either the SLP or SP. The issue is only how do we proceed from here. To me - and I know that people say that I am crazy to pursue this idea - If there was some way to get some element of the SP to endorse the specific concept of the workers operating the entire means of production by a democracy of the workers within all of the industries organized along industrial lines - that would then force the SLP's hand to recognize that S.P. element as advocating what the SLP wants. Doesn't it seem like to you that this could and should happen?

Dave

Posted: 07 Mar 2005 06:46 pm Post subject:

Tie me to the mast, like Odysseus sailing past the island of the sirens. I tend to go berserk when I encounter statements like what the Socialist Party says here (quoted in Dave's post of March 2):

"In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups."

I'm one of the more extreme examples of a particular species of socialist which I call structuralists, because I'm not aware of another name for what I am. The most commonly heard criticism of socialism is that "it wouldn't work." My answer to that is: there are a few specific ways of structuring socialism that would work very well, but, as for many other conceptions of socialism, the critics are often right -- some of the ideas generated by people who call themselves socialists wouldn't work, such systems wouldn't be efficient, and they wouldn't be stable but would soon collapse.

The SP's phrase "democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups" is so vague that it includes the few conceptions of socialism that would work exceedingly well and also the many conceptions of socialism that would fail miserably.

In the context of the SP comment, what are "cooperatives" or "collective groups"?

In defining what the word "socialism" means, one of the first issues that needs to be covered is: how would the outputs of one industry become the inputs of another industry? For example, how would the sheet metal that is the output of a mill then undergo the transition to becoming one of the inputs to a plant that makes refrigerators? Answer this question properly and "socialism will work"; give the wrong answer to this question and "socialism won't work."

Such phrases as "cooperatives" or "collective groups" are usually interpreted to mean that the various industries would acquire their resources by buying and selling from each other, or by trading with each other. Do that and "socialism won't work" -- it will be a miserably inefficient system; futhermore, it wouldn't be socialism in the first place -- it would be a variety of capitalism, with almost all, if not literally all, of the problems and disadvantages that are generated by today's form of capitalism.

In order to function, socialism requires that there be no buying, selling, or trading of resources among the various industries. Socialism can only operate if all of the intermediate products that are the inputs to industry, such as parts, raw materials, and energy, are allocated directly out of a single global inventory. It is essential that the various industries will not be independent financial entities with their own balance sheets of income and outgo.

Industrial management can be decentralized, and much of it should be, but industrial funding can never be decentralized -- it must be global, or else the system wouldn't be socialism, and the working class revolution would have been for nothing.

And so I require a precise answer to this question: What are "cooperatives" or "collective groups"? Answer one way and I'm for it; answer another way and I'm against it.

Posted: 07 Mar 2005 09:47 pm Post subject:

Mike - you are absolutely right - the wording is not altogether to our liking. But as you can see I'm trying to open up a dialog here. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that we both want the same thing but use different language - can we find a commmon ground? I am not for one intant suggesting that either side give up one iota of an uncompromisable principle. What I'm trying to get at is - is there at least one group within the S.P. that can endorse SIU. There is nothing wrong with co-ops. We belonged to one when one was available where we lived. It saved a few bucks on the grocery bill. Just alike, there are mutual insurance companies that theoretically belong to the policy holders. So what - I don't think anyone beieves that these things lead to Socialialsm (anymore than restructuring the way that the president of the United States is elected woud) but if it saves you a few bucks its just as good if not better than a pay raise. If people endorse SIU they can advocate anything else that they want to (short of facism) and it doesn't bother my time, as long as it is clear that I am not a part of the advocacy of whatever it is that is not SIU. (In all truth the advocacy of certain things that are not SIU do irk me, but co-ops and the such are not in that category- and these exceptions are strickly personal to me.)
IMHO
Dave

Posted: 08 Mar 2005 02:30 pm Post subject:

I'm not against coops either. I'm not against socialists personally working to support coops. I'm against having coops mentioned in a published description of a socialist goal or program. It miseducates the readers. It spreads misconceptions.

I'm not against socialists working for liberal reforms or capitalist reforms. In fact, I'm not against socialists taking part in capitalist activity either, and I hope a lot of socialists invest their money. What I'm against is reforms being recommended by socialist literature, part of the group's published objectives.

> What I'm trying to get at is - is there at least one group within
> the S.P. that can endorse SIU

To find out, why don't you ask in their forums. One is "the cooperative commonwealth"
http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=1019
I'm sure there are more.

Posted: 08 Mar 2005 07:57 pm Post subject:

You are against it just as I am against using socialism as a platform for pushing "love ethic" or whatever the hell it is. Right now the SP says they are for co-ops etc. I'd like to get them or some part of them to say that they endorse SIU. Of course when and if they say that - to us there will be an apparent contradiction between endorsing SIU as a goal and pushing co-ops as a goal (if in fact that's what they do). So when and if that happens, you I and others will patientially try to point out that SIU is or should be the goal, and that we shouldn't be mixing up co -op talk with the SIU goal. If we are good and patient convincers perhaps it will go somewhere. If not, then fine. If they endorse SIU and don't change anything else, that will be totally up to them. Yes I thought about contacting the group myself - but Social Greenman who is a short time member of the SP showed up on our doorstep (through work of Vince). I figured what the hey - why not put the question to him and see where it goes. Nothing else has worked so why not try something different :)
Dave

Posted: 09 Mar 2005 04:09 am Post subject:

I probably overstated my feelings. I really do appreciate the concept that if the SP is a multi-tendency party then we might find some there who are receptive to siu. I don't know how Social would be able to find them for us -- we might have to do some work to find them -- that's why I mentioned internet forums.

Posted: 10 Mar 2005 12:52 am Post subject:

What can Social do? I am afraid that I am four hours away from the nearest SP chapter. The Debs Tendency personel are all hiding on a E-group. I am not a member of that group but I am a member of a pagan E-group which I receive around a hundred E-mails a day with no politics. Politics are a no no on this group. I can hardly keep up with what mail I get.

I have quit the Tendency due to no one posting anymore. I don't understand why it was created and then abandoned. Whatever the excuse I am no longer going to wait for them to make a grand appearance.

On the other hand, I still need to learn about SIU and how it would be implemented. I still don't believe the Capitalist are going to just sit back and allow it to come into existance. Here is a link you might want to read. It is called Another Look at Stalin.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/heller/Martens/Martens.html

Social

Posted: 10 Mar 2005 10:25 am Post subject:

Vince wrote:

On the other hand, I still need to learn about SIU and how it would be implemented. I still don't believe the Capitalist are going to just sit back and allow it to come into existance. Here is a link you might want to read. It is called Another Look at Stalin.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/heller/Martens/Martens.html

Dave writes:

I tried reading it - the print quality is very poor however. This is how it runs (the little that I read): Gorbechev sold out the noble USSR to the right. Such a thing would never have happened under the heroic old Joe. The Stalinist deprivations were all made up by anti-communists . Yadda yadda. I hope this isn't one of the things that led you to write that "the communists have their shit together".

There isn't a whole lot to be said from our perspective as to how SIU will be implemented. But give me one example of before the American revolution where anyone successfully predicted the setup of government after the revolution. When, as now, there are probably less than 1 person in the United States per million openly advocating SIU it doesn't seem quite the time to establish how SIU will be implemented other to urge people to consider the idea in general.

"The capitalists are not going to sit back"? Whoops, we'd better not advocate anything that the capitalists are going to not sit back for :)

Dave

Posted: 10 Mar 2005 03:57 pm Post subject:

Posted: 10 Mar 2005 05:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 10 Mar 2005 08:54 pm Post subject:

dave wrote:

But give me one example of before the American revolution where anyone successfully predicted the setup of government after the revolution.

to which Mike replied

In a book entitled Two Treatises of Government (1690), John Locke (1632-1704) recommended that governments should have their powers divided among three branches, which he called the legislative, executive and judicial.

and Dave responds:

That recommedation essentially was put into place in Masachusetts in 1692, the oldest court of appellate jurisdiction in the western hemisphere. (put into place as a means of overturning the convictions of the Salemn witches without the governor having to grant them pardons.) The U.S. itself had no third branch (except in the states) during and after the revolution until the ratification of the Constitution some 13 years after the Declaration of Independence. But Locke gave as much to the creation of the US govenment as DeLeon has to the SIU. (This is all off the top of my head so I could be off on a point or two.)

Dave

Posted: 11 Mar 2005 11:30 am Post subject:

Dave, I wish you would have read it. It talks about how many innocent lives were lost by Stalin's actions. However, it does speak of those who were sabatoging the infastructure to return Russia back to Capitalism. The anti-Semites who were in support of Hitler, the kulaks who destroyed grains and livestock because they could not make profits. There were a lot if internal and external forces gnawing at the young Soviet Union. I don't know how in hell Stalin had the forsight to increase military production because if he had not Hitler would have taken Russia and we just may possibly be speaking German today and sieg heiling Bush. Not that some people don't come close to doing that. By the way, Bush's grandfather supported Hitler along with Henry Ford and other big Capitalist.

Most people in Communist Parties do not like Stalin though there are a small few who do. I can't explain why that is. The CPUSA and CPC are not totalitarian as Capitalist propaganda would make them out to be.

Social

Posted: 11 Mar 2005 04:32 pm Post subject:

Is there another e version of this text? I downloaded the pdf file at the link that you gave and the font they used is hidiously blurred. I have poor near vision as it is. About 1 minute of reading that text is all that I can stand at a time.

This Stalin is the same Stalin in front of whom the Nazi/Soviet "nonagression" treaty was signed on August 23, 1939.

On it's face, it has been argued that the pact merely was to buy time for the Soviets to better prepare for the eventual war with Germany. But what is the explaination for the secret portion of the pact that neatly sliced up and aportioned eastern Europe between germany and the USSR? see http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pact.htm

CPUSA, now do any of them outright advocate SIU? If not, why not? What is the closest that you have seen any of them come to it?

Dave

Posted: 12 Mar 2005 02:59 am Post subject:

Hi Dave,

What I did was down load the PDF file and used Abode 6 which made it very easy to read. Sometimes the book does get a little to pro Stalin but for the most part it deals with the different factors in which good calls and bad calls were made. Also I believe that I read that in the book as well about that treaty with Germany. I have to take another look.

From what I read on CPUSA literature they are more than willing to work with all Socialist, progressives and unions. I would say that anything that would help they would be interested in. I think the best way to know is to ask them about SIU.

The Communist Party USA National Office
235 W. 23rd Street
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212 989-4994
Fax: 212 229-1713
E-mail: cpusa@cpusa.org

Social

Posted: 12 Mar 2005 09:28 pm Post subject:

I'm going to upload the most recent version of acrobat to see if that helps.

What the heck - just to see what the CPUSA has to say on SIU I emailed them the following:

March 12, 2005

To: cpusa@cpusa.org

Dear CPUSA:

Our web discussion group has been discussing the idea of Socialist Industrial Union apparently first put forth by Daniel DeLeon of the Socialist Labor Party in a Speech in Minneapolis one hundred years ago this July. That speech is available at http://www.deleonism.org/srs.htm. A brief description of SIU was lately given by the moderator of the discussion:

--- Workers will be organized according to industry instead of according to type of work. For example, a cafeteria cook in a steel mill will be classified as a steel worker, not a food services worker. To say this in the technical language that we use: we believe that industrial unionism is better than craft unionism.

--- All unions will be integrate
d departments of one large industrial union of the entire working class.

--- After the union becomes sufficiently large, the workers will physically take possession of the industries, and continue to operate them -- for social use -- in the name of society.

--- If supporters of the capitalist class attempt a counter-revolution, the fact that the workers' organization physically holds the industries will provide useful defense mechanisms, such as the abilility to control electricity, telephones, trucking, etc.

--- The shape that the union has taken, in terms of subdepartments, committees of elected delegates, periodic assemblies, etc., will become the starting point for the new management system that will replace the old management system. It will be ready immediately to carry on manufacturing, farming, health care, etc., with workers' democratic self-management. This is necessary to avoid any interruption in the availability of goods and services, to avoid confusion and chaos.

--- The new socialist system will be based on industrial units instead of geographical units. For example, it would make sense for some administrative congress to have a shipbuilding workers representative, a hospital workers representative, etc., etc., but it would not make sense for it to have a Westchester County, New York representative. We believe that, as time goes by, geographical location becomes increasingly irrelevant for democratic representation purposes.

---No political party or government can establish genuine socialism. Only a workplace-based organization can do it.

Recently a member of the SP joined the discussion and was asked if the SP or any tendency in the SP would or could endorse the basic principals of SIU as outlined above. The participant did not know the answer to that question but then he brought up the CPUSA, apparently thinking that the CPUSA was of a more radical persuasion than that the SP and would be more likely to endorse the concept. So the participant was asked if he knew if the CP or any member of the CP could or would endorse the basic principals of SIU. Apparently the participant did not know but he suggested that the Party itself be asked the question. So the question is this: based upon the DeLeon speech (and trying to overlook that the SLP and CPUSA have not always been on the best of terms)just looking at the basic principals – could the CPUSA or any recognized element of the party formally endorse the SIU concept.

Sincerely,

David Searles
229 Travis Terr.
Center Rutland, Vt. 05736

searles.david@rutlandcounty.net

Posted: 12 Mar 2005 11:01 pm Post subject:

Dave,

1. I'm not the "moderator" of the forum!

2. I thought you'd know from experience how the CP usually answers questions like that: Whatever principles you believe it the most, "of course we include that" and "much more", therefore "join us."

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 04:52 pm Post subject:

Mike: I thought moderator sounded like a good thing to put in there. I confused moderator with administrator. My bad.

The probelm with experiences is that they are always samplings of reality from the past :) Who knows - maybe our friends over at the CP may be rooting around for a new way of doing things, just as we are. If the CP or some recognized group within the CP without equivocation actually endorses SIU as laid out in the letter, they are my comrades. (But just a statement from someone answering the mail, in a form similar to that which you described - interpreting loosely worded CP principles - you know that's not going to cut it with me.

Dave

revised 1:40 p.m. 3/13/05

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 06:55 pm Post subject:

Vince thanks, I did upgrade to Acrobat 7 and opened the file - the font is slightly better but not by much. I think this is done to prevent the text from being copied via OCR. The effect that I get is the equilent of trying to read standard text through a layer of waxed paper. Too hard on my eyes.
Dave

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 07:07 pm Post subject:

How is the person who answers the mail supposed to know what tendencies may exist throughout a national organization?

If they knew, why would they want to put you in touch with that tendency group, unless the person who answers the mail also happens to be part of that tendency?

Why would a group that practices "democratic centralism" (that's Leninese for "all members are required to pretend that they have identical beliefs") tell any outside of their party what they actually know about?

You're setting yourself up to be either snookered, or disappointed, or first snookered and then disappointed, or first disappointed and then snookered.

Embarassed

"Gee! I thought the exotic dancer at the Zodiac Lounge really did consider me to be the best looking guy she had ever seen!"

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 07:22 pm Post subject:

Dave, the posts signed Social Greenman -- that's twice now that you replied to them as "Vince." Did you think it was Vince using a pseudonym?

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 07:31 pm Post subject:

In the "off-topic chatter" topic, it's permissible to write anything. For example, my snow blower didn't work very well yesterday, because the snow, which had already begun to melt, repeatedly clogged the auger chute.

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 08:12 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Dave, the posts signed Social Greenman -- that's twice now that you replied to them as "Vince." Did you think it was Vince using a pseudonym?

Dave responds:

Oh I am sorry - Social Greenman I meant. These days my own name is difficult enough for me to keep track of. Actually "Dave" is a pseudonym for some other name - but I have been using it for so long, for the life of me I can't remeber what it replaced.

Mike wrote:

How is the person who answers the mail supposed to know what tendencies may exist throughout a national organization?

Dave replies:

Damned if I know.

Mike wrote:

Why would a group that practices "democratic centralism" (that's Leninese for "all members are required to pretend that they have identical beliefs") tell any outside of their party what they actually know about?

Dave replies:

Damed if I know again.

Mike wrote:

You're setting yourself up to be either snookered, or disappointed, or first snookered and then disappointed, or first disappointed and then snookered.

Dave replies:

My mother told me the same thing when I started to write to the SLP all of those years ago. I'm a big boy - besides don't you like playing snooker? But disappointed? Never when everyday is a brand new day.

Mike wrote:

my snow blower didn't work very well yesterday, because the snow, which had already begun to melt, repeatedly clogged the auger chute.

Dave replies:

Even though you didn't ask I will tell you anyway: The trick to sucessful snow blowering is not to rush out too quickly to do it. As a rule of thumb I do not even attempt to blow snow prior to 6 months after it has fallen. I am just about through my second winter in Vermont sucessfully and happlily employing this rule, with no disappointments to date.

Dave

Posted: 13 Mar 2005 08:20 pm Post subject:

When you say "damned if I know", do you mean "damned if I know" as in Descartes, Kant, or Hume? I want to properly classify your "damned if I know".

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 01:40 am Post subject:

Mike, there is only one Social Greenman and that would be me. Aside from that I have been busy writing on the OBOD board. Someone started a thread on Socialism and Capitalism. With the magic of cutting and pasting and a few personal comments I have gotten a lot of attention. I am talking about SIU to them and then got stuck on Labor Power. I understand that labor is the means that wealth is created for the few. I will be looking over the site to obtain a better understanding on how labor power can have an exchange value over precious metals along with the many PDF files I have.

Dave, I just don't understand why Abode Reader did not clear the text up for you. Mine made it as easy to read as any other PDF file I have on my computer.

Social

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 02:11 am Post subject:

Okay, I had to stop back and say I copied and pasted on how the Time Labor Vouchers would work on the OBOD board. I am no mathmatician but I know enough to see that considerable time was put into it in regards to what type of labor would pay more according to how physical it can be or not be.

Social

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 04:24 am Post subject:

Social Greenman wrote:

Dave, I just don't understand why Abode Reader did not clear the text up for you. Mine made it as easy to read as any other PDF file I have on my computer.

Dave responds - tis an oddity - as soojn as I can come up with $30 I'm going to buy one of the programs that rips the pdf files apart so you can get directly at the text inside without havng to go through the acrobat reader. Mike had mentioned a freeware program - I hunted that down but it will only do one file for the first couple of pages, then it's kaput.

S.G. wrote: I understand that labor is the means that wealth is created for the few. I will be looking over the site to obtain a better understanding on how labor power can have an exchange value over precious metals.

Dave writes: An excellent pamphlet to wrestle with on this topic is Value Price and Profit by Marx.

People do spend a lot of time trying to figure out what kinds of adjustments will have to be made under Socialism for workers doing harder / more dangerous work to receive more in return for their efforts. I know that this isn't very satisfactory but one way of looking at it is - people should work at jobs that they like. I work as a custodian. I work hard but I like the work becuase i can see what the building was like before I started and can see the results of my labor. I have worked at jobs that were much much easier to do - Even if the pay for the easier job was the same as the job that I have now - I would rather do the job that I have now. This has been my experience in the dozens of jobs that I have had in my life. Having a job with more job satisfaction usually is more important to a woker than higher pay. (Of course this general rule starts to fall apart the more and more the wage discrepancy grows) I think that under socialism all jobs will have a lot more satisfaction attached to them so the question of which worker should recieve more , and how much more, ought to become far less important on the other side of the revolution. But its one of the things that socialists like to argue about.

Mike wrote (directed at Dave):

When you say "damned if I know", do you mean "damned if I know" as in Descartes, Kant, or Hume? I want to properly classify your "damned if I know".

To which Dave replies:

Mike I'll try and let you know in about a month.

Dave

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 06:16 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 06:23 am Post subject:

Social,
What + where is the OBOD board?
I'm easily confused by abbreviations.

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 06:50 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 10:28 am Post subject:

Sorry, The OBOD board is Order of Ovates, Bards and Druids:

http://druidry.org/board/index.php

Remember I am pagan. However, I could use the help on the thread of Current Issues with the post of Socialism and Capitalism.

I tell you people like to misquote whatever I write or claim I wrote something I didn't write. There are claims that Socialism would encourage "laziness" or would not produce enough wealth for education or healthcare. When I write of TLV they keep translating it into money. If I am correct, and that can be a rarity at times, that:
9. DIVISION OF WEALTH INTO SOCIAL AND INDIVIDUAL USES

The total inventory of the society's wealth consists of two parts: the amount of incurred time for social use products (soc) and that for individual use products (indiv). Instead of providing resources for social use by requiring individuals to pay back part of their income as taxes, the products allocated to social use are deducted directly from the total inventory. The wealth remaining for individual use, i.e., charged to individual accounts, is:

t_inc_indiv = t_inc - t_inc_soc

If I am correct than this equation is what pays for education and health care.

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 02:01 pm Post subject:

Mike, excellent explanation on exchange value, now could you give us an equally succinct explanation of use value. I was trying to write one up but I kept going round without actually getting anywhere.

On the all important issue of how workers will/should/may get back differently based upon difficulty or dangerousness of the occupation – I know that some socialists think that topic is so damned important. I would not in the least want to dissuade someone from engaging in discussion on that topic. I just wanted to advise Social Greenman that essentially people who engage in that discussion are trying to figure out which horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby in the year 2010 when the horse hasn’t been born yet.

If someone asked me what I thought the suggested algorithm for allocating scarce resources after the revolution should be, I would explain to them that their own suggestion would be just as good as my own.

I just don’t buy into the notion that if we can come up with just the right answer to people’s questions that the jubilee will be upon us. And wouldn’t you think that an answer “What would you think ought to be done?”to be just as supportable as any other? I never thought it was my job as a revolutionary to answer people’s questions that they ought to be asking and answering themselves.

Dave

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 05:09 pm Post subject:

Okay, I am no mathamatician and here is a real bugger:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 07:08 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 07:22 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 07:29 pm Post subject:

Thank you Mike. You know it really gets my goat when I, with a two year college degree, can see how TLV would work and I stink at higher math. But I have no idea as to why U.S. workers would rather see profits made from their labor power go to a few people. Is it because they believe they cannot function with out a Capitalist class?

Mike wrote:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 07:37 pm Post subject:

Social Greenman posted an example given by someone who stays up at night thinking about how the Socialist Cooperative of Labor will actully run on a day to day basis:

Let's take the ludicrous example: 100 people, who need 100 TLV to support them. 99 of them take off for their annual beach holiday. The other one now has to produce 100 TLV in order to feed the partyers.

If, say, these partyers decide that they're going to party all year, then you're going to have one person who's generating a 100-fold surplus. I'd argue this isn't fair, especially if the supporter earns only 1 TLV to support herself. However, how are you going to stop it? There's no social mechanism to tell the partiers to get back to work. We could set the supporter up as a cop, but then no one would be working.

Dave replies:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzz

Oh hello - I was just taking a nap. Oh yes, such a problem that is being posed. Tell me, did the revolution occur during my nap? No? Just a second and I will see if I can come up with a solution to the problem zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

(wake me, but not until after the revolution and at that time I will again ponder the question;)

Oh wait a minute maybe I've thought of something . We all know that many many people are working at jobs that simply won't exist after the revolution. Many of these people do nothing in their current jobs but attend meeting after meeting from which absolutely nothing actually productive ever results. Just after the revolution until people figure out what they would like to do in the cooperative commonwealth maybe half of their days could be devoted to discussing just the type of problem that is being posed above - they will of course come up with action plans to form committees to draft assessment criteria and blah blah blah - at some point in time a report will issue and will be neatly round filed - by the time that all happens individuals within the groups will begin to realize that in fact the uneducated illiterate workers on the production lines figured out a solution during their first coffee break after the revolution - this has given the productive works enough time to orient the individuals who voluntarily left the focus groups and on their own figured out that if they showed up at places where actual work was being done that maybe they could find something to do to help make the work go a little easier - after all it has always been the schlubbs on the bottom who have been carrying the weight all along.

Dave

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 07:50 pm Post subject:

Dave, you would not believe how many people believe that a Socialist economy would produce nothing more than partiers and goof offs who are nothing more than parasites on the system. Where I work at, most are paid just over $6.00 an hour. The question would be is why are they not running to the local welfare office to get on the dole and get FREE health care? They don't and would rather work and pay out-of-pocket for private health insurance.

Social

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 09:24 pm Post subject:

> If there's no surplus, then influenza will cause your society to
> crash every winter, as will any natural disaster. No surplus
> means no cushion.

As you can see from the quote I posted earlier, Marx describes clearly how the surplus to cushion us against disasters is one of the necessary deductions. The critic of socialism, too busy snapping back with objections to take a moment to read it, may act as though this is a new revelation.

> Let's take the ludicrous example: 100 people, who need 100 TLV
> to support them. 99 of them take off for their annual beach
> holiday. The other one now has to produce 100 TLV in order to
> feed the partyers.

Those who choose to work more, and go to the beach less, will accumulate personal credits that they can exchange for material luxuries. The person who goes to the beach much more will accumulate fewer credits. In that example, both individuals have had the freedom to choose their favorite form for enjoying the abundance that technology creates.

In NO case would someone's decision to go to the beach increase the workload on other people. That's not possible. It doesn't make any sense.

> This seems always to come up. Somehow along the line it become
> unfair because someone will work while everone else goofs off or
> gets an education, gets sick to use health care or whatnot.

Education is an investment in the future. It makes people more productive, which more than compensates for the wealth that they earlier consumed in the education process.

In any critic says that people would get sick intentionally just so they could make use of the free health care, I would say that criticism is too unrealistic to deserve an answer.

A critic of socialism will often make up a silly objection in a few seconds, hoping to make the socialist go off and waste a half hour in answering it. This is a form of manipulation they like to play. The fact is: capitalism doesn't meet human needs -- capitalism generates hundreds of crises and social problems. Let our critics try to answer that.

> TLV would not generate enough surplus like the profit based system.
> And beside, workers don't have the disipline that the Capitalist
> class has and cannot manage themselves, their place or work nor
> would they have the ambition to do so, yada yada yada.

They're not getting the point that capitalism has to make numerous deductions which are socially unnecessary, and which socialism won't have to make. The deduction to pay dividends to absentee owners. The deduction for marketing and advertising (a expenditure which is entirely waste, because it doesn't serve humanity to have an "industry" to persuade people to want things that they otherwise wouldn't want.) The deduction for government to treat the problems that capitalism causes, such as imprisoning people whose economic insecurity causes them to steal, or to fight wars so the businesses of different countries can compete for raw materials, markets, and trade routes. The waste of duplicated effort, when one development team has to reinvent things that were already invented elsewhere but were concealed as "trade secrets". When capitalism makes deductions from social wealth, most such deductions are nothing but waste.

Socialism will make the necessary deductions, for example, medicine and education will get adequate resources.

Capitalism makes some of the necessary dedections, neglects certain other socially necessary deductions, and makes a whole lot of unnecessary deductions that are nothing but waste.

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 09:39 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Mar 2005 09:47 pm Post subject:

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 12:49 am Post subject:

Use value:

So is this correct - the amount of use value something has is highly subjective, it may be a perfecly good 200,000 btu oil furnace/burner but if you live in Florida it's not going to have the same use value to you as to soemone who lives in Labrador. Is it this simple. Mainly a person makes a decsion whether or not to buy something along four tracks - #1 - to actually use it - it's got a good use value to price ratio or #2 simply as an investment hoping to sell it at a higher price later - #3 there is some other reason such as some tax advantage - #5 some combination of the preceeding. Is it this simple?

Exchange value:

I don't know if you said this Mike, it may have gone over my head - I believe Marx's/Engles' main contribution to economics was that they were the first to identify (I believe) that the exchange value of labor power was determined by the amount of socially necesary labor required to enable the average worker to show up and perform his or her workday duties.

Keeping track or not and liking your job

There are examples under capitalism where no one generally keeps track of how much a person uses complared to how much they put in. They don't usually upsett too many people. I have unlimited internet access for a set price. I can go up to the salad bar as many times as i want for a set price. I can go to the library as many times as I want and read every book I can get my hands on for a set involuntary tax contribution (well the voters of the town decide whetehr or not we want the service and how much they are going to add to the tax bill for it.) I can ride my bicycle on the city streets for absolutely nothing - I don't pay any taxes toward that becuase I don't live in the city. I can go to the state park and swim as many times as I want for a set price, or I can buty an annual tag that lets me go to any vermint state park as many times as I want during the year. During the off season I can go as many times as I want to for free and these are all things under Capitalism where most of the wealth has been siphoned off - there are still things so pleamtiful that we really don't bother to keep track of how much people use. Again I get back to people doing work that they like to do. People even under Capitalism if they are at all able should try to find a job that they would still like to do even if they won the lottery (perhaps not as many hours o the day) I get good exercize on my job. That is very important to me. I also get job satisgaction from simply mopping the floor and see it be clean. It's the little thing in life. I would advise everyone, come revolution or not, find a job that you like. "A person who enjoys his/her job never works."

Dave

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 01:18 am Post subject:

Mike, the person I was posting to decided he no longer had anything more to say since I live in a "different world." I posted in response that I was no longer responding since I about covered everything I could. However, your last post to me, and the last paragraph, about the waste of Capitalism, I copied and pasted it. I could not write in that fashion as you did and it really covered a lot. I have learned much from you and Dave and I am more into reading Marx and De Leon than ever before. At any rate, I am tired and I can imagine how dedicated Socialist can get worn out when they actually go out and try to convice their fellow workers on the merits of Socialism and to explain the disadvantages of Capitalism. I hope at least one person on that board takes a long look into Socialism and SIU.

Social

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 06:26 am Post subject:

Social, don't worry if someone is never convinced, or stops responding. There are times when people who want change will just spread around a lot of seeds. Picture how slavery was abolished in the 1860s, and imagine the position of people who started writing pamphlets in the 1760s to urge the abolition of slavery. They were presenting a reasonable case, but almost no one was willing to listen for a hundred years. They we're not wasting their time. They were contributing to the overall atmosphere of dialogue. They partially formed the cultural environment. It's the same with socialism. Some day in the future, the people of the world will no longer be divided into classes of exploiter and exploited. I believe we have fuller lives today if we align ourselves with that direction. As long as you don't burn yourself out with worry, this is not a sacrifice on our part, because to be more socially conscious is to be more fully alive. People who think that history is what "was", but that there will be no more history to come, are enclosing themselves in little boxes.

By the way, thank you for advertising deleonism.org in the OBOD forum. I love publicity :-)

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 06:49 am Post subject:

Dave - Use value can be subjective, but it doesn't have to be simple. That's because it's the demand-side of the seesaw of supply-and-demand, the side most influenced by psychological conditions, mental states. My opinion is that use value cannot be quantified, it can't be expressed in numbers. This makes it necessary to reject the marginal utility theory of economics, which claims that the prices of commodities are determined by the fact that the more we have of a commodity the less satisfaction each additional unit of that commodity brings to its user. The marxian theory of economics is based on the production process, so that things have actual numbers. Ultimately, economics is about ratios wich objectively exist, such as why one car is the marketplace equivalent of ten thousand loaves of bread, therefore an outlook that tries to work with indefinite psychological states can't be built up into a discipline of economics.

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 10:42 am Post subject:

Hi Dave,

That was good advice and you are welcome. No, I don't worry about those who who are not convinced. Since the guy was a moderator he said that it was fun "hasseling me" but I quit because it was going into a circle and I already posted a lot of info about SUI, De Leon and Marx. I got tired too which was another reason I quit posting on that thread.

Social

Posted: 15 Mar 2005 11:32 am Post subject:

Mike quoted me as saying:

"I would explain to them that their own suggestion would be just as good as my own."

To which Mike responded:

But their own suggestion would be to leave capitalism as-is. They think that there's nothing wrong with capitalism. They think all the problems are caused by other things (too many taxes, etc.)

Dave responds:

And that opinion would be as good as my own. If someone actually believes something to that effect, capitalism, not socialists, is really going to be the only thing that is going to change that person's mind, if ever.

To Mike:

Thank you for your response to my questions about use value. We agree that use value is highly subjective - a single tomato has use value if you are making a BLT for someone - but it would have less if you were alone and were allergic to tomatoes?

But I confused things becuase I started to ask about use value, and then I stated to ask about people buying thngs - If we don't talk about people buying things - if you already have too much of something to use then additional units would not have as much use value as the first. That much is true , isn't it?

Dave

Posted: 16 Mar 2005 02:29 pm Post subject:

Posted: 16 Mar 2005 10:03 pm Post subject:

Mike don't confuse value (either exchange or use) with a market driven price.

Money is the commodity par excellence. Just because some commodity is of a high use value doesn't mean that people have money enough to buy it.

Dave

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 02:08 pm Post subject:

Dave, did you get a response from the CPUSA? I have written a letter to a local chapter in my state and got no response from them. I often wonder what it would take to build coalition among the various Socialist tendencies. I know that the writing of M&E are universal among everyone but then it splits off from there into sectarian groups with their differences. I never could understand why groups like these feel that their party has all the solutions. Are we being sectarian as well with SIU? There are many models of a socialist economy, from what I understand, and each group thinks that they have the best. We all have to realise this as walls of separation which have to be torn down. Now I ask what will be the give and take to form these coalitions of political unity that can agitate workers for Socialism?

Social

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 02:17 pm Post subject:

No response, not even an acknowledgment.

Dave

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 02:44 pm Post subject:

Thanks for responding Dave. I just edited my post. Perhaps it is the slow process of Democratic Centralism which they are voting on a response to your letter. Laughing

Social

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 03:59 pm Post subject:

S.G. writes:

I often wonder what it would take to build coalition among the various Socialist tendencies. I know that the writing of M&E are universal among everyone but then it splits off from there into sectarian groups with their differences. I never could understand why groups like these feel that their party has all the solutions. Are we being sectarian as well with SIU? There are many models of a socialist economy, from what I understand, and each group thinks that they have the best. We all have to realise this as walls of separation which have to be torn down. Now I ask what will be the give and take to form these coalitions of political unity that can agitate workers for Socialism?

Dave responds:

No we aren't being sectarian with SIU. I advocate SIU, always have. I haven't been sectie about it. I understand SIU to be the workers taking over the means of production, and becoming the democratic government of society along industrial lines. That's what I advocate, nothing else, nothing less. I advocate it freely and openly. Anyone else who wants to advocate it with me, fine. Anyone who doesn't, fine. I am willing to work within an umbrella group of SIU advocates to some specific end, to the extent that the support that I give is clearly demarked support for the SIU. You say that there are many (proposed) models of Socialist society. I support any of them in which it is openly advocated to all of the workers that they must take hold and democratically operate the industries along industrial lines for themselves. Do you know of any groups that are willing to advocate this? Right now this is not a popular idea but that doesn't make the very few people who do advocate it members of a sect.

Dave

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 08:06 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 20 Mar 2005 10:01 pm Post subject:

S.G. writes:

Alright then, then what is the problem with sectarianism when Socialist are in favor of workers owning the means of production? Is it a problem of schematics? I cannot understand why there has not been coalition building with other Socialist parties no matter if there are different economic models?

Dave writes:

"worker ownership" could mean a stock option plan. It could mean an employee owned company. It could mean that workers have social security accounts set up for them through which they are able to purchace stocks. None of these are socialism. Alright now, turn the question around. Why are other organizations that call themselves socialist not endorsing SIU? (And as I recall, not even you have stated that you endorse it. Why is that?)

Dave

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 02:01 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 02:52 am Post subject:

I wrote to the CP. You can write to the SP. Feel free to take anything that I have written (as if it would be of any help at all) mix it up with what you've been writing and send it to them. But just them saying the words democratic socialism isn't going to cut it here. I'm sure that you know that, however. But who knows. Maybe you can pull it off.

Dave

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 10:59 am Post subject:

I did write on the Debs Tendency website and I see that Rick Page has signed on here. I hope he writes a few things and I understand that he is also a ex-SLPer. I will write the main office to see what they think.

On the other hand, are any of you ex-SLPers working with the members of SLP to bring needed change in how they operate as a party?

Social

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 01:28 pm Post subject:

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 02:20 pm Post subject:

Dave Wrote:

Posted: 21 Mar 2005 03:46 pm Post subject:

S.G. wrote:

I wasn't implying to overthrow the SLP. From what I have read here on different threads is that SLP has organizational problems of un-democratic policies. I know the members of the SLP would have to make those changes but should not those who are ex-members help point out to the members of SLP those organizational problems? I mean you and others here who use to be members of SLP know what needs to be corrected. I am not talking about forcing anyone to do anything but just to establish simple dialog.

Dave writes:

Sorry, still an emphatic no. It is not our business. Set a good example for those within and without the SLP, advocate for SIU.

Dave

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 12:57 am Post subject:

Okay. I'll leave it alone then.

Social

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 02:10 am Post subject:

Welcome aboard nullwinkle. It is good to see you and Rick Page here.

Social

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 08:36 pm Post subject:

I gave out more publicity about SIU at the liberal forum. I PMed a certain socialist who has a really good understanding of Marxism to come to the forum here. I don't know if he will or not but time will tell.

Social

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 11:24 pm Post subject:

Add on: I also invited other Socialist from the Liberal Forum to join us.

Social aka Sol

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 06:45 am Post subject:

Groovy, as we used to say in the '60s :-)

Does anyone here besides me use the newsgroups? If not, does anyone here have access to the newsgroups through their internet provider, and want to use them, but need help figuring out how to configure your software to connect to them? Let me know.

Posted: 24 Mar 2005 10:15 pm Post subject:

Mike, I see you registered at the Debs Tendency. It's mostly a vacuum these days. though a few people do wander in just to look around. They don't post but I did reconsidered re-posting there about SIU. Just for those who take a look.

Social

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 10:50 am Post subject:

I saw someone post this Cannon quote at debs tendency forum > marxist writers > James P. Cannon .... "The sole means of organizing the proletarian revolution is the revolutionary party." That is one of the main ideological errors of Trotskyism.

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 01:36 pm Post subject:

I don't know about Trotsky but I do know the Communist spit when his name is mentioned. I have come a long way since I came here in such a short time too. I thought at first all of you were just utopians. I know better now and I apoligise for anything negative I have written. It will take a struggle to bring Socialism into being and I know now that all of you know this. I just hope it is not bloody. I also know that it will be the workers who bring Socialism into being and not a vanguard party.

Social

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 04:42 pm Post subject:

Seems to me that the Communist Party criticizes the Trotskyists for the wrong reasons. The CP is mad because the Trotskyists expose the lack of freedom and democracy in governments influenced by Stalin, such as the Soviet Union.

I criticize both factions for a fault that they have in common. Both of them visualize socialism as something that will develop when the working class is tricked into joining and voting for their parties, not out of any clarity in how the goal and transformation are presented, but out of out of angry demands for reforms patched like bandages over the symptions of capitalism, and then the "masses" will supposedly be available for being directed by the "leaders."

I have challenged both the Stalinists and the Trotskyists: Hey, all I see in your newspaper is demands for a higher minimum wage, a demand for no college tuition increases, a demand to "tax the banks and corporations, not the people", etc., etc. -- when are you ever going to get around to saying what kind of system you would like to see in place of the system we have now? If you ask them that, they will readily admit that they don't talk about such issues at all in their publications. They consider the topic of "what kind of system" to be an inappropriate subject for their public speakers and their mass-distributed literature! Their plan is to try to predict which list of "immediate demands" they expect to "radicalize" the most people. In other words, they want to draw in the maximum number of dues-paying members, even if most of those those new members think that "socialism" means nothing but capitalism with a few dozen reforms tacked on top of it.

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 05:08 pm Post subject:

Mike - I found something by John Locke that I wanted to post under the same topic under which you first raised it. I tried to do a search on Locke but it only took me to the main page of one of the topics. I wasn't able to find it in that topic. It may have been there but I didn't see it. Is there something that I'm missing here?
Dave

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 06:35 pm Post subject:

Dave, it was in this topic on March 10th. Click the following:
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5&start=36

Posted: 25 Mar 2005 08:10 pm Post subject:

We were talking about John Locke and how he first put forth the idea of the three branches of government which was adopted by the new American republic.

Anther idea of Locke was also adopted - total perfidy when dealing with the subject of slavery - From the Second Treaties Chap 7, par 85:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/locke/ch07.htm

§ 85. Master and servant are names as old as history, but given to those of far different condition; for a free man makes himself a servant to another by selling him for a certain time the service he undertakes to do in exchange for wages he is to receive; and though this commonly puts him into the family of his master, and under the ordinary discipline thereof, yet it gives the master but a temporary power over him, and no greater than what is contained in the contract between them. But there is another sort of servant which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war are, by the right of Nature, subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. These men having, as I say, forfeited their lives and, with it, their liberties, and lost their estates, and being in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of civil society, the chief end whereof is the preservation of property.

It seems that Mr. Locke knew something about slavery and property in the new world:

http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/18century/topic_2/locke.htm

"Against (the) belief in the absolute, God-given power of the monarch, Locke maintains the natural liberty of human beings; all people are born free, and the attempt to enslave any person creates a state of war (as opposed to the state of nature). Yet Locke himself had invested in the slave trade and drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), which granted absolute power over slaves."

Dave

Posted: 26 Mar 2005 02:38 pm Post subject:

I'm surprised to learn that Locke believed it was alright to have human beings "subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters" as long as they are "captives taken in a just war."

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 01:21 am Post subject: To Dave

I would like to reply to a staement you made about the development of capitalism in Russia prior to the revolution. Lenin belived that in essence capitalism was a world system that he refered to as Imperialism. According to the analisys he made in his book " Imperialism the Highest Stage of capitalism" the chain will brake at it's weakest link i.e. in a weak capitalist state. So far he has been right. Socialist Revolution has accured in Russia, China, Ethiopia, Mozambiqe ect. . Let's not forget many of these countries have been ruined by World War and Civil war. Even if a country reaches a " High" level of capitalist development, and i put high in " becouse you are dealing in very subjective language, if your country is ruined by civil and world war it will not make one bit of difference.

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 02:09 am Post subject: On Religion and the Party

Lenin thought the Party should be strictly Atheist. Religion had it's place in society but not in a Communist Party.The most discusting feature of the Socialist Societys in the world is the fact that the government hi-jacked religiouse institutions and tryed to use them for its own purpose. So in fact State and Religion were not seperate like they should have been, but religion became a part of the state.

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 09:13 am Post subject:

There is no requirement that Party members have to be atheist.

http://communist-party.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1214

Social

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 02:41 am Post subject: Re: To Dave

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:

Mike, Dave...I have more access to SP-USA members now thanks to a comrade who I have corresponded with for a number of years.

Social

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 06:09 am Post subject:

New people! Invite them to join in the fun!

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 10:22 am Post subject:

Yes, they have been invited here and I posted a link to the main page and discussion forum.

Social

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 08:16 pm Post subject:

In this off-topic topic, post anything that pops into your mind.

I think I'm nearly a genius because guess what I did with my broken computer ... There isn't even a display on it, but I transformed the heap of junk into a wireless network server. Now there are three laptops in the house sharing one dial-up line.

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 08:39 pm Post subject:

Well that's cool Mike. I would get electrocuted trying something like that. Ah, I ran into a snag and I will post this because I do not know what to say.

Posted: 16 Apr 2005 11:59 am Post subject:

Hi

"Lenin thought the Party should be strictly Atheist"

This is a myth put about by people like the Spartacists (see their pamphlet, 'Enlightenment, Rationalism, and the Origins of Marxism'). In fact, Lenin, in his 'Socialism and Religion' and 'The Attitude of the Worker's Party Towards Religion' claimed it was absurd not to allow religious people to join.

Richard

Posted: 30 Apr 2005 05:35 pm Post subject: May Day

May Day greetings from Real Union Of Social Science.

Who stole May Day in the US.

http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/MayDay05.htm

Don

Posted: 23 May 2005 09:06 am Post subject:

Hello,

My name is john rogers and I am a Roman Catholic and a Socialist !
Some might find this a contradiction but to me fairness and equality predicate
my religious faith (RC) and my political outlook (Socialism).

I look forward to reading and sharing the same political views of like minded
individuals here.

And I hope to learn !

Posted: 23 May 2005 09:43 am Post subject:

Welcome aboard John! Very Happy

Posted: 23 May 2005 09:50 am Post subject:

Welcome John - I do not find it at all contradictory. At some point in the not too distant future even the Roman Catholic Church and all churches are going to have to come to grips with the growing chasm in the world between rich and poor. The Bible says that man doesn't live by bread alone - it doesn't say that man doesn't live by bread.

Dave
who is nominally an Anglican Catholic

Posted: 23 May 2005 11:25 am Post subject:

Posted: 23 May 2005 11:31 am Post subject:

Posted: 24 May 2005 10:45 pm Post subject:

From
http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/poets.html#comrade

Comrade Jesus

by Sarah N. Cleghorn

Thanks to St. Mathew who had been
At mass-meetings in Palestine,
We know whose side was spoken for
When Comrade Jesus had the floor.

"Where sore they toil and hard they lie,
Among the great unwashed dwell I;--
The tramp, the convict, I am he;
Cold-shoulder him; cold-shoulder me."

By Dives'door with thoughtful eye,
He did to-morrow prophesy;--
"The Kingdom's gate is low and small;
the rich can scarce wedge through at all."

"A dangerous man,"said Caiaphas;
"an ignorant demagogue, alas!
Friend of low women, it is he
Slanders the upright Pharisee."

For law and order, it was plain,
For holy church, he must be slain.
The troops were there to awe the crowd
And violence was not allowed.

Their clumsy force with force to foil
His strong, clean hands He would not soil,
He saw their childishness quite plain
Between the lightnings of His pain.

Between the twilights of His end,
He made His fellow-felon friend;
With swollen tongue and blinding eyes
Invited him to Paradise.

Ah, let no local Him refuse!
Comrade Jesus hath paid His dues,
Whatever other be debarred
Comrade Jesus hath His red card.

Posted: 24 May 2005 10:54 pm Post subject:

Jesus Christ (to the tune of Jessie James)

by Woody Guthrie

http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/poets.html

Jesus Christ was a man that travelled through the land,
A carpenter true and brave.
He said to the rich give your money to the poor
So they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave.
But that foe of the proletariat named Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

The people of the land took Jesus by the hand;
They followed him far and wide.
I come not to bring you peace, but a sword,
So they killed Jesus Christ on the sly.

He went to the rich and he went to the poor,
He went to the hungry and the lame
He said that the poor would one day win the world,
So they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

Well he went to the preachers, he went to the law;
He told them all the same,
Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,
So they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave.
But that foe of the proletariat named Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

When Jesus came to town all the working folks around
Believed what he did say.
Well it was the rich landlord and the preachers that they hired
Who laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

They nailed him there to die on a cross in the sky --
The lightening, the thunder and the rain --
And Judas Iscariot committed suicide
When they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

This song was made up in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave.
If Jesus was to preach what he preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in his grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave.
But that foe of the proletariat named Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

Posted: 05 Jun 2005 10:22 am Post subject:

I have noticed a definite slow down in posts of late from people other than Mike and myself. ( I know S.G. has pneumonia) I do realize that my bull in a china shop approach to writing can be a bit much for others to handle - Mike has know me long enough to know to simply ignore me when I get like that. However I have decided to hang back a bit to see if that will encourage others from participating more. This is not meant to be a criticism of anyone.

Dave

Posted: 10 Jun 2005 10:37 pm Post subject:

Look at us - we're taking a break from arguing. Ah, a well-deserved vacation. I downloaded "Hendrix - Blues" from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.classic-rock . Two versions of "Hear My Train a'Comin'" on that album, the first song on the album is his acoustic version, and the last song is his electric version. Minor pain in the neck factor, with dialup it takes about 24 to 48 hours to download a whole album.

Posted: 11 Jun 2005 02:58 pm Post subject:

Now I'm downloading Cream Live at the Fillmore.

I wonder why the switches on electric fans say low - medium - high - off. It would be more reasonable if they said off - low - medium - high.

Posted: 11 Jun 2005 05:17 pm Post subject:

Okay, I am back. I hate having pneumonia. Anyways, I get this message on another forum. I really don't understand where this person gets the idea that it is my system. Here is what he (she?) wrote:

Posted: 12 Jun 2005 05:50 am Post subject:

Hi SG. I'll reply to that in the "incomes" topic. This is the topic for senseless rambling.

Posted: 12 Jun 2005 04:54 pm Post subject:

It's been awhile and I forgot this was the senseless topic area. Razz

Posted: 13 Jun 2005 06:35 am Post subject:

Yeah, and this week my favorite anti-serious topic is my collection of MP3 recordings. I finally downloaded yEnc32 so that I can decode files compressed with yEnc under windows, and my first one is going to the George Carlin recordings which are right now appearing in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.comedy .

Posted: 13 Jun 2005 10:08 pm Post subject:

I heard on 60 Minutes last night after a re-broadcast of Dylan's first TV(?) interview in 20 years that he was being considered for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

I am basically an illiterate as far as literature goes but from the little that I can perceive - he or at least his muse deserves it.

Do not fear if you hear
a foreign sound to your ear
it's alright ma - I'm only dying

Dave

Posted: 13 Jun 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:

That Cream album - I remeber riding up to Poughkeepsie with my friend Doug Vogt at the Mid Hudson Vally's only record store to get that - when did it come out? Summer 1968?? He played and played that record - is that the one with the Ginger Baker real long drum solo on it? That was great.

Dave

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 05:22 am Post subject:

The Cream album is Wheels of Fire, and you're right about it being released in 1968. 2 record set, disc 1 studio and disc 2 live. From the olden days I remember a long drum solo from Cream, but I'll have to play this one before I know if it's part of this.

I also found the Strawbs' recording of Union Man ('you can't get me, I'm part of the union ... 'til the day I die'). I think you know that song. But it's in Windows Media Player format .wma instead of .mp3 .

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 05:31 am Post subject:

Ever see Bob Dylan's book "Tarantula"? It's all free form poetry without punctuation, in the style of e. e. cummings. I had it many years ago. All I can remember from it is one of the opening lines: aretha crystal jukebox queen

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 05:43 am Post subject:

If Dylan gets the prize in literature, I'm guessing it's for song lyrics. But I thought Nobels were for specific works and not for lifetime ahcievement. Did he do anything new recently?

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 02:46 pm Post subject:

The Pulitzer Prize is for a specific work, the Nobel is for a body of work.

Dylan in CBS interview with Ed Bradley takes very little personal credit for his work - quoting a couple of lines of lyrics, he asks - how do you write something like that? For whatever reason, it seems Dylan just happened to be there and the lyrics came out, or at least that's how it seems that he feels about it. Not a prophet but a song and dance man he described himself.

Sadly I know very little of what else there is out there that would be more worthy of the Nobel Literature Prize.

I started to read the Lord of the Rings once not too long ago but I had to put that down after a couple of chapters. Some things are too good to be taken in all at once. But I don't know if they would award the Nobel posthumously to that author.

Dave

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 06:58 pm Post subject:

Have you seen Pete Seeger recently?, because he doesn't sing or play music much anymore -- he just turned 86 -- except my mothers asks him to come to the Fishkill nursing home and entertain the old folks, and naturally he does because he likes it when he's asked to do things. Last time I saw him was the 2004 Strawberry Shortcake Festival (also, Nancy bought some of Tinya's pottery there), and before that when my father died in May 2003, Toshi and Pete came to Libby's funeral parlor.

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 07:31 pm Post subject:

Amazon lists the book awards by year ...

Nobel

Pulitzer

Others

(How clever of me to modify those links with my associate tag.)

Posted: 14 Jun 2005 07:41 pm Post subject:

> Dylan in CBS interview with Ed Bradley takes
> very little personal credit for his work

Celebrities have a rule that humility is expected of them (except for Muhammad Ali).

Posted: 15 Jun 2005 01:24 am Post subject:

Dylan's interview: It definitely was not a "Oh shucks it was nothing" kind of an attitude -

Ali put everything on the line. To me Ali's greatest win was before the US Supreme Court - if he had lost he would have gone to jail - the Court in the Ali case held that conscientious objection couild be war specific - they had never said that before - and he has bourne his affliction with the greatest of humility. I happened to meet him in an airport one morning and talked with him a bit. He was the hero of my youth and still is.

Posted: 15 Jun 2005 05:19 am Post subject:

Another crossover from sports to political controversy took place at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. Tommie Smith got the gold medal in the 200 m race, and I don't remember what medal John Carlos won. Altogether the U.S. track team won 12 gold medals. Black athletes won 7 of the these 12. The president of the International Olympics Committee was a horrible white supremacist named Avery Brundage. During the playing of the U.S. national anthem, Smith and Carlos did the right fist in the air salute instead of the right hand on the heart salute. The two were punished by having their medals revoked and being barred from all future participation in the Olympics. [My source: HBO documentary video entitled "Fists of Freedom -- The '68 Games."]

Posted: 15 Jun 2005 09:17 pm Post subject:

I remember the incident - I didn't realize that they had the medals taken away. I do recall that during those same Olympics that George Foreman instead of the fist waved an American flag . Needless to say, he didn't have his medal taken from him.

Posted: 16 Jun 2005 04:10 am Post subject:

A big 50th anniversary is appproaching. December 1, 1955 - the arrest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama. November 13, 1956 - Supreme Court ruled that the city's segregation was illegal. I wonder if any commemoration is planned.

Posted: 20 Jun 2005 04:07 am Post subject:

Posted: 20 Jun 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:

I thought that was one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern music until years later I heard the recording of Gene Krupa playing with Benny Goodman at Carnegie Hall. (Sing Sing Sing) Truly amazing performances by both Baker and Krupa except that Krupa's came 30 years prior.

Posted: 21 Jun 2005 06:28 am Post subject:

This is cool -- the place where I have my reseller account dathorn.com just announced that their costs have dropped, so they're passing it on to us, doubling what we get for our money, disk space for the basic account 2 gb, changed to 4 gb, bandwidth 30 gb, changed to 60. I'm actually thinking of putting large objects on the web, like audio recordings.

Posted: 21 Jun 2005 01:50 pm Post subject:

watch those copyrights

Posted: 25 Jun 2005 12:48 am Post subject:

This is something that we've talked about Mike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4619063.stm

My college psych book went for the background therory in a big way. It just isn't satisfactory to me.

Dave

Posted: 26 Jun 2005 06:17 am Post subject:

Last week I mentioned the Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall concert. By coincidence that concert is in the news this week becuase of the death of the last member of the Goodman orchestra at that concert 67 years ago.

Chris Griffin, 89, Trumpeter Who Played in Historic Concert, Dies

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/arts/music/25griffin.html

Posted: 30 Jun 2005 04:56 am Post subject:

I was going to guess that the moon effect was due to refraction by the atmosphere at that shallow angle, which certainly causes the red-orange color of sunsets. However, that can't cause the moon effect if, as the article says, the moon has a fixed angle in field of vision. In that case, it must really be an optical illusion.

Posted: 01 Jul 2005 05:58 pm Post subject:

I think refraction is why the sun is visible just a bit ;onger than it normally would be - but the moon thing - sometimes it seems twice as large - yet if you take a picture of it at the horizon and again over head and comppare the images, they are exactly the same size.

Posted: 03 Jul 2005 05:19 pm Post subject:

Been reading the Ira Kipnes book written in the early 50's The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912 Republished 1972. Kipness died I think in 2002. The first 4 or 5 chapters are very interesting on the 1899 Hillquit split in the SLP (The Williams Street [Hillquit] and the Beekman Street [DeLeon] SLPs) The combination of the Social Democracy Party with the Williams Street SLP to form the SP. The almost immediate split in the SP into left and right factions with the 1919 exit of the SPs left wing to form the CP in 1919.

All interesting stuff. Good lessons for today about drawing lines betweens the "us and them"s

Also found an interesting article about something that I frequently muse on - and that is the question of when did the socialists start recognizing racism as a distinct social problem in the US. Take a look at:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1959/black.htm

dave

Posted: 03 Jul 2005 09:06 pm Post subject:

Fron NYT: "An "impactor" probe is on course to smash into a comet at 1:52 a.m. EDT Monday. Scientists hope the collision will provide insights into the origins of the solar system."

Worth staying up for:

http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/

Posted: 25 Jul 2005 02:19 am Post subject:

Answer this trivia question.

What do the six countries in the following list have in common?

Malawi, Bangladesh, Liberia, Myanmar, Yemen, and the United States of America.

Posted: 26 Jul 2005 12:27 am Post subject:

I'll take a stab at capital punishment .

dave

Posted: 26 Jul 2005 09:56 pm Post subject:

No, not capital punishment. Several countries that I didn't include in my list do that. My list (Malawi, Bangladesh, Liberia, Myanmar, Yemen, USA) is, I am told, a complete list for the think I'm thinking of. I'm post the answer next time.

Obscure hint: Did anything funny seem to stand out, for those who listened to the NASA narrator for today's shuttle launch?

Posted: 27 Jul 2005 02:41 am Post subject:

I'm to the point where nothing funny stands out without Viagra.

dave

Posted: 28 Jul 2005 04:09 am Post subject:

Answer to trivia question:

There are the countries which have not formally adopted the metric system of units.

Posted: 28 Jul 2005 10:40 am Post subject:

That is so sad. I have often asked people in metric countries what they have for pieces of lumber and plywood and sheetrock that substitute for our two by fours and four by eights. I've never gotten an answer. For example in modern buildings here the standard height of a room is 8 feet. What is it in metric counties? These things keep me up at night.

dave

Posted: 29 Jul 2005 05:18 am Post subject:

On top of that, a 2x4 board is only 2x4 on-center at the mill, before the kerf loss.

Posted: 29 Jul 2005 11:24 am Post subject:

Well, a bit of it is simple short change. Those blades don't have a kerf of 1 inch.

Also I have a metric socket wrench set with a 3/8 inch drive. Do they have metric size drives in metric countries?

dave

Posted: 29 Aug 2005 05:22 am Post subject:

hey, I thought I'd introduce myself since I'll probably visit here regularly.

I'm a member of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement and we just created a Youth Movement, which I'm also involved with.

We're a multi-tendencied group and we have at least one or two DeLeonists in our ranks. I'm influenced somewhat by DeLeonism (but more by Connolly Cool

)and I've read a bit on it through a DeLeonist paper I used to read regularly.

Slán, later.

Posted: 29 Aug 2005 11:28 am Post subject:

Hi - I'm dave.

What is it about DeLeonism that interests you?

To me - it's the conscious focus on the socailist industrial union goal.

You are the second person who has brought up Connolly. Can you tell us something about the man and his ideas?

dave

Posted: 29 Aug 2005 11:53 am Post subject:

I was attracted to the way DeLeon clearly explained Socialism - 'Industrial Democracy'. He kept the goal clearly in the area of making the economy democratic, rather than controlled by an élite, which is what a lot of people sadly associate with socialism Crying or Very sad

(command economy).

Connolly was an outstanding working class socialists, who like DeLeon, was a great representative of the idea. He was very good at explaining Socialism to his target audience, and empowering working class people to act for themselves. He was an excellent spokesperson for Marxism and was martyred by the British.

James Connolly was a contemporary of DeLeon's and differed from DeLeon and the two unfortunately had a falling out in the SLP. Apparently over the issue of DeLeon's law of wages.

Some of my thoughts, hope that's helpful.

Posted: 30 Aug 2005 02:57 am Post subject:

Thanks. Do you know if there is any writing by connolly on line?

dave

Posted: 30 Aug 2005 04:08 am Post subject:

Much here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm

Posted: 08 Sep 2005 12:33 am Post subject:

In case there is anyone who hasn't seen this one -

What is the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

scroll down for answer'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
George Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

Posted: 11 Sep 2005 12:07 pm Post subject:

Had a dream of two squads - one of only soldiers and the other of soldiers and civilian family members - firing at each other in almost face to face combat - so close that mostly hand guns were used. Both sides seemed to realize the insanity of the situation and at one point even called a temporary truce to rethink the situation - but the common thread of thought was that neither side could justify to the larger order that they represented - an end to the combat - and that the only thing left to do was to go back and continue to fire back and forth until the "winner" would be decided by one side having one or two people still alive -despite the cost.

Posted: 12 Sep 2005 06:20 am Post subject:

I had an interesting experience today. I accompanied my mother (age 82) to a fancy event at the FDR Presidential Library. My mom received a written invitation because the authors of a new book called "Eleanor Roosevelt : A Hudson Valley Remembrance" had interviewed her and also put my mom's child-age photo into the book [on page 41]. They had a "book launch" ceremony today. My mom was involved because she knew Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor taught my mom how to sew, and taught my grandmother how to preserve unrefrigerated food by canning.

Posted: 12 Sep 2005 06:07 pm Post subject:

There's a lady out of boston who does a history re-enactment of ER. She does 3 or 4 routines. I'll track the brochure down for you. Who know she might get into the Hudson valley so your moms might get a chance to see her. She's pretty good.