See all archived forum posts

mikelepore	Posted: 17 Sep 2004 04:56 pm    Post subject: The socialist society of the future I know socialists dislike "blueprints", but it seems to me that the major objection that most people have to socialism is given as "I can't visualize how it could possibly work." I think that fact makes some speculation necessary. Some of my viewpoints are: * Workers will democratically elect their own managers or committees of management delegates. This representation will occur at both local and global levels, and at both intra-industry and inter-industry levels. * In the absense of any profit motive, the job description of managers will consist of measuring production needs and administering the production to match those needs, while following such groundrules as conservation of natural resources and respect for individual freedom. * Bureaucracy needs to be prevented by specific constitutional rules, such as: -- No management appointees; all personnel in decision-making positions should be elected directly by their constituency. -- The constituency must be able to replace any management representatives by majority vote at any time. -- No administrative secrecy; all meetings and documents must be public records. Comments are welcome!!
davesearles	Posted: 26 Sep 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: I didn't know where else to post this, so I'll put it here. I have been thinking of a theoretical hybrid siu/market economy: That production of the big ticket items, and other items that are better produced by industry be done on a labor voucher relationship between the worker and industry as a whole; but that for other things, essentially anything that anyone wanted to produce on their own, that it be done through cottage industry. Hair cuts, dentistry - what ever. And that the medium of exchange for these cottage industries be labor vouchers or straight barter, haircuts for teeth cleaning, whatever. Am I going straight to hell? p.s. Since there is no spell check for this site I have finally found that on the google tool bar (if you get one) there is a spell checker that will check the spelling on any form that you fill out on a web page. Convenient. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Oct 2006 05:18 am    Post subject: I don't see any major problems with barter. We can expect collective ownership of tools that cannot realistically be operated by an individual, such as an assembly line, but private ownership of tools that are suitable for operation by an individual, such as a hammer and saw. There isn't a sharp boundary between the two categories, so some kind of provisions for private production will be necessary. Perhaps it should be a formal institution just to prevent any chaos resulting from a "black market." I do project a minor problem. Members of social industry will be compensated indirectly for part of their work, in the form of free services. I assume these free services will be available to those who choose not to join social industry, since, for example, the staff of an ambulance can hardly ask to see someone's membership card. Maybe the participants of the alternative or barter economy should have to pay taxes for their share of the public services. The members of social industry would have it deducted automatically, but the nonmembers should also pay in.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Oct 2006 02:46 am    Post subject: A good point but I think that the non-industrial economy will be so ubiquitous that it will be in a symbiotic relationship with the industrial economy. Who's going to get their hair cut through the industrial economy? Ditto child care, and other personals. I think a lot of people might even have an industrial job and a non-industrial job just to keep their lives interesting. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Oct 2006 09:32 am    Post subject: One think I'm insistent about is there should be no private ownership of large areas of land needed for mining, agriculture and mass production. When it comes to drawing a line between private work and social work, I would tend to draw the line by asking how much people can do can do without access to these resources. The SLP leaflets from the 1950s era used to say the phrase "outlaw private ownership of the means of production", but now I reject that concept and replace it with the idea of making the resources unavailable for capitalism. Just as would-be capatalists would find thay they can't find willing workers to rob, they should also be deprived of vast parcels of the earth's resources. Now, let's see how much of a private mode of production can be sustained. We can expect some direct bartering (I'll mow your grass if you'll give me some piano lessons) and low-level manufacturing (pottery, carpentry, home-printed publications, etc.) I don't call that capitalism because it didn't use robbed labor. Social should have a hands-off policy as long as tey don't generate pollution or some other safety hazard. I don't see any social problem resulting from it.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Oct 2006 09:56 pm    Post subject: Somehow land should always go back to society as a whole. Of course the economic drive to to own land would be gone. Today's society is so mobile anymore that the idea of ownership for generations is pretty much out the window. Years and yrears ago the avergae family moved once in 10 yers. I am sure it is less now. In general people ought to have access to land if they care for it and don't bug their neighbors. If vacant land wasn't so tied up it seems nice to think that there would be enough opportunity to go round. dave
The Greenman	Posted: 07 Dec 2006 04:15 pm    Post subject: The Return of Social Hi Mike, Dave, and Vince: I took a long sabbatical from the world of computers after going through a very difficult situation--I am back but at the local library. The wife's health has improved dramatically but I just had to have a stroke back in September. I am okay and the power of speech returned not too long ago. I am also learning to read and play music. Good thread that Mike started. Basically what I think is that the Labor Time Units (TLU, yes I changed the name since it would be units of credit) should be presented as an alternative to the monetary system. I figure that once the new economy is in place, by whatever means, society would then learn through trial and error what the industrial state should produce. What I am saying is that if a TLU were to come into existence would the SIU be necessary? Do we have to have a single union? Or, rather, independent industries run by workers? Independent as far as being locally run but on the the other hand, making the products available on a national and international basis. S.G.
The Greenman	Posted: 07 Dec 2006 07:21 pm    Post subject: Quote: Did we not cover the concept that X amount of work performed and credited had a creation of TLU's for the public service sector for each hour of work from the industry sector making public services free? I was under the impression that those in the public service sector were paid from those units of credits created by the industry sector thus those in health care and education would not have to charge anyone for services. Yes, but to make the arithmetic come out right we have to be conscious of the fact that we must have an actual deduction somewhere. When we say that workers will receive all that they produce, we must realize that we have to subtract at one point if we are to add it back at another point. If it takes a total of ten minutes to make a certain table, can the individual therefore work ten minutes and thereby acquire the table? No, we might have to work twelve minutes to acquire the ten-minute table, because we also have free education and free medicine. When all of the labor of all of the people goes into a big goulash, and then we take it all back out again, this is the only way to balance the numbers. A funny thing happens when the currency is directly pinned to labor time, as I suggest that it should be. An income tax and a sales tax become identical. They are literally the same thing. It doesn't matter which of these two names you choose; either way, we work twelve minutes for the ten minute table, etc., because we also get free education and free medicine. Now, suppose, as Dave sugested, some people don't wish to participate in socialist industry; they want to be a self-suffiicient community. Now, unless society taxes them somehow, they will be working ten minutes, not twelve, for the ten minute table, even though they also get free education and free medicine. They're not bearing their share of the indirect compensation factor. In effect, the people who choose to work in socialist industry would be paying a tax to subsidize the people who choose not to work in socialist industry. It appears to me that something is wrong in the plan. In order to fix it, it seems to me that any people who choose not to work in soc. ind. should pay an extra tax that the people who work in soc. ind. don't have to pay. The people who work in soc. ind. have already paid it, with their extra minutes of labor that correspond to indirect compensation.
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Dec 2006 10:44 pm    Post subject: Re: The Return of Social The Greenman wrote: What I am saying is that if a TLU were to come into existence would the SIU be necessary? Do we have to have a single union? Or, rather, independent industries run by workers? I think the TLU and the SIU have different purposes, and, the purposes being different, yes, I think both would be necessary. The TLU is an accounting device with a quantitative purpose, so, if we need 400,000 frying pans or clocks or whatever this year, we won't find out that we only have 350,000 of them available. It's also a psychological motivator, in that I can put a number on the extent to which I have contributed to society with my personal time. The system can even be enforcement, so after I sit on my ass all year, and then try to disburse a limousine to myself, then an objective tool, such as a computer monitor that tells me that I have insufficient credits in my account, will make it unnecessary to "keep it in" my own conscience. The numerical accounting system can be my "conscience". The SIU, which before the revolution was a means of organizing the workers to topple the exploitative system, after the revolution becomes a center for exchanging intelligent ideas and making plans. The SIU has the form of a republic, like today's political congress composed of state representatives, but with the concept of a republic extended into every mundane sphere of activity. The mundane activity of making our frying pans and clocks and so forth is to be a republic. I still favor the original SLP concept of having a congress or parliament composed of a farm workers' representative, a shipbuilding workers' representative, a health care workers' representative, an education workers' representative, etc., gathering to make the arrangements for goods and services. This will be a new paradigm for people, that those who go to a shop to manufacture frying pans are, in that area of activity, operating as citizens of a new kind of republic.
The Greenman	Posted: 11 Dec 2006 07:53 pm    Post subject: Mike, I do understand the SIU but what I was trying to convey is the idea that money existed before capitalism did and it may be possible for the TLU to exist before any socialist structure is implemented (SIU). Perhaps it won't follow the SIU or even what Marx believed and wrote. Society may take on a different characteristic. What I am trying to say is that perhaps we should focus on changing the money economy to a labor time economy. I appear to have people more interested in what I am saying when I talk about the TLU. When I speak union they turn and walk away or say, "Don't talk union here." John T.
The Greenman	Posted: 12 Dec 2006 05:15 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: The SIU, which before the revolution was a means of organizing the workers to topple the exploitative system, after the revolution becomes a center for exchanging intelligent ideas and making plans. The SIU has the form of a republic, like today's political congress composed of state representatives, but with the concept of a republic extended into every mundane sphere of activity. I am well aware of this being the industrial form of government. However, there has to be more than just a medium to exchange of ideas and making plans. Why are we so indoctrinated that we have to believe there has to be a revolution? What I am saying is that the foundation has to be in the form of a new economic system of exchange based on the TLU. People only understand money and what it gets them. I believe the angle on the a new economic system and how it would work would get workers attention because they would recieve the full value of their work in labor time and exchange those units at the store. What would be comforting is that no one can amass a fortune becuase the units don't circulate as money does. It would take a political act to implement the system and protect it till the SIU goes into effect. What I believe we should focus on is a economic political party to bring TLU's in place of money and to help form the SIU industrial form of government. After that it can ajourn. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 14 Dec 2006 12:20 am    Post subject: John wrote: no one can amass a fortune because the units don't circulate as money does. dave writes: I wouldn't worry about someone amassing a fortune. The more that it is tried to prevent it, the surer that it's bound to fail. It's exploitation of labor that we need to put an end to. Either the labor shares will circulate openly or there will be a black market. Might as well let them circulate. What's the difference if I give you one of my labor shares in return for something, or that I exchange my labor share for something that you will accept as an alternate? e.g. If someone wants to set up some kind of legitimate gambling operation and people want to bet and someone amasses a 'fortune" good for them. People might learn to better hold on to their shares, or not. dave
The Greenman	Posted: 14 Dec 2006 04:03 pm    Post subject: Good Morning! Dave wrote: Quote: I wouldn't worry about someone amassing a fortune. The more that it is tried to prevent it, the surer that it's bound to fail. It's exploitation of labor that we need to put an end to. Either the labor shares will circulate openly or there will be a black market. Might as well let them circulate. What's the difference if I give you one of my labor shares in return for something, or that I exchange my labor share for something that you will accept as an alternate? e.g. If someone wants to set up some kind of legitimate gambling operation and people want to bet and someone amasses a 'fortune" good for them. People might learn to better hold on to their shares, or not. I am trying to determine whether or not that the current circulation of monies being the premise and conclusion to the exploitation of labor. I say this because labor creates the products and services. Labor gets wages while the owners of production and services get a greater share in the form of currency without having to perform any tasks other than owning the means of production. If the circulation of shares makes no difference then the public ownership of production should make no difference either. Charismatic leaders would talk the people out of public ownership right back into private ownership proclaiming the leadership principle to dictate work and hire and fire workers, the profits made to invest back into the corporation and a working class to accept wages and make concessions to benefits. I don't know if a new economic model backed by a political party would solve anything but it would not hurt to try. But I do know that in our present system money is always involved for work performed and what we buy at the store. Sometimes things are bartered but money is more coveted that any possesion one may offer for exchange for something else. The TLU is not money but it is an account that can only be exchanged at the social store and disappears when the transaction is complete. I only hope this would hurt the capitalist and mob in every country if the new system was implemented. However, if a new black market emerges with casinos then we might as well go back to capitalism. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 14 Dec 2006 09:51 pm    Post subject: John: What we have proposed has been term libertairan socialism. I cringe at the term BUT in superficall ways it does resemble libertarianism. Freedom, always a subjective term - the administration of things really has no business if i want to work all week long so that I can gambol away what I work for. If someone opens a casino and folls go there by the droves to lay down whatever they have in return for a dream - let the fools do it. What are we going to do, have the indisutrail congress pass a law against it? That is only sure to make it more inviting. But the indistries are social property. Much like no one person can lay claim to the English Langiage. It was socially developed. dave
The Greenman	Posted: 15 Dec 2006 07:50 pm    Post subject: Hi Dave, Yes, I know what you are saying about Libertarian Socialism that if a person chooses to gamble then they can go right ahead and do so. Quote: What are we going to do, have the indisutrail congress pass a law against it? That is only sure to make it more inviting. But the indistries are social property. Much like no one person can lay claim to the English Langiage. It was socially developed. I never made a claim that the industrial congress would do such a thing. I was not trying to infringe on people liberties as the Leninist, et al, would love to do. You know follow the party line or else. If people gamble, smoke, drink to excess, bomb their minds out with drug use, practice various religions which requires converts, then no one has a right to dictate how those people choose to live their lives including those who stand behind a pulpit. Since the TLU is something like a checking account which is limited to hours worked and exchange for food and other items at the social store including health care and education. What I was trying to convey is that the TLU is a safety valve which would keep the capitalist class and other organized crime syndicates from trying to sabatoge (at the currency level) the developement of the industrial government and socialism in general. Please keep in mind that I am using my imagination on what things could be but I know we don't really know how things will turn out. Lets keep the totalitarians out of the picture though. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 15 Dec 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: In recent years I've started to think about what needs to be available, not what needs to be eliminated. The revolutionary situation will be that anyone who chooses to do so can work in socially owned industry and use the credits issued there to go shopping in the socially-owned store. That much needs to be made available. Period. There is no need to forbid a capitalist. This situation would have the would-be capitalist in the unlucky position of trying to persuade others to work for a fraction of what they produce, while everyone would know that they can go elsewhere and work for the full amount that they produce. Why would anyone choose to go to the place that compensates people with a fraction? This is all we need for capitalism as an epochal system to shrivel up and go away. If some kind of private enterprise remains, even in the long term, I don't see a problem with it. The wage slavery requirement -- submit or starve -- will have been removed. I personally think that any remaining form of private enterprise will be little more than the use of barter tickets to facilitate the exchange of hand crafts and garden vegetables. We don't have to be paranoid about private enterprise in any form, no matter how individualized. Leave it alone. Hands off. It's the overriding rule of wage slavery that must be destroyed.
mikelepore	Posted: 15 Dec 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: What I am saying is that the foundation has to be in the form of a new economic system of exchange based on the TLU. People only understand money and what it gets them. I believe the angle on the a new economic system and how it would work would get workers attention because they would recieve the full value of their work in labor time and exchange those units at the store. I find it interesting that various socialists become socialists for different reasons. Those who focus solely on the miserableness of capitalism -- capitalaism causes war, capitalism causes poverty, capitalism causes pollution, etc. -- they tend to get bored rather quickly when I dwell on my theories about how a socialist society should be structured in some detail. They yell at me that it's bad to "try to impose a blueprint." But I think everything depends on the blueprint. The difference between a system that "won't work" and a system that "will work" is precisely in this -- how it's assembled, organized, structured. Socialism has to be a carefully tuned mechanism or there can't be socialism at all. The World Socialist organizations (worldsocialism.org) think everything depends solely on state of mind. Everyone must retain it in their minds for the long term that everyone is to cooperate, to volunteer, etc. I'm quite the opposite. I don't relegate a damn thing to state of mind. To me it's all about writing charters, drafting a constitition, listing criteria, organizing departments. Do it right and socialism will succeed glowingly; do it wrong and socialism will utterly collapse. Bolshevism, for example, had no tangible criteria. In 1918 the Communist Party in Moscow ruled that the workers' organizations could have no direct input into workplace menagement, but there was such a lack of recognizable criteria that this elephant in the living room went virtually unnoticed. You can't recognize when you're doing the wrong thing unless you have drafted an outline of what the right thing is supposed to be. So I tell the World Socialist group -- if their idea of socialism ever came to fruition, the outcome would be that all the electric lights go out and then everyone is shrugging and saying, "uh-oh!"
mikelepore	Posted: 15 Dec 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Quote: Why are we so indoctrinated that we have to believe there has to be a revolution? Making a noun out of the verb, the word "revolution" comes from "to revolve" as much as it comes from "to revolt." Revolution means when things are turned around so that they may point in a different direction. The word "radical" has a similar basis. It comes from the word for "root", which is more evident from its use in mathematics and in botany. A revolution, or a radical change, is that which changes the fundamental aspects of something. Must there be radical change, in the sense of attending to the "root" of growing developments, and a revolution, in the sense of a turn-around? Yes. Does this have anything to do with the popularized notion of throwing molotov cocktails from behind a barricade in the street? No.
The Greenman	Posted: 16 Dec 2006 04:41 pm    Post subject: Mike Wrote: Quote: I find it interesting that various socialists become socialists for different reasons. Those who focus solely on the miserableness of capitalism -- capitalaism causes war, capitalism causes poverty, capitalism causes pollution, etc. -- they tend to get bored rather quickly when I dwell on my theories about how a socialist society should be structured in some detail. They yell at me that it's bad to "try to impose a blueprint." But I think everything depends on the blueprint. The difference between a system that "won't work" and a system that "will work" is precisely in this -- how it's assembled, organized, structured. Socialism has to be a carefully tuned mechanism or there can't be socialism at all. I agree that the majority of socialist, et al, do focus on capitalism negative features. Did not that ole fart Marx do the same? I do agree that we have to have structures created but what form they would take is speculation right now. The reason I point directly at having a new economy based of TLU being educational and non-exploitive. Why not rally workers around this concept. We can form the industrial government around it on how it is assembled and structured. For all we know the industrial government may not have to be centralized but be a confederation of industries run by workers who elect representatives who meet in a congress. Who really knows what stucture it would take but it would be one that workers agree to though not 100 percent and critics of the system have to be heard in order for it to change for the better. How the TLU should function to serve people better in the new society. How work processes are improved. I could think of a lot more but my time is up here at the library. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Dec 2006 03:22 am    Post subject: When you say "Who really knows what stucture it would take...." -- I think of it this way -- a person can't say what will happen, but a person can say that they think it sounds like a good plan if something were to happen. I dwell on this point: the most common objection to socialism that i hear is: "I can't visualize how it could work! If this idea is really workable, then explain to me how!" What's a good answer to that? To me a good answer is: I think it would work if people did this and this and this. This idea has all the working parts. This doens't mean I'm either "predicting" or "dictating". I'm just responding to people saying "How could such a system possibly be?" by replying how I think such a system could possibly be. Is this point really so subtle? The World Socialists constantly say how "dictatorial" it is to "prescribe" to a future generation. Well, if people didn't want to be prescribed to, they wouldn't keep asking socialists the question "Hey, the devil is in the details! How is all this supposed to work?"
The Greenman	Posted: 18 Dec 2006 04:36 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: When you say "Who really knows what stucture it would take...." -- I think of it this way -- a person can't say what will happen, but a person can say that they think it sounds like a good plan if something were to happen. I dwell on this point: the most common objection to socialism that i hear is: "I can't visualize how it could work! If this idea is really workable, then explain to me how!" What's a good answer to that? To me a good answer is: I think it would work if people did this and this and this. This idea has all the working parts. This doens't mean I'm either "predicting" or "dictating". I'm just responding to people saying "How could such a system possibly be?" by replying how I think such a system could possibly be. Is this point really so subtle? The World Socialists constantly say how "dictatorial" it is to "prescribe" to a future generation. Well, if people didn't want to be prescribed to, they wouldn't keep asking socialists the question "Hey, the devil is in the details! How is all this supposed to work?" I should rephrase and say what forms would come into existence in the industrial society. But I do try to imagine what forms should take place like those who write novels or science fiction. So, no it is not dictorial at all what should be prescribed. Dave wrote of Libertairian Socialism and the freedoms we all would have under the industrial government. The Libertarians, on the other hand, want small government and let people do pretty much what they want but so long as the government protects their private means of production and exploitive behaviors including owning slaves for various functions for profit. I believe I am right about that. The industrial government, be it SIU or something a bit different, would be the public ownership of production. Administrations would be elected to run those different industries perhaps or be departments of an SIU. What I am trying to do here is to try and expand the importance of the TLU being that its vary character is non exploitive. How can a person gamble their units when its very function is tried up with their labor and the social store. Would not workers would try and make sure everything is available to them for the exchange of units for food, clothing, transportation, furniture, etc., at these stores? What people do with what they purchase is their business. Even if it is lumber and brick for the construction of a church. By all means let freedom ring but is not the whole purpose of SIU about work and the elimination wage slavery? John T.
davesearles	Posted: 19 Dec 2006 02:06 am    Post subject: John wrote: I never made a claim that the industrial congress would do such a thing. I was not trying to infringe on people liberties as the Leninist, et al, would love to do dave: never take what I write as feeling that it is personally directed to you. I'll answer the rest of the post later. 2 and one half men is coming on.) dave
The Greenman	Posted: 19 Dec 2006 05:36 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: dave: never take what I write as feeling that it is personally directed to you. I'll answer the rest of the post later. 2 and one half men is coming on.) dave I understand you are trying to make me think more and I hope I am. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Dec 2006 06:04 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: the importance of the TLU being that its vary character is non exploitive. When I tried to explain my voucher position in the WSM forum, some of them came back with response to me: such an unpleasant system might be unavoidable during a transition, but how soon can we get beyond it, to something that's good? My reaction was: I don't give a hoot about getting beyond it, or viewing it as a transition to anything else. To me, it _is_the goal. It might turn out to be temporary, but having it be temporary isn't part of my objective. I think it's a good method for doing things. It's part of what I mean when I say socialism. People often support something just because it seems like the opposite of their bad memories. For example, the proposal for Jewish state was a reaction to thousands of years of oppression, and then the proposal for a Palestinian state is a reaction to the policies of the Jewish state. A reaction to a reaction. Neither of those two proposals could argued for at all if "an ideal solution" were considered permissible on the table, such as having any human allowed to live freely in any community, so that no one would have to say "include my family, which, of course, must mean: excludes that other family." The WSM is acting out of reaction to a bad memory. Capitalism tells the worker: you have just two choices - be someone's servant, or starve. So the WSM reacts, and defines socialism as a system in which no one will ever have to work again, all work is voluntary, take whatever you want from the store for free. Their goal is not viable, but they like the sound if it. They feel it's an attravtive idea because it seems to be the opposite of the perception of capitalism -- be a servant or starve. They miss the point -- there is nothing oppressive about having accountability in the need for the individual to work some number of hours before the individual can go shopping. What was oppressive all along was the fact that someone had to be someone else's servant, and get robbed in the process. When the accountabiity will be part of the workers' own efficiency system, there would be nothing oppressive there. I'm assuming that we already understand that there would be exceptions, such as incomes for those who have policy-recognized reasons for not working.
The Greenman	Posted: 19 Dec 2006 06:23 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: The WSM is acting out of reaction to a bad memory. Capitalism tells the worker: you have just two choices - be someone's servant, or starve. So the WSM reacts, and defines socialism as a system in which no one will ever have to work again, all work is voluntary, take whatever you want from the store for free. Their goal is not viable, but they like the sound if it. They feel it's an attravtive idea because it seems to be the opposite of the perception of capitalism -- be a servant or starve. They miss the point -- there is nothing oppressive about having accountability in the need for the individual to work some number of hours before the individual can go shopping. What was oppressive all along was the fact that someone had to be someone else's servant, and get robbed in the process. When the accountabiity will be part of the workers' own efficiency system, there would be nothing oppressive there. I'm assuming that we already understand that there would be exceptions, such as incomes for those who have policy-recognized reasons for not working. If they would think about it...people who work in their fields do so or else starve and they know it. It's not about being a volunteer. I agree that we have to have accountability to work because it is still bread and butter they are working for including other items of need or recreation. You hit the nail on the head about not being a servant and getting robbed in the process. People still have to earn a living but they would no longer have to live under substandard conditions, serve the capitalist class and get little in return for work performed. All in all it is about labor..right? The TLU measures that work a person does and that is as simple as it gets. Not only that, there has to be elected people to direct work in each factory which means there is an administration of things through each process on the shop floor from receiving to shipping of products. We either call it Socialist Industrial Unionism or Industrial Democracy. Truthfully, I don't understand the WSM either. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 20 Dec 2006 03:46 am    Post subject: The Mikester wrote: The WSM is acting out of reaction to a bad memory. Capitalism tells the worker: you have just two choices - be someone's servant, or starve. So the WSM reacts, and defines socialism as a system in which no one will ever have to work again, all work is voluntary, take whatever you want from the store for free. Harry McClintock wrote: One evening as the sun went down and the jungle fire was burning Down the track came a hobo hiking and he said boys I'm not turning I'm headin for a land that's far away beside the crystal fountains So come with me we'll go and see the Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night Where the boxcars are all empty and the sun shines every day On the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees Where the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings In the Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains all the cops have wooden legs And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs The farmer's trees are full of fruit and the barns are full of hay Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow Where the rain don't fall and the wind don't blow In the Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains you never change your socks And the little streams of alcohol come a-trickling down the rocks The brakemen have to tip their hats and the railroad bulls are blind There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too You can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe In the Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains the jails are made of tin And you can walk right out again as soon as you are in There ain't no short handled shovels, no axes saws or picks I'm a goin to stay where you sleep all day Where they hung the jerk that invented work In the Big Rock Candy Mountains I'll see you all this coming fall in the Big Rock Candy Mountains
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Dec 2006 07:17 pm    Post subject: Same musical genre as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Dec 2006 08:16 pm    Post subject: Anyone with broadband, definitely download the SPGB video at http://www.worldsocialism.org/video/ , entitled "Capitalism and other Kids' Stuff", .wmv file type, about 119 million bytes, running time 51 minutes. Covering capitalism versus socialism, an excellent narrator delivers an excellent script. Just two criticisms: (1) I didn't get the point of his parable about kids playing together. I don't see where a a bunch of kids sharing their toys has anything to do with the subject. (2) When he sets out to explain why workers in a socialist society would be motivated to work, predictably for a WSM project he says, "Well, why do you do your hobbies?" Yuck! I'm flabbergasted that they haven't noticed that, while unpaid hobbies do come in a wide variety of types, there is _not one_ human being who has for a hobby the activity of operating a mine or a refinery or a mill. Hobby activity has very little to do with the subject of labor motivation in a socialist society. Labor is what people want to get over with as soon as possible, so that they can, instead of labor, perform their hobbies. An advantage of socialism is that labor will be over with much more quickly. The production is fabulously well done, but there are two versions. They recorded one version with a white background around the narrator, and this is the one to write home about. I also saw somewhere, in someone's video archive at another site, another version in which an annoying penny arcade videogame type of background is electronically superimposed into the white space around the narrator. That particular version I couldn't stop and delete fast enough. I believe that the the main WSM site has the pleasant version.
The Greenman	Posted: 21 Dec 2006 07:36 pm    Post subject: Thanks for writing "Big Rock Candy Mountains." Dave wrote: Quote: The WSM is acting out of reaction to a bad memory. Capitalism tells the worker: you have just two choices - be someone's servant, or starve. I am at the library so I am don't think I could download the WSM movie. On the other hand, Mike pointed out that the idea of work from anarchist, et al, that work would be done as a hobby. We pretty much know better. When I go to work I do my work and I can't wait to get out of there. I don't think anyone would volunteer to do unplesant tasks. Work is not something that is enjoyed very much. So the incentive of do this in return for that remains. The only thing different in a industrial government is that we would no longer work to make some people rich financially. Mike wrote: Quote: Yuck! I'm flabbergasted that they haven't noticed that, while unpaid hobbies do come in a wide variety of types, there is _not one_ human being who has for a hobby the activity of operating a mine or a refinery or a mill. Hobby activity has very little to do with the subject of labor motivation in a socialist society. Labor is what people want to get over with as soon as possible, so that they can, instead of labor, perform their hobbies. An advantage of socialism is that labor will be over with much more quickly. I don't have to comment on what Mike wrote. I am not trying to bring religion up here but if anyone has read how the synagoge congregation functions can see essence of a cooperative society within it. Other religions have those same traits. People celebrating, helping and comforting each other in each others homes or in their places of worship. They even volunteer to do some unpleasant work tasks but only for a short time. This is why I believe that the freedom to be religious should continue and be protected in the new society. Moreover, the idea of people working on a volunteer basis would create shortages that would cause an unpleasant reaction by the populance--riots, thefts, people getting killed. Look at the aftermath of Katrina. Everyone was working in a cooperative manner but when the reality of "no help is coming" dawned on them the people began to do nasty things to each other. That why I harp on the TLU being that incentive to work. There is nothing wrong with that sort of incentive. People would work whatever hours they feel they need to. Some may work 4, 6, or 8 hour shifts. It all depends on how many TLU's they want. And those TLUs earned belong to those that earn them. So what if one worker has more TLUs than another. So what if workers in stressful and hard working (dangerous) conditions make more TLUs per hour than a pencil pusher. Unlike the Leninist, Marxist, et al, who want to mold everyone after their own image the industrial government would let people be free to be who they want to be without having to please those who serve, yes serve, those who hold to a particular ideology. Another thing I wonder about...would goof offs be thrown out of the factory? Those who won't do their job but collect money just for being there. Would the SIU (or confederation of industries) allow for the dismissal of those who #1 won't work. #2. Threaten harm to another worker. #3. Sexual harrassment or any other justifiable reason related to work. I think this should be considered. Has anyone considered a proposal for a new economic party? Maybe it should be but called The New Currency Party (NCP). A political party that is focused on implementing the TLU as the new currency and promoting the SIU, or confederation of industries, as the industrial government. Of course there would be a lot of planning into making the democratic platform if it is ever considered. I believe we have to play at politics to get the word out and to educate and to hold offices. John Trimbath
davesearles	Posted: 21 Dec 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: What, you're out of the closet? Congratulations. But don't even think of proposing a new political party or I'll puke over the entire forum. Believe me it'll look like "lard ass" in Stand by Me. dave p.s. as to the churchy thing - I can't stand them for more than 20 minutes. Nice folks but no revolution there. I only have one brain cell so I don't have any space for non-revolutionaries. Technically my wife isn't one but she qualifies by putting up with mine.
The Greenman	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 12:19 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: What, you're out of the closet? Congratulations. But don't even think of proposing a new political party or I'll puke over the entire forum. Believe me it'll look like "lard ass" in Stand by Me. dave p.s. as to the churchy thing - I can't stand them for more than 20 minutes. Nice folks but no revolution there. I only have one brain cell so I don't have any space for non-revolutionaries. Technically my wife isn't one but she qualifies by putting up with mine. Yes I am out and thanks. The political party is just some thoughts I've been having right now. It may be a good idea then again it may not be but you have been around the block a lot more than I have to know why you would loose your dinner. The Churchy thing is not about revolution. There are some I just can't stand but we just can't force people into Marx or Lenin's casket mold at gun point. From what I read they would do just that. The new society should give people elbow room to be what they want to be. Perhaps revolution should give way to evolution because that what the new currency and industrial government would do--grow and mature rather than follow fossil ideology. JT
davesearles	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 01:44 pm    Post subject: No the churchies should do and say what they want - except that fucking little alter boys up the ass really ought to be frowned upon, as it is still not. Something about people who set themselves up as interpreters of God's wishes pertaining to our genitalia always seems to attract a bad bunch, or maybe it's the nature of tring to speak for or otherwise represent the creator of the universe that leads people astray with power, and sexual power over others is always an invitation to disaster. Revolution evolution. Material conditions evolve, our social constraints do not and cannot. Private property cannot evolve into non-private property especially when under capitalism is concentrates into fewer and fewer hands and increases the exploitation of labor at the same time decreasing labor power's value. At the same time this evolution more and more puts workers entirely in direct control of the actual means of production (apart from the corporate bullshit). These evolutions within the framework of private property eventually create conditions which burst the social constraints engendered by private property. This will happen whether or not the workers do anything. But when it does and the workers are not ready to operate the means of production for themselves it's going to be a tough winter until they do. Tell me what you can do to better promote the workers taking over the means of production inside of a political party than not in one? dave
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 02:34 pm    Post subject: Quote: would goof offs be thrown out of the factory? Those who won't do their job but collect money just for being there. Would the SIU (or confederation of industries) allow for the dismissal of those who #1 won't work. There are some jobs in which a goof-off needs to be kicked out, mainly when it causes damage. If an inspector or a teacher or a nurse goofs off, there's damage. If there's intentional damage, the person shouldn't be a member of the group. There are other jobs in which a goof off doesn't cause damage, but takes up space and refrains from contributing anything. A supervisor should be able to mark this "work time" as being intentionally unproductive, so the individual will not be credited for that increment of time. Of course, the supervisor must be the elected representative of all the workers, and not an outside force being imposed. Quote: #2. Threaten harm to another worker. #3. Sexual harrassment or any other justifiable reason related to work. I think that category of problem should be handled by the law enforcement method has been adopted by the larger society, not by a policy originated at the workshop level. A separate approach applies when someone consciously infringes on the rights of other people. It goes to the more general question of how laws should be enacted and enforced. My own imagination hasn't been able to come up with anything better than the preexisting pattern of legislation by an elected body, formal accusation of noncompliance, trial, innocent until proven guilty, conviction, penalty imposed. Some anarchist types hate it when I say that, but their hating it is another case of people reacting by adopting whatever idea seems to be the opposite of their bad memories. The preexisting pattern of legislation and enforcement can't be rejected unless the speaker can prove that society can function without it, which no one can prove, just as the practice of paying workers by the hour can't be rejected unless the speaker can prove that society can function without it, which no one can prove. Why do I stress "prove" there? Because when critics ask, "how do you know that socialism is workable?", my answer is: "Because I haven't suggested the removal of any aspects of social organization that may be necessary for it to be workable. I have suggested the removal of some aspects of social organization, but only the ones that I can prove to you to be unnecessary." I believe that the working class as a whole will never support a socialist movement that fails to present its case in this way.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 02:56 pm    Post subject: Quote: p.s. as to the churchy thing - I can't stand them for more than 20 minutes. Nice folks but no revolution there. A social movement has to accept the human population for what they are, not for what any individual members of the movement would prefer. I see a lot of behaviors that bore me. I have no use for competitive sports, and it is my own prejudice that any adult seen to be bouncing any kind of a ball on any kind of surface is acting like an idiot. Electronic video games, all trash. Just about any musical recording produced after circa 1974, all noise. People with piercings and tattoos, I hope you won't walk in front of my eyes today. But it would be inappropriate for me to apply my prejudices toward anything other than grumbling and making personal choices. This is exactly what we should do with other people's religions. When can only grumble and then make our personal choices. And you don't have to approve of it when you see me put a half a can of anchovies on each slice of pizza. But you can always grumble due to having noticed it. Imagine a society in which our intolerance toward each others continues to exist, but is limited in its manifestation to grumbling. Robert Mapplethorp pees into a bottle, drops a crucifix into it, and calls it a "work of art." Outside, nine hundred demonstrators are carrying protest signs that say, "This wouldn't have been our own choice!" In a counter demonstration, Mapplethorp's supporters march under a banner that says, "But we kinda like it!"
The Greenman	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 05:20 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: Revolution evolution. Material conditions evolve, our social constraints do not and cannot. Private property cannot evolve into non-private property especially when under capitalism is concentrates into fewer and fewer hands and increases the exploitation of labor at the same time decreasing labor power's value. At the same time this evolution more and more puts workers entirely in direct control of the actual means of production (apart from the corporate bullshit). These evolutions within the framework of private property eventually create conditions which burst the social constraints engendered by private property. This will happen whether or not the workers do anything. But when it does and the workers are not ready to operate the means of production for themselves it's going to be a tough winter until they do. Tell me what you can do to better promote the workers taking over the means of production inside of a political party than not in one? Well, as for the last question...most parties on the Left would like to retain the current system of money to buy and sell. Basically what I was thinking, I get into trouble for doing just that, is that the SLP no longer runs canidates and is authoritarian. Therefore, another democratic party should take it's place to run canidates (to get attention from workers) so people can learn about the new currency and how it would benefit them as workers and learn of SIU and how it functions so that it won't be a tough winter when they do finally own the means of production. If anything a new party would only function as an educational tool. But just in case someone really does get elected at least there would be a platform to fall back on. Dave, I know tha dam will break when workers are sick of being exploited. Yes, you are right about private property not evolving into non private property so please excuse me for forgetting that the capitalist class won't give up those properties without a fight. If and when we are at that point in time would we have the right people in the political arena? Could we end up with authoritarians filling the shoes of the capitalists? Mike wrote: Quote: There are some jobs in which a goof-off needs to be kicked out, mainly when it causes damage. If an inspector or a teacher or a nurse goofs off, there's damage. If there's intentional damage, the person shouldn't be a member of the group. There are other jobs in which a goof off doesn't cause damage, but takes up space and refrains from contributing anything. A supervisor should be able to mark this "work time" as being intentionally unproductive, so the individual will not be credited for that increment of time. Of course, the supervisor must be the elected representative of all the workers, and not an outside force being imposed. You know that was a relief to read. This kinda behavior exist now it will then under socialism. I am all for elected supervisors. I think it is good to talk about shop floor production and behavior. As to #2 and #3 Mike wrote: Quote: I think that category of problem should be handled by the law enforcement method has been adopted by the larger society, not by a policy originated at the workshop level. A separate approach applies when someone consciously infringes on the rights of other people. It goes to the more general question of how laws should be enacted and enforced. My own imagination hasn't been able to come up with anything better than the preexisting pattern of legislation by an elected body, formal accusation of noncompliance, trial, innocent until proven guilty, conviction, penalty imposed. Some anarchist types hate it when I say that, but their hating it is another case of people reacting by adopting whatever idea seems to be the opposite of their bad memories. The preexisting pattern of legislation and enforcement can't be rejected unless the speaker can prove that society can function without it, which no one can prove, just as the practice of paying workers by the hour can't be rejected unless the speaker can prove that society can function without it, which no one can prove. Why do I stress "prove" there? Because when critics ask, "how do you know that socialism is workable?", my answer is: "Because I haven't suggested the removal of any aspects of social organization that may be necessary for it to be workable. I have suggested the removal of some aspects of social organization, but only the ones that I can prove to you to be unnecessary." I believe that the working class as a whole will never support a socialist movement that fails to present its case in this way. Yes, I do believe that law enforcement and the courts would continue inside the socialist society since there will be those who harm or exploit people. Would these social organizations be a part of a political government as they are now ? I would figure it as separate from SIU. What you wrote brought up some interesting points. We have an industrial government on one hand...Would we have a political government on the other for maintaining law and keeping the peace between people? John
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Dec 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: I expect that a legislature, and a political process for electing the representatives who comprise it, would remain necessary. I don't see any reason to preserve the structural details that are used today. It doesn't have to be a bicameral congress (two houses). It doesn't have to make use of today's fifty states or any other kind of geographical districts. It could be more simply one assembly of some number of directly elected public representatives. A simple and managable system which avoids geographical districts could be something like: every voter gets fifty votes, and the fifty candidates with the most votes are elected. Why use a simple rule? Because all this has to achieve is an accurate reflection of the people's preferences. If it is the preference of the most of the population that assault should be a cirme, then it will also be the preference of most of the legislature that assault will be a crime. The details in use today, like a House of Representatives consisting of over 500+ representatives, are unnecessary to that simple purpose. De Leonism traditionally lacks any comprehension of this entire subject. Most De Leonists go around saying that any genuinely useful functions thta are now performed by government should be done by the all-industry congress, composed of manufacturing representatives, agriculture representatives, transportation representatives, etc. That suggestion makes no sense whatsoever to me. That's fine for the weather bureau and the highway department, which are some of the useful functions performed today by government, but it doesn't make any sense for law making. The all-industry congress would assemble the best expertise needed to provide goods and services. There is nothing in that role to indicate this would be society's repository of wisdom in such matters as passing laws to prevent people from assaulting one another. It would also be undemocratic because it would be an inaccurate measurement of the will of the people. It would introduce huge inaccuracy to tabulate the data according to where people work. Let's see - people in shipbuilding say we should have a law against murder .. did we hear yet from the representative of glass works? Okay, the people in glass works say we should have a law against murder. Let's hear next from the representative of ore refinement.... etc. That seems to be what De Leonists traditionally have suggested. I think such a legal system would be preposterous. The De Leonist Society of Canada broke tradition in the 1990s, and realized that a socialist system would need political government. I applauded them for that. But they decribed it as requiring geographical constituencies, with which I disagree. It *could* use geographical constituency. It wouldn't *require* it.
The Greenman	Posted: 24 Dec 2006 06:23 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: De Leonism traditionally lacks any comprehension of this entire subject. Most De Leonists go around saying that any genuinely useful functions thta are now performed by government should be done by the all-industry congress, composed of manufacturing representatives, agriculture representatives, transportation representatives, etc. That suggestion makes no sense whatsoever to me. That's fine for the weather bureau and the highway department, which are some of the useful functions performed today by government, but it doesn't make any sense for law making. The all-industry congress would assemble the best expertise needed to provide goods and services. There is nothing in that role to indicate this would be society's repository of wisdom in such matters as passing laws to prevent people from assaulting one another. It would also be undemocratic because it would be an inaccurate measurement of the will of the people. It would introduce huge inaccuracy to tabulate the data according to where people work. Let's see - people in shipbuilding say we should have a law against murder .. did we hear yet from the representative of glass works? Okay, the people in glass works say we should have a law against murder. Let's hear next from the representative of ore refinement.... etc. That seems to be what De Leonists traditionally have suggested. I think such a legal system would be preposterous. The De Leonist Society of Canada broke tradition in the 1990s, and realized that a socialist system would need political government. I applauded them for that. But they decribed it as requiring geographical constituencies, with which I disagree. It *could* use geographical constituency. It wouldn't *require* it. This is basically why I don't understand how the political aspect is ignored. The anarchist descibe the new society as void of anything political and have a mythologial belief like in the "Age of Gold" where man is happy and innocent with no law enforcement. Where spears, swords, and helments don't exist and that the earth would produce plenty without any labor--Rock Candy Mountain anyone? It is good to know that the DeLeonist Society of Canada feels that political government is needed. I agree that both SIU and a political form of government would have to exist side by side. Perhaps geographics would have to sufice in the beginning. The socialist (not communist) form of government would have to deal with those who would harm or kill others. Not only them but protect each and every worker from people who would rob them of their labor power in unit credit form. And there are also sexual predators. So, yes there will be jails. I can imagine an all industry congress but I also envision a legislative and judicial to serve to protect citizens and to hear criminal grievences. So, I don't think I am off base when asking for a political party that is educational when it comes to TLU's and SIU. However, it should also teach what the political aspect should be in a socialist society. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 24 Dec 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: John wrote: So, I don't think I am off base when asking for a political party that is educational Again is my question what can you do in a political party that you can't do not in a political party? dave
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Dec 2006 02:05 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Again is my question what can you do in a political party that you can't do not in a political party? Seize control of the government and declare that the property rights of the ruling class are null and void.
The Greenman	Posted: 26 Dec 2006 06:21 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: Again is my question what can you do in a political party that you can't do not in a political party? I could echo Mike's response but what can a political party do is that it would control of the military and police. However, a political party must serve as a premise to organize the working class educationally. Workers could rally for the party with their vote. On the other hand, the workers would also organize themselves industrially like the IWW. However, we need to have both in cooperation therefore it may be necessary to organize workers into a new union (I have no idea how that is done) or convice the IWW the importance of being part of the political process. Furthermore, there would no need for a violent take over of government (if that is really possible these days) but a lawful one through the ballot box. The new government can then declare that the capitalist private property--means of production--public property. Workers would be protected in the process as the management of industries become reality and the TLU as a means of exchange for commodites. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 27 Dec 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: aint no political party seizing control of the government. What I worry about is the Bob Bills, the Nat Karps the Arnold Pertersens daniel DeLeons, Moris Hilquits, Norman Thomases and Eugene Debbs and droves of organizational sheep seizing this perceived means of the revolution from the workers. Workers just take control of the industries, you know what to do, pay no attention to those little men behind the curtain. dave
The Greenman	Posted: 28 Dec 2006 05:53 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: aint no political party seizing control of the government. True, but it still remain feasible for an elected body to make capitalism null and void while maintaining the peace for the transition. I believe we had this discussion before on the least amount of blood spilt. Quote: What I worry about is the Bob Bills, the Nat Karps the Arnold Pertersens daniel DeLeons, Moris Hilquits, Norman Thomases and Eugene Debbs and droves of organizational sheep seizing this perceived means of the revolution from the workers. Workers just take control of the industries, you know what to do, pay no attention to those little men behind the curtain. Workers should take control of industries but how when workers thought processes are still determined by the capitalist class? I am all for a blue print both industrially and politically. What would bother me would be the Leninist winning over a Eugene Debbs. We do go over the basic structure of what the industrial government would be. But I think it is also important for the political. I believe both the industrial government and political government remain separate entities. The political only being the protector of human rights, personal property and TLUs, not like the gawdly awful behemouth this exist today, where the people themselves vote on what laws would serve their best interest. This would be far better than having those choices be made by few people who have their own interest at heart. The industrial government is just that. People running the means of production in a union sort of way. TLUs being the medium of exchange for products and services.
mikelepore	Posted: 28 Dec 2006 08:37 pm    Post subject: I think political government is where the ethical debates introduced by modern technology will have to be decided. Industry raises problems that other people who are not part of that industry will want to answer. If a biologist discovers a method for parents to redesign the brains of their unborn children, that doesn't mean that it should be done, and it doesn't mean that the biologist is the appropriate judge of whether it should be done. "Whether or not" is an ethical choice, not a technical choice. To say that the biologist is not the appropriate judge, and putting that statement into socialist terminology, this statement is: This is not one of the issues where we recommend the use of autonomous self-management by a department of workers. There are some issues where self-management by workers is appropriate, and this issue isn't one of them. There are many more problems of this kind. Even energy, which at first seems like a technical issue, becomes ethical. Some resources are non-renewable, and this introduces risk for future generations, and that is ethical. A radioactive waste product introduces an ethical debate. The best system would probably have workers manage their own industries by default, with the ever-present possibility that the whole population will use political processes to take charge of the policy. What I just said -- workers' self-management by default, with the option of a political override - seems to imply that workers' groups may be nearsighted. That is one of the things I assert. This point may be one of the lessons of the pesticide DDT. When it was banned, it wasn't on the recommendation of either the farmers who used it, nor the chemists who made it. The recommendation to ban it came from a different branch -- biology and medicine. Theose who wanted to ban it brought the issue to the law-makers. Congress passed a law: discontinue the manufacture and use of DDT. I can imagine a socialist society having much the same process, except with less resistance to change on the part of the farming and chemical industries. Operating nonprofit, there would be little or no reason for them to resist the change in policy. Still, it seems reasonable that the industries involved could be nearsighted in a way that the public congress isn't.
mikelepore	Posted: 28 Dec 2006 09:00 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: aint no political party seizing control of the government. That goes to the question of the whether the SLP is right when it says that the party has to come first, and the siu is to be formed at the last possible minute. I have always liked to weigh the idea that it's the party that may be formed at the last possible minute. The SLP doesn't treat this question as deply as it should. davesearles wrote: What I worry about is the Bob Bills, the Nat Karps the Arnold Pertersens daniel DeLeons, Moris Hilquits, Norman Thomases and Eugene Debbs and droves of organizational sheep seizing this perceived means of the revolution from the workers. With the say socialists feel no guilt when they do things that alienate the working class from them, it's more of a problem that the majority of the working class will never have heard the names of those individuals. davesearles wrote: Workers just take control of the industries, you know what to do, pay no attention to those little men behind the curtain. If you're suggesting that the workers can take control while the legal system still says that the industries officially belong to the capitalists, and that this officialdom can safely be ignored, I would give you a big argument. The war in the 1860s that ended slavery may teach us a lesson here. If you want to do away with someone's sacred property, which has made them masters over others, you must do two distinct things: you need a political mandate that points to a new way of doing things, and this political mandate must call into action some kind of irresistable force that will back up this mandate.
The Greenman	Posted: 29 Dec 2006 09:50 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: The war in the 1860s that ended slavery may teach us a lesson here. If you want to do away with someone's sacred property, which has made them masters over others, you must do two distinct things: you need a political mandate that points to a new way of doing things, and this political mandate must call into action some kind of irresistable force that will back up this mandate That is a good point you made there. If we looked at the present Left we see that they say this and that but no actual plan of "What to Do." The SP just says that they would make education and healthcare free but what will the workers do with all of the industries and services. No viable plan of action. It a no brainer that a socialist party has to gain seats in the present government but seeing what lacks may be why the Left is oftened ignored. Look at the Libertariran Party. They know what they want and its time we start laying down the terms of what workers want.
davesearles	Posted: 30 Dec 2006 01:46 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Workers just take control of the industries, you know what to do, pay no attention to those little men behind the curtain. Mike wrote: If you're suggesting that the workers can take control while the legal system still says that the industries officially belong to the capitalists, and that this officialdom can safely be ignored, I would give you a big argument. dave writes: You wouldn't dare argue with me would you? No not ignored at all, but stayed away from as much as possible our political campaign should be to tell the workers that they need to get ready for the day when they are going to take over the industries - oh by the way, vote for me. You didn't answer about what happens when by fluke we win a damned election because the two top runners both shoot each other down. Mike wrote: The war in the 1860s that ended slavery may teach us a lesson here. If you want to do away with someone's sacred property, which has made them masters over others, you must do two distinct things: you need a political mandate that points to a new way of doing things, and this political mandate must call into action some kind of irresistable force that will back up this mandate. To which dave cries out to all who will hear, horseshit!! An overlooked fact was if that the south had not rebelled and thereby giving up its control of the process, the southern states could have blocked the 13th amendment well into the 20th century. All they needed was one fourth of the states to block the amendment
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Dec 2006 11:47 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: to tell the workers that they need to get ready for the day when they are going to take over the industries - oh by the way, vote for me. You didn't answer about what happens when by fluke we win a damned election Youre right, but I wonder about the solution. What should the candidates say they would do if elected? Suppose that three or seven or eleven socialists get elected to Congress, not a majority, because public consciousness about socialism is heterogeneous from one place to another. What would they do? There's nothing available to do (that I know of) except for activity on reforms and making speeches. Maybe we should suggest a proper ratio for such a socialist member of Congress to divide up the available time between those two tasks of standing for or against reforms and making educational speeches. How could we even know what is the right thing to do -- by intuition? But if the socialist candidates get elected in such numbers that they are a majority in the legislature, and if this is a reflection of the changing consciousness of the whole population, that's a different story. This a mandate for a socialist reconstruction.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Dec 2006 11:52 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: An overlooked fact was if that the south had not rebelled and thereby giving up its control of the process, the southern states could have blocked the 13th amendment well into the 20th century. All they needed was one fourth of the states to block the amendment Similarly, we must tell the anti-ballot groups (sometimes called anarchists): If the workers don't give up their potential for controlling the political process, they will be able to block the election of reactionaries who would further repress the workers.
The Greenman	Posted: 02 Jan 2007 05:32 pm    Post subject: Sorry about being a bit angry over the Leninist. Their veiwpoint is rather discouraging and would frighten off anyone with a brain. Anyways, I know Howard Zinn said that governments lie. He spoke of all governments, including the U.S., are willing to do anything to keep themselves in power being the ruling class. So, I understand why Dave would distrust any political organizing of the workers. It is a bit scary that the socialist political party would end up being authoritarian rather than democratic. However, what voice do the workers have? I see two fronts that the workers have to organize under: 1. Politically and 2. Industrially. Was this not the idea the Daniel DeLeon had all along? But I also see a #3 and that being a new currency being promoted. Somehow I don't think anyone is understanding the impact of a new currency replacing the means of exchange that has been used as a tool to achieve power over men and women. Men like Robert Owens knew that. That is why he created the Time Labor Voucher which Marx was critical of it at first but later thought good of it in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Okay, that aside...We have to organize politically but the question is how since so many on the left are divided on "What to Do." The SLP don't talk to anyone except among themselves, as Mike put it, preach to the chior. But that is another story on another thread. I have tried to reach out but the SIU is still being rejected by a lot of people on the Left. I talk to workers themselves and I find that they would rather listen to the TV or radio. At this point I don't know what would wake people up.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Jan 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: being a bit angry over the Leninist There's good reason to be alarmed, since the planting of some kind of bad seeds led to the Stalin holocaust and the Mao holocaust, and they did pretend all along that it was socialism. The Greenman wrote: the Time Labor Voucher which Marx was critical of it at first but later thought good of it I think when Marx bashed the idea what he was bashing was the suggestion to do this (or any notion of socialism) in little isolated communities, instead of changing society as a whole. The Greenman wrote: what would wake people up I don't know either, but I think some kind of "imagine project" is necessary, a compilation of various visions of a classless society, as different people have imagine them. A moderator attempting to be objective should educate the public about differences between various ideas. I believe there isn't even one documentary video that tries to explain: there are dozens of different concept out there of what a classless society needs to be, so let's see if we can categorize them somehow, and let's see how each of these viewpoints claims certain advantages for itself and disadvantages for the others. This is where the "blueprints" for the future fits in. The popular imagination needs to be exercised.
The Greenman	Posted: 04 Jan 2007 04:45 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: There's good reason to be alarmed, since the planting of some kind of bad seeds led to the Stalin holocaust and the Mao holocaust, and they did pretend all along that it was socialism. They still think of it as socialism. The Party that leads the working class to communism no matter how many of them have to die. The party that controlled all aspect of work and social life. It's hard to imagine a party that wantsa to know everything about a person. If your religious you are in big trouble. If you complain you are in big trouble, etc. It's no wonder when workers hear the word "socialism" they think of enslavement, touture and death. Something not openly seen under capitalism. Under capitalism we do enjoy a lot of material things along side the poverty. We do have more of everything here in the U.S. This is why very few workers are interested in any sort of workers movement. They believe that, one day, they would be rich and famous like the people they see on TV and hear on the radio. What to do? Also: Quote: I think when Marx bashed the idea what he was bashing was the suggestion to do this (or any notion of socialism) in little isolated communities, instead of changing society as a whole. You do know that I view the LTU as the currency to change society as a whole along side with the SIU reconstruction and the political aspect of a small government that protects the rights of the people from shore to shore. And.. Quote: I don't know either, but I think some kind of "imagine project" is necessary, a compilation of various visions of a classless society, as different people have imagine them. A moderator attempting to be objective should educate the public about differences between various ideas. I believe there isn't even one documentary video that tries to explain: there are dozens of different concept out there of what a classless society needs to be, so let's see if we can categorize them somehow, and let's see how each of these viewpoints claims certain advantages for itself and disadvantages for the others. This is where the "blueprints" for the future fits in. The popular imagination needs to be exercised. The imagery of political government, SIU and TLU has to be brought to the minds of the working class. We could complain all day about the "evils" of capitalism but that is not offering any solutions or solving anything. Blueprints of what could be would be more effective since we are promotinmg "a" socialist reconstruction that is painted in the mind's eye of the working class. Media is the key.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Jan 2007 01:31 am    Post subject: I tend to emphasize various aspects besides the currency system. Sometimes I emphasize the idea that everything that people organize has some kind of charter to define its purpose, and while the basic charter of industry today is to extract profit, a sensible system should have the public benefit as its charter. Sometimes I emphasize a widening of a concept of democracy, in which workers voting where they work to manage their own shops is best viewed in terms previously used only in politics: the right to representation, equal representation, one person one vote, the general suffrage, the workplace as a republic, membership in a career as a kind of citizenship. The formal guarantee of civil liberties is another important topic. The system of currency is an important question, but I think a whole outline needs a bunch of additional topics. I tend to bring up the subject of currency when people raise the question of the human motivation to perform work.
The Greenman	Posted: 05 Jan 2007 05:05 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Sometimes I emphasize a widening of a concept of democracy, in which workers voting where they work to manage their own shops is best viewed in terms previously used only in politics: the right to representation, equal representation, one person one vote, the general suffrage, the workplace as a republic, membership in a career as a kind of citizenship. The formal guarantee of civil liberties is another important topic. The system of currency is an important question, but I think a whole outline needs a bunch of additional topics. I tend to bring up the subject of currency when people raise the question of the human motivation to perform work I agree that there has to be a widening concept of democracy. The guaratee of civil liberties. I 'm not trying to exclude those when I mention new currency. People are indeed motivated by money to perform work and I cannot see why there are folks who can't put those two together. I can see the work place as a replublic in many ways. I also see that there has to be a some form of political government to maintain laws. I must muse over this for awhile.
The Greenman	Posted: 05 Jan 2007 07:29 pm    Post subject: Musing...I would have to say that the political socialist government would have to protect civil liberties such as people saying and writing what they want, freedom of religion, clauses to change or dismiss government, and the right to bear arms. I don't see anything wrong with guns and the idea of citizens to bear arms is to throw off oppessive government. I guess that is why Nazi's and Commies don't like citizens to have guns.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Jan 2007 09:28 pm    Post subject: What do you think of the idea of phasing out the use of "professional" police, and having laws enforced by a trained militia of volunteer citizens? This could be another reason why people need guns. If this is done, I would hope that these militia volunteers be required to get a considerable amount of education in subjects related to the self-control that should be required of them, including some ethical philosophy, psychology, theory of adolescent development, etc. Today's police adademies tend to attract bullies, preciely the kind of people who should be barred.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Jan 2007 12:03 am    Post subject: No I don't see anything wrong per se with professional police. What I do see wrong is the outside agencies and inside bureaucrats that don't insist on and expect that professionalism and actually reward non-professionalism while not fully supporting professionalism when it does occur, which is most of the time. Cops pay a high price for being in the middle, e.g. super high suicide rates. I don't run the cops down like I used to. I am critical of course, but on the whole I find that cops do their jobs. There are exceptions, and there are disagreements, but I don't see them as the "upholders of capitalism" like I used to. There will be some problems come the revolution I am sure and I can't predict what the solutions to those problems will be. Some people will be idiots, some people will be heros. Cops will be no different I expect. Such is life. IMHO dave
The Greenman	Posted: 06 Jan 2007 04:46 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: What do you think of the idea of phasing out the use of "professional" police, and having laws enforced by a trained militia of volunteer citizens? This could be another reason why people need guns. If this is done, I would hope that these militia volunteers be required to get a considerable amount of education in subjects related to the self-control that should be required of them, including some ethical philosophy, psychology, theory of adolescent development, etc. Today's police adademies tend to attract bullies, preciely the kind of people who should be barred. I was not writing about volunteer militia nor about police. I do think that the police will keep the peace and arrest those who would do harm to others in the new society. Even arrest those who attempt to overthrow the new government. I was talking about citizens having the right to bear arms, just as people do now. You are going to have those who want to pull a coup on the socialist government and install something Leninist and Stalinist. Of course there are the hunters who hunt game. Bet Marx would have thought that a waste of time. I live in an area where deer hunting is a big thing. People take time off work just to hunt. Dave wrote: Quote: No I don't see anything wrong per se with professional police. What I do see wrong is the outside agencies and inside bureaucrats that don't insist on and expect that professionalism and actually reward non-professionalism while not fully supporting professionalism when it does occur, which is most of the time. Cops pay a high price for being in the middle, e.g. super high suicide rates. I don't see anything wrong with police. During a strike the police are not called in but an outside agency who are trained to handle a strike situation. These guys get really big bucks. These para-military people are why industries have strike insurance. I agree with Dave that police are in the middle when it comes to outside agencies and inside bureacrats. Also: Quote: I don't run the cops down like I used to. I am critical of course, but on the whole I find that cops do their jobs. There are exceptions, and there are disagreements, but I don't see them as the "upholders of capitalism" like I used to. There will be some problems come the revolution I am sure and I can't predict what the solutions to those problems will be. Some people will be idiots, some people will be heros. Cops will be no different I expect. Such is life. Yes, cops do their jobs despite the bullies, idiots and heros. I just hope that there will be socialist in government when the revolution comes.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Jan 2007 12:28 am    Post subject: Put me down as 'undecided' about guns for hunting. I can see several sides to it simultaneously. Pro-gun comment: It would be presumptuous of me to oppose hunting when humans evolved as a meat-eating animal, and humans have been hunting since they first stood on two feet and learned that a sticks and stones are tools. Anti-gun comment: If a person with severe brain damage had the same amount of sentience as a raccoon, I would defend that person's right to live, so why shouldn't I similarly defend the raccoon's right to live? A more neutral comment: Hunting is a hobby, and rather than recognize a special category for it, I would say that a hunter's right to a gun is about the same thing as a birdwatcher's right to binoculars, in that these articles are hobby accessories. If someone could think of real good reason why we had to stop manufacturing binoculars, I would consider their case, and if someone can think of a real good reason why we should stop manufacturing guns, I would consider their case. The police... Recall that I admitted in a previous post that I have some prejudices? Here's another one. I just don't trust them to do the right thing. At least the police in *this* legal system, where they rewarded with get promotions and raises based on their number of arrests and convictions, and they get bad job appraisals by their supervisors if they tell the truth when that truth is, "Due to a lack of evidence, there's no logical basis for accusing anyone." Maybe if the legal system were drastically different I would be able to trust them. Maybe this is affecting my views about the role of the police in a future society that might have a decent legal system. I'll mark this tentatively a personal prejudice rather than insisting that it's objectively "out there."
The Greenman	Posted: 08 Jan 2007 05:53 pm    Post subject: There are people who love to hunt whether we like it or not. I've been around these people all my life and there is no point in trying to argue with them. They will fight tooth and nail to hunt and I don't see any harm in controlling the deer population with hunters. They get their rack, skin and meat and are as happy as a lark when they do. I understand what you mean about police in this system. It's the system that promotes behaviors that are unacceptable. I have no doubt that there will be police in the new society. We can only hope that it would promote equal and fair justice.
mikelepore	Posted: 10 Jan 2007 09:27 am    Post subject: Any more ideas about "the socialist society of the future"? Any thoughts about the directions for science and technology? I really like space exploration and I believe that people will soon be living in artificial environments throughout our solar system. Biotechnology will do things we can't imagine today, and controversy about some of them will shake a lot of people up.
The Greenman	Posted: 11 Jan 2007 10:37 pm    Post subject: I was wondering about advancing technology. It been said by anarchist and commies that capitalism has to advance complete automation before socialism can be achieved. I think that is a bunch of bull considering what we wrote here that the SIU, new currency and new social relation would promote advances in technology. I would think even greater advances with better uses. Better food, water and energy usage. No doubt there would be space travel.
questing	Posted: 12 Jan 2007 12:58 am    Post subject: What is a "commie?" I consider myself a Communist in the sense of what Marx said, not as part of a Bolshevist-Fabian party. I don't believe that the "state" can just be seized, election or otherwise, by workers or a utopian vanguard either for that matter. Neither did Marx. I believe that, as Marx said, capitalism has to work its "magic" in bringing about one world which can then be seized by the workers, who have laboured to build a society able to function without capitalists. Anything else would play into the hands of the neo-tribalists who desire to fight capitalism in order to reduce the world to warring tribes, witness the rise of NSBM/"nordicism" as an "alternative" to capitalism. The labour in building a movement, the struggle, blood, sweat, and tears, they pave the way for the new birth- the birth of socialism. People who think that socialism can triumph here and not there, they are only repeating the errors of Bolshevism and the "Little Icaria"s of the past. The contradictions of capitalism are the building blocks of the dialectic which will lead the workers to the real "New Jerusalem."
The Greenman	Posted: 13 Jan 2007 04:27 pm    Post subject: queting wrote: Quote: What is a "commie?" The word Communist has been used for a very long time by the Leninist vanguardist that the very mention of it produces a negative response from the workers themselves in any country because of the history of repression against the workers. I use the slang of "commie" simply because it fits well and it separates myself from them. Also... Quote: I believe that, as Marx said, capitalism has to work its "magic" in bringing about one world which can then be seized by the workers, who have laboured to build a society able to function without capitalists. Anything else would play into the hands of the neo-tribalists who desire to fight capitalism in order to reduce the world to warring tribes, witness the rise of NSBM/"nordicism" as an "alternative" to capitalism. The labour in building a movement, the struggle, blood, sweat, and tears, they pave the way for the new birth- the birth of socialism. People who think that socialism can triumph here and not there, they are only repeating the errors of Bolshevism and the "Little Icaria"s of the past. The contradictions of capitalism are the building blocks of the dialectic which will lead the workers to the real "New Jerusalem." Last sentence first...Is not dialetics a long route to take in figuring out things rather than using formal logic? I have no doubt that capitalism is digging its own grave. However, what I have read from commies and anarchist is that capitalism has to automate the means of production to the point that all people would have to do is volunteer for work. I think this is a childish wish seeing that the capitalist will always need people to buy their products and that there has to be a paid workforce. No doubt there has been reductions in the workforce but by no means will there be an elimination of the workforce to volunteerism and the Cylons do all the work. On the other hand, the workers already do the functions of the capitalist but have not realised it so far. I don't know what "One World" means but the capitalist are fighting tooth and nail for global markets which would make it "one world" for them. I have high doubts of a single world government for a very long time to come. Sometimes I think that a single government could bring about repressions but with no where to run. A lot of people wanted to get the hell out of the Soviet Union and had places to run to. Can't run when there are no borders. I don't know about NSBM since I've not been on the net for a long while. I also live out in the sticks so to speak. Please excuse my lack of knowledge. The writings of Marx, Engels and DeLeon are scarce to come by in written form and I have to rely on the internet which I use here at the library. Moreover, the future society of socialism most likely show that a lot of things will not change i.e. hunting, fishing, sports, laws, some aspects of inter-personal relationships, religion, etc. What may come is a new currency that does not circulate which should eliminate exploitation. Public ownership of the means of production; however, I do see private ownership of small farms, homes and other real estate until the time when something better can be figured out. That in itself would take a long time as would the elimination of boundries. How would a person read a map without boundries? John Trimbath PS Are you writing from England?
The Greenman	Posted: 18 Jan 2007 09:17 pm    Post subject: It got damned quiet!
The Greenman	Posted: 29 Jan 2007 06:00 pm    Post subject: Considering the usage of the Time Labor Unit and the industrial government being in existance--I hope--I would suppose that the stock exchange would long longer have a funtion. I consider the social store(s) would serve as what will be ordered from the production process. I would also guess that people would be polled on what they would want at these stores. I would guess that passenger trains would make a big come back since people would no longer be in a rush. The IRS would no longer exist but unlike the Libertarians we would find a use for the building rather than selling it piece by piece.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Jan 2007 03:19 pm    Post subject: I wonder what use can be made of that large building on Wall Street. Maybe the large open space could be used for performance arts.