best socialist group to join

Author

Message

Posted: 01 Nov 2006 04:26 am Post subject: Best Socialist Group to Join?

Greetings,

(NOTE: Owing to the steady growth of the 'People For a Cooperative Society' website, and anticipated further growth in the site and the organization, especially as relative to my modest personal resources in money and time, I had made the decision to disband PCS. Upon this decision, I was again reminded of the question of which socialist organization to join, and I created this forum.

I quickly reversed that decision to disband PCS, however, and the question of joining was thus no longer of immediate personal relevance. Generally, though, it remains a legitimate and key area with which socialists and sympathizers must grapple; thus does this forum remain utterly relevant.)

The balance of this post, below the ellipsis, was written as of my decision to disband PCS, before my reversal of that decision.

Regarding which socialist organization to join, I advocate serious consideration of 'People For a Cooperative Society,' for the following reasons:

1.) Its powerful and unique dual program, consisting of: A.) revolutionary transference of ownership from private to public, combined with B.) establishment of the love ethic as the ethico-behavioral underpinning for all social and economic relations.

2.) It's program contains a specific, detailed blueprint for getting us to a Cooperative system, and for how that system would be structured. This blueprint or plan is called the "Cooperative Industrial Framework." It is similar, though not completely identical to, the DeLeonist SIU plan.

3.) PCS does not focus on reform issues above our principal mandate--to teach and and advocate socialist revolution. We keep our eyes on the prize--a Cooperative system and its establishment. Nor do we take official positions on reform issues such as abortion, homosexual rights, or English an an official language, that can serve to alienate otherwise interested persons, who might not share those positions. Moreover, decisions on such questions are rightly decided by the populace under socialism, after the revolution.

4.) Unlike so many other groups of its type, PCS does take an official position on the way it treats members, sympathizers, and everyone else: with genuine respect, and not as disposable depending on the ego position of those in charge.

Please see www.Cooperative-Society.org for details and further information.

. . . . . .

I am a member of the Socialist Party, USA, and, while there are aspects of that organization that do not appeal to me, I ultimately consider it the only game in town in terms of groups that are: 1.) revolutionary, 2.) advocate a non-vanguardist political program democratic in mean and ends, and 3.) are not autocratic, and manage themselves democratically.

The SP meets these criteria; moreover, because the party is multi-tendency, one is free to work within it to advance one's preferred theoretical program.

These are great strengths, and thus, on balance I'm pleased with the SP and can advocate in good conscience that individuals join or affiliate, including persons of a De Leonist persuasion.

Yet, were there a viable one, I would probably rather affiliate with an organization that was more explicitly De Leonist in its program, and less focused on reform. Greg Pason, SP National Secretary and a friend of mine who happens to live local to me, told me the reason the SP works with reform issues is because it's a good entry point into people's heads and real concerns. While that makes sense, I can't say I'm fully comfortable with the fact that SP actually takes formal positions on contentious issues like abortion, homosexual rights, English as an official language, and others.

The larger question remains, then: for individuals of a non-market, libertarian socialist stripe, including adherents of De Leonism and its variants, the kind of individual who would have subscribed to Frank Girard's old Discussion Bulletin, which is the best existing socialist group to join?

What are the pros and cons of each of the choices?

Regards,

vince de benedeto
MESSAGE OF HOPE
www.MessageOfHope.com

mikelepore

Posted: 01 Nov 2006 08:12 am Post subject:

Did you interact with World in Common? What was the experience like?

PowerKord

Posted: 02 Nov 2006 03:13 pm Post subject: WORLD IN COMMON - PERSONAL ASSESSMENT

Hello,

I have a substantive body of experience with World in Common. I have found them subject to the same sectarian, narrow-minded, ego-driven behaviors that I've experienced with other socialist groups and individuals before them.

This has been especially unfortunate, given their defining assertion: "...only through mutual respect and solidarity among the groups that make up our political sector can we realize our common goals."

And:

"One of the most important reasons why the anti-market anti-statist sector remains relatively small and ineffectual, in our opinion, has to do with the extent to which groups remain isolated from each other and regard each other with mutual suspicion and even sectarian hostility. This is regrettable."

These foreward-looking assertions notwithstanding, for some inexplicable reason these individuals decided they didn't care for me, didn't want to work with me, and/or didn't want to include PCS in their list of organizations. They essentially blacklisted me.

For example, I once entered one of their public chats, acting cordially, even though it appeared they were already considering me persona non grata. Within five minutes they all left the chatroom. True story.

I note that at no time did any of these individuals approach me to indicate or discuss any problem they may have had with me.

This is the all-too-common pattern in this movement; it is why the love ethic has a tremendous utility even before the revolution.

More recently, things between me and WiC seem better; they have finally decided to communicate with me (upon yet one more prompting from me), and they have listed PCS in one of their organization lists. Although even here the bias can arguably be seen, as they listed PCS as a resource, not properly as an organization. I later mentioned this to Chris Marsh of WiC, and no change has yet been made.

I hope this organization and the people in it, mature. As the locus of, and conduit for, the sector of the socialist movement that is arguably the only one that matters--the non-vanguardist, non-market, non-anarchist, sector (continuing the work and tradition of the old DB), it is potentially and uniquely a body of tremendous importance in building genuine democratic socialism.

This is why in the case of this particular organization, I consider it our duty to prompt and push them along in the direction of increasing maturity as an organization, and even as individuals. The organization is arguably too important to be allowed to compromise itself.

Having written all this, let me touch additionally on a few other relevant points:

1. To join WiC, one must profess opposition not only to the capitalism of today, but to the capitalism of the past. Yet, no less a luminary than Karl Marx asserted the necessary and beneficial role of capitalism in previous epochs.

2. To join WiC, one must profess belief in a moneyless, free-access economy. As you, Mike, have pointed out, this paradigm of access might not be workable. This is why PCS, for example, no longer looks to this point as a key element in membership; we provide for the possibility of labor-vouchers.

3. To join WiC, one must agree to help build socialism "...without the intervention of leaders, politicians..." Yet I could never easily pin them down on exactly what this meant. What is wrong with natural leaders emerging to help lead the movement? In my view, their proscription against a vanguard is correct, but against leaders or even politicians is not.

So there are some thoughts for all to consider.

Yours,

vince
PCS

davesearles

Posted: 02 Nov 2006 08:36 pm Post subject:

Which Socialist group to join? I feel this is as little relevant as which church or religion to join.

Just what in the hell do I care if any organization shares my just about perfect view of the world situation, as seen from my front porch step anyway. Do I have to join an organization to expose the law of gravity? Galileo and Newton have done the background work. I think that I understand it, in the classical physical sense, anyway. If no one else believes it, there is damned little that I can do about it. Let them all fall off the Earth for all I care.

>For example, I once entered one of their public chats, acting cordially, >even though it appeared they were already considering me persona non >grata. Within five minutes they all left the chatroom. True story.

>I note that at no time did any of these individuals approach me to >indicate or discuss any problem they may have had with me.

>This is the all-too-common pattern in this movement; it is why the love >ethic has a tremendous utility even before the revolution

Utility, my Aunt Tillie. You can use that love ethic crutch all you want - "Oh people won't give me the time of day because they don't have agape love for me and the rest of humanity like I do for everyone else" - therefore you drive them further away You love your fellow humans not to get them to love you, or to get them to join your group or agree with you politically of philosophically, you love them because you see your own humanity in them and their humanity in you. period.

Before you left for the conference, you seemed like you were starting to come to realization that you needed a heck of a lot more grounding in Marxism-Deleonism before proceeding much out beyond that. Was I wrong in that assumption? What happened to that?

No I am not trying to beat up on you, or whatever it was that Mike said. Mike knows me enough to know that if he wrote the things that you do, I'd be twice as hard on him.

What did you learn at the conference?

dave

PowerKord

Posted: 02 Nov 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: REPLY TO DAVE

Dave,

Why don't you make an effort to be less insulting when you speak? I had this same problem, or a similar one, with you, the first time around in this forum. In part, that's why I left.

"Love ethic crutch"?

C'mon, man.

I suggest that from now on, you proofread each message before posting, culling offensive, insulting, pejorative, or harsh remarks.

You, yourself, acknowledged recently in this forum that your postings are sometimes...I forget the word you used...unfriendly or undiplomatic or something; the word I would use is "abrasive." If you are aware of that, the proofreading technique I'm suggesting may give you a chance to modify your messages before they reach someone's brain--usually mine--and do damage.

Now, to your questions:

1. In fact, for believers, the choice of church or religion is extremely important.

2. Likewise in picking a socialist group, for most socialists.

For socialists, how do we build the movement without some kind of organizational entity? Do you have any interest in building the socialist movement, or just in hanging around, posting in this forum?

3. "You love your fellow humans not to get them to love you, or to get them to join your group or agree with you politically of philosophically, you love them because you see your own humanity in them and their humanity in you. period.

I basically agree that the last reason you cite is the best one, but loving people to show them that they should love me, and others, too, is a good thing to do, too, for it helps spread an ethic and behavior pattern of love.

4. No, I do not need a further grounding in M/D before venturing out theoretically. But I do want a further grounding, for several important reasons. It's not easy to get, however.

• TEXT HERE DELETED BY SITE ADMINISTRATOR. PLEASE DON'T USE THE FORUM TO DISPARAGE THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. PLEASE USE PRIVATE EMAIL.

5. The conference, as far as I can see right now, was a bust. My transportation to the Campus Center

• TEXT HERE DELETED BY SITE ADMINISTRATOR. PLEASE DON'T USE THE FORUM TO DISPARAGE THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. PLEASE USE PRIVATE EMAIL.

so I did not even give my presentation!

It was my first conference. Presumably the next one will be better, now that I have some experience. I'd say the chief thing I learned from the conference was--don't depend on other people for your transportation.

vince

mikelepore

Posted: 04 Nov 2006 11:44 am Post subject:

I wouldn't say "love ethic crutch", but I'd say "love" is awfully ambiguous. I would like the world to be arranged in such a way that people are systematically encouraged to operate in harmony. I think most of the cognitive changes will occur after society is reconstructed, not before. My problem with the World Socialist organization is that they want all people to perfect their minds while strife-ridden classs-divided society still exists, and then, of course, the next morning they will enact revolutionary changes. I say it's the other way around - we will move into socialism with just a bit of progress in the area of dispelling nationalism and sexism and other mental poisons, and the rest of the cognitive change will take place when a whole generation is born in the new society.

I also don't consider harmony or cooperation a mental thing. It's not a feeling or an emotion. Harmony or cooperation is a method, a protocol, a system. It's not inside the individual. It's a set of adopted practices that the individual may learn to follow. The way to have an ethical society isn't to change one's attitudes, but to ratify a certain type of written charter.

Finally, I don't "feel" much love, except for about a dozen people, most of whom are family. Frankly, there are numerous people in the world that I would really like to track down and beat to death with a steel pipe, especially when I have these ongoing problems with the phone company or the mortgage company or other bureaucracies, but I know I'll never do such a thing because my rage at them is magnified to an irrational degree, out of proportion to the real worth of the situation in the long term view of things. Regardless, I don't feel love for very many strangers.

mikelepore

Posted: 04 Nov 2006 04:12 pm Post subject:

Vince,

Quote:

subject to the same sectarian, narrow-minded, ego-driven behaviors that I've experienced with other

That may be, but let's note that your subsequent examples weren't about organizational characteristics, such as sectarianism. Your subsequent examples were about various individuals not living up to the standards of politeness or etiquette that you consider important.

mikelepore

Posted: 04 Nov 2006 04:59 pm Post subject:

Vince, your post of 02 Nov 2006 03:13 pm

Quote:

To join WiC, one must profess

I agree with you on all three of the points listed.

However, for the socialist movement generally, I don't think it's quite clear what it means for any organization to take a position. It appears to mean that a majority of at least 51 percent of the membership have enacted a resolution sticking some position or other into the list of official positions. Once that is done, the group needs to decide on the disposition of the other 49 percent of the members.

One method is what Lenin called "democratic centralism", which the SLP practices, and so do the CP and SWP. This is where the outvoted members are required to pretend publically that they agree with the statement that they disagree with, otherwise, upon speaking pubically, they will be kicked out of the group. The goal there is to have a membership as unanimous as possible on as many modes of thinking as possible, even if that means that the membership must shrink in accordance with that unanimity. So after a hundred years of organizing a national political party, you have a membership all of whom think alike on a long list of topical issues, but you only have a couple hundred members nationwide.

Another method is the "multi-tendency" approach. The SP uses this in the sense that you can join if you're a Marxist, you can join if you're a Lassallean, you can join if you're a Fabian. Just pay the dues for your membership card, and you're in. But then the SP seems to do the opposite in declaring official positions on ultra-specific issues. The SP web site calls for support of the (IMO, utterly stupid) proposal for "reparations" (a new tax on white people to give the money to black people). How can they be multitendency on the one hand, and then declare official support for an extremist proposition?

Now, the question remains, what does WiC mean by inclusion of specific planks in a list of their goals? I suspect it means that the narrowest majority was simply able to sneak in this phrase or that phrase. They did it because they could. Which is usually unwise. It was probably an agitational action, so I doubt that they would adopt an enforcment mechanism such as "democratic centralism." Perhaps this is so because the group is embryonic.

The founders of WiC said the were inspired by the Discussion Bulletin project. Frank Girard was unprecedented in his multi-tendency approach, saying that the various non-market and non-statist movements are in the same sector, although that meant combining the long-time enemies, the Marxists and the anarchists. The DB inspired the WiC. Then they did what seems to me unwarranted: they wrote that concept of Free Access into their official statement of principles. Oh, well, being multi-tendency sure was fun for the first week, huh?

I suggest a new model for a socialist movement in which there is actual honesty about differences of opinion. Imagine a socialist newspaper saying: "Our goal and program -- 81 percent of us agree with this statement ... 54 percent of us agree with this statement ... 21 percent of us agree with this statement." In this model, there is no "we want ...", but rather, "those among us who have sign this position paper want ...." Why do this? Because we can see empirically that all of the previous models of organizations are incapable of organizing the working class. And because this is what the actual organization of the working class will ultimately consist of, acknowledging all of the differences. Not concealing the differences, but advertising them.

mikelepore

Posted: 04 Nov 2006 05:29 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

Wait, hang on there. We're not only talking about exposing truths. That's a part of it. Assuming that socialist principles are truths, which I believe they are -- although not in the way that the law of gravity is a truth. A truth often needs to be demonstrated somehow. An individual may be able to demonstrate truths as efficiently as an organization. But the rest of the story is about organizing people to do something. No general population ever moved spontaneously to act in concert in response to a book or a letter to the editor. It takes an organization to assemble the people. Thomas Paine was a book, and George Washington was an organization. I wonder if a group like the SP views themselves as the organization that will be the actual vehicle when the population acts in concert and changes the world, or do they see themselves as one of several stepping stones in the process.

davesearles

Posted: 05 Nov 2006 03:30 pm Post subject:

Now we are down to it, aren't we?

What is an organization for?

Looking at the hopefully upcoming revolution in which the workers prevail, there are two different organizations,

#1 organization of the working class at the industries to produce,

#2 organizations or affiliations, if you will, of like minded people who agitate for the organization above to work for itself instead of the master class.

With the Internet a single person can get their idea out more efficiently than an entire SLP could in the 30s 40s and 50s.

The lone agitator on the internet, essentially the Nat pressman model, sitting at your keyboards and sending out your epistles to a world waiting for the message. (hopefully)

Of course Nat could have been a little more on target with the content of his letters, that was always an issue, but he know what he had to write in order to get his letters published and he did it like no one has ever done. Single minded determination.

Even if the SLP hadn't kicked him out, had been less fearful of loosing control, how would that have changed anything?

Instead of kicking Nat out the SLP could have stated through its N.O. that it didn't entirely agree with Nat's platform statement, but that it did serve as a point of discussion, and it did point out that the workers had to take hold and operate the means of production and that no reform of capitalism could put off the day when this was to happen.

Of course they flubbed it. We could argue that had the SLP done a better job that it would have had a bunch more Nat Pressmans putting the idea of socialist revolution out there. But on the other hand we could just as effective argue that this is what such agitational organizations will always do. So instead of all the bureaucratic shit that needs to happen to support such an organization whose purpose is to get people to agitate, why don't people just agitate?

Not that there can't be division of labor, people taking on tasks that they feel most suited to, fine. But this is agitation, it is not organization of the workers at the industries. Just look at what the IWW has done with that idea. It ain't there but a few hollow words found in the IWW preamble but in evidence of being central to the work of the IWW nowhere else. Why did that happen? I wish that it hadn't, but why did it happen that this organization has done this? Isn't it inevitable though? Prove me wrong here, I'd love it.

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 05 Nov 2006 10:47 pm Post subject:

Not sure what you mean about the IWW. What did they do that you're refering to, and did they do it right or wrong?

The IWW must have delved too much into reformism. I say this because a journalist went to the IWW web site recently to report on what they believe in, and his conclusion was that the IWW's one main interest is getting the length of the workday shortened. He didn't even pick up on any opposition to capitalism.

Quote:

With the Internet a single person can get their idea out more efficiently than an entire SLP could in the 30s 40s and 50s.

With the internet, the problem has been changed from the cost of publishing to the problem of being heard of in the first place. Anyone can now publish a periodical, and even broadcast an internet radio station, accessible worldwide, for about $15 a month. Now, how are people going to know that it exists? They know that cnn.com and abcnews.com exist because they mention them on CNN and ABC, but no one publicizes yours. The search engines are next to useless, because the searcher has to already know the exact word -- search for "deleonism" and sure they'll find this site, but we're not trying to reach people who are already searching for a certain word.

Quote:

Instead of kicking Nat out the SLP could have stated through its
N.O. that it didn't entirely agree with Nat's platform statement,
but that it did serve as a point of discussion, and it did point
out that the workers had to take hold and operate the means of
production and that no reform of capitalism could put off the day
when this was to happen.

I also question the whole concept of kicking out someone for one bad judgement. Nathan Pressman was the SLP's most active member for - what? - 40 or 50 years? Then he made one mistake in judgement, misstating the party's position on something, and so he was kicked out of the party in the blink of an eye. Why couldn't a party say something like, "This censure is your first of six warnings. A member who is warned six times will get kicked out." Why does it have to be expulsion on the first occasion? Even a capitalist firing workers for labor agitation is more forgiving than that!

davesearles

Posted: 06 Nov 2006 09:37 am Post subject:

What didn't the IWW do? Aquire and maintain any kind of a focus on the revolution.

The lost in the haze observation regarding the internet does have some weight. But even when a few people do find us, they rarely hang around. One one solution that I know of, admittedly it's not that bright, but just keep plugging and plugging. I'd rather do it here and get some satisfiaction that my own outlook is exanding instead having to (analogy alert) spin my wheels inside of an organization.

mikelepore

Posted: 06 Nov 2006 10:07 am Post subject:

I'm believe that human history is stalled. As long as it remains true that so many people believe that there is a huge diference between Republicans and Democrats, as long as so many people think that politics has to do only with "issues" and not the wider question "what kind of system should we have", etc., etc., there can be no social progress. This leaves me unmotivated. Why join an organization, and take time away from my activities with my wife and kids, when the advent of socialism, and even popular willingness to consider the option of socialism, may be three hundred years in the future?

davesearles

Posted: 06 Nov 2006 03:23 pm Post subject:

A person knows better than anyone what motivates them. As you know, or you should know by now, I exist a lot of the time in an imaginary world. When I write I write as if the whole world is waiting with baited breath to read what I have written. So under such an illusion, the slightest nudge will send me to the keyboard, almost as slight a nudge as it takes to get me to walk over to the refrigerator door. Many moons ago I learned the value of believing the final words of row row row your boat. if I could apply it a bit more consistently, I'd just about have it made. A litle more realistically, I can do what I can do, and no more. (I have written about this before. I focus on what I can do, I put it out there as best as I know how. If the world does not pick it up, I don't let it bother me one bit, because I have done what I can do. I try to improve what I do, but still the problem is on the receiving end. But I don't require any or much motivation to do what I can. Analogy alert - wouldn't Babe Ruth, if he could go to the stadium every day and hit home runs, even if there were no people in the stands? My hero image of him tells me that he would (regardless if he actually would.) However, what motivates you, I suspect, would not be any greater if you were in an "organization". If it was I would be suspicious.

dave

davesearles

Posted: 06 Nov 2006 04:37 pm Post subject:

And I talked about the IWW because ignoring all else, that would be a cross between my organization type 1 and type 2 (above). That it is an agitational organization but it also organizes at the industry. But it is a difficult line to walk, as we know, to represnt the workers before the bosses in order to cut a better deal on the one hand and be open with the idea to all, this is what we will agree to today, but when the revolution comes, we're taking over and you owners will either take a job on the line or be out on the streets.

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 06 Nov 2006 10:23 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If the world does not pick it up, I don't let it bother me one bit, because I have done what I can do.

I don't do all I can do. I'm not willing to sacrifice for it. I think writing is fun, so it's not a sacrifice, so I do it. I can sit by the pond with my laptop and listen to the ducks quack while I write. I don't consider it an effort.

Quote:

what motivates you, I suspect, would not be any greater if you were in an "organization".

It would be less, because if I'm willing to expend a couple hours of effort per month, then the organization usually requires expending that couple hours on something administrative, such as attending a meeting, which is operational overhead and does nothing to educate the working class. Quit the organization and now that couple hours is available for educating the working class. Conclusion, there are two advantages to refraining from joining an organization: 1. I have more time available to accomplish something; 2. I have avoided the excruciating agony of attending an amdinistrative meeting.

Quote:

When I write I write as if the whole world is waiting with baited breath to read what I have written

I visualize it more like sprinkling seeds in the desert. It has no effect on anything, and no one remembers, and no one knows, and no one cares. Just once every few years, one germinates.

However, I believe we have a poorly prepared library of socialist literature available. There are so many questions that people always raise which are unanswered. For example, as soon as we mention economic theory someone always wants to know our specific rebuttal to Mises and Hayek, and our literature just isn't prepared. I want to contribute in that area. I'm considering the option of writing a body of approximately 500 pages that needs to be written. It will still be a seed blowing in the desert, but there will come a day, long after I'm dead, when such things will matter, and hopefully someone else will have found it useful to plagiarize my manuscripts.

Regardless of the size of the audience, and how receptive they are or aren't, it's still necessary to compose writing

Quote:

as if the whole world is waiting with baited breath

because the polemic style needs to be optimized according to the makeup of the audience (workers in general, economics students, history buffs, science nerds, etc.) rather than the size or the receptiveness of it.

davesearles

Posted: 07 Nov 2006 01:11 am Post subject:

Yes write that Von Mises piece. I don't understand what the fuss is, but there isa hell of a lot that I don't. If I can understand the basic rip off at the point of production through the wages system, I consider that I know enough. Von Mises said that socialism won't work because lack of feed back to the production decision, or something like that? What the fuck do I care?

dave
just a philosophical ludite.

davesearles

Posted: 07 Nov 2006 11:21 am Post subject:

Mike Lepore wrote:

It would be less, because if I'm willing to expend a couple hours of effort per month, then the organization usually requires expending that couple hours on something administrative, such as attending a meeting, which is operational overhead and does nothing to educate the working class. Quit the organization and now that couple hours is available for educating the working class.

dave searles writes:

In other words you are nothing but a #$%&@*& organizational anarchist! I alwayts suspected as such. A full report is being forwarded to the N.O. (through my Section of course);-)

mikelepore

Posted: 07 Nov 2006 05:25 pm Post subject:

As to Mises et al., socialist organizations and literature need to deal in depth with the popular belief that production for profit gives people the products that they "want" because consumer demand is a form of "voting with our money." The other day the Science Channel or History Channel or one of them had a documentary that said it was predicted in the 1950s that by the year 2000 families would have personal robots to do chores ... so why don't we have them by now? Why do the futurists have egg on their faces? An "expert" answered: the people didn't want it enough to produce sufficient demand, so then, knowing that there wasn't much demand, industry decided not to develop it. I consider that theory to be what physicists call a spooky action at a distance. Obviously, the product has to already be on the shelf, and already affordable, before consumers can consider the option of buying it. Ditto for electric cars, rooftop photovoltaic panels, etc. This is why we have to answer Mises and his friends. This goes to the whole question of how the market system is chaotic noise, while democratic methods are genuine transmittal of information.

davesearles

Posted: 07 Nov 2006 07:23 pm Post subject:

I don't know, do you think that the topic is that hot? I never did think that the market was out to please me or others - just look at the mountains of crap out there. I don't know of anyone who believes it, nor do I think that if someone was stupid enough to believe it that they would be swayed one way or the other by von mises or a refutation of him. What does this stuff come out of the colleges?

dave

mikelepore

Posted: 08 Nov 2006 04:50 am Post subject:

My aquaintances aren't a typical cross section. Just about everyone I talk to about socialism has studied some sociology or economics, etc. You're not impressed with the newsgroups but I seem in them places where tens of thousands of people can be found gathering, a captive audience. But the talk is more theoretical. Mention socialism and many questions from others will reference some authors who are unknown to the average person on the bus. People will say, "About this law of value that Marx talks about, how do you judge Sweezy's reevaluation of the theory?" -- "You call this scientific socialism, well, does it meet Popper's falsifiabilty criterion that is required of anything that claims to be scientific?"

davesearles

Posted: 08 Nov 2006 11:06 am Post subject:

I guess that I wasn't born for that kind of discussion.

Mr. Marx's "law" of the value of labor power is an explaination for which I see none better. The law itself may not be science, but we can scientifically examine whther it fits the current social situation and we can scientifically examine the alternatives to see if there is a better explaination. I simply can't worry myself with anything more than that.

mikelepore

Posted: 08 Nov 2006 06:07 pm Post subject:

The law of value was just an example. My point is - there are several working class subcultures out there. One of them uses big words and is influenced by academic books. The internet is their main hangout. I sometimes look into their realm and find debates in progress about which social system is best. If we choose to reply, we must prepare ourselves to speak their language.

Have you ever once seen The People use the phrase "opportunity cost"? It's a very important concept in economics. it seems that everyone interested in the social sciences, except for most socialists, is able to discuss it.

davesearles

Posted: 08 Nov 2006 10:48 pm Post subject:

Now Mike, have you violated the SLP constitution by taking a course in economics? Am I going to have to send a scud missile down to Stanfordville?

OK splain that term to me.

My point about the value of labor power is that's about all that I know, but I know it cold. That is the center of the class struggle, the entire basis of capitalism. Don't ask me anything else because I don't know it. But with my (imagined) audience it's enough. If you can stand to go deeper and explain these things further, I'm with you but only if you take me.

I'll give an example. Over on the WSM list someone asked about the "transformation problem" I had never heard of it, but I saw an explanation of it over at wikipedia. The premises didn't seem right to me so I didn't bother to waste my time even out of curiosity. But then one of the regulars said that he had written about it before and he gave a long post explaining it.

Very detailed and erudite, except that the first sentence was wrong on what point? The value of labor power. No one caught it except me. When I brought it up, the person who wrote the explanation never even acknowledged my post or his error. it seems that they have read and reread all of the volumes of capital and committed it all to memory, all except for part one of volume 1 that is. Funny, that's where karl also talks favorably of a cooperative economic system based upon what? Labor shares! The Free Accessers never are able to read that. A shiboleth it would seem.

What is that refrain in Johnathan Livingston Sea gull? Now we begin with steady flight.

mikelepore

Posted: 09 Nov 2006 08:33 am Post subject:

Opportunity cost, looking at the cost of making any decision in terms of going without the other thing that you decided against. If I decide to buy a lollipop instead of a cookie, then I could list the real costs to me of having that lollipop, not only its price but also any disadvantages it may have, but also the fact that by having the lollipop then I will also go without the cookie.

This is a big deal to supporters of capitalist economics because their system allows everything to be reduced to one dimension - money. All you have to do is calculate which option is most profitable, then do it. They claim that socialist production would never be able to make a decision because it has more than one variable, such as respecting workers as human beings, conserving natural resources, democratically measuring the preferences of the population, etc. They claim that the one dimensional variable used by the capitalist automatically includes everything else, and that's why we end up with the best of all possible worlds all the time, because all the capitalist has to do is follow the proposal that's most profitable. See that "information" debate or "calculation" debate creeping into everything? The defender of capitlaism asserts that the numbers used in a business's cost accounting is the automatic provider of wisdom in all human judgments.

davesearles

Posted: 09 Nov 2006 11:29 am Post subject:

Seems like that it would fall into the assertions which cannot be disproven department. One of my former tenants got his son addicted to heroin so as to pull him into the parent's business of selling the stuff. It was a good decision as far as money went, and I suppose that one could invent a mental state where that is all fine and dandy. The main problem that adherents of capitalist thought have is not that it doesn't work, but that capitalism does work.

That's how I would deal with the matter, and unless really pushed by some reason I would be satisfied with it, and I would imagine that my imaginary audience would be satisfied with it as well. But this would not be to disuade you from trying to spread the light on this subject by a more detailed analysis.

Vince said that he had a hard time with the WiC folks. I decided to join the list, I did a search there for any evidence of Vince or of any possible hard time they gave him and found none. Can Vince give some examples?

The Greenman

Posted: 05 Jan 2007 05:10 pm Post subject:

Who would be the best socialist group to join?

John Trimbath

The Greenman

Posted: 06 Feb 2007 06:25 pm Post subject:

If I remember this correctly that a question was raised on finding the SIU a home in a political party. I can't say if that can be done under this present time. I am sure I posted how I love to garden and do have concerns over the enviroment. I decided to explore the Green Party USA.

http://www.greenparty.org/

The other Green Party became more capitalistic over the years while the "Greens" are on the socialist side of things to date. I really don't think distribution of wealth can solve anything under the present system of things. I am going to explore the Green Party and test the waters. I did like seeing this in the premable:

In keeping with G/GPUSA's structure of "democratic decentralism" where accountability is bottom-up, not top-down, the platform is not binding on the state and local affiliates of the Greens/Green Party USA.

John Trimbath

PS--I was a member of the "other" Green Party a long time ago.[/quote]

davesearles

Posted: 06 Feb 2007 07:37 pm Post subject:

I ran for a local political office under the Green Part back when Al Lewis had won enough votes to make the Green Party an offical NYS party. I did it becuase of local issues, none of which had anything to do with socialism, I just wanted to make a point. No organization that doesn't come right out and state that it's goal is the SIU AND USE THE WORD SOCIALIST isn't worth a tinker's dam in my highly biased view of all things.

The Greenman

Posted: 07 Feb 2007 07:49 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Quote:

I just wanted to make a point. No organization that doesn't come right out and state that it's goal is the SIU AND USE THE WORD SOCIALIST

I really don't know why they don't come out and say "socialist". They kinda sound like socialist with the distribution of wealth concept--if such a thing can be done. They sound like the Democratic Socialist of America with enviromental concerns. Perhaps they think the word socialist give people a bad impression. But as far as SIU they may not of heard of it. I also invited them to this board to discuss SIU. By the way, I am back on line once again.

John T.

davesearles

Posted: 08 Feb 2007 09:43 am Post subject:

Yeah I've been hearing this bad impression thing for about 40 years now.

If blacks and whites can openly date mate and marry with just about no conderation as to skin color from the outside, something that definitely gave a bad impression 40 years ago;

if males and males, and females and females can date mate and marry with a decreasing consideration from outside as to the sex of the partners, something most certainly that gave a bad impression 40 years ago;

Then I am afraid that it is time for these timid souls to come out of the closet, afterall when talking about the reclaimation of social property by society, it is a little hard to avoid the word socialist. I can only conclude that those who will not use the term are opposed to socialism - ANALOGY TIME like agreeing that there should be babies but being opposed to sex. How the hell are we going to get to socialism if people can't bring their timid hearts to allow the word to even be said. Is socialism the 21st century sin that dare not speak it's name as homosexuality was described in the late 19th?

Sure, hopefully there will be a few brave souls indivudually but the green party as a party? Don't think it'll happen, but that is just as well. And thank you for your efforts to reach out beyond this inner sanctum in a quest for new blood.

dave

The Greenman

Posted: 08 Feb 2007 09:49 pm Post subject:

I agree wholeheartedly that they should not be afraid of the word "socialist". Their program and platform sounds socialist and they should state that they are. I do hope a few sould would take on the SIU idea.

davesearles

Posted: 09 Feb 2007 10:46 pm Post subject:

Sounds socialist aint socialist that I have ever seen.

dave

The Greenman

Posted: 10 Feb 2007 04:41 am Post subject:

Smoke and mirrors?

davesearles

Posted: 10 Feb 2007 12:35 pm Post subject:

No, but some people just like the idea of themselves being some kind of a renegade so they adopt the trappings of a person who chooses to live at the edge a bit, and socialist sounding stuff is well suited to that but its all in the spotlight kind of stuff, but as to making any kind of commitment as far as intellectual integrity or coming right out and declaring for the workers taking over the means of production - no that's a a bit too much, this person wants to appear to be renegade after all and this would definitely detract.

It is a bit cynical but just a bit.

The Greenman

Posted: 10 Feb 2007 06:43 pm Post subject:

So, what you are saying is that these people want to be radical with enviromental concerns but back away from the idea of public ownership of industries? They throw the spotlight on themselves and enviromental concerns but back off if they appear too socialist in the public's eye?

davesearles

Posted: 10 Feb 2007 10:43 pm Post subject:

Of course every generalization is a lie, and it really doesn't matter how close the above was to the mark, the thing is that there is a whole galaxy of socialist sounding folk out there who will never ever come out in actual support of socialsm.

radical on envirnonment?

I guess I must figure that the world revolves around the class struggle, but I don't see anyone as radical (maybe rad) who does not come out and say that private ownership of the means of production has to be immediately replaced with the workers' social ownership.

The Greenman

Posted: 11 Feb 2007 12:37 am Post subject:

I am sure the Green concerns would be solved under the social ownership of production. They can gripe all they want to the capitalist class who just might throw a few bones of appeasement their way. But as far as profit goes they will keep doing what they alway have been doing.

davesearles

Posted: 11 Feb 2007 01:21 pm Post subject:

depends upon what their actual goals are as oppsoed to goals that are stated.

If their actual goal is to have a splinter party of the democratic party, then their goal has been attained.