Earliest first, see latest:

From Chris Marsh, Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:09 pm Subject: Re: Value and cost

Hi Adam,

I have a problem with these ideas (‘production will be essentially self-regulating’) which, without picking it all apart, I would express as: ‘They are too mechanistic, too like the orthodox paradigm on which capitalism sits.’ Having only just joined this forum, I’m being a bit cheeky perhaps pitching in with a demolition bid. I see a future society as localised such that each community is small enough for everyone to be involved in decision making, where the aim is local self-reliance wrt basics at least, and where decision making is a complex exercise better called design, and relates to the land as much as to those who live there. The big advantage of this quantum difference from the kinds of communication and regulation systems you envisage is that it brings ‘from each...’ up close to ‘to each...’ so that everyone knows what’s going to happen, and is involved. I don’t suppose that’s very clear - yet - but we could discuss this?

love, Chris

[The above was in reply to the following:]

Adam wrote:

>

> Robin,

> I still don’t know why we are arguing. We are both agreed that socialist production will be essentially self-regulating production for use on the basis of each unit in the productive network having free access to the resources it needs. We are both agreed that “central planning”, as the attempt to draw up and implement from a single centre future production over a given period, is unworkable as well as unnecessary. We are both agreed that there will need to be some “central statistical office” which will be just that, an information clearing house providing industries with statistical information which they can take into account when planning what they are likely to have to produce over a future period (as well as recording what resources are available, how they have been used, etc).

> As far as I can see, you are objecting to a statistical office of this sort using an input-output table to generate this sort of information. An input-output table is basically a table in the form of columns set out in a square. On the top will be the output of various industries (food, clothes, steel, coal, etc, etc). Down the side would be the same industries. What the table shows is for a given output (say, steel) what would be the necessary inputs from other industries to produce it (coke, electricity, working hours, etc). These are technical relationships and won’t change much except over a longer period.

> I’m guessing that you are opposed to such tables because they are the favourite tool of the “central planners”, who imagine that it (and a powerful computer) will enable them to draw up their central plan. It might do, once, but it would have to be incredibly complicated and detailed and, as you point out, would be inaccurate and unreliable. But I wasn’t envisaging such a detailed table as that, but a much simpler one. The famous schema in Volume 2 of Marx’s Capital are an example of a simple version, with only two sectors (those producing producer goods and those producing consumer goods). That would be too simple, but the statisticians could choose any number of sectors for a table, maybe 10, maybe 50 (maybe even the 8 in Eric Hass’s famous blueprint!). But, once constructed, it could easily be read. It wouldn’t require the statisticians to make the sort of detailed calculations you assume I was suggesting (in effect, recalculating the table each time), but for them simply to note, by reading the table, what, if the demand for the output of one sector is increasing, the consequences this will have in terms of the demand for the products of other sectors. This information can then be passed on to the other isectors concerned for them to take into account. This wouldn’t be instructions, just information to help in decision-making. Of course the sectors will eventually get this information anyway from their users, but the information supplied by the CSO would allow them to anticipate this.

> If you thought I was suggesting the drawing-up of a “central planners’” plan then I can understand your criticism of this as pointless and a waste of time and resources. But I wasn’t. I was just suggesting one means by which a central statistical office might be able to produce useful statistics. I’m not wedded to such an office using an input-output table to draw up these statistics. I’m sure there are other ways of providing industries with the relevant information. It was just a suggestion in the light of what we know today. I’m sure that when the establishment of socialism is on the horizon the workers working in existing central statistical offices will themselves be discussing and working out how their skills could be usefully employed in a socialist society.

> Adam

[Adam replied as follows:]

Adam, Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Value and cost

Chris, The point about socialism is (as of course you know) that, in establishing the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, it ends the rule of impersonal and uncontrollable market forces and restores to humans the power to shape their destiny as they decide. In other words, it will no longer be “Humans propose, the Market disposes” but “Humans propose and dispose”.

This means that people in socialist society will be free to decide, on the issue you raise, the degree of centralisation and decentralisation they want (people in different parts of the world could even reach different decisions). Personally, I can go along with you and see the basic unit or cell, as it were, of socialist society as the local community where people live. (In fact, I don’t know if you saw my original posting, but this is what I suggested could be the initiator and end-user of the “self-regulating production for use”, ie that the whole self-regulating system should be geared to meeting people’s needs as expressed locally, which has earned me the criticism of Peter from Oz.)

Having said this, while the local community can provide satisfaction in terms of face-to-face relationships, local decision-making, local services and amenities, no local community could be anything like self-sufficient. You advocate “self-reliance with regard to basics at least”, but what are “basics”? I’m working at a computer (and so are you) which presupposes a supply of electricity and a telephone network, which in turn presupposes facilities and materials to generate electricity. It’s also made up of parts which couldn’t be obtained or assembled in all local communities and as I look around I see plenty of things made of metal, glass or plastics (I also see some bananas, which couldn’t be grown in the part of the world I am). I’ve just been using a gas cooker, etc, etc. In other words, there will need to be organisation for production beyond the local community (unless we go back to very primitive conditions, but you’re not a “primitivist” I assume) and so there will need to be structures beyond the local scale for making decisions about and controlling this. And then there are obviously world problems such as global warming and (at the moment) world hunger and deprivation which require action on a global scale.

So, besides local decentralisation, there’ll be a need for a certain degree of centralisation on regional and world scales.

What would you propose as the structure for dealing with such issues? How would you propose that local communities obtain the goods and supplies they can produce themselves? If we stand for a “world in common” we can’t avoid addressing this question.

Adam

[To which Chris replied:]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for reassuring and useful reply, esp. when you say: ‘I can go along with you and see the basic unit or cell, as it were, of socialist society as the local community where people live.’ And no, I’m not a primitivist; there is no reason local communities should not use sophisticated technology - you mention computers, which would not actually require mass production and obviously in socialism we’d avoid built-in obsolescence or price advantages leading to replacement rather than repair or upgrading. And you can grow bananas in this country, under glass. Just details! As long as we avoid top down assumptions and the old talk of ‘potential abundance’...

You conclude by asking me:

‘So, besides local decentralisation, there’ll be a need for a certain degree of centralisation on regional and world scales.

‘What would you propose as the structure for dealing with such issues? How would you propose that local communities obtain the goods and supplies they can [I think you mean can’t here] produce themselves? If we stand for a “world in common” we can’t avoid addressing this question.’

I’m averse to ‘structure’ as a way of looking at this - it’s the mechanistic paradigm again. I think it is important we recognise that perpetuating the kinds of stock control systems - their very automaticity - that have developed under capitalism, into socialism, brings the risk of unsustainability, over-stretching / exploiting human and other ‘resources’ (don’t like that word). It is design that’s needed, process not mechanism.

love, chris

[Then Lillia sent this:]

Lillia, Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:01 am Subject: Value, cost and imaginative socialists

I look forward to shortly seeing our dialogue re FA [free access] & LTVs [labour time vouchers] become one of compatibility of ideas in which as democratic socialists we can allow that more than one idea about a future socialist society IN ITS DETAILS can exist side by side with others....and stop saying “gotcha” ... Isn’t it logical and reasonable to recognize that there will be many details in which there may be more than one idea—that is in the envisioning of transitions, applications, what-have-you—about the Future...

(As a former Art student, I can assure you I’ve sat thru classes wherein MANY approaches come out of ‘solving’ ONE problem!)

And that one can be seen as worthy as another, as long as neither interferes with the basic tenants of democratic socialism.......

I don’t understand why this arguing about whose idea “wins” (...my ideas better than yours! I feel like I’m in a Design 101 class!) except perhaps we, sadly enough, feel there are no other things to spend time on?.....and I so fully understand (living here in the U.S.) how big the “big” task is we face...getting the majority of people, even the minority of people (environmentalists, peace & justice people, anti-war people, etc, etc) ..to analyse the cause and organize themselves into a party, a movement that is in opposition to the system whose effects they all protest & abhor....and I have no answers except to keep at the task....

BUT I do think developing an organization/website that brings us together (at least on the site) as has been suggested...(If it exists, Chris, in WiC, maybe it needs to be brought out here for newcomers?) ..for support, for feedback, for reports.....for all of us who agree on the FUNDAMENTALS........that would be more important than continuing a debate on whose up...and whose down... whose weakening, whose gaining. Adam, I really agree with all the positions I’ve read of yours so far except for the adamant focus on FA as a principal of REAL socialsm, (there may be others?) but I wish we can now say we understand that you ,Adam, would, within socialism, vote for FA.... and then let it go at that until that day to vote arrives. Til then, I think we understand there are at least two points of view concerning distribution and exchange ..... that those two p.o.v do NOT translate as Real Socialism vs. False Socialism because they are just possibilities......

And most importantly, that most socialist thinkers are pretty creative and imaginative and will probably ALWAYS come up with various possibilities to consider. Can we agree & leave it at that? Lillia

[Lillia was replying to:]

----- Original Message ----- From: Adam, Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Value and cost

Some movement at last! Byron writes:

“I have no objection whatsoever to starting socialism with F[ree]A[ccess] for food staples and necessary appliances--cooking ranges, refrigerators, freezers, washers, driers, toasters, etc. However I believe that we should use L[abour-time]V[oucher]s at the beginning for luxury-type items--boats, motors, cars, ATVs, motor cycles, fancy video and camera equipment, diamond rings and what we now call costly jewelry, etc.”

The only one of these “luxury-time items” that I possess (or want to possess) is a car. And if socialist society were to provide, as it could and would, a comprehensive and efficient public transport system, including access to a self-drive car when needed, I wouldn’t need that either. So under this whittled-down LV system I and everyone else could have free access to “the basics even if they choose not to work”. Collapse of the argument that production would fall drastically “if goods were free and work voluntary” and the biblical injunction “he that does not work neither shall he eat” not applied. Or rather confirmation of the argument that people will go to work in socialism for other, more positive reasons than this threat. We, on our side, have always accepted that, in the very early days of socialism, it might not be possible to go over to free access to all goods. But the obvious solution in such circumstances would not be to construct some elaborate system to get people to work (or work longer) by promising them access to price-tagged boats, ATVs, fancy video equipment, diamond rings, etc, but not to produce such items until more pressing social needs (such as providing those who capitalism had deprived even of “food staples and necessary appliances”) had first been met.

Once the legacy of deprivation inherited from capitalism had been overcome -- fairly rapidly, I would assume, given the degree of development of the productive forces and the elimination of the wastes of capitalism -- then socialist society can become “fully developed” and free access apply across the board. Whether the same “consumerism” that encourages people today to want to possess individually fancy boats, cars, motorbikes, camera equipment, etc will still apply is another matter (I doubt it). Even today the reconstruction and maintenance of classic cars and motorbikes and using advanced video and camera equipment is something that is done as a hobby in clubs.

Come on, Byron, one last move and we can relegate the LV idea to the museum of ideas held by some socialists in the 19th century!

Adam

[Marcos sent this:]

From: Marcos, Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:26 pm Subject: Value and cost

The idea to acquire more and more, is only a motivation produced by the capitalists society, mainly in the developed nations where there are big consumptions, even eating in excess is part of that motivation, the capitalists employ psychologists in order to motivate people to acquire more goods, a socialist society that desires will not exists, because it is a society toward the real needs of the people, not toward created false needs., socialism is the only economy system that will be able to eliminate hunger, poverty, which is the opposite part of that desires to acquires more and more, which ever side we look at the capitalist society it does not produce any benefits to the human being.

[Chris sent this in reply to Adam:]

----- Original Message ----

From: Adam, Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:46:29 PM Subject: Value and cost

Hi Adam, I go away for couple of days and your reply to my last is pages back – very busy group! My reply **

>Chris,
>It is true that, particularly in the 60s and 70s, socialists used to describe socialism as a “world of abundance” thanks to automation and nuclear fusion.

**They achieved ‘nuclear fusion’, did they? wonders will never cease! I read that the Russians are going to mine the moon for helium 3, hoping to make that breakthrough. No, seriously, the point I was making is that socialists have assumed – and still do, it seems – that the technology developed through capitalism makes the next stage of socialism possible. However you water that down…

>These days, this doesn’t go down too well, but it is still true that the world has the productive potential to produce enough food, clothing, shelter, health care, education and other amenities to adequately provide for every single man, woman and child on the planet — thanks to the already developed state of the forces of production and to the elimination of the organised waste and artificial scarcity of capitalism. Perhaps we should now describe socialism as a “world of enough for all”.

**… this is a prediction/prescription we should discard. The next stage is going to have to be sustainable, first and foremost, the glut of oil having enabled us to ‘use up the super-abundant resource, oil, over the last 150 years to systematically deplete virtually every other resource: top soil, fresh water, forests, biodiversity and minerals.’ (Graham Strouts, Review of THE OIL AGE IS OVER: What To Expect When The World Runs Out Of Cheap Oil 2005-2050, by Matt Savinar, Permaculture Magazine, Issue No.43 (East Meon, Hampshire: Permanent Publications, 2005), p.56.)

>But to return to your misgivings about a self-regulating system based on stock control, this is only a tool for responding to what individuals, organised in local communities, will be indicating they want. So, it would not be the system itself that would be the “problem” but what people are likely to want. But surely you don’t think that in a socialist society people are going to want to acquire more and more material things even at the expense of the quality of their life? >In fact, after clearing up the mess left by capitalism and eliminating world poverty, hunger and disease, I would imagine that socialism would tend towards becoming a “steady-state economy” or at least a very slowly increasing one. Adam

**As I said, it’s not going to be a tidy up after capitalism but then carry on in the same way. Local communities, and groups/networks of these, are going to have to start again and DESIGN how to produce what they need and want from the land they inhabit, including how to re-generate degraded soil, recover lost wilderness and natural habitat. It will be vital to heal human alienation from the land. Designs will be long-term, and built-in automaticity will, I am sure, not be part of it.

love, Chris

[Then Adam sent:]

message 29592 Adam, Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:24 pm Subject: Re: Value and cost

Chris,

I can see where you are coming from (and where you want to go). I’m not sure I’d go all the way to your degree of decentralisation (small isn’t always beautiful and big isn’t necessarily bad) but, in any event, whatever people decide is desirable in this respect will only be able to be implemented within the framework of a society in which the productive resources, natural and industrial, of the Earth have become the common heritage of all Humanity. This is the only basis on which humans will be able to implement their decisions without coming up against the barrier of profit or the vested interests of a minority which has appropriated society’s productive resources.

Since you envisage local or regional communities being only partially self-sufficient, you still have to envisage some way for them to obtain those things that can’t produce themselves. Assuming that you rule out trade between them, there are basically only two alternatives. Either the free access on request to suppliers, where requests are automatically granted, that you don’t like or some system of free allocation, also on request, but where the requests would first be vetted by some central body (under the democratic control of all the communities) with a mandate to take into consideration ecological considerations. Both would be compatible with a world of common ownership, as would a combination of them, with one system applying for some products and the other for others. But you can’t avoid some way of dealing with the question. What is your suggestion? By coincidence I have been reading a book Capitalism in crisis and every day life by Michel Bosquet (André Gorz) which I bought in a charity shop. It’s based on magazine articles he wrote in the late 60s and early 70s (before he said “goodbye to the working class”) and makes some points that are relevant to this and other discussions on this forum.

“When asked on one occasion what people were going to do with their time after the revolution, when capitalist waste had been abolished, Marcuse replied: ‘We’re going to destroy the cities and build new ones. That should keep us occupied for a while’.

“One can visualise these new towns as federations of communes (or neighbourhoods) surrounded by green belts where the townspeople (especially students and schoolchildren) will spend several hours a week raising food crops to feed themselves. For everyday journeys they will have a complete range of transport at their disposal: municipal bicycles, trams and trolleybuses, driverless electric taxis. For longer journeys into the country, or for transporting guests, a pool of communal automobiles will be available from neighbourhood garages.

“Imagine a centrally-planned big industry which limits itself to producing what is necessary. Four or five models of durable shoes and clothing, three robust models of cars, easily repaired or converted to different uses, plus everything necessary for collective services and equipment. Impossible in a market economy? Absolutely. A recipe for massive unemployment? No: for a twenty-hour week, under a different system. Grey uniformity? No: imagine this.

“Every neighbourhood, every community, has workshops equipped with the fullest possible range of tools and machinery, open round the clock, where the inhabitants can produce the superfluous individually, in groups or collectively, according to their own tastes and desires, and outside the market. Adults, who are working twenty hours a week – perhaps even less – to produce the necessary, have ample time to learn what their children learn from primary school onward: how to work in fabric, leather, wood, stone, metal; electronics, electrical or mechanical engineering, ceramics, agriculture, anything you like.

“Utopia? It could be a programme. This ‘utopia’, which many Americans are thinking about and working towards in a very concrete way, corresponds not to the most backward conception of socialism but to the most advanced: a society without bureaucracy, in which the market withers away, in which there is enough for everyone and people are free, individually and collectively, to shape their lives and choose for themselves what to have and do beyond what is necessary. A society in which ‘the free development of all would be both the aim and the condition of the free development of the individual’ (Marx)”.

Gorz is here offering a rather different solution to the question of “luxuries” in socialism than that put forward by Byron and Mike: these, too, are produced for free but by people working to produce them, almost as a hobby, after normal working hours or they are made available as a free community service to those who want to use them. (It is only fair to add that in a later book Gorz suggests that those who want a holiday home should spend as many hours working in the construction industry as it would take to build the home!).

He also has something to say on work, referring to an American school of industrial psychologists, one of whom, Frederick Herzberg, wrote a book called in 1966 called Work and the Nature of Man:

“According to this school of psycho-sociology man is an ‘active animal’ who likes to work provided the work gives him an opportunity for ‘self-realisation’: a flowering of the intellect, an enrichment of knowledge, recognition and appreciation for his ideas and inventions in the context of collective effort and cooperation. In short the fragmentation of work, external pressures and hierarchical quasi-military relations of production should all be abolished”.

Who says “external pressures” will have to be applied in a socialist world to get people to work.

Adam

[Pieter sent this:]

From: Pieter, Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:51 pm Subject: Value and cost

Hello Chris – I can’t see a disagreement; am I missing something? Reading through chapter 8 (Conserving Resources) of “Socialism as a Practical Alternative” and your posts it seems you could have written it. Just a few quotes – “... world capitalism is altering natural systems on a scale which endangers their self recovery. As a result of its destructive production methods, capitalism releases millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, increases the level of radio activity in the environment, saturates the land with industrial chemicals, creates deserts, pollutes the rivers and seas .... all this combines to form massive unknown risk and threatens alteration of the balance of natural systems...”

“What is possible here is a self regulating society with work activity in balance with daily needs and in balance with the environment. What this could mean is that providing for the necessities of daily life would be more under local control and on a more self sufficient basis involving reduced amounts of social labour. This would widen the scope for individual development, releasing talents and skills in diversity of expression.”

“We would not follow the example of capitalism where life’s objectives are focussed on the acquisition and consumption of material things. It will of course be important that people’s material needs are satisfied but the concept of needs will no longer be based on the idea that increased happiness comes with increased consumption and possessions. Such an illusion, expressing the values of a market society fraught with insecurity, will give way to a responsible self determined appraisal of needs which will reflect the sense of security and belonging inherent in a socialist society.”

The pamphlet also includes a practical way in which a “steady state” economy could be reached. – Pieter

[Lillia sent this:]

Lillia, Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:51 pm Value and cost

Adam,

Well said...My only surprise was ‘20 hours a week or less’!...I’d easily envision a shared, cooperative work schedule for us would be a lot closer to ten, including meetings and discussions (where we work and where we live)...Even at that, satisfying – stress-free – the needs of family, community, and self would fill up our hours pretty quickly and probably require a call for ‘less work-time’!

But points well-taken on your response to Chris. Democratic Socialism will be the basis for a creative, healthy, sustainable and humane approach to life and provide the environment for choice, variety, artfulness and challenge.

Lillia

From: Pieter, Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:10 pm Subject: Socialists of the World, Unite!

----- Original Message ----- From: Lillia, Monday, January 23, 2006 9:29 PM Subject: Socialists of the World, Unite!

> Thirdly, Presentation of several “models” of governance, organization and distribution....and “lifestyle” or “culture”... and could include descriptions of work, but include as well the abundance of opportunities for education, play, art, healthcare, childcare, recreational opportunities, community & housing plans, leisure time/vacation possibilities- in other words addressing the everyday needs & wants of living, breathing people as EQUALLY important to a healthy life and attainable in a truly democratic, truly diverse socialist society.

> Can we begin to see this “movement” as possible? LDF

Lillia – You are not the only one to emphasise the need to present socialism as a positive alternative to capitalism. Indeed, the Socialist Party has made a useful start towards achieving this in its pamphlet “Socialism As A Practical Alternative.” Positive, practical socialism should be the main content of our case and without it our movement cannot expect to make progress. Social and economic development has gone past the point where our arguments can rely solely on an economic criticism of the capitalist system. As you say, we need to argue a socialist alternative to the capitalist system, but in saying this it must be proposed as a result of applying a sound method of work. Our proposals cannot be summoned up arbitrarily, conjured from a utopian blue.

One difficulty in this work is that as well as needing to go on a learning curve, some socialists need to begin by un-learning some dearly held pre-conceived notions derived mainly from the world of anarcho/utopianism. Unfortunately this is part of the useless baggage that is traditionally carried by scientific socialism; a collection of absurdities allowing some people to find association in a political sect that is mostly concerned to dissociate from society. One example is the dogmatism that remains fixed in some minds that there “will be no law in socialism.”

Other erroneous notions that should be abandoned are the idea that practical socialism is about “laying down blueprints for the future”, “writing recipes for the cook shops of the future,” “speculating on the future” or “predicting the future”. Practical socialism is not focussed on “the future” and all references to it are irrelevant. Practical socialism is defined as “a set of proposals for how social problems could be solved on a socialist basis.” This is why we argue for socialism, because it will have the freedoms and the powers to be a problem solving society based on the relationships of equality and cooperation. These are not the problems of to-morrow or “the future”. They are, and can only be, existing problems; the problems of today. This gives us a framework of known facts from which we can formulate our proposals for a socialist alternative.

This existing framework of known facts is given by history; by economic, political, administrative and technical development. Apart from defining its productive relations Marx could not propose socialist organisation because he was not in a position to do it. The situation was put very well by Engels when he said “The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain.” 150 years later, our situation is very different. The solutions of social problems are no longer “hidden in undeveloped economic conditions.” Now, the vast majority of people have been drawn into the capitalist/worker relationship; we now have a world structure of production; world wide administration with decision making bodies; instant world wide communications. This gives us a material basis for the operation of socialist society. For socialism to be possible it does not require any further development.

It’s a big subject so I’ll come back to it but let me finish by giving an example of the work that can be done. Probably the worst problem suffered by humanity is poverty and malnutrition. It’s getting worse. In 1975 435 million people were seriously undernourished. In 2000 this number had risen to 825 million. The basis of food production is cereal production (and has been since the agricultural revolution) We can say what is current world cereal production. We can project a figure by which it should be increased. We could propose the world organisation required to get this done. Perhaps the FAO would come up with a target figure. From this it could indicate to Agricultural Departments in cereal producing countries how they could organise an increase in production. To take Britain, its Ministry of Agriculture could work with the FAO and indicate to County Agricultural Committees a breakdown of their required increase in cereals. In turn this could be further decentralised by passing the required targets down to Agricultural Committees at the District Council level.

This is the sort of work we need to do. Having researched a set of practical socialist proposals for ending world hunger these could be a very strong argument which we could present to the millions of people who are concerned about the problem. We would also need to research a target audience. This would liberate the socialist case from its confinement within the negativity of mere economic criticism. I would be willing to work with others on the WSM Forum with a view to assembling material on world hunger under appropriate headings which could become an excellent pamphlet. In this way we could convert a socialist talk shop into a socialist work shop. Lillia or anyone else; are you interested? – Pieter.

[Chris’s latest:]

Mon Jan 30, 2006  11:38 am
Subject: Re: Socialists of the World, Unite!

Hi Lillia & Pieter,

Interesting discussion! and note change of Subject from ‘value and cost’ to above – I’m all for that: why I joined World in Common btw. It’s been suggested we be clear on points of agreement as well as taking issue. I like what you said, Pieter, about the pamphlet, “Socialism as a Practical Alternative” and the quote “... world capitalism is altering natural systems on a scale which endangers their self recovery. As a result of its destructive production methods,...” etc. I liked very much what you said, Lillia, about ‘addressing the everyday needs & wants of living, breathing people as EQUALLY important to a healthy life and attainable in a truly democratic, truly diverse socialist society’, which Pieter picked out below.

However – we need not apologise for taking issue in a comradely manner? – I’m really not sure about Pieter’s ‘the vast majority of people have been drawn into the capitalist/worker relationship’. India and China and other parts of the Third World still have vast peasant populations, in parts of Africa these are major producers of food and more productive than plantation agriculture. Due to the Brits messing up land ownership systems, and land being appropriated for cash crops, people getting into debt etc., many Indian village people lost much of the best land and have to make do with marginal land – and of course India has long history of struggle and famines, even before the Empire when land was relatively secure. Marx was bemused by Asia, wasn’t he? and it is still a complicated world (even where there’s wage labour it’s far from homogenous), and I hope it doesn’t have to become just capitalists and wage workers before revolutionary change is possible, or collapse happens. We can/must learn from those who still know how to be self-reliant in basics plus, engage in community, know their land, engage in home grown culture etc. I also wonder, Pieter, about your plan to work on world hunger – presumably you mean to engage in forward planning, not (shock/horror!) Reformism? – but dependency on cereal crops need not continue, there could be a second (since the first 10K years BP) agricultural revolution, whereby diverse agricultural ecosystems are designed to provide a much more varied diet – and people are researching this, like http://www.pfaf.org/database/index.php . Also, your thinking sounds so ‘top-down’ and the kind of ‘tidied up capitalism’ Adam seems to envisage, and all the others who go on about LVs etc. – all this automaticity is not – and would not be – sustainable, since the future society would thereby continue to be alienated from the land. As for now, socialists need to ‘unite’ with others beyond the theoretical, supposedly rational (praxis = writing and distributing literature) socialist/communist/anarchist/anti-statist community. Hope this makes sense.

love, Chris

top