Poll: Invite Edric O?

In spite of his religious beliefs, there was a good reason why he was admitted to the CC. Furthermore, he isn't pigeon-holed to Trotskyism (although he is sympathetic).

[Note that he hasn't applied yet.]

In past posts he even talked about labour-time vouchers as the basis for socialist economics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/else-but-m...110/index.html

Well, in the period immediately following the revolution, people will continue to buy them with money; but the only seller of goods will be the collective, and the only employer will also be the collective. In other words, a worker will receive money from the collective for his labour, and he will give that money back to the collective in exchange for certain goods and services. The collective itself, unlike a capitalist company, does not really need the money; therefore socialist money is more like a receipt than anything else. A worker receives "money" as proof that he worked, and he presents that proof to a shop in order to buy things. Prices and "wages" can be determined by the collective, but the relationship between them should always be such that the amount of money needed to buy something is equal to the amount of money paid to the worker(s) who produced it. In other words, the collective should not exploit workers - obviously.

In time, it would probably be useful to move away from the concept of money; first by making it more obvious that we're dealing with receipts and proofs of labour rather than anything else. Terms like "dollars", "pounds" or "euros" should be replaced with papers stating that the bearer has performed X hours of work. Eventually, such proof should become unnecessary, and the disappearence of those pieces of paper will mark the transition to full communism.

Because I am a revolutionary Marxist and believe in the need to maximize discussive unity within any given set of circumstances, I hereby ask this discussion question (the resulting decision of which PRC-UTE and I will abide by):

Should Edric O be invited to join the Revolutionary Marxists user group?

I don't see any reason not to invite him.

But if I may, I'm going to comment on his words there.

Well, in the period immediately following the revolution, people will continue to buy them with money; but the only seller of goods will be the collective, and the only employer will also be the collective. (My emphasis)

First of all, it's naive to think that such a system will exist immediately after the revolution. We can't count on that at all. Workers won't be able to seize all of the means of production at once, and generally, workers have no experience running an entire economy, and we can't count on millions of people spontaneously becoming experienced a conscious enough to do it immediately after the revolution.

Secondly, the "one buyer, one employer" stuff will be understood by some readers to mean a state monopoly. That is not "socialism." This may not be what Edric O meant, but this is how it may be interpreted by some readers.

And further, what happens when two groups of workers have conflicting ideas on how best to produce something? Theoretically, it could all be figured out before the good was produced, but that is impractical, as often, what seems good in theory doesn't work in practice.

If "the collective" made the wrong decision about how to produce a good, how would the economy adapt? There would be no alternative option available immediately to self correct the negative effects of having tons of crappy products circulating around. "The collective" would have to stop producing the bad good and start producing the good one. But this takes time, and in this process the good, whatever it was, would simply not be available. If it was something necessary like a food product, this could be very, very bad.

This is the downfall of centralism.

A decentralized economy would be far more adaptive. This doesn't mean market structure, as there would, in the moneyless economy that would develop over time, be no buying or selling, and the economy would be run directly by the workers. But economy run by workers does not necessarily mean centralized, monopolistic economy. If parallel trends existed, the two conflicting ideas about how to produce something could be tested simoultaneously. This doesn't necessarily mean competition, because I believe the economy would still be run like one big factory (i.e. collectively), but it would mean that wrong or bad decisions could easily be corrected by a parallel production unit without having to effectively stop the economy to fix it.

However, I'll leave that for another time. The point here is that "socialist" economy will develop over time along-side a state-capitalist and private capitalist economy, each with its various sub-economies. It would not be in place "immediately following the revolution."

Plus, while we can lay out some general ideas, moneyless economy will be the result of decades of experimentation, so it is somewhat pointless to get extremely specific.

I voted no because I'm by no means convinced that anyone religious can be considered a revolutionary Marxist.

But it doesn't really matter, so long as most people here are atheists.

I voted no because I'm by no means convinced that anyone religious can be considered a revolutionary Marxist.

But it doesn't really matter, so long as most people here are atheists.

I don't really see that as a reason to exclude him from the group. I've said this before, but if we don't allow people who disagree with us to have discussion with us, then we are a cult. Let's not let it turn into that.

The biggest thing is that he is a revolutionary Marxist, whatever his religious views are. His personal religious beliefs are really of no concern to me if he does not try to push them on anyone else (which I don't think he will do), and if he keeps an open mind. I think it is obvious that he is a revolutionary Marxist. I don't think your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, has anything to do with being a Marxist.

That said, I stand opposed to religion, but I also understand why religion exists, and so did Marx. Marx himself rejected the idea of being an "atheist." He did not believe in God, and he understood what religion was, but because of that, he didn't consider himself an "atheist."

Marx:

I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people. (Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842.)

[...]

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction.)

[1]

Marx understood the conditions that lead to religious beliefs. If you eliminate those conditions, you eliminate the religion.

The real struggle against religion, therefore, is not the struggle against religious people, but against the conditions that lead to religion.

So in short, this is not something we should hold against Edric O.

FOOTNOTES:

1 http://marxmyths.org/cyril-smith/article2.htm

Well, this motion is going to pass anyways. I voted no knowing that it wouldn't make a difference.

And no, religious people can't be Marxists. Marxism is a materialist ideology, and you can't be a materialist if you believe in a magic Jesus that lives in the clouds.

Of course he can join, I don't want to make this look like another Commie Club. But no he's not a Revolutionary Marxist.

Well, this motion is going to pass anyways. I voted no knowing that it wouldn't make a difference.

And no, religious people can't be Marxists. Marxism is a materialist ideology, and you can't be a materialist if you believe in a magic Jesus that lives in the clouds.

Of course he can join, I don't want to make this look like another Commie Club. But no he's not a Revolutionary Marxist.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, and don't want to seem like I'm attacking you for sticking to your convictions. However to me this seems like an illogical thing to say; it would be like claiming that religious believers cannot learn maths, because that excludes theology. I think many people can compartmentalise, hold different ways of thinking seperate in their mind. Of course I admit that many cannot, such as fundamentalists.