<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Response: A constructive dialogue for change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/response-a-constructive-dialogue-for-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/response-a-constructive-dialogue-for-change/</link>
	<description>Red Pepper</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:39:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Thomson</title>
		<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/response-a-constructive-dialogue-for-change/#comment-3880</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpnew.nfshost.com/?p=2426#comment-3880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the record, Joan Martinez Alier specifically denies supporting Green Keynsianism, even provisionally, in a January 3, 2011 comment on the original November 2010 Red Pepper version of Bellamy Foster&#039;s article. It&#039;s a shame Monthly Review haven&#039;t published responses or comments with their January 2011 version of the article (labelled January 2010?!) and it&#039;s unfortunate that this important debate via comments on articles is too disjointed to be a really accessible debate, except for those of us willing to jump from articles to comments to check out who is really saying what.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the record, Joan Martinez Alier specifically denies supporting Green Keynsianism, even provisionally, in a January 3, 2011 comment on the original November 2010 Red Pepper version of Bellamy Foster&#8217;s article. It&#8217;s a shame Monthly Review haven&#8217;t published responses or comments with their January 2011 version of the article (labelled January 2010?!) and it&#8217;s unfortunate that this important debate via comments on articles is too disjointed to be a really accessible debate, except for those of us willing to jump from articles to comments to check out who is really saying what.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Walker</title>
		<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/response-a-constructive-dialogue-for-change/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:55:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpnew.nfshost.com/?p=2426#comment-91</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve posted a comment in response to John Bellamy Foster&#039;s critique and I would just like to cross-post the substance of my proposition here. I agree with Ted Benton&#039;s point about the need for a generous attitude toward potential allies, as well as deeper introspection about what &quot;traditional working-class critique of capitalism&quot; actually entails.

Werner Sombart described the concept of capital as something that &quot;did not exist before double-entry bookkeeping.&quot; &quot;Capital,&quot; he wrote, &quot;can be defined as that amount of wealth which is used in making profits and which enters into the accounts.&quot; Rob Bryer has written of a capitalist mentality that consists of using accounting information to control the labor process &quot;by holding the collective worker accountable for the rate of return on capital.&quot; Such control by the bottom line is central, not incidental, to both the domination of the labor process by capital and the evolution of the ways that domination has been implemented through successive forms of technology. Any alternative to that domination requires the development of a counter-mentality that &quot;turns the capitalist development of calculation and accountability to other ends.&quot;

Bryer referred to that counter-mentality as a &quot;socialist mentality&quot; but I would amend that to a &quot;social accounting mentality&quot; to both enlist and implicate an incumbent social accounting tradition as well as to distance the alternative mentality from advocacy of state socialism. Ownership of the means of production may be beside the point or it may be more eclectic than traditional socialism assumes. It is not private ownership &lt;i&gt;per se&lt;/i&gt; that is onerous but the domination over the labor process that a one-dimensional accounting mentality enforces. Social accounting is simply the kind of accounting that has to be done when two or more accounting entities are being aggregated. It differs from the accounting of a single enterprise in the way that transactions between the constituent parts are treated. Great care needs to be taken in defining the boundaries between parties to avoid errors such as &quot;double counting.&quot; It is, in effect, the systematic double counting of the returns due to capital that maintains the social domination of capital and obstructs social justice.

For a fuller outline of this &quot;social accounting mentality&quot; at its historical grounding see &lt;a href=&quot;http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/time-on-ledger-social-accounting-for.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the Good Society&quot;&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve posted a comment in response to John Bellamy Foster&#8217;s critique and I would just like to cross-post the substance of my proposition here. I agree with Ted Benton&#8217;s point about the need for a generous attitude toward potential allies, as well as deeper introspection about what &#8220;traditional working-class critique of capitalism&#8221; actually entails.</p>
<p>Werner Sombart described the concept of capital as something that &#8220;did not exist before double-entry bookkeeping.&#8221; &#8220;Capital,&#8221; he wrote, &#8220;can be defined as that amount of wealth which is used in making profits and which enters into the accounts.&#8221; Rob Bryer has written of a capitalist mentality that consists of using accounting information to control the labor process &#8220;by holding the collective worker accountable for the rate of return on capital.&#8221; Such control by the bottom line is central, not incidental, to both the domination of the labor process by capital and the evolution of the ways that domination has been implemented through successive forms of technology. Any alternative to that domination requires the development of a counter-mentality that &#8220;turns the capitalist development of calculation and accountability to other ends.&#8221;</p>
<p>Bryer referred to that counter-mentality as a &#8220;socialist mentality&#8221; but I would amend that to a &#8220;social accounting mentality&#8221; to both enlist and implicate an incumbent social accounting tradition as well as to distance the alternative mentality from advocacy of state socialism. Ownership of the means of production may be beside the point or it may be more eclectic than traditional socialism assumes. It is not private ownership <i>per se</i> that is onerous but the domination over the labor process that a one-dimensional accounting mentality enforces. Social accounting is simply the kind of accounting that has to be done when two or more accounting entities are being aggregated. It differs from the accounting of a single enterprise in the way that transactions between the constituent parts are treated. Great care needs to be taken in defining the boundaries between parties to avoid errors such as &#8220;double counting.&#8221; It is, in effect, the systematic double counting of the returns due to capital that maintains the social domination of capital and obstructs social justice.</p>
<p>For a fuller outline of this &#8220;social accounting mentality&#8221; at its historical grounding see <a href="http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/time-on-ledger-social-accounting-for.html" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the Good Society&#8221;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.649 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-09-18 20:09:17 -->