A Blueprint for a New Party

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales ptich of yours

So who made you the leader and spokesperson for all socialist?  I thought socialist didn't have leaders anyway, but you certainly seem to be acting like one.  I doubt you truly understand socialist as people who might have diverse opinions from yours.  here's a question for you  you mentioned. . ."this is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context."  Convincing you of that is the best trick John Gault ever pulled on you.  You'll find your answers where you least expect them because John Gault hid them in the last place you'd ever think to look for them and made sure with social norms that they would be the last idea you try only after everythign else failed.  Well, everything else socialist have tried has failed.  So time to start trying the things John gault fooled you into thinking that only capitalist do. Stop believing capitalist who tell you "there's nothing here of value to you. look over their and try the direct approach again". 

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales pitch of yours

So who made you the leader and spokesperson for all socialist?  I thought socialist didn't have leaders anyway, but you certainly seem to be acting like one.  I doubt you truly understand socialist as people who might have diverse opinions from yours.  here's a question for you  you mentioned. . ."this is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context."  Convincing you of that is the best trick John Gault ever pulled on you.  You'll find your answers where you least expect them because John Gault hid them in the last place you'd ever think to look for them and made sure with social norms that they would be the last idea you try only after everything else failed.  Well, everything else socialist have tried has failed.  So time to start trying the things John gault fooled you into thinking that only capitalist do. Stop believing capitalist who tell you "there's nothing here of value to you. look over their and try the direct approach again". 

 I don't claim  be a "leader" or "spokesperson" of other socialists, Steve – or a follower for that matter…  Simple commonsense, putting two and two together, tells me  that your schema  would be 1) an impractical bureaucratic nightmare 2) in no way conducive to the kind of thinking socialists would want to foster. By John Galt, (not Gault)  I assume you mean the fictional character in Ayn Rands trashy novel Atlas Shrugged. The gist of what you seem to be saying here is that I and other socialists should start doing what the capitalists are doing because ..er .. everything else we socialists have attempted to do has failed. And then you have the nerve to say you doubt that I truly understand socialists as people.  What arrogance! Its time to eat some humble pie and start to listen to what socialists are saying to you.  It may very well be the case that socialism may never happen and that a movement for socialism will never take off. That will not deter me as a socialist from continuing to be a socialist.  As individuals and also as a hitherto small and ineffectual movement, we do what we can to make the world a better place. Our efforts are not wasted even if the goal we strive after might prove elusive.  For instance, being a socialist is the most effetive thing you can do right now to put a spoke in the wheels of the juggernaut of  jingoism that  drives  this society toward military conflict. Socialists operate from a certain perspective on the world , a certain set of values.  Your schema does nothing to advance either. I keep on telling you that there is a world of difference between the kind of generalised reciprocity socialists advocate  and the market-like quid pro quo exchange system you advocate but you never listen.  The lesson never seems to sink in.  You don't seem to understand that the ideological viewpoint you are promoting is fundamentally a pro capitalist one, notwithstanding your obsessional fixation with the idea that exchanges should equivalent.  You think that that is promoting "fairness" and "equaity" but it is actually promoting capitalism.  This notion of explicitly measuring what each side to a quid pro quo  exchange contributes is precisely what lies at the heart of the notion of exchange value going right back to Aristotle who Marx quoted in Capital – the notion that exchange is necessarily an exchange of equivalents.  This is what market trade is ostensibly about. You are in effect telling us that we should adopt the position of a market trader in our dealings with one another and then you wonder why we universally spurn your advice! The ends don't justify the means Steve , but determine the means.  A stateless non market society we advocate requires the adoption of an approach that is wholly consonant with that goal.  Understand that and you will have at least learnt something from these "exchanges" we are enabling you to have on this forum

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 Socialists would not really be interested in this scheme of yours and you are wasting your time with this sales pitch of yours

So who made you the leader and spokesperson for all socialist?  I thought socialist didn't have leaders anyway, but you certainly seem to be acting like one.  I doubt you truly understand socialist as people who might have diverse opinions from yours.  here's a question for you  you mentioned. . ."this is not how humans normally interact outside of the market context."  Convincing you of that is the best trick John Gault ever pulled on you.  You'll find your answers where you least expect them because John Gault hid them in the last place you'd ever think to look for them and made sure with social norms that they would be the last idea you try only after everything else failed.  Well, everything else socialist have tried has failed.  So time to start trying the things John gault fooled you into thinking that only capitalist do. Stop believing capitalist who tell you "there's nothing here of value to you. look over their and try the direct approach again". 

 I don't claim  be a "leader" or "spokesperson" of other socialists, Steve – or a follower for that matter…  Simple commonsense, putting two and two together, tells me  that your schema  would be 1) an impractical bureaucratic nightmare 2) in no way conducive to the kind of thinking socialists would want to foster.

Sounded to me like you were claiming to speak for all of socalism.  That sounds like a self designated spokesperson to me.  maybe you want to scatter a few "IMO" in with your grand pronouncements about socialism to avoid confusion about you being the speaker for socialism? 1) the impractical and bureaucratic parts are a valid concern that I'm working on.  For the time being it's slow and manual and tedious. But then again so is capital based exchanges until people get used to them and technology sped them up and made them easier.  there's a big difference between learning something new and using something refined.  I'm focused on proof of concept now and not so worried about the transaction effort.  the exchange protocols for transfering credit card informatoin are several hundred pages of what to do with what contingencies and that all get technology to turn it into a swipe of the card and the tne entering of a 4 digit pin.  So if tech can do that, then my protocols can be similar streemlined if it seems worth the investment in efficiency.  Right now efficiency isn't the concern and I am just working on the proof of concept. BUT, thanks for pointing out the problem and confirming for me it's something I'll need to address and look at closer before it's ready for mass distribution and promotion. 2) I think you don't know socialist as well as you think you know socialist.  Anyway, as has been pointed out there is no socialism and never has been socialism and it has to be a world scale revolution, etc.  so if socialist don't want to use it they can keep using cash and dollars for their exchanges like they do now.  how do you know this isn't the kind of thinking socialist wouild want to foster? did you survey them to find out? did god tell you that's what socialist want? Do you understand the difference between your own opinion and the opinions of others? 

robbo203 wrote:

By John Galt, (not Gault)  I assume you mean the fictional character in Ayn Rands trashy novel Atlas Shrugged. The gist of what you seem to be saying here is that I and other socialists should start doing what the capitalists are doing because ..er .. everything else we socialists have attempted to do has failed. And then you have the nerve to say you doubt that I truly understand socialists as people.  What arrogance!

No, the gist isn't that you should start doing EVERYTHING the other capitalist are doing.  that would be a mistake in my opinon.  But not everythign a capitalist does is wrong and you shouldn't dismiss an idea just because a capitalist thought it was a good idea.  There are lots of things capitalist and socialist agree on.  Neither on thinks you should just kill people on the street for no reason.  Would you say that's wrong because capitalist agree on not killing random people? I think you would say the capitalist are right about some things. But more importantly, I'm saying that if you think of terms of evolutionary economic systems and social norms, then as a system capitalism will protect itself by instilling social norms to protect itself from other ideas that threaten it's power.  That's what the capitalist system does and actually that's what any self re-enforcing system does.  Capitalism has been tried and failed as much as socialism and maybe more.  But the capitalism that came with social norms to discourage socialism failed less then other forms of capitalism and now that's what we have to deal with.  We havea  capitalist system with social norms that discourage thinking outside of capitalism.  one way the system does that is to hide key parts of it's weekness in places where they can't hurt the capitalist system.  That's how self re-enforcing adaptive systems work. 

robbo203 wrote:

Its time to eat some humble pie and start to listen to what socialists are saying to you.  It may very well be the case that socialism may never happen and that a movement for socialism will never take off. That will not deter me as a socialist from continuing to be a socialist.  As individuals and also as a hitherto small and ineffectual movement, we do what we can to make the world a better place. Our efforts are not wasted even if the goal we strive after might prove elusive.  For instance, being a socialist is the most effetive thing you can do right now to put a spoke in the wheels of the juggernaut of  jingoism that  drives  this society toward military conflict.

I feel exactly the same way I feel towards this idea that I call socialism as you feel towards you're idea of what you call socialism.  

robbo203 wrote:

Socialists operate from a certain perspective on the world , a certain set of values.  Your schema does nothing to advance either. I keep on telling you that there is a world of difference between the kind of generalised reciprocity socialists advocate  and the market-like quid pro quo exchange system you advocate but you never listen.  The lesson never seems to sink in.  You don't seem to understand that the ideological viewpoint you are promoting is fundamentally a pro capitalist one, notwithstanding your obsessional fixation with the idea that exchanges should equivalent.  You think that that is promoting "fairness" and "equaity" but it is actually promoting capitalism.  This notion of explicitly measuring what each side to a quid pro quo  exchange contributes is precisely what lies at the heart of the notion of exchange value going right back to Aristotle who Marx quoted in Capital – the notion that exchange is necessarily an exchange of equivalents.  This is what market trade is ostensibly about.

You own no monopoly on socialism and smarter thinkers throughout history claiming much more persuasively than you that they are socialist have explicitly contradicted you. I may not be as knowledgeable about you on topics of socialism, but I know enough to recognize you're speaking for only one small branch of socialism and misrepresenting yourself as speaking for all socialist. I undersand and have heard you feel this is not socialism, but then again there's other people standing next to you saying socialist is soemthing else and you can't even hear them.In any case, I've said repeatedly this isn't what you robbo203 define as socialist.  And I've said I don't really care, because it's happinning whether you think it's socialism or not.  It's also not up to you to declare it socialist and you're not even a fit judge in my opinon since you are completely unable to grasp what I'm describing and haven't even tried much. I realize I'm proposing something new that's hard for you to understand, but only through hard work and hard thinking are you going to learn to think and act like a socialist as I've explained for you repeatedly. anyway, you think almost everythign is pro-capitalist, so as noam chomsky said about a nation declaring acts of war are accidental, what you say has no real meaning.  All you mean when you say it's pro-capitalist it that you didn't think it up yourself and it doesn' conform exactly and completely to your personal view of socialism.I"m not really sure about that quote.  can you link to it for me so I can read it in context. Most likely you're leaving parts out and misrepresenting it again to make it conform to your personal view of socialism.  Again, I don't really care that much since my universal exchagne system lets you just write in to the terms and conditions section. . ."this exchange must follow robbo203 version of socialism or it is null and void" and then you can decide for each exchange if it's null or void.  Personally, I think if do that a lot of people will say you're full of it and rate you negative stars for honesty and fair dealing.  But if everyone you make exchanges with agrees with you about socialism, then it should work fine for you.  as long as you don't try talkign to people who don't share you view on what socialism is.  Maybe you want to put a survey question or quiz in your terms of agreement that they have to answer to prove they agree with you about what socialism is?  Personally I doubt you have the intellectual ability to write a usable description of what socialism is in under 1000 words that you could test someone on because I don't think you understand socialism in practice. The exchange conditions are practical examples of socialism, not just theory devoid of usefullness.  

robbo203 wrote:

 You are in effect telling us that we should adopt the position of a market trader in our dealings with one another and then you wonder why we universally spurn your advice! The ends don't justify the means Steve , but determine the means.  A stateless non market society we advocate requires the adoption of an approach that is wholly consonant with that goal.  Understand that and you will have at least learnt something from these "exchanges" we are enabling you to have on this forum

No, again quit straw man arguments. I am not telling you to adopt the position of a market trader in your dealings.  You can adopt any position you want. If you want write into the terms and conditions of any agreement "this is not valid or enforceable if it requires either part to adopt the position of a market trader as judged by a robo203.  any violation of this as judged byi robo203 may be subject to 100% reversal of any value exchanged in this agreement to be transfered to robo203".  again, I don't think many people will agree to exchange with you under those terms since you've essentially elected yourself sole arbitar of any disputes for any reason you want to make up with no checks or ballances from the public for your dispute agreement. BUT you could write it and if somoene agreed to it, then the universal values exchange system protocols would let you provide a record of each ageement of that type that you make and a place for anyone to comment on and a place for the other parties or yourself to comment on publicly and a chance for each of the members of the exchange agreement to upvote or down vote you for being a bad exchagne partner.Doesn't really matter if it's quid pro quo exchange or not.  The important thing is that it's recorded and the record has a way for anyone to comment on and you can't hide your dishonesty if you're dishonest because people can just write "you're dishonest" as a comment on the exchange and then the next person you want to do an exchange with can find that comment and decide not to deal with you if lots of people say your dishonest.  Or if you limit your exchanges to socialist who believe like you do then they'll probably upvote you as honest and well informed about socialist terms and conditions. I don't know anyone who knows you and agrees with you about socialism enough to accept the general "whatever robbo says socialism is" terms and conditions, but you believe everyone would accept that apparently, so go ahead and try saying that as part of an exchange of real value instead of just words in a discussion board you can ignore that you said later with impunity.  If you want to exchange with me, I consider and my exchange history will verify that I accept both quid pro quo exchanges and "non quid pro quo exchanges".  If you want to restrict your exchanges you can simply write into your terms and agreements section of the protocol (aka text field limited to 1000 words) an additional sentence "this exchange offer is not valid if any part of it is quid pro quo as judged by the a random survey of members of worldsocialism.org who have posted at least 5 commnets in the last month and steve san francisco is excluded from serving as judge for this or any exchange I make".

[Anonymous]

---

[Author]

Posts