Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

Rubbish.  You are wriggling as per usual.  You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism .  How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes???

As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say.Since this inability to engage with what someone actually writes seems to widespread within the SPGB (perhaps it's a condition of membership?), I'm not sure where this thread can go. Is there anyone reading, who can read post 114, and respond to what I actually wrote there?

[alanjjohnstone]

Just to reinforce what Robbo said, i made a particular point in defining the period we were discussing so that there would be no confusion. Not pre-socialism, not during the course of the revolution, not during the stage of what is described as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat …but clearly the post-capitalist society…socialism itself. I couldn't have been any clear in my posts that this was the focus of my arguments.

Quote:

Are you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress? Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist society

And again i made it clear in what context i was speaking and you quoted me in your reply so there is no mistake I will highlight where i repeated myself 

Quote:

AJJ – In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? LBird – I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat.

Quote:

I think you are rightly angered, but not by our supposed red herrings but because you have not appreciated enough that classes and such terms as proletariat, working class and even workers and social producers and whatnot are made redundant with socialism.  We are no longer a divided society but whether you like it the word or not we are now one people, one humanity, one species, no longer artificially atomised and estranged from one another by class (or caste)…There is a new mode of production, so there is no point in still talking of producers as if they are different strata of society because we all are now producers. Within these recent posts of mine, i have ventured to put forward certain generalised statements about how socialism will make decisions. In almost four years, you have scarcely made any attempt at explaining how we will administer socialism. I call you conservative because like a Christian, you keep telling us of the promised land of heaven on earth but make no attempt to determine how this paradise can be accomplished. This was the Marx's criticism of the utopians. Once again, the SPGB  have taken what exists in society today and suggest that these can be turned into weapons and tools to use to usher in a new world. Take issue with its analysis, you won't be alone but present your own path. 

[LBird]

alan, why not just read my post 114?I wrote quite a long and comprehensive post, addressing as much as is possible in this format, the issues and red herring that you raised.Now, unless you tell me what I wrote about within socialism (clue 'social producers'), I'm going to have to treat you like robbo, Vin and YMS, and assume that either you're not genuinely interested in engaging, or that you simply can't read.FFS, what's the point of the SPGB having a website, and driving away those workers who express an interest?

ajj wrote:

I think you are rightly angered…

…and at the end of my tether.

[alanjjohnstone]

Damn forum format…it deletes a quote of a quote . I'll re-post the missing section in my previous post which you yourself quoted, so there is no mistaking that you were aware of the context, LBird.AJJ – In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? LBird I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I think i have just answered you, LBird, using your own words in reply to mine,  while we were cross-posting.   

[LBird]

The only genuine political criticism that you can make of my post, alan, ignoring red herrings, is that I'm wrong to claim that there will be 'social producers' within socialism.Is this what you're trying to say?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

, and assume that either you're not genuinely interested in engaging, or that you simply can't read.

This is another repetitive insult from Lbird. He has said it to every forum member who has finally worked out that he is a fraud.He will have to take a break while he conjures up some new insults Because there is  a rule about repetitive postings.  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too. 

 I have read your post in which you explain fully your position. There will be a proletariate in socialism. LBird says this explicitly in post 114In socialism a propertyless class of wage workers will be in charge, lolMarx in the Communist Manifesto"the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market."I don't think I need bother with the rest of your nonsensicle post 114 

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not the one who is required to give answers, LBird.You have been quoted not once but twice of stating within socialism, there will be a proletariat, and this is term understood by all Marxists to mean a social and economic class.Socialism is recognised to be class-free. Is this careless or your own idiosyncratic use of language or do you hold that a proletarian class will exist inside socialism as your own reply to me says?I have made my own view clear…when socialism is up and going, there will be no differentiations of people based on social relationship to production. We are all owners and thus non-owners of the means of production. 

[Young Master Smeet]

Just to be clear then, if there are no classes in socialism, what is the point of using any designation like 'social producers' or 'workers'?  People suffices, as you can see, the persistence in using these terms has lead to confusion, since, naturally, interlocutors inferred that there was some significance in this designation and hat there would be non-workers.So, for further clarification, "social-producers" and "people" are exact synonyms?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to be clear then, if there are no classes in socialism, what is the point of using any designation like 'social producers' or 'workers'?  People suffices, as you can see, the persistence in using these terms has lead to confusion, since, naturally, interlocutors inferred that there was some significance in this designation and hat there would be non-workers.So, for further clarification, "social-producers" and "people" are exact synonyms?

[my bold]Because, like Marx, I'm talking about 'social production'.alan has already mentioned the political difficulties for the class conscious revolutionary proletariat in using the term 'People'.So, no, 'people' and 'social producers' are not politically 'exact synonyms'.I suspect that your ideological wish to use the term 'people' is part of your individualist ideology, and seeks to hide the 'social' nature of 'production'.Once you get the term 'people' accepted in discourse, you'll then move to arguing that 'all people are individuals'.It would be far clearer for this political discussion if you would be open, and say why you don't want to use the term 'social producers', and why you prefer 'people'.Furthermore, I'm open about saying that the 'workers' within capitalism are the ones who will build socialism, and so the 'workers' will be the ones self-transforming into the producers of socialism. So, no, the 'people' will not be building for socialism, and no, the 'people' won't be the social producers, and the term doesn't 'suffice'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Won't the ex capitalists be building socialism?My preferred term is 'the community' rather han people, the community as a whole,will that suffice?  I prefer terms that humanise, rather than metonyms.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Won't the ex capitalists be building socialism?

If they are now class conscious members of the revolutionary proletariat, then yes, they will. If not, no, they won't.

YMS wrote:

My preferred term is 'the community' rather han people, the community as a whole,will that suffice?  I prefer terms that humanise, rather than metonyms.

My comments above about 'people' also apply to 'community', 'community as a whole', and 'humanising', for the same political reasons – you're trying to hide the 'social' nature of 'production', because you're an individualist.I'm not an individualist, I'm a Democratic Communist, a Marxist, and my political concerns are with 'social production', now and within socialism.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

If they are now class conscious members of the revolutionary proletariat, then yes, they will. If not, no, they won't.

But they won't be members of the proletariat, will they, because they won't be free labourers selling their ability to work, and will instead by co-owners of the means of production. 

LBird wrote:

My comments above about 'people' also apply to 'community', 'community as a whole', and 'humanising', for the same political reasons – you're trying to hide the 'social' nature of 'production', because you're an individualist.

How is community individualist, Humpty?  

[LBird]

I thought that you'd avoid political discussion, and return to insults, YMS.You're politically predictable, just like all individualists.

[Author]

Posts