Global Resource Bank

[Anonymous]

John Pozzi wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist has misquoted today's http://www.grb.net as shown above."Everyone owns 1 share in the GRB, shareholders' value the earth's wealth of natural resources 6 quadrillion (q) GRBe." Natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, human ecology, law, biodiversity, and consciousness, are the earth's wealth of resources that are valued by GRB shareholders at 6 quadrillion GRB ecos to provides everyone lifelong economic freedom. Do the math.Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist refers to state jurisdiction. In the GRB system there are no states.GRB renders the state, fiat money, taxes, politics, tariffs, interest, corruption, inequality, poverty, hunger, environmental destruction, ignorance, refugees, artificial scarcity, compulsory labor, crime, racism, spying, propaganda, hacking, terrorism, armament, war, and borders obsolete? Yes.Steve, Research current information.Thank you,    

sorry for the misquote. I didn't really research it. I did go to the GRB.net website and read some for about half an hour, but aparently it was still unclear to me.   How does GRB come into usage?  Does it require the overthrow of all states and governments first before it can be used?  That would make Mcolme1 happy maybe, but not me.  You and the reserach information I've spent a small amount of time on only says it will make all these things obsolete.  I guess I assumed that meant it could work without getting rid of all that stuff first, but now I'm getting the feeling you have to get rid of taxes, politics, tarriffs, etc first before GRB will be self sustaining.  also, there doesn't seem to be much more than a splash page on the GRB.net website so where do we find more information to research?    

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

See http://www.GRB.net NOW!!!. Go to www,GRB TODAY!!! NETWORK GRB!!Don't hesitate go to http://www.GRB now for your free Parker pen.!!! Get your free ads at the SPGB website NOW How many more times do we have to listen to adverts before admin removes them

You are talking to deaf mude 

Now that the proposal by John Pozzi has been rebutted and I've posted a reminder any more advertising by him will be removed to the Off-topic section.

please provide the link as a courtesy since some of us want to read and discuss this with him.  I hope you put it in an out of the way place where it wont' bother others who don't wish to positively contribute like Mcolme1. 

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

There seems to be some misunderstanding from Steve-SanFrancisco about how we understand [historical] division of labour, exchange and communism etc. Whilst we are not dogmatic Marxists but perhaps Kautsky’s Das capital for dummies might be a starting point for debate, discussion and crticism Karl KautskyThe Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx Part I.COMMODITIES, MONEY, CAPITAL  Be it observed that among this hunting people production is carried on socially; various types of labour co­operate in order to achieve a collective result. We can detect here the beginnings of division of labour and systematic co-operation. The hunters perform different kinds of work, according to their differing capacities, but are based on a common plan. The result of the co­operation of the various types of labour – “the exchange of energies,” as Marx puts it in Wage Labour and Capital; the spoils of the chase – is not exchanged, but divided…………  ………..Let us now turn to another and higher type of a social mode of production, for example, the Indian village community based on agriculture. Of the primitive communism which once prevailed there only a few scanty traces may now be found in India. But, according to Strabo. xv, 1, 66, Nearchus, Alexander the Great’s admiral, described countries in India where the land was common property, commonly tilled, and after the harvest the produce of the soil was divided among the villagers. According to Elphinstone, these communities were still in existence in some parts of India at the beginning of the last century. In Java village communism continued to exist in the form of a periodical re-distribution of the arable land among the villagers, who did not receive their share as private property, but merely enjoyed the usufruct thereof for a definite period. In India the arable land has mostly become the private property of the village communes. Woods, pasture land, and uncultivated land, however, are in many cases still common property, over which all the members of the community have a right of usage. What interests us in such a village community, which has not yet succumbed to the disintegrating influence of English rule, especially of the fiscal system, is the character which the division of labour assumes therein. As we have already noted such a division of labour among the American Indians, but a much higher type is presented by the Indian village communities. Next to the head of the community, who is called the Pateel when he consists of one person, or the Pantsch when this office is filled by a committee of five persons at the most, we find a whole series of officials in the Indian economic community: the bookkeeper, who has to supervise the financial relations of the commune to each of its members and to other communes and to the State; the Talker for the investigation of crimes and encroachments, upon whom also devolves the protection of travellers and their safe conduct over the communal boundary into the next community; the Toti, the fields patrol and surveyor, who has to see that neighbouring communes do not encroach upon the boundaries of the fields, a circumstance that can easily happen in the cultivation of rice; the water-overseer, who distributes the water from the common tanks for irrigation, and sees that they are properly opened and closed, and that every field receives sufficient water, which is of great importance in the cultivation of rice; the Brahmin, who conducts the religious services; the schoolmaster, who teaches the children to read and write; the calendar-Brahmin or astrologer, who ascertains the lucky or unlucky days for sowing, reaping, threshing, and other important labours; the smith, the carpenter, and wheelwright; the potter; the washerman; the barber; the cow herd; the doctor; the Devadaschi (the dance maidens); sometimes even a singer.All these have to work for the whole community and its members, and are remunerated either by a share in the open fields or by a share in the produce of the harvest. Here also, with this highly developed division of labour, we find the co-operation of various types of labour and the division of the products. Let us take an example which should be familiar to every body: that of a patriarchal peasant family, which satisfies its own needs, a social structure which has developed out of a mode of production such as we have just described in the Indian communal economy, a mode of production which may be detected on the threshold of the development of all civilised peoples with whom we are familiar. Such a peasant family likewise does not reveal isolated persons, but is a type of social organism based on the co­operation of various kinds of labour, which vary in accordance with age, sex, and season. Ploughing and sowing are carried on, the cattle are tended and milked, wood is collected, cut up and carpentered, wool is spun, woven, and knitted. The various types of labour co-operate and dovetail into each other; no more than in the previous example are the products here exchanged by the individual workers, but they are divided amongst them in accordance with the conditions. Let us now [1]assume that the means of production of an agricultural community, such as we have described, are perfected to such an extent that less labour than formerly is devoted to agriculture. Labour-power is set free, which, provided the technical means are sufficiently developed, will perhaps be devoted to exploiting a deposit of flint situated in the communal territory, and making flint tools and weapons. The productivity of labour is so great that far more tools and weapons are made than the community needs.A tribe of nomadic shepherds in the course of its wanderings comes into contact with this community. The productivity of labour has also increased so far as this tribe is concerned, which has reached the point of rearing more cattle than it needs. It is obvious that this tribe will gladly exchange its superfluity of cattle for the superfluous tools and weapons of the agricultural community. Through this act of exchange the superfluous cattle and the superfluous tools become commodities. The exchange of commodities is the natural consequence of the development of the productive forces beyond the limited needs of the primitive communities. The original communism becomes a fetter upon the progress of technical development when the latter has reached a certain level. The mode of production demands a widening of the circle of social labour; as, however, the separate communities are independent of, and even hostile towards, each other, this widening is not possible through the extension of systematic communistic labour, but only through the mutual exchange of the superfluous goods produced by the labour of the communities. It is no part of our purpose to investigate how the exchange of commodities reacted upon the mode of production within the community, until commodity production became production carried on by private individuals working independently of each other, and owning the means of production and the products of their labour as private property. What we design to make clear is that commodity production is a social type of production; that it is inconceivable without social co-operation; and that it even signifies an extension of social production beyond the limits of the communistic system (embodied in the tribe, the community, or the patriarchal family) which preceded it. But the social character of production was only implicit in the latter system. Let us take a potter and a cultivator, considering them first as members of an Indian communistic village community, and secondly as two commodity producers. In the first case, they both work in the same manner for the community; one hands over his pots, the other the fruits of his labour in the fields; one receives his share of the fruits of the field, the other his share of pots. In the second case, each carries on private work independently for himself, but each works (perhaps to the same extent as before) not only for himself, but also for others. Then they exchange their products, and it is probable that one receives the same quantity of cereals and the other as many pots as formerly. It seems that nothing has been altered in essentials, and yet the two processes are fundamentally different………..and so on https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/ch01.htm

 Thanks for the long thought out reply and I can see you spent effort and I appreciate your time.  but i am afraid this just caused me further confusion and is solidifying my suspicion that socialist realy don't agree as a group on what they're talking about because they're changing definitions of the meanings of words in the middle of arguments or different socialist are using different definitions.  I like Marx use of the word "exchange" and his intended definition of "exchange: an exchange of energies".  but if it makes things easier for you at SPBG to understand me I'll change all my uses of the word "exchange" to read "Exchange (as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity)" to clarify the matter in all my posts.  on looking over your comment there were some troubling things I wanted to point out. not to be nitpicky, but because they're symptomatic of the confusion and philosophical disagreement at heart (IMO).  in your last paragraph for example you mention "the other fruits of HIS Labor" and "HIS Share".  The language itself in this case is asserting property even in this early socialist community you describe. it can not be "his" labor or "his" share because there is no property.  At least that's the argument people tell me as best I can understand them.  you could rephrase this as "labor performed by him" instead of "his labor".  and "capital handed to him" instead of "his share".   But in any case the word choice isn't really the hart of the argument.   once we rephrase to remove the language ambiguity we are still faced with some contradictions in theory but they are at least easier to spot. There's actually a very easy and foolproof way to avoid using the wrong language in practice for my needs even though it isn't a logic proof.  Simply write an Exchange (as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) agreement and you have to write it in a clever way to ensure the national law thinks it's NOT a legal exchange of capital value.  So you could say in an Exchange (as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) agreement something like "mark will give 5 bushels to kevin for his time" and that would be clearly taxable by the law and something the law in most capital nations wouild consider commerce and exchange(the more narrow definition) of capital value.  BUT if you wote the same Exchange (as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) to say "Mark chose to leave some bushels lying around for others to take without any form of capital payment in return and kevin can voluntarily pick them up if kevin takes his time to come to the farm and get them if he's the kind of person who likes to help out on the farm then he's welcomed as a visitor and is free to do what he wants freely".   Well then it's not taxable or seizable or in any way subject to laws or practices that refer to capital.  So by rewording the exchange(as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) we get freedom from capital laws and extracting capital from the exchange(as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) is not feesible or profitable to the tax collector or the business owner.  So again it may seem trivial and a word change, but the important point is that this word change has consequences in how a capitalist economy treats the exchange(as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity).  We can effectively make the exchange(as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity) invisible to the profiteers the overloads and profit extractors of the world.  They (capitalist profiteers, John Gault, etc) have a fundamental problem with taxing or profiting off the reworded exchange(as marx defined and used the word. Some people at SPGB call this reciprocity).  If John Gault or Donald trump attempts to capture capital value from the reworded exchange(marx definition of vital energies), by changing the laws to to fix the loophole, they run into a fundamental problem of phrasing their law in capital value because theiy can't make laws that govern non-capital value exchanges (marx definition again) without revealing acknowledging and valuing things that are not made of capital.   So lets say donald trump says he's going to pass the law to tax these reworded exchanges anyway and look at the innevetible results.  Well, how does he do that by looking at the exchange(marx definition) agreement we wrote.  The agreement doesn't say how many bushels or how much time so the taxable value or extractable value could be zero or  1 million dollars or any number at all as a far as the tax collector and the capital economy knows.  But the law is passed so how is it enforced. . . I don't think you could enforce the law taxing non-capital value exchanges (marx definition) without resorting to sending someone to the farm to watch people and record what they do and then somehow estimating values in the capital system for voluntary exchagnes of kindness and other intangibles.  In practice government has tried this and failed every time because it's just not feasible to tax and extract surplus value from exchanges (marx definition) written and made without regard to capital and property ownership.  So the rewording achieve somethign politically and economically for us.  It gave us some degree of freedom from state and business capital resource extraction techniques.  it now requires a capital profiteer much much more effort to get his pound of flesh because of the rewording.  So what's the advantages and disadvantages of re-wording for an individual if it's done by that individual?  Less taxes and it's harder to extract resources from the exchange (marx definition) is the obvious capital advantage, but there might be peace of mind value and other benefits that people value which can't be measured as capital. What's the cost of the rewording to the individual?  complicated at first,  makes the government and business suspicious of you, but not in a way they can prove or enforce or do anything about. It require some sort of community or other way of making sure people work together instead of just being selfish, since you can't call the lawyer or fine someone if they break their agreements or change their plans or make a dishonest exchange(marx definition) offer.  hmm. . . sorry, i could go on and keep explaining more, but I think based on other peoples opinions, this is a dead horse and the people here have little to no "appreciation" of my time.  I get the feeling they'd like me to go away (mcolme1) so I think I'll save my time and not voluntarily contribute my words any futher.  

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with John Pozzi,  Malcome1 wants the forcible overthrow of the capitalist society as far as I have been able to understand his beligerence.  Actually, I'm unclear on you're stance ALB.  Mcolme1 by his efforts at representing all of WordSocialism and SPGB has convinced me that socialist are not reformers and that means overthrow is the only option as far as I understand Mcolme1. What is the practical observable and measurable real world difference I could use to test if something is reform or revolution?  What about the idea that a path to socialism requires the combination of both reform and revolution?   

 Reform refers to the various attempts to ameliorate the social problems that arise within – and, we would argue, arise from – the existing organisation of society based on the private (including state) ownership of the means of wealth production.  Revolution on the other hand, signifies the overthrow of the existing organisation of society and its replacement by another form of social organisation based on common ownership How you achieve a revolution – by violent or peaceful means, for example – is a question quite separate from what is meant by a revolution.  I dont recall MColme1 ever having advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism and that is certainly not the position of the SPGB

[John Pozzi]

To ALB,Thank you for the information.To: /Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist/,There is additional information if you click on Mother Earth News at the bottom of http://www.grb.net . 

[Anonymous]

John Pozzi wrote:

To ALB,Thank you for the information.To: /Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist/,There is additional information if you click on Mother Earth News at the bottom of http://www.grb.net . 

 More spam.   

[Anonymous]

More advertising

[Anonymous]

I am going to be advocating for a socialist revolution, here,  in others places, now, tomorrow, the day after tomorow,  and until i die. The concept of revolution has been distorted by the right wingers and the leftwingers. The concept that workers can only obtain power by af violent revolution does not come from Karl Marx or Engels either, it came from Vladimir Lenin, a leftwing reformist, and it was writen on his book known as The State and the Revolution;https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/lenin-v-marx-stateThere are going be some places where the working class would be forced to use violence due to the reactionary character of their ruling class, or the capitalist class will try to resist the majority of the socialists workers

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I agree with John Pozzi,  Malcome1 wants the forcible overthrow of the capitalist society as far as I have been able to understand his beligerence.  Actually, I'm unclear on you're stance ALB.  Mcolme1 by his efforts at representing all of WordSocialism and SPGB has convinced me that socialist are not reformers and that means overthrow is the only option as far as I understand Mcolme1. What is the practical observable and measurable real world difference I could use to test if something is reform or revolution?  What about the idea that a path to socialism requires the combination of both reform and revolution?   

 Reform refers to the various attempts to ameliorate the social problems that arise within – and, we would argue, arise from – the existing organisation of society based on the private (including state) ownership of the means of wealth production.  Revolution on the other hand, signifies the overthrow of the existing organisation of society and its replacement by another form of social organisation based on common ownership How you achieve a revolution – by violent or peaceful means, for example – is a question quite separate from what is meant by a revolution.  I dont recall MColme1 ever having advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism and that is certainly not the position of the SPGB

Those that speak too loudly against the so called violence to overthrow the capitalist state, are the first ones who approve and support the capitalist wars. Steve and Pozzi are part of a society where most of their members have always approved wars and killing in others countries, and lynching, and most peoples have a millitary mentality.  Instead of reading historical myth, they  shoud study real history written by real Historian instead of storry teller

[John Pozzi]

To: /robbo203/,If you include women, children and the elderly, you will find that everyone lives is a state where a minority of men approve wars and killing.

[ALB]

Hey, moderator, can't you do anything about this poncy ponzi? He's abusing our hospitability by making minor changes to past posts so his thread always appears at the top. A mark mof a real obsessive crank-pot

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Hey, moderator, can't you do anything about this poncy ponzi? He's abusing our hospitability by making minor changes to past posts so his thread always appears at the top. A mark mof a real obsessive crank-pot

 That's because it is an advert for his Capitalist 'Global Resource Bank'Free advert.

[moderator1]

John Pozzi wrote:

To ALB,Thank you for the information.To: /Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist/,There is additional information if you click on Mother Earth News at the bottom of http://www.grb.net .  

1st warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators. 

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

John Pozzi wrote:

To ALB,Thank you for the information.To: /Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist/,There is additional information if you click on Mother Earth News at the bottom of http://www.grb.net .  

1st warning: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.  

Moderator you are wasting your time and wearing out your keyboard. He will continue with his advertising. Don't you see that they are just trying to fool around in this forun ?  

[Author]

Posts