Greetings fellow socialists, please support me as I try to spread socialism to the youth.

[Alex Woodrow]

There are alternatives to copper you know, as we can use other materials such as aluminium wire, tinsel wire etc. So there are ways around this. You are right that global doesn't necessarily mean hierarchical while local doesn't necessarily mean egalitarian as there are exceptions, however this is the general rule. 

[ALB]

Nobody is saying that local communities are not capable of running their own affairs. Of course they are and in socialism will be able to, freed from financial considerations. All we are saying is that they are not capable of producing all they need locally. This is not an insult, eg saying that they are not competant to do this, but a purely factual statement. It's no answer saying that if there isn't a copper mine locally, they could use aluminium because the chances are that there won't be an aluminium mine (or smelter) locally either.What is wrong with local communities adminstering their affairs locally, but getting goods and materials that are not available locally from their region or, in the case of some things, from some world body?  To refuse this would be to shoot themselves in the foot, not that I can imagine those in any local community wanting (voting) to do this. I think you'd find yourself outvoted by the other citizens of Wokingham

[twc]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

We, as human beings, are capable of producing an abundance of resources all in our local communities.

Humans don’t create resources. Nature does.We, like all life forms, appropriate Nature’s resources. But our appropriation is ultimately an exchange between Nature and itself. We and our resources are ultimately Nature’s. That is an inescapable constraint Nature imposes upon all life forms.The hallmark of us humans is that we consciously appropriate Nature’s resources. We fashion them to our needs and desires. In so doing we set in train an inescapable action–reaction between technology and culture that is mediated by conscious thought.In reshaping Nature to our needs and desires, we simultaneously reshape our conscious thought, which reshapes our needs and desires, and so reshapes our relationship with Nature. In so doing we reshape ourselves.That is what we humans are. We are what we do and what we are conscious of doing. That is our dynamic.Alex, you seek to curtail this dynamic. To stop it in its tracks, Such efforts must plunge us into some form of comfortable “rural idiocy”. Stop the world, you want to get off. We oppose your agenda tooth and nail.

Alex Woodrow wrote:

There are alternatives to copper you know, as we can use other materials such as aliminium wire, tinsel wire etc. So there are ways around this.

The county of Cornwall suits your copper—aluminium—tinsel scenario. Let’s contemplate an imagined closed commune and its plan to wire its local Internet somewhere in Cornwall.Cornwall exhausted its copper supplies years ago. It also lacks aluminium — a metal whose energy-intensive refining amounts to congealing ore and electricity and, in any case, exceeds the production capability of a local closed commune.So imagine that our Cornish commune had the good fortune or foresight to settle upon a silver-rich locality. It collectively decides to wire its Internet with “tinsel” wire, and so starts mining silver deposits that are found in its commune-managed territory. [“Tinsel” was originally fashioned from silver shavings.]Of course, in the imaginary localist mine-is-mine and yours-is-yours world of autonomous resource-owning communes, our silver-privileged community is a fortunate commune. You see, “tinsel” isn’t an option for all Cornish communes. The unlucky mineral-poor communes must try something else, or go without their wired Internet.But Alex Woodrow assures us that every community can stand on its own two [or two hundred] feet, and so will doubtless succeed. Anyone who suggests they mightn’t succeed is ipso facto called a “capitalist”, whatever he misunderstands by that term.Alex, for someone who violently disparages Marx, it might be worth considering Marx’s epigrammatic gloss on local resources: “it is impossible to catch a fish in a pond where there aren’t any”.[Our local commune, of course, will deliberately ignore the fact broad-band is moving to optical fibre and wireless. It will stick appropriately to its locally-sourced narrow-band metal.]Before proceeding, let’s examine a geological map of Cornwall — all of Cornwall, not just the little bit of it that is owned and controlled by our isolated ownership-and-control conscious commune.Notice, if you will, how unevenly mineral resources are deposited. Notice the concentrated zones of mineralization in association with granite outcrops. These hold the tin and tungsten deposits, while copper and arsenic deposits extend beyond, and lead and zinc extend even further beyond.The global science of geology — better still, the science of global geology [geo = world, globe] — explains why local Cornish mineral veins form in this manner. But such global science possibly falls beyond the limited horizon of our local property-conscious closed-upon-the-world commune which, unlike excluded Moses, is comfortably cocooned within its self-sufficient land of milk, honey and privileged “tinsel” silver.So, our imaginary commune dwells on the granite, jealously guards its mineral private property, and is ready to mine its possessed silver for wiring its communal Google-free wholesome internet.However, while delving underground our communal miners [being good Cornishmen] discover that they must pump out the continuously in-flooding subterranean aquifer, whose course they have necessarily disturbed. Our idyllic commune now must confront the far-from-idyllic prospect of having to manage the toxic arsenides that are inexorably seeping into and souring its ground water.Does this autonomous self-sufficient local commune blithely divert its toxic effluents downstream into the alien waters of the equally autonomous and self-sufficient neighbouring commune that sips in blissful isolation of upstream contamination. Does the alien commune matter to it at all? [Alex implies that they don’t even deign to talk.]If, according to Alex, you aren’t a “capitalist” you must agree that your untouchable neighbour commune can very well stand on its own two feet! Problem solved. Your neighbours are resourceful and can solve the problems you bequeath them. Both communes faithfully remain parochial, xenophobic and imbecile to the end.[If only the ancient civilizations along the great rivers had stopped at this stage of social isolation. we’d still be living in blithe indifference towards each other and everyone else!]And so, to conclude our insight into an idealized localist world of autonomous self-sufficient harmony, our isolated communes continue to live autistically ever after, one texting over its private fairy-tinsel intranet and the other drinking from its private fairy-melted snow. Except that Nature connects them.Total Dependence With modifications, this parable holds for the entire globe. That’s precisely why we need a global solution.John Donne expressed conviction in our inter-related humanity, and against notions of human isolation, as well as anyone has.

Quote:

No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. … Because I am involved in mankind, And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

Donne captures the global position of the SPGB.The Socialist Party opposes any local section of society that seeks to control Nature’s resources in its own local sectional interests. See our Object.Nature’s resources are mankind’s alone, to be controlled democratically and held in common by the whole of society. In other words, not to be owned and used by a section or part of society [as they are now by the capitalist class].Mankind has suffered far too long because the substance of its life has been controlled by a portion [always the privileged minority] of society in the interest of that privileged portion, and so against the interest of the rest of society [always the majority].Localism selfishly seeks the right for a local section of society to control its property relations to its local resources in order to wield them in its privileged local interests. Localism is indifferent to the rest of mankind, which it excludes and forbids from its private possessions. Localism, like all privileged ownership of Nature’s resources is a position inimical to and hostile to mankind.Rights and privileges are artifices constructed by society. It is sheer effrontery to believe that one, or a group, of us can actually own a piece of Nature. If anything, Nature owns us, in that the global contains the local. Never forget we are part of Nature.Human right and privilege are always and everywhere a social power over other people exercised through things. They are necessary fictions in a class-based society — essential creations of a society which needs to justify private ownership and control of Nature’s resources. They vanish when all mankind controls Nature democratically.That’s precisely why Alex Woodrow, who accepts private property in Nature’s resources as a right and privilege of locality, can’t see a conflict between his localism and capital. There is little disparity between them. Localism is merely a fantasy form of petty capital. It is naively and unconsciously anti-social.We are all Nature. We are all different parts of it — none equal. But we can all work together, democratically holding Nature’s resources as one, united as associated humanity to help make living worthwhile for all of us within the Nature we all must manage. Only society in concerted effort can achieve and sustain this.

[Ed]

twc wrote:

That’s precisely why Alex Woodrow, who accepts private property in Nature’s resources as a right and privilege of locality, can’t see a conflict between his localism and capital. There is little disparity between them. Localism is merely a fantasy form of petty capital. It is naively and unconsciously anti-social.

Comrade, of course I agree with you, but I also find it to be a very common misconception. I just wanted to remind comrades that we are all learning all of the time and can help teach others without resorting to petty point scoring. Which I have seen touches of in the last few posts. Having met Alex I can say that he is a very genuine young man, who in fact knows twice as much as I did at his age. So anyways just a friendly reminder that we can debate in a friendlier way.

[twc]

Ed wrote:

I agree with you, but …

Et tu Brute

Ed wrote:

I also find it to be a very common misconception.

All the more reason to expose it!

Ed wrote:

We can help teach others without resorting to petty point scoring.

There was no “resorting to petty point scoring” — Socialist truth hurts.

Ed wrote:

We can debate in a friendlier way.

Tell that to Alex. He spat precisely targeted anti-SPGB accusations at ALB, alanjjohnstone, etc, which they took on the chin out of deference to his youthful naivety and boundless enthusiasm.A friend would tell Alex that he has much yet to learn about the dynamics of the human society he wants to save. An enemy would obfuscate at the ultimate expense of that society.

[Alex Woodrow]

Lets get it clear everybody. I support localism however what the people want goes, and having socialism by where people move around and people co-operate worldwide is fine, at the end of the day it is up to the people.I didn't mean to be rude, you are all my comrades, however I just didn't understand why people were saying how, earlier on in this forum, Russia in 1917 couldn't go straight from capitalism to socialism. Though anyway I don't mean to sound stupid but is socialism a society that's completely leaderless or a society with delegates? I am confused?Finally, I just want to say that having a world all so close to each other is fine, as long as when people travel around it is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible, and on top of this everyone cares for one another because, in a very open world, people need to care for one another because otherwise there can be an increase in issues such as hate. Hope I am making sense here. 

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to the Russian Revolution, we been through it before. It was a doomed socialist revolution if the majority of people did not desire or understand socialism, and if it took place in isolation of the rest of the world. Even the Bolsheviks and Lenin and Trotsky accepted  the second proposition and why the transitional non-socialist workers state was supposedly created as a stop-gap measure until the capitalist countries had their own revolutions for socialism.  With reference to leaders and delegates – these are simply not the same thing. A leader decides issues as he chooses while a delegate carries out instructions.  There are administrative situations where not everybody can participate in the decision making even with the availablility of new  technology so communities will select spokespersons to relay their wishes.  I find it difficult to view such people as leaders. We should not confuse delegatory democracy with hierarchial authority.  "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person…I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." – Bakuninhttp://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-what-is-authority  

[celticnachos]

"In regards to the Russian Revolution, we been through it before. It was a doomed socialist revolution if the majority of people did not desire or understand socialism" How do you expect the majority of the people to desire or understand socialism without an authoritative apparatus ?? You have to accept that not all people are conscious, and that you even have backward thinking people, that will refute socialism in every way they can. Localism can be obtained through workers councils, but only if there is a revolutionary vangaurd that uses forms of influence to make unsconscious people conscious of socialism. The idea of democratic centralism is to lead the way for the dictataorship of the proletariat, a member of the state would represent the proletariat, it is only the proletariat that can make a revolution a success. And Trotsky had a different perspective on the "stop gap measure." Once the Soviet Union had achieved advanced capitalism, it could assist other revolutions, like an international vangaurd. So then, the workers can come to power in economically backward countries. You sound like a reformist or a uptoian socialist if you believe the majority of the people will suddenly become conscious. 

[alanjjohnstone]

To avoid being confused with a utopian and reformist i think i should let Marx and Engels reply: As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.This in fact was Marx’s conception of “the workers’ party”. He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite. A revolution to vanquish capitalism and establish socialism can only happen through the active agency of the working class; it cannot be carried out by a vanguard party on its behalf.Many political groups fancy themselves as "revolutionary vanguards" of the working class.1879 Marx and Engels issued a circular in which they declared:“When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”Engels again in 1895  "Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]”

[alanjjohnstone]

 "Once the Soviet Union had achieved advanced capitalism, it could assist other revolutions, like an international vangaurd." (my emphasis) Is that what you intended to type, Celtic?

[ALB]

Russia could have jumped straight into socialism in 1918 but only if North America and the rest of Europe had jumped at the same time, i.e socialism was immediately possible in 1918 but not just in one country.

[celticnachos]

ALB wrote:

Russia could have jumped straight into socialism in 1918 but only if North America and the rest of Europe had jumped at the same time, i.e socialism was immediately possible in 1918 but not just in one country.

     I thought you were all anti-Trotsky, you do know that is permanent revolution? 

[Ed]

twc wrote:

Et tu Brute

My favourite fallacy by farTu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

[DJP]

celticnachos wrote:

I thought you were all anti-Trotsky, you do know that is permanent revolution? 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has been around for a long time. Here's what was written in the August 1918 edition of the Socialist Standard

Quote:

Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life?Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”And it is extremely significant that neither Trotsky nor Litvinoff say a single word on this aspect of the situation….

The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-168-august-1918/revolution-russia-where-it-fails

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm guessing you are still wading through the extensive reading list provided to you from others and myself .Trotsky and Permanent Revolution was specifically discussed  more fully at this blog-post http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/trotting-after-trotsky.html "…Marx advocated 'permanent revolution' as the proletarian strategy of maintaining organisational independence along class lines, and a consistently militant series of political demands and tactics. It will be noted that at no stage does Marx make the central claim with which Trotsky's conception of  “permanent revolution" is concerned – i.e. that it is possible for a country to pass directly from the dominance of the semi-feudal aristocrats, who held political power in Russia in the early part of the 19th Century, to the dominance of the working class, without an interceding period of dominance by the bourgeois. On the contrary, Marx's statements in his March 1850 Address explicitly contradict such a view, assuming a “period of petty-bourgeois predominance over the classes which have been overthrown and over the proletariat”… …Trotsky's version of the theory represents both a different development and a contradiction of the expressed opinions of Marx…" Trotsky's theory was dropped by the Russians when their dreams of a European revolution faded, a serious miscalculation and misinterpretation of the post-war working class militancy for revolutionary consciousness, the Bolsheviks were forced to pursue a more realistic policy. Trotsky fell from power because his theory of continued revolutionary agitation abroad would have cut off all aid from the Western world, and so made any attempt at industrial development more difficult in Russia. Also well worth adding to the reading list is the blog article Myth of the Transition Society – .ie. the Workers Statehttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/myth-of-transitional-society.html

[Author]

Posts